The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: svenanders on December 21, 2008, 08:34:05 AM
-
One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere.
Can FE-theory explain this please? It may already been answered, but I haven't seen it.
-
One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere.
Can FE-theory explain this please? It may already been answered, but I haven't seen it.
Man, it's been a long time since my math degree, but we used to have other solids that projected a round shadow back then. Like a disk, a cylinder, stuff like that.
I see you threw that word "always" in there to CYA. Doesn't work however. You would have to prove that any particular configuration of the moon with respect to the earth can happen. For all we know, the same side of the moon could always face the earth, and your argument would fall flat.
-
It's not the earth's shadow, it's the Shadow Object's.
-
This is covered in the FAQ.
-
It?s a common misconception that ancient people thought the Earth was flat. Not true! Eratosthenes, thousands of years ago, showed not only that the Earth was round, but also derived a diameter for the Earth that was very nearly correct! He did this by measuring the length of a stick?s shadow at two different latitudes. Because the Earth is round, the shadow lengths were different (one stick saw the Sun directly overhead, while the other saw it off to the side a bit). Since he knew the difference in the shadow lengths, and the distance between the two sticks, he was able to calculate the size of the spherical Earth.
-
And Eratosthenes was wrong.
-
And Eratosthenes was wrong.
Proof?
-
BURDEN OF PROOF
|
YOU
-
BURDEN OF PROOF
|
YOU
You're the one claiming he's was wrong. I'm just reading stuff from Wikipedia about Eratosthenes.
So where is your proof that he was wrong?
-
Follow the link in my signature.
You are yet to provide any evidence that he was correct. You have apparently read a Wikipedia article and are now an expert on the subject so it should be easy.
-
Follow the link in my signature.
You are yet to provide any evidence that he was correct. You have apparently read a Wikipedia article and are now an expert on the subject so it should be easy.
Here's your proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes)
Or perhaps Wikipedia and the sources are lying as well.
Or maybe he was part of the conspiracy, even before there was a conspiracy?
Now tell me, if you say he's wrong. What was he wrong about?
This: http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/eratosthenes.htm (http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/eratosthenes.htm) ?
-
Well, the earth being round, for one.
Your sources are not evidence of anything but the eccentricity of the ancient Greeks.
-
Well, the earth being round, for one.
Your sources are not evidence of anything but the eccentricity of the ancient Greeks.
Did you visit the last link I posted here? What does it show us?
-
It's a common misconception around here that Eratosthenes proved the earth was round. This is not the case. What he in fact demonstrated was that if the earth was round it would have a circumference of just under 40,000 km. In other words, he assumed the earth was a sphere to arrive at that conclusion. If you read his Wikipedia page more closely you'll see that nowhere does it say he proved the earth was round. In fact he can probably be credited with pioneering the assumption that the earth was round in the name of science, thus beginning a folly that continues to this day.
-
Alright! Over to the bending light issue.
The problem is with the suggestion that as we move away from the earth the "flatness" becomes round by bending light. This makes no sense what-so-ever. The light from background stars "behind" the Earth are not bending or warping around the earth. The Earth doesn't nearly have enough of a gravitational imprint to bend light in the same degree over such a short distance as required by this "flat earth seen-as-a-sphere" theory.
So, if the light from the stars isn't warping, then the light from the Earth's surface isn't warping either. In other words, if the Earth was a disk, it would STILL APPEAR AS A DISK!!!
Since the Earth appears to be a sphere, then it is, in fact, a sphere.
From a historical perspective on this subject, as stated before, the world was first proven to be round by measuring the angles of shadows that sunlight cast on a staff at different latitudes. The fact that the angles got shorter at lower latitudes indicated that the angle of the surface of the earth was changing, or curving.
Now that being said, if you subscribed to the "flat earth" theory, the way you could argue against those conclusions is by challenging the premise: that the sun is very far away. The premise states that if the sun is very far away then the rays of sunlight are parallel everywhere across earth. If they are parallel then the only explanation for different shadow lengths is curvature of the Earth's surface.
On the other hand, if you argued that the sun was very close, then you could explain the different shadow lengths by the close position of the sun. For example, if there is a light in the center of a room (on the ceiling), if a stick is in the center of the room, the shadow is short, as you move out to the edge of the room across the flat floor, the shadow lengthens. That would be your "flat earth" argument.
The problem with this is argument is that through triangulation, we can prove that the sun is actually VERY far away. It's an indisputable mathematically proven, repeatable observation. So, with even this simple and solid test, the Earth is proven to be round. :-*
-
Do anyone of you know if this video has been proven fake?
(http://)
Or this one: (http://)
-
Alright! Over to the bending light issue.
The problem is with the suggestion that as we move away from the earth the "flatness" becomes round by bending light. This makes no sense what-so-ever. The light from background stars "behind" the Earth are not bending or warping around the earth. The Earth doesn't nearly have enough of a gravitational imprint to bend light in the same degree over such a short distance as required by this "flat earth seen-as-a-sphere" theory.
So, if the light from the stars isn't warping, then the light from the Earth's surface isn't warping either. In other words, if the Earth was a disk, it would STILL APPEAR AS A DISK!!!
Since the Earth appears to be a sphere, then it is, in fact, a sphere.
Looks flat to me.
Now that being said, if you subscribed to the "flat earth" theory, the way you could argue against those conclusions is by challenging the premise: that the sun is very far away. The premise states that if the sun is very far away then the rays of sunlight are parallel everywhere across earth. If they are parallel then the only explanation for different shadow lengths is curvature of the Earth's surface.
They would be almost parallel, never parallel.
The problem with this is argument is that through triangulation, we can prove that the sun is actually VERY far away. It's an indisputable mathematically proven, repeatable observation. So, with even this simple and solid test, the Earth is proven to be round. :-*
So where's your proof?
Do anyone of you know if this video has been proven fake?
(http://)
Or this one: (http://)
All videos supporting round earth theory are indeed fake.
-
So what you're saying is that the public is in it as well?
-
So what you're saying is that the public is in it as well?
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
If a magician makes his assistant disappear, and the whole audience can testify to seeing the person vanish, are they "in on it"?
-
So what you're saying is that the public is in it as well?
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
If a magician makes his assistant disappear, and the whole audience can testify to seeing the person vanish, are they "in on it"?
A most excellent analogy.
-
So what you're saying is that the public is in it as well?
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
If a magician makes his assistant disappear, and the whole audience can testify to seeing the person vanish, are they "in on it"?
Because Perfect Circle said that all videos showing a round earth is fake, and I assume he's reffering to those videoes I just linked to.
Well, who faked those videoes? It's clearly not NASA or the government.
And how could SpaceShipOne be part of the conspiracy?
-
It's clearly not NASA or the government.
How can you know any third party isn't an extension from the conspiracy beyond their apparent bounds? Creating the appearance of a separate group to support and add credibility to any position is a relatively simple feat.
-
It's clearly not NASA or the government.
How can you know any third party isn't an extension from the conspiracy beyond their apparent bounds? Creating the appearance of a separate group to support and add credibility to any position is a relatively simple feat.
Then where is the proof?
-
It's clearly not NASA or the government.
How can you know any third party isn't an extension from the conspiracy beyond their apparent bounds? Creating the appearance of a separate group to support and add credibility to any position is a relatively simple feat.
The same way that we know that this web site isn't a conspiracy run dis-information site full of FE "supporters" who's sole function is to make the idea of a flat earth seem preposterous. In other words, we can't know for sure, but it does seem like a pretty safe bet that the privately funded space industry is what it appears to be.
-
Let it be known: you are now entering into an argument with ﮎingulaЯiτy.
Prepare to fail.
-
Let it be known: you are now entering into an argument with ﮎingulaЯiτy.
Prepare to fail.
Oh! The scare tactics!!!! Beware! :o
-
Let it be known: you are now entering into an argument with ﮎingulaЯiτy.
Prepare to fail.
Oh! The scare tactics!!!! Beware! :o
When you spend years opposing the Conspiracy, you learn from the best.
-
Then where is the proof?
You said NASA was clearly not involved. I asked how that can be known, meaning the burden of proof rests with you to prove that NASA is clean. Unless of course you change your statement to something easier to verify.
The same way that we know that this web site isn't a conspiracy run dis-information site full of FE "supporters" who's sole function is to make the idea of a flat earth seem preposterous. In other words, we can't know for sure, but it does seem like a pretty safe bet that the privately funded space industry is what it appears to be.
So you admit that the estimated probability is not conclusive.
-
Let it be known: you are now entering into an argument with ﮎingulaЯiτy.
Prepare to fail.
This is true, note his sig.
-
The same way that we know that this web site isn't a conspiracy run dis-information site full of FE "supporters" who's sole function is to make the idea of a flat earth seem preposterous. In other words, we can't know for sure, but it does seem like a pretty safe bet that the privately funded space industry is what it appears to be.
So you admit that the estimated probability is not conclusive.
No. I'm saying that it can be pretty tough to get some FE'ers to break character.
-
The same way that we know that this web site isn't a conspiracy run dis-information site full of FE "supporters" who's sole function is to make the idea of a flat earth seem preposterous. In other words, we can't know for sure, but it does seem like a pretty safe bet that the privately funded space industry is what it appears to be.
So you admit that the estimated probability is not conclusive.
No. I'm saying that it can be pretty tough to get some FE'ers to break character.
How is the average characteristics of FE proponents relevant to the ability to prove or disprove NASA's involvement with an alleged third party's actions?
-
Follow the link in my signature.
You are yet to provide any evidence that he was correct. You have apparently read a Wikipedia article and are now an expert on the subject so it should be easy.
You do realize that his calculation is what gives "Flat Earth Theory" their measurements of Flat Earth. Right? Your own president, now dead, used his calculations to come up with the circumference and diameter of Flat Earth.
-
Follow the link in my signature.
You are yet to provide any evidence that he was correct. You have apparently read a Wikipedia article and are now an expert on the subject so it should be easy.
You do realize that his calculation is what gives "Flat Earth Theory" their measurements of Flat Earth. Right? Your own president, now dead, used his calculations to come up with the circumference and diameter of Flat Earth.
Interesting. Can you link me to the part of ENAG where he does this?
-
Do anyone of you know if this video has been proven fake?
(http://)
Or this one: (http://)
As for the first video: They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004. However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height. 62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight. He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.
( http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/SS1_touchdown_040621.html )
The second is the same thing. And yet again, you are attempting to use video proof of something.
Would you like me to prove, using video, that a fat slug like alien from another galaxy would get excited at the thought of having a bipedal human dancing girl? Or, maybe I should prove that people can live though anything except having their heads cut off with archaic weapons? ::)
Video and pictures do not count as proof. It is far too easy to edit and doctor them with just a bit of practice.
-
As for the first video: They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004. However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height. 62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight. He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.
What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight? It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space). Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception. As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.
-
Follow the link in my signature.
You are yet to provide any evidence that he was correct. You have apparently read a Wikipedia article and are now an expert on the subject so it should be easy.
You do realize that his calculation is what gives "Flat Earth Theory" their measurements of Flat Earth. Right? Your own president, now dead, used his calculations to come up with the circumference and diameter of Flat Earth.
Interesting. Can you link me to the part of ENAG where he does this?
That information was brought forth in an interview with Charles Johnson. I'll see if I can find it, but a simple google search for Flat Earth will get you there too. In the interview, after the death of his wife, he talks about how the formula was used to calculate the circumference of Flat Earth and how because of the discrepancy in the formula your "bendy light" theory was birthed to compensate.
-
Follow the link in my signature.
You are yet to provide any evidence that he was correct. You have apparently read a Wikipedia article and are now an expert on the subject so it should be easy.
You do realize that his calculation is what gives "Flat Earth Theory" their measurements of Flat Earth. Right? Your own president, now dead, used his calculations to come up with the circumference and diameter of Flat Earth.
Interesting. Can you link me to the part of ENAG where he does this?
That information was brought forth in an interview with Charles Johnson. I'll see if I can find it, but a simple google search for Flat Earth will get you there too. In the interview, after the death of his wife, he talks about how the formula was used to calculate the circumference of Flat Earth and how because of the discrepancy in the formula your "bendy light" theory was birthed to compensate.
I'd love to read it. It will be interesting to see exactly what method Charles Johnson used to read Rowbotham's corpse's mind.
But seriously, try to find it. It sounds interesting.
-
As for the first video: They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004. However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height. 62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight. He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.
What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight? It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space). Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception. As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.
Precision is very good when you're speaking or writing. In fact, while he reached the edge of the atmosphere, he did not go past it by RE standards. Or didn't you know that the Karman line at 100 klicks is considered to be the boundary between atmosphere and space?
He did not achieve his claim of space flight, and yet he uses the same misleading language that NASA does to describe it. Why?
-
As for the first video: They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004. However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height. 62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight. He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.
What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight? It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space). Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception. As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.
Precision is very good when you're speaking or writing. In fact, while he reached the edge of the atmosphere, he did not go past it by RE standards. Or didn't you know that the Karman line at 100 klicks is considered to be the boundary between atmosphere and space?
He did not achieve his claim of space flight, and yet he uses the same misleading language that NASA does to describe it. Why?
http://space.xprize.org/ansari-x-prize
The Tier One project made two successful competitive flights, X1 on September 29, 2004 piloted by Mike Melvill to 102.9 km and X2 on October 4, 2004 piloted by Brian Binnie to 112 km. They thus won the prize, which was awarded on November 6, 2004. (Note: the winning team is referred to by several names at various times: Tier One, Scaled Composites, and Mojave Aerospace Ventures.)
I'm sorry, but what were you saying about 100KM?
-
As for the first video: They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004. However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height. 62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight. He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.
What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight? It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space). Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception. As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.
Precision is very good when you're speaking or writing. In fact, while he reached the edge of the atmosphere, he did not go past it by RE standards. Or didn't you know that the Karman line at 100 klicks is considered to be the boundary between atmosphere and space?
He did not achieve his claim of space flight, and yet he uses the same misleading language that NASA does to describe it. Why?
Not sure how this got narrowed down to just one company, but FET in general says that space flight is impossible. They say so because of the constant acceleration of FE make it impossible. They however equate the fluctuation in gravitational influence to the heavenly bodies. In theory if this is true then then the escape velocity of FE should eventually reach zero and you should be able to enter space. If that is possible then the whole NASA is nothing but a conspiracy get's tossed out the door.
-
As for the first video: They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004. However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height. 62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight. He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.
What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight? It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space). Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception. As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.
Precision is very good when you're speaking or writing. In fact, while he reached the edge of the atmosphere, he did not go past it by RE standards. Or didn't you know that the Karman line at 100 klicks is considered to be the boundary between atmosphere and space?
He did not achieve his claim of space flight, and yet he uses the same misleading language that NASA does to describe it. Why?
http://space.xprize.org/ansari-x-prize
The Tier One project made two successful competitive flights, X1 on September 29, 2004 piloted by Mike Melvill to 102.9 km and X2 on October 4, 2004 piloted by Brian Binnie to 112 km. They thus won the prize, which was awarded on November 6, 2004. (Note: the winning team is referred to by several names at various times: Tier One, Scaled Composites, and Mojave Aerospace Ventures.)
I'm sorry, but what were you saying about 100KM?
Hm... let's see, which source do I trust better? The pilot's own website, stating that he reached 100KM, or a wikipedia article that says something different? Read my link again. It is the Space.com site.
And even their report starts with:
"MOJAVE, CALIFORNIA The first non-governmental rocket ship flew to the edge of space today and was piloted to a safe landing on a desert airport runway here. "
( http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/SS1_touchdown_040621.html )
To the edge of space. At least they understand the difference between space flight and orbital maneuvers.
Wikipedia is a good site, sometimes. Check their sources before you use them for any particular article.
-
As for the first video: They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004. However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height. 62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight. He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.
What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight? It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space). Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception. As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.
Precision is very good when you're speaking or writing. In fact, while he reached the edge of the atmosphere, he did not go past it by RE standards. Or didn't you know that the Karman line at 100 klicks is considered to be the boundary between atmosphere and space?
He did not achieve his claim of space flight, and yet he uses the same misleading language that NASA does to describe it. Why?
Not sure how this got narrowed down to just one company, but FET in general says that space flight is impossible. They say so because of the constant acceleration of FE make it impossible. They however equate the fluctuation in gravitational influence to the heavenly bodies. In theory if this is true then then the escape velocity of FE should eventually reach zero and you should be able to enter space. If that is possible then the whole NASA is nothing but a conspiracy get's tossed out the door.
Possibly. I'm still researching that particular area, which is made a bit harder by my lack of math. I have to get Greeneyes to do the math for me and she has schoolwork of her own. As I said on another board, give me a few days. I'm still researching.
-
As for the first video: They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004. However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height. 62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight. He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.
What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight? It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space). Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception. As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.
Precision is very good when you're speaking or writing. In fact, while he reached the edge of the atmosphere, he did not go past it by RE standards. Or didn't you know that the Karman line at 100 klicks is considered to be the boundary between atmosphere and space?
He did not achieve his claim of space flight, and yet he uses the same misleading language that NASA does to describe it. Why?
Not sure how this got narrowed down to just one company, but FET in general says that space flight is impossible. They say so because of the constant acceleration of FE make it impossible. They however equate the fluctuation in gravitational influence to the heavenly bodies. In theory if this is true then then the escape velocity of FE should eventually reach zero and you should be able to enter space. If that is possible then the whole NASA is nothing but a conspiracy get's tossed out the door.
Possibly. I'm still researching that particular area, which is made a bit harder by my lack of math. I have to get Greeneyes to do the math for me and she has schoolwork of her own. As I said on another board, give me a few days. I'm still researching.
I understand not trying to rush you. I just saw my question getting pushed towards semantics about a single company. Take your time.
-
Hm... let's see, which source do I trust better? The pilot's own website, stating that he reached 100KM, or a wikipedia article that says something different? Read my link again. It is the Space.com site.
And even their report starts with:
"MOJAVE, CALIFORNIA The first non-governmental rocket ship flew to the edge of space today and was piloted to a safe landing on a desert airport runway here. "
( http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/SS1_touchdown_040621.html )
To the edge of space. At least they understand the difference between space flight and orbital maneuvers.
Wikipedia is a good site, sometimes. Check their sources before you use them for any particular article.
Did you check the dates? The flight that you linked to was performed on June 21 and was the fist flight to 100KM or more (328,491 feet). The two flights within one week to win the X-prize were flown on September 29 and on October 4 and achieved 102.9KM and 112KM respectively.
You can check out the test logs yourself:
http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/logs-WK-SS1.htm
I don't think that anyone ever claimed that Space Ship One ever achieved sustained space flight anyways, so I'm not sure that I know what your point is.
-
I understand not trying to rush you. I just saw my question getting pushed towards semantics about a single company. Take your time.
I was replying to the poster about the videos that were posted... He asked a question about two videos he posted. That was a separate discussion than the whole space flight question that you were asking about. It just happened to be in the thread. :)
@Markjo:
You posted two videos claiming that they had achieved space flight. You asked if they had ever been discredited. True? In checking on those videos, I found the information I posted. I made a mistake, not noticing that you had changed to different flights, my bad.
It still stands that the videos posted are not space flight. As for the other flights, I haven't looked into them yet.
-
@Markjo:
You posted two videos claiming that they had achieved space flight. You asked if they had ever been discredited. True? In checking on those videos, I found the information I posted. I made a mistake, not noticing that you had changed to different flights, my bad.
It still stands that the videos posted are not space flight. As for the other flights, I haven't looked into them yet.
No, Svenanders posted the links to the videos. I posted a link to the X-Prize Foundation's page referring to the Ansari X-Prize and a linked quote to the Wikipedia article about the Ansari X-Prize, highlighting that both X-Prize flights exceeded the 100KM requirements for the challenge.
-
@Markjo:
You posted two videos claiming that they had achieved space flight. You asked if they had ever been discredited. True? In checking on those videos, I found the information I posted. I made a mistake, not noticing that you had changed to different flights, my bad.
It still stands that the videos posted are not space flight. As for the other flights, I haven't looked into them yet.
No, Svenanders posted the links to the videos. I posted a link to the X-Prize Foundation's page referring to the Ansari X-Prize and a linked quote to the Wikipedia article about the Ansari X-Prize, highlighting that both X-Prize flights exceeded the 100KM requirements for the challenge.
Hopefully by 2012 the Lunar X-Prize will be awarded. That is assuming that one of the 16 teams can meet the requirements to win it. Then how will FES react to space travel?
-
@Markjo:
You posted two videos claiming that they had achieved space flight. You asked if they had ever been discredited. True? In checking on those videos, I found the information I posted. I made a mistake, not noticing that you had changed to different flights, my bad.
It still stands that the videos posted are not space flight. As for the other flights, I haven't looked into them yet.
No, Svenanders posted the links to the videos. I posted a link to the X-Prize Foundation's page referring to the Ansari X-Prize and a linked quote to the Wikipedia article about the Ansari X-Prize, highlighting that both X-Prize flights exceeded the 100KM requirements.
My bad... you were the one discussing that bit with me, so I thought you had posted them. Can we say oops?
Anyway, from what I see, the flights you posted for the x-prize did enter space. Not by much, but they did so. Admitted. Now... you of course will show us how they plan to make a sustained flight?
Looking at the plans of their ship, it's very good work, but do they really believe that nothing can break through both of the double hull walls?
"You can think of the design of the cockpit with its dual seals and window panes as essentially a space worthy cockpit surrounded by a second outer space worthy shell. This redundancy eliminates the need for a space suit and allows the crew to operate and test the vehicle in comfort knowing that any major single failure will not result in loss of cabin pressure. "
(http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/faq.htm) The question was, why isn't the pilot in a space suit?
So, at Mach 3.06, anything that hits the outer hull is not going to penetrate to the secondary? What is that thing made of and where do I get some for my car?
@ C-Ray: I don't know. By the time someone wins the Lunar prize, I'll be defending some other idea. FE is fun, but by 2012 I'll have exhausted the debate possibilities of the topic.
-
As for the first video: They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004. However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height. 62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight. He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.
What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight? It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space). Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception. As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.
Scaled Composites is a government contractor.
Did you check the dates? The flight that you linked to was performed on June 21 and was the fist flight to 100KM or more (328,491 feet). The two flights within one week to win the X-prize were flown on September 29 and on October 4 and achieved 102.9KM and 112KM respectively.
You can check out the test logs yourself:
http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/logs-WK-SS1.htm
I don't think that anyone ever claimed that Space Ship One ever achieved sustained space flight anyways, so I'm not sure that I know what your point is.
Scaled Composites is a government contractor.
-
As for the first video: They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004. However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height. 62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight. He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.
What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight? It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space). Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception. As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.
Scaled Composites is a government contractor.
So is Microsoft. What's your point?
Did you check the dates? The flight that you linked to was performed on June 21 and was the fist flight to 100KM or more (328,491 feet). The two flights within one week to win the X-prize were flown on September 29 and on October 4 and achieved 102.9KM and 112KM respectively.
You can check out the test logs yourself:
http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/logs-WK-SS1.htm
I don't think that anyone ever claimed that Space Ship One ever achieved sustained space flight anyways, so I'm not sure that I know what your point is.
Scaled Composites is a government contractor.
So is IBM. What's your point?
-
@Markjo:
You posted two videos claiming that they had achieved space flight. You asked if they had ever been discredited. True? In checking on those videos, I found the information I posted. I made a mistake, not noticing that you had changed to different flights, my bad.
It still stands that the videos posted are not space flight. As for the other flights, I haven't looked into them yet.
No, Svenanders posted the links to the videos. I posted a link to the X-Prize Foundation's page referring to the Ansari X-Prize and a linked quote to the Wikipedia article about the Ansari X-Prize, highlighting that both X-Prize flights exceeded the 100KM requirements.
My bad... you were the one discussing that bit with me, so I thought you had posted them. Can we say oops?
No problem. Just don't let it happen again. :P
Anyway, from what I see, the flights you posted for the x-prize did enter space. Not by much, but they did so. Admitted. Now... you of course will show us how they plan to make a sustained flight?
They don't.
Looking at the plans of their ship, it's very good work, but do they really believe that nothing can break through both of the double hull walls?
"You can think of the design of the cockpit with its dual seals and window panes as essentially a space worthy cockpit surrounded by a second outer space worthy shell. This redundancy eliminates the need for a space suit and allows the crew to operate and test the vehicle in comfort knowing that any major single failure will not result in loss of cabin pressure. "
(http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/faq.htm) The question was, why isn't the pilot in a space suit?
So, at Mach 3.06, anything that hits the outer hull is not going to penetrate to the secondary? What is that thing made of and where do I get some for my car?
Space Ship One and Space Ship Two are only designed for 100KM+ sub-orbital hops. The Ansari X Prize only required a 100KM high flight twice in one week. America's Space Prize is a separate competition that neither Scaled Composites nor Virgin Galactic seem to be interested in at this point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Space_Prize
With the rules of America's Space Prize being what they are and the 2010 deadline, I have a feeling that it will probably not be awarded this time around.
-
What's your point?
My point is that government contractors have classified contracts with the government, and its employees are really just government employees by proxy. They're given Top Secret Clearance and are right there in the government's secured facilities taking orders from government managers.
Government contractors claiming to send things into space isn't anything new. Lockheed Martin has been claiming to send satellites into space for decades.
-
What's your point?
My point is that government contractors have classified contracts with the government, and its employees are really just government employees by proxy. They're given Top Secret Clearance and are right there in the government's secured facilities taking orders from government managers.
Government contractors claiming to send things into space isn't anything new. Lockheed Martin has been claiming to send satellites into space for decades.
The rules of the Ansari X Prize strictly forbade government funding of or the use of classified government information in the competing space craft.
Besides, do you have any evidence suggesting that Scaled Composites had access to any classified government information?
-
Besides, do you have any evidence suggesting that Scaled Composites had access to any classified government information?
What does that have to do with the fact that Scaled Composites is a government contractor?
-
Besides, do you have any evidence suggesting that Scaled Composites had access to any classified government information?
What does that have to do with the fact that Scaled Composites is a government contractor?
What does being a government contractor have to do with the fact that Scaled Composites had to abide by the rules of the Ansari X Prize in order to collect their $10 million?
-
What's your point?
My point is that government contractors have classified contracts with the government, and its employees are really just government employees by proxy. They're given Top Secret Clearance and are right there in the government's secured facilities taking orders from government managers.
Government contractors claiming to send things into space isn't anything new. Lockheed Martin has been claiming to send satellites into space for decades.
My wife is a government contractor and she works out of our house in Savannah Georgia.
-
What does being a government contractor have to do with the fact that Scaled Composites had to abide by the rules of the Ansari X Prize in order to collect their $10 million?
Being a government aerospace contractor means that they are working closely with NASA and the DOD.
My wife is a government contractor and she works out of our house in Savannah Georgia.
Is she under contract to do whatever the government tells her to do? Does she report to and work directly under a government manager?
My point was that government contractors are really just temp workers the government hires to manage directly. There really isn't any difference between a government employee and a government contractor. They are both given the same secret clearance and sign the same classified agreements. The government uses contractors because they are cheaper and can be terminated at any time without having to worry about benefits.
Raytheon, for example, is just a face name for the government. There really isn't a Raytheon. It's a temp agency. Their employees are all working in government facilities for government managers. The same goes for the other government contractors. They're all temp agencies.
-
What does being a government contractor have to do with the fact that Scaled Composites had to abide by the rules of the Ansari X Prize in order to collect their $10 million?
Being a government aerospace contractor means that they are working closely with NASA and the DOD.
Tom, I still have no idea of what your point is. How does Scaled Composites being a government contractor change the fact that Space Ship One traveled to an altitude of 100KM or more on three separate occasions, or are you just trying to change the subject?
-
Tom, I still have no idea of what your point is. How does Scaled Composites being a government contractor change the fact that Space Ship One traveled to an altitude of 100KM or more on three separate occasions, or are you just trying to change the subject?
Government Contractors are in the pockets of the government.
-
Government Contractors are in the pockets of the government.
Performing a little work for the government does not instantly imply that the whole company has fallen under the complete and total control of said government.
-
Performing a little work for the government does not instantly imply that the whole company has fallen under the complete and total control of said government.
Yes it does. Before you work for the government you need sign confidential contracts and agreements stipulating who you can and can't do business with, how you run your business, who you hire, and how your business is run even long after you are no longer contracting for the government. If you want to work for the government and contract your people out to work in sensitive fields you have to give up complete and total control of your procedures to the government.
Each contractor has a number of security officers assigned to it, depending on the size of the contracting firm. Government security officers are assigned to your company to ensure that it is doing what the government wants it to do and that it is following the procedures and instructions laid out by the government.
-
Since Tom knows so much about the government, I think he works for it. He just doesn't want to tell us about it.
-
I think I found him out
http://www.ertcorp.com/management.php
"Tom Bishop
Chief Engineer
Mr. Tom Bishop joined Earth Resources Technology, Inc., in 2008 as Chief Engineer and Manager of Science and Technology Programs. Mr. Bishop has responsibility for developing ERT?s engineering practices and ensuring that ERT offers quality and effective technical solutions to its government customers.
Mr. Bishop has over 30 years experience as a Program Manager and Systems Engineer, with emphasis on the support of spacecraft remote sensing data processing and high technology systems for government and commercial customers. Prior to joining ERT, he served as Program Manager for NOAA?s Environmental Satellite Processing Center at Perot Systems. At Raytheon, he was the site manager for NASA?s Ames Research Center managing 3 contracts, over 70 task orders, and a staff of 275 personnel.
At Raytheon, He was also Project Manager and Chief Engineer for the China Brazil Earth Resources Satellite (CBERS) Data Processing System (CDPS)?a turnkey system to acquire and process the data from the CBERS mission. He worked closely with end users and instrument manufacturers to determine the system requirements. He was responsible for all aspects of the project including export licensing and deploying the developed system to China.
He received his Bachelor?s Degree in Computer Science from Virginia Tech."
Nice try Tom, but we got ya.
-
Space flight is not impossible in FET. What does scaled composites have to do with anything? Nothing they did breaks FET.
-
Nice try Tom, but we got ya.
haha, looks like the gig is up.
-
Space flight is not impossible in FET. What does scaled composites have to do with anything? Nothing they did breaks FET.
Except for being able to plainly see the curvature of the earth.
-
I think I found him out
http://www.ertcorp.com/management.php
"Tom Bishop
Chief Engineer
Mr. Tom Bishop joined Earth Resources Technology, Inc., in 2008 as Chief Engineer and Manager of Science and Technology Programs. Mr. Bishop has responsibility for developing ERT?s engineering practices and ensuring that ERT offers quality and effective technical solutions to its government customers.
Mr. Bishop has over 30 years experience as a Program Manager and Systems Engineer, with emphasis on the support of spacecraft remote sensing data processing and high technology systems for government and commercial customers. Prior to joining ERT, he served as Program Manager for NOAA?s Environmental Satellite Processing Center at Perot Systems. At Raytheon, he was the site manager for NASA?s Ames Research Center managing 3 contracts, over 70 task orders, and a staff of 275 personnel.
At Raytheon, He was also Project Manager and Chief Engineer for the China Brazil Earth Resources Satellite (CBERS) Data Processing System (CDPS)?a turnkey system to acquire and process the data from the CBERS mission. He worked closely with end users and instrument manufacturers to determine the system requirements. He was responsible for all aspects of the project including export licensing and deploying the developed system to China.
He received his Bachelor?s Degree in Computer Science from Virginia Tech."
Nice try Tom, but we got ya.
There are a lot of Tom Bishops in this world.
Space flight is not impossible in FET. What does scaled composites have to do with anything? Nothing they did breaks FET.
Except for being able to plainly see the curvature of the earth.
Of course, the curvature around the edge of the Earth.
-
Performing a little work for the government does not instantly imply that the whole company has fallen under the complete and total control of said government.
Yes it does. Before you work for the government you need sign confidential contracts and agreements stipulating who you can and can't do business with, how you run your business, who you hire, and how your business is run even long after you are no longer contracting for the government. If you want to work for the government and contract your people out to work in sensitive fields you have to give up complete and total control of your procedures to the government.
Each contractor has a number of security officers assigned to it, depending on the size of the contracting firm. Government security officers are assigned to your company to ensure that it is doing what the government wants it to do and that it is following the procedures and instructions laid out by the government.
Tom, I don't suppose that it's worth the effort to ask you for evidence to support this claim, is it?
-
I think I found him out
http://www.ertcorp.com/management.php
"Tom Bishop
Chief Engineer
Mr. Tom Bishop joined Earth Resources Technology, Inc., in 2008 as Chief Engineer and Manager of Science and Technology Programs. Mr. Bishop has responsibility for developing ERT?s engineering practices and ensuring that ERT offers quality and effective technical solutions to its government customers.
Mr. Bishop has over 30 years experience as a Program Manager and Systems Engineer, with emphasis on the support of spacecraft remote sensing data processing and high technology systems for government and commercial customers. Prior to joining ERT, he served as Program Manager for NOAA?s Environmental Satellite Processing Center at Perot Systems. At Raytheon, he was the site manager for NASA?s Ames Research Center managing 3 contracts, over 70 task orders, and a staff of 275 personnel.
At Raytheon, He was also Project Manager and Chief Engineer for the China Brazil Earth Resources Satellite (CBERS) Data Processing System (CDPS)?a turnkey system to acquire and process the data from the CBERS mission. He worked closely with end users and instrument manufacturers to determine the system requirements. He was responsible for all aspects of the project including export licensing and deploying the developed system to China.
He received his Bachelor?s Degree in Computer Science from Virginia Tech."
Nice try Tom, but we got ya.
There are a lot of Tom Bishops in this world.
You have not proved it is not him.
-
And you have yet to prove that it is him.
-
Our Tom Bishop claims to live on the west coast. ERT is an east coast company. Sorry.
-
If he works for NASA, odds are he's going to lie a lot. He can't be trusted.
-
not all NASA employees know of the conspiracy, they just get a paycheck.
also, is it not possible that Tom is attempting to expose the conspiracy from the inside?
-
This is an interesting proposal the one true rat, but I think he's mad at his boss for something. He probably didn't get the raise he wanted or was kicked of the business soccer team. Who knows. Its probably a personal matter he's trying to settle scores with. It happens all the time.
-
Yes it does. Before you work for the government you need sign confidential contracts and agreements stipulating who you can and can't do business with, how you run your business, who you hire, and how your business is run even long after you are no longer contracting for the government. If you want to work for the government and contract your people out to work in sensitive fields you have to give up complete and total control of your procedures to the government.
Each contractor has a number of security officers assigned to it, depending on the size of the contracting firm. Government security officers are assigned to your company to ensure that it is doing what the government wants it to do and that it is following the procedures and instructions laid out by the government.
Far as I can see, government contracts are much the same as commercial ones, with the extra requirement that the contract is constrained by certain pieces of publicly available legislation, and the whole thing needs to be very well documented. Not sure where this 'whole company falls under control of the government' stuff is.
-
Far as I can see, government contracts are much the same as commercial ones, with the extra requirement that the contract is constrained by certain pieces of publicly available legislation, and the whole thing needs to be very well documented. Not sure where this 'whole company falls under control of the government' stuff is.
Sounds like you haven't worked for very many government contractors then.
-
Sounds like you haven't worked for very many government contractors then.
Do you have any evidence suggesting that the government takes control once a contract is made? Simply saying 'It works this way' doesn't really show anything.
-
Space flight is not impossible in FET. What does scaled composites have to do with anything? Nothing they did breaks FET.
Except for being able to plainly see the curvature of the earth.
This is due to the suns spotlight.
-
Far as I can see, government contracts are much the same as commercial ones, with the extra requirement that the contract is constrained by certain pieces of publicly available legislation, and the whole thing needs to be very well documented. Not sure where this 'whole company falls under control of the government' stuff is.
Sounds like you haven't worked for very many government contractors then.
Have you?
-
Space flight is not impossible in FET. What does scaled composites have to do with anything? Nothing they did breaks FET.
Except for being able to plainly see the curvature of the earth.
This is due to the suns spotlight.
No. The sun's spotlight would appear different from the curvature of the earth.
-
Sounds like you haven't worked for very many government contractors then.
Do you have any evidence suggesting that the government takes control once a contract is made? Simply saying 'It works this way' doesn't really show anything.
So you think that government aerospace and military contractors are free to work with whatever foreign nation they want and hire whoever they want to send into the government's secured bases? ???
-
Space flight is not impossible in FET. What does scaled composites have to do with anything? Nothing they did breaks FET.
Except for being able to plainly see the curvature of the earth.
This is due to the suns spotlight.
No. The sun's spotlight would appear different from the curvature of the earth.
Proof?
-
Space flight is not impossible in FET. What does scaled composites have to do with anything? Nothing they did breaks FET.
Except for being able to plainly see the curvature of the earth.
This is due to the suns spotlight.
No. The sun's spotlight would appear different from the curvature of the earth.
Proof?
(http://i40.tinypic.com/21cd0yr.jpg)
Take a close look at this picture. Study the glow of the atmosphere near the edge of the "sun's spotlight". Notice how there is a sharp edge where the earth stops but the atmosphere continues. If that were a spotlight, then there would still be earth visible within the glowing area as it fades to black.
-
Space flight is not impossible in FET. What does scaled composites have to do with anything? Nothing they did breaks FET.
Except for being able to plainly see the curvature of the earth.
This is due to the suns spotlight.
No. The sun's spotlight would appear different from the curvature of the earth.
Proof?
(http://i40.tinypic.com/21cd0yr.jpg)
Take a close look at this picture. Study the glow of the atmosphere near the edge of the "sun's spotlight". Notice how there is a sharp edge where the earth stops but the atmosphere continues. If that were a spotlight, then there would still be earth visible within the glowing area as it fades to black.
Lovely picture. Haven't you learned yet that no picture is acceptable proof of anything? I can show you a picture of two aliens having sex, or men landing on any one of a thousand planets.
All that picture proves is that whoever made it did a very nice job.
-
Space flight is not impossible in FET. What does scaled composites have to do with anything? Nothing they did breaks FET.
Except for being able to plainly see the curvature of the earth.
This is due to the suns spotlight.
No. The sun's spotlight would appear different from the curvature of the earth.
Proof?
(http://i40.tinypic.com/21cd0yr.jpg)
Take a close look at this picture. Study the glow of the atmosphere near the edge of the "sun's spotlight". Notice how there is a sharp edge where the earth stops but the atmosphere continues. If that were a spotlight, then there would still be earth visible within the glowing area as it fades to black.
Lovely picture. Haven't you learned yet that no picture is acceptable proof of anything? I can show you a picture of two aliens having sex, or men landing on any one of a thousand planets.
All that picture proves is that whoever made it did a very nice job.
Then why are photographs used on court cases all the time?
-
Space flight is not impossible in FET. What does scaled composites have to do with anything? Nothing they did breaks FET.
Except for being able to plainly see the curvature of the earth.
This is due to the suns spotlight.
No. The sun's spotlight would appear different from the curvature of the earth.
Proof?
(http://i40.tinypic.com/21cd0yr.jpg)
Take a close look at this picture. Study the glow of the atmosphere near the edge of the "sun's spotlight". Notice how there is a sharp edge where the earth stops but the atmosphere continues. If that were a spotlight, then there would still be earth visible within the glowing area as it fades to black.
Lovely picture. Haven't you learned yet that no picture is acceptable proof of anything? I can show you a picture of two aliens having sex, or men landing on any one of a thousand planets.
All that picture proves is that whoever made it did a very nice job.
Then why are photographs used on court cases all the time?
For the same reason we would accept a photo here... The chain of evidence. You get a camera, buy the film, keep both in your possession or securely locked away at all times until you take the pictures on the roll. Keep the film and camera with you, using the same security, have the film developed, preferably by an uninterested third party under observation, and hand carry those pics to one of us, with step by step proof of your security, like the forensics teams do with their pics, and we'll accept it.
-
So you think that government aerospace and military contractors are free to work with whatever foreign nation they want and hire whoever they want to send into the government's secured bases?
I would image that the contractors are free to do the job however they want. I doubt that any of these contracts involve the workers wandering around inside secret bases, however, so I don't see the need for some kind of total control on the company.
-
If you corrected that photo for bendy light you would find the edge would be quite flat.
-
If you corrected that photo for bendy light you would find the edge would be quite flat.
The shape of the edge is irrelevant. The fact that there is a distinct edge where you see atmospheric glow above, but no earth fading into night is what is important.
-
What does being a government contractor have to do with the fact that Scaled Composites had to abide by the rules of the Ansari X Prize in order to collect their $10 million?
Being a government aerospace contractor means that they are working closely with NASA and the DOD.
My wife is a government contractor and she works out of our house in Savannah Georgia.
Is she under contract to do whatever the government tells her to do? Does she report to and work directly under a government manager?
My point was that government contractors are really just temp workers the government hires to manage directly. There really isn't any difference between a government employee and a government contractor. They are both given the same secret clearance and sign the same classified agreements. The government uses contractors because they are cheaper and can be terminated at any time without having to worry about benefits.
Raytheon, for example, is just a face name for the government. There really isn't a Raytheon. It's a temp agency. Their employees are all working in government facilities for government managers. The same goes for the other government contractors. They're all temp agencies.
She works for a private company that does contract work for the DoD. The government does not run the company, there are no stationed security forces on the premises. They do have to abide by certain security measures, but that is only to keep the contract, only the security guards, paid by the company not the government, the president (my wife) and the owner of the company are allowed on the premises after 6pm. Everyone else security card only works during certain hours of the day. When I visit I am escorted on the the premises by the security guard, they are just regular security people like at the mall and stuff. They do have other contracts that they work on as well. Not everyone employed in the company works with the government contract, in fact they hire between 10 and 20 interns every summer for work on their other contracts through the university. Their other contracts take them all over the world, to many different nations, the government doesn't care as long as their work and research is done. No one in the company is an employee of the government, all checks have the companies name on them not the US government's. They conduct the company affairs the way they see fit, the government has nothing to do with the day to day operations. They report time, research and findings and that is it. Every few years they go to Washington and reapply for the contract, basing the previous years of work on the money they ask for (whether they need more or less). The only thing that they can't do is discuss this government work with people outside of the project, specifics anyway, even I know the general gist of the work that is being done. They sign the contracts saying that the accounting for the project, time, materials, research needs, special items will all be accounted for; then they sign nondisclosure agreements and that is it. If they don't keep track of everything they lose the contract. That is the extent of the control the government has, how much money if any they are given, granted all that is based on the work they do and records they keep. All their computers are purchased through a special process through Apple, yes the whole company runs on Mac, all retired computers are sent to a government office to wiped clean; after that they can even purchase the computers back if they want, this happens every two years. You are way off Tom.
-
Then why are photographs used on court cases all the time?
Photographs are only accepted in courts if they come from a third party unconnected to the suspect, and if they're handled properly.
The picture you provided seems to come from the government and therefore invalid as evidence.
In other extreme-altitude images of the earth's horizon taken by actual unconnected third parties, the lands just fade out into a blue-white fog: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/
I would image that the contractors are free to do the job however they want. I doubt that any of these contracts involve the workers wandering around inside secret bases, however, so I don't see the need for some kind of total control on the company.
All government bases dealing with aerospace research and development are secret bases.
in fact they hire between 10 and 20 interns every summer for work on their other contracts through the university.
Universities typically aren't doing top secret aerospace work for the government. In top secret environments the employees must all work on government bases and adhere to stricter regulations and control.
-
i have a question, nothing scientific it just has to do with the whole RE theory being a conspiracy. who stands to gain from everyone believing the world is round? i know in the FAQ is mentions the reason behind the conspiracy is money, but how does anyone make money from this? also they say all the world's governments are in on this conspiracy but judging by world events i dont think all the world's government would agree to be in on this together. and i don't think NASA stands to gain anything from people thinking the world is round because if the earth was flat and everyone knew it then we would still want to explore space so there would still be a NASA. so why can't we know the world is flat if it indeed were flat?
-
All government bases dealing with aerospace research and development are secret bases.
And the contractors have to go into these bases to work on what they're doing? Can't they just build it at their place and cart it over once it's finished?
-
And the contractors have to go into these bases to work on what they're doing? Can't they just build it at their place and cart it over once it's finished?
Nope. All top secret material needs to be located on government property at all times.
Most of these contractors don't even have workshops or buildings other than the offices necessary to run their HR department. The contracting companies really just act as temp agencies and head hunters and send their employees into government bases to work for government managers. When Raytheon builds a stealth plane, they're not doing it on Raytheon property. There is no Raytheon property beyond whatever HR/Admin buildings they have. All work is done on government property under the direct supervision and direction of government managers.
-
Then why are photographs used on court cases all the time?
Photographs are only accepted in courts if they come from a third party unconnected to the suspect, and if they're handled properly.
The picture you provided seems to come from the government and therefore invalid as evidence.
In other extreme-altitude images of the earth's horizon taken by actual unconnected third parties, the lands just fade out into a blue-white fog: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/1777030642_5e100755bb_o.jpg)
Nope. Nice distinct horizon with no earth seen fading to black. Just atmospheric glow fading to black.
-
In other extreme-altitude images of the earth's horizon taken by actual unconnected third parties, the lands just fade out into a blue-white fog: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/
Tom, in all those photographs where the horizon is visible, there is a distinct line where the horizon is. So it does not disappear into a blue/white fog at all. Open your eyes, or get them checked. this is not the first time you have missed obvious aspects of an image (that you post as evidence) that completely disproves what you are claiming the photo shows.
-
Nope. All top secret material needs to be located on government property at all times.
Most of these contractors don't even have workshops or buildings other than the offices necessary to run their HR department. The contracting companies really just act as temp agencies and head hunters and send their employees into government bases to work for government managers. When Raytheon builds a stealth plane, they're not doing it on Raytheon property. There is no Raytheon property beyond whatever HR/Admin buildings they have. All work is done on government property under the direct supervision and direction of government managers.
Are you certain? I know that at least the external tank for the Space Shuttle is built off site. NASA doesn't have any manufacturing plants on it's grounds, as far as I'm aware.
-
The external tanks, albeit really cool, probably do not constitute top secret classification. It sounds like the scenario in the quote would be most likely in research and development of said things. Which no NASA seems to be more cooperative in space projects (i.e. ISS).
-
Perhaps this should clear up a few things.
OrbitalCam was established with the goal of launching a small privately funded satellite into low earth orbit.
More info here: http://www.theroundearthsociety.net/index.php?topic=49.0 (http://www.theroundearthsociety.net/index.php?topic=49.0)
-
The external tanks, albeit really cool, probably do not constitute top secret classification. It sounds like the scenario in the quote would be most likely in research and development of said things. Which no NASA seems to be more cooperative in space projects (i.e. ISS).
I imagine that the research projects done by NASA are worked on in their own buildings, but I was referring to government contractors. As far as I'm aware, they build what they're asked to build in their own place, and haul it over once it's done.
-
Nope. Nice distinct horizon with no earth seen fading to black. Just atmospheric glow fading to black.
The horizon looks like it just fades out into nothingness to me.
Are you certain? I know that at least the external tank for the Space Shuttle is built off site. NASA doesn't have any manufacturing plants on it's grounds, as far as I'm aware.
If anything is built off-site it's built on another government owned property. All Top Secret material stays on secured government property at all times, no exceptions.
I imagine that the research projects done by NASA are worked on in their own buildings, but I was referring to government contractors. As far as I'm aware, they build what they're asked to build in their own place, and haul it over once it's done.
"I imagine" and "As far as I'm aware" doesn't sound too concrete to me. The next time you meet a government contractor feel free to ask if Top Secret material needs to stay on government property at all times.
-
Nope. Nice distinct horizon with no earth seen fading to black. Just atmospheric glow fading to black.
The horizon looks like it just fades out into nothingness to me.
Are you certain? I know that at least the external tank for the Space Shuttle is built off site. NASA doesn't have any manufacturing plants on it's grounds, as far as I'm aware.
If anything is built off-site it's built on another government owned property. All Top Secret material stays on secured government property at all times, no exceptions.
I imagine that the research projects done by NASA are worked on in their own buildings, but I was referring to government contractors. As far as I'm aware, they build what they're asked to build in their own place, and haul it over once it's done.
"I imagine" and "As far as I'm aware" doesn't sound too concrete to me. The next time you meet a government contractor feel free to ask if Top Secret material needs to stay on government property at all times.
Tom, I'm gonna have to ask you to post your source for you information on government contracting. The aspect that I deal with, everyday, is nothing like what you describe it to be; and my wife contracts for one of the most paranoid branches of the government in existence. At any rate, source Tom?
-
Tom, I'm gonna have to ask you to post your source for you information on government contracting. The aspect that I deal with, everyday, is nothing like what you describe it to be; and my wife contracts for one of the most paranoid branches of the government in existence. At any rate, source Tom?
Is your wife dealing with Top Secret material?
-
Tom, I'm gonna have to ask you to post your source for you information on government contracting. The aspect that I deal with, everyday, is nothing like what you describe it to be; and my wife contracts for one of the most paranoid branches of the government in existence. At any rate, source Tom?
Is your wife dealing with Top Secret material?
Umm, you think? She is contracting with the DoD.
-
Nope. Nice distinct horizon with no earth seen fading to black. Just atmospheric glow fading to black.
The horizon looks like it just fades out into nothingness to me.
Then we must have different definitions of the word "horizon". I see a distinct boundary where the earth stops in that picture. Above that boundary I see atmospheric glow fading to black.
-
Nope. Nice distinct horizon with no earth seen fading to black. Just atmospheric glow fading to black.
The horizon looks like it just fades out into nothingness to me.
Are you certain? I know that at least the external tank for the Space Shuttle is built off site. NASA doesn't have any manufacturing plants on it's grounds, as far as I'm aware.
If anything is built off-site it's built on another government owned property. All Top Secret material stays on secured government property at all times, no exceptions.
I imagine that the research projects done by NASA are worked on in their own buildings, but I was referring to government contractors. As far as I'm aware, they build what they're asked to build in their own place, and haul it over once it's done.
"I imagine" and "As far as I'm aware" doesn't sound too concrete to me. The next time you meet a government contractor feel free to ask if Top Secret material needs to stay on government property at all times.
Have a look at picture number 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 (these are the clearest). There is a distinct contrast difference between the "Sky" and the "Ground". If it was fading due to atmospheric scattering, there would be no distinct contrast boundary. Therefore the Horizon as seen can not be due to atmospheric scattering. If it is not due to atmospheric scattering, then what is it due to?
Pictures 3 and 19 also show the horizon, but it is a little less clear. In fact, picture 3 is a good example of what it would look like (except if you look closely you can actually see a contrast difference in it) if atmospheric scattering did create the horizon. RET does not say atmospheric scattering does not occur, and that it can not create a limit to vision, as clearly shown in picture 3. However, your claim that atmospheric scattering is causing the horizon requires all images of the "horizon" to be like picture 3 all the time. So any image of the horizon that does not look like picture 3 (ie: has a distinct difference in contrast between the sky and the ground) completely disproves the claim that atmospheric scattering is causing the horizon.
-
Umm, you think? She is contracting with the DoD.
Pencil manufacturers also have contracts with the DoD.
-
Umm, you think? She is contracting with the DoD.
Pencil manufacturers also have contracts with the DoD.
So now pencil manufacturers are part of the conspiracy too? ???
Or are you finally admitting that being a government contractor does not automatically enroll a company into the conspiracy?
-
I think he is attacking an RE'ers credibility, as if RE could have less....
-
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about FE'ers...
-
after reading through this entire thread, i haven't read one legitimate argument from a FEer. whenever you accuse somebody of something, like accusing the gov't and NASA of having this conspiracy, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. if i say my neighbor robbed me i have to prove that he did, he doesn't have to prove he didn't.
-
after reading through this entire thread, i haven't read one legitimate argument from a FEer. whenever you accuse somebody of something, like accusing the gov't and NASA of having this conspiracy, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. if i say my neighbor robbed me i have to prove that he did, he doesn't have to prove he didn't.
Actually, you tell the government, in the person of the police and they prove it... If they can, if he left any evidence, and the investigating officer feels like taking the time to actually do the work.
If not, you're just out of luck and whatever was stolen.
I have some few answers, but I'm still working on the theory... I'll be back when I have answered as many of the questions as I can.
-
Overall there is more proof of a round earth than a flat one.
Flat earth believers base their theory around their own, self made "evidence" or by ancient uncivilized studies and go by that.
Why would the earth being flat be a lie in the first place? I don't see why, and would like to know why.
Why is it that the moon, the sun and every other planet is round on not our own planet? If they were just flat circles then why, every time we see the moon or sun, that it's conveniently facing us head on reveling its round shape? (if that's what you believe)
I'm open minded to pretty much anything, someone hungry for new information and thinking but in my opinion, this is ridiculous.
All your arguments against a earth being a sphere have been extremely weak and unconvincing.
-
Nope. Nice distinct horizon with no earth seen fading to black. Just atmospheric glow fading to black.
The horizon looks like it just fades out into nothingness to me.
Are you certain? I know that at least the external tank for the Space Shuttle is built off site. NASA doesn't have any manufacturing plants on it's grounds, as far as I'm aware.
If anything is built off-site it's built on another government owned property. All Top Secret material stays on secured government property at all times, no exceptions.
I imagine that the research projects done by NASA are worked on in their own buildings, but I was referring to government contractors. As far as I'm aware, they build what they're asked to build in their own place, and haul it over once it's done.
"I imagine" and "As far as I'm aware" doesn't sound too concrete to me. The next time you meet a government contractor feel free to ask if Top Secret material needs to stay on government property at all times.
Top secret material does not need to stay on government property at all. You just cannot take it and show all of your friends. There is a whole bunch of information kept at your own house as long as you have the clearance to have it, the only thing you have to go through is every so often you have to listen to a speech from some FBI (not NASA) agent who tells you how horrible your life will be and how you will rot in some jail til you die if you ever reveal or sell the information to people who should not see it.
-
Overall there is more proof of a round earth than a flat one.
I don't agree.
Flat earth believers base their theory around their own, self made "evidence" or by ancient uncivilized studies and go by that.
Not quite. We have reason to believe the earth is flat.
Why would the earth being flat be a lie in the first place? I don't see why, and would like to know why.
That's what I'd like to know. ???
Why is it that the moon, the sun and every other planet is round on not our own planet? If they were just flat circles then why, every time we see the moon or sun, that it's conveniently facing us head on reveling its round shape? (if that's what you believe)
The moon, sun, and planets are not the earth.
I'm open minded to pretty much anything, someone hungry for new information and thinking but in my opinion, this is ridiculous.
I don't think it's so ridiculous as you make it out to be. There's nothing wrong with questioning the most basic things we are taught; after all, even in RE the sun used to be said to go around the earth... but that's not what you say now.
All your arguments against a earth being a sphere have been extremely weak and unconvincing.
Can you be more specific?
-
Overall there is more proof of a round earth than a flat one.
I don't agree.
Flat earth believers base their theory around their own, self made "evidence" or by ancient uncivilized studies and go by that.
Not quite. We have reason to believe the earth is flat.
Why would the earth being flat be a lie in the first place? I don't see why, and would like to know why.
That's what I'd like to know. ???
Why is it that the moon, the sun and every other planet is round on not our own planet? If they were just flat circles then why, every time we see the moon or sun, that it's conveniently facing us head on reveling its round shape? (if that's what you believe)
The moon, sun, and planets are not the earth.
I'm open minded to pretty much anything, someone hungry for new information and thinking but in my opinion, this is ridiculous.
I don't think it's so ridiculous as you make it out to be. There's nothing wrong with questioning the most basic things we are taught; after all, even in RE the sun used to be said to go around the earth... but that's not what you say now.
All your arguments against a earth being a sphere have been extremely weak and unconvincing.
Can you be more specific?
The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.
-
The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.
I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space. I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.
-
The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.
I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space. I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.
So how does the meteor get past the UA and into the Earth's atmosphere?
-
The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.
I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space. I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.
So how does the meteor get past the UA and into the Earth's atmosphere?
My theory is that as it's composed of exactly the same type of material as the earth, it's not subject to the force keeping the heavenly bodies aloft, and it therefore just falls to earth (or something else that might get in its way, of course).
-
There are a multitude of methods in which any one can prove that the earth is a sphere. These are the most common.
You can launch a rocket to a high altitude and take pictures of the earth (which various government agencies and private groups have already done thousands of times in the past), but that isn't the most practical way. Pictures and videos taken by orbiting satellites and space stations are certainly the most definitive proof that the earth is a sphere.
But if you're not convinced, read on...
You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world.
The Greeks discovered that the earth is round by observing lunar eclipses (i.e. when the earth blocks the sun from the moon, casting its round shadow on the moon's surface).
Another method is simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine the radius of the earth)
Also, keep in mind the 24 hour time zones. When it is noon in Hawaii, it is approximately midnight in the Middle East and vice versa. How can it be noon and midnight simultaneously? It is certainly impossible with a flat earth and a sun millions of times more massive.
-
There are a multitude of methods in which any one can prove that the earth is a sphere. These are the most common.
You can launch a rocket to a high altitude and take pictures of the earth (which various government agencies and private groups have already done thousands of times in the past), but that isn't the most practical way. Pictures and videos taken by orbiting satellites and space stations are certainly the most definitive proof that the earth is a sphere.
I've never seen anything strong enough to convince me that the earth is a sphere. In fact I would expect the horizon to appear to be curved from high up anyway because of the sun's spotlight effect. Of course, pictures are never really proof anyway, or else we'd have proof of aliens, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, etc.
But if you're not convinced, read on...
Okay! :)
You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world.
This is easily explained by the light bending through the atmosphere, thus causing something far away to appear lower than it actually is and therefore partially cut off.
The Greeks discovered that the earth is round by observing lunar eclipses (i.e. when the earth blocks the sun from the moon, casting its round shadow on the moon's surface).
The FE opinion is that the Greeks made an incorrect assumption (as they often did) regarding what was actually blocking the moon. We believe there is another celestial object close to the sun that sometimes comes between the sun and moon, that we call the Shadow Object, that causes lunar eclipses.
Another method is simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine the radius of the earth)
I haven't seen anything convincing to suggest that the only explanation for this is that the earth is a sphere. The sun's position relative to the different poles on earth will not be the same in FE so why wouldn't the sizes of their shadows vary? Also, the atmosphere causes the sun's light to bend, thus causing the spotlight effect. So I don't think the sun's rays are striking the earth parallel to each other anyway.
Also, keep in mind the 24 hour time zones. When it is noon in Hawaii, it is approximately midnight in the Middle East and vice versa. How can it be noon and midnight simultaneously? It is certainly impossible with a flat earth and a sun millions of times more massive.
Ah. You think the sun in FE is similar in size to the sun in RE. That might be the problem; we think the earth is much more massive than the sun, and due to the aforementioned spotlight effect the sun only illuminates part of the earth at a time.
-
Ah. You think the sun in FE is similar in size to the sun in RE. That might be the problem; we think the earth is much more massive than the sun, and due to the aforementioned spotlight effect the sun only illuminates part of the earth at a time.
If the sun is a spotlight, why does it always appear spherical?
-
Ah. You think the sun in FE is similar in size to the sun in RE. That might be the problem; we think the earth is much more massive than the sun, and due to the aforementioned spotlight effect the sun only illuminates part of the earth at a time.
If the sun is a spotlight, why does it always appear spherical?
It's not a spotlight. The atmosphere causes the light coming from the sun to bend, and also limits the amount of earth that is illuminated. It's what we call the spotlight effect.
-
I guess the problem is that you can never truly disprove the FE model, as every time evidence comes up against it, another phenomena or fundamental force s created to explain it. While it results in a 'working' model, it also results in a very complex one. As there's no way to tell the two models apart from my point of view, I go for the RE one as it's simpler and requires less unknown forces and assumptions flying around.
-
There are a multitude of methods in which any one can prove that the earth is a sphere. These are the most common.
You can launch a rocket to a high altitude and take pictures of the earth (which various government agencies and private groups have already done thousands of times in the past), but that isn't the most practical way. Pictures and videos taken by orbiting satellites and space stations are certainly the most definitive proof that the earth is a sphere.
I've never seen anything strong enough to convince me that the earth is a sphere. In fact I would expect the horizon to appear to be curved from high up anyway because of the sun's spotlight effect. Of course, pictures are never really proof anyway, or else we'd have proof of aliens, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, etc.
Ok, what would be evidence strong enough to convince you that the Earth is a Sphere?
You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world.
This is easily explained by the light bending through the atmosphere, thus causing something far away to appear lower than it actually is and therefore partially cut off.
As the amount light refracts is dependent of the difference between the two medium's refractive index and that different frequencies of light bend by different amounts actually disproves the atmospheric refraction explanation. An explaination is usless if it can't actually explain what is seen.
The Greeks discovered that the earth is round by observing lunar eclipses (i.e. when the earth blocks the sun from the moon, casting its round shadow on the moon's surface).
The FE opinion is that the Greeks made an incorrect assumption (as they often did) regarding what was actually blocking the moon. We believe there is another celestial object close to the sun that sometimes comes between the sun and moon, that we call the Shadow Object, that causes lunar eclipses.
Another method is simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine the radius of the earth)
I haven't seen anything convincing to suggest that the only explanation for this is that the earth is a sphere. The sun's position relative to the different poles on earth will not be the same in FE so why wouldn't the sizes of their shadows vary? Also, the atmosphere causes the sun's light to bend, thus causing the spotlight effect. So I don't think the sun's rays are striking the earth parallel to each other anyway.
I agree, the shape of the Luna Eclipse and even Eratosthenes shadow experiment do not prove the Earth is Round or Flat. However, Eratosthenes did not base his conclusion for the roundness of Earth on his famous experiment, that was only to calculate the circumference after he had does experiments to determine the shape of the Earth.
It seems to me that the FEers constant misuse and misrepresentation of these experiments shows a complete lack of actual research or questioning of how Eratosthenes determined the shape of the Earth. It would be a bit like looking at what Rowbotham calculated his taxes and concluding that is how he achieve his conclusion about the shape of the Earth (the plate would have been flat), it really does not make a bit of sense at all.
By the time Eratosthenes did the experiment with the sticks and shadows, he had already done experiments and looked at other people's experiments about the shape of the Earth. He assumed a Round Earth, because he had evidence that it was round.
Large scale construction projects that were undertaken (like roads, aqueducts, large scale irrigation, etc), had to account for any curvature of the Earth (if any) as these projects did used a curved Earth model and these projects were successful, we can know that the Earth really is curved (otherwise they would not have worked).
Geometry is also another proof of a round Earth. Large scale measuring of the surface features of the Earth (these were done and there is evidence of this with drawings, the actual devices used and the documentary evidence that this took place). Surveying has been around since Egypt (one of the pieces of evidence is the maths needed to do these things were developed at these times - besides the tables that have the written records of these calculations and the reason for them), and by the time of Eratosthenes, this was advanced enough to make surveys beyond the horizon and thus be sufficient to detect any curvature.
So the experiments that Eratosthenes did were not to determine the shape of the Earth, but to measure that curvature more accurately so that surveyors could use it.
As for the Luna Eclipses, well it is not proof, of course, but it is a reason to consider that the Earth is round. It is not complete disproof of a flat Earth (and was never intended to be), but it is sufficient to cast doubt and that there might be some other explanation that is could be true. All it says is that there is no easy explanation that we have that can be tested that explains this phenomena. So if an explanation comes along that can be tested (and it is found not ot be false) then it means that a Round Earth has to be considered (although not necessarily true). It is a reason not to shut out things because they disagree with you.
Also, keep in mind the 24 hour time zones. When it is noon in Hawaii, it is approximately midnight in the Middle East and vice versa. How can it be noon and midnight simultaneously? It is certainly impossible with a flat earth and a sun millions of times more massive.
Ah. You think the sun in FE is similar in size to the sun in RE. That might be the problem; we think the earth is much more massive than the sun, and due to the aforementioned spotlight effect the sun only illuminates part of the earth at a time.
The problem with a near and small Sun is distance. As the calculated Diameter of the FE is (according tot he FAQ): 24,900 miles (more than 40,000 km), and the FE Sun is supposed to be 3,000 miles above us, then the difference in distance between midday and Sunset/rise distances to the Sun is more than 4 times the distance. Basic geometry states that the distance to an object is doubled, then the apparent size is halved. This means that the FE sun at midday is more than4 times the size at sunrise. But this is not the case now is it as you can plainly see just by looking.
The explanation is "Atmospheric Effects", but we know the refractive index of Air, we can test it directly. And guess what, it is no where near great enough to account for the variation in size. Also, as this would be extremely dependent on atmospheric condition, there would be cases where this would not work, but as nobody has ever observed a violation of this effect, then either that atmosphere is deliberately adjusting its self to make this occur, or the Sun can't really be just 3,000 miles above us.
Actually we do see an increase in the size of the Sun at sunrise/set, but most of this is due to an optical illusion which could not occur on a flat Earth. The illusion is caused by having a very distant object and comparing it to relatively nearby objects (as demonstrated here: http://www.moillusions.com/2008/12/moon-optical-illusion.html).
-
There are a multitude of methods in which any one can prove that the earth is a sphere. These are the most common.
You can launch a rocket to a high altitude and take pictures of the earth (which various government agencies and private groups have already done thousands of times in the past), but that isn't the most practical way. Pictures and videos taken by orbiting satellites and space stations are certainly the most definitive proof that the earth is a sphere.
I've never seen anything strong enough to convince me that the earth is a sphere. In fact I would expect the horizon to appear to be curved from high up anyway because of the sun's spotlight effect. Of course, pictures are never really proof anyway, or else we'd have proof of aliens, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, etc.
Ok, what would be evidence strong enough to convince you that the Earth is a Sphere?
I don't know. I imagine if I saw it I would know. It would have to be strong enough to somehow overcome Rowbotham's proof against it.
You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world.
This is easily explained by the light bending through the atmosphere, thus causing something far away to appear lower than it actually is and therefore partially cut off.
As the amount light refracts is dependent of the difference between the two medium's refractive index and that different frequencies of light bend by different amounts actually disproves the atmospheric refraction explanation. An explaination is usless if it can't actually explain what is seen.
Yes, it seems evident that light behaves differently through the earth's atmosphere than it does in a laboratory; apparently there's something that those who have performed such experiments on light have not taken into account (understandable, since they likely don't even know about this effect, as they were surely unaware of the particulars of FET). That the light bends somehow is clear; exactly how it happens remains something of a mystery.
The Greeks discovered that the earth is round by observing lunar eclipses (i.e. when the earth blocks the sun from the moon, casting its round shadow on the moon's surface).
The FE opinion is that the Greeks made an incorrect assumption (as they often did) regarding what was actually blocking the moon. We believe there is another celestial object close to the sun that sometimes comes between the sun and moon, that we call the Shadow Object, that causes lunar eclipses.
Another method is simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine the radius of the earth)
I haven't seen anything convincing to suggest that the only explanation for this is that the earth is a sphere. The sun's position relative to the different poles on earth will not be the same in FE so why wouldn't the sizes of their shadows vary? Also, the atmosphere causes the sun's light to bend, thus causing the spotlight effect. So I don't think the sun's rays are striking the earth parallel to each other anyway.
I agree, the shape of the Luna Eclipse and even Eratosthenes shadow experiment do not prove the Earth is Round or Flat. However, Eratosthenes did not base his conclusion for the roundness of Earth on his famous experiment, that was only to calculate the circumference after he had does experiments to determine the shape of the Earth.
Exactly. It's a mistake REers make, assuming that the ancient Greeks proved the earth is round. That is simply not the case.
It seems to me that the FEers constant misuse and misrepresentation of these experiments shows a complete lack of actual research or questioning of how Eratosthenes determined the shape of the Earth. It would be a bit like looking at what Rowbotham calculated his taxes and concluding that is how he achieve his conclusion about the shape of the Earth (the plate would have been flat), it really does not make a bit of sense at all.
I disagree. Eratosthenes' experiments didn't prove the earth is round, and that is the relevant point.
By the time Eratosthenes did the experiment with the sticks and shadows, he had already done experiments and looked at other people's experiments about the shape of the Earth. He assumed a Round Earth, because he had evidence that it was round.
Large scale construction projects that were undertaken (like roads, aqueducts, large scale irrigation, etc), had to account for any curvature of the Earth (if any) as these projects did used a curved Earth model and these projects were successful, we can know that the Earth really is curved (otherwise they would not have worked).
I see your point about aqueducts since they were raised structures but I really don't see it with roads or irrigation systems. Do you have any blueprints suggesting that the builders of the aqueducts took the shape of the earth into account when they were building them?
Geometry is also another proof of a round Earth. Large scale measuring of the surface features of the Earth (these were done and there is evidence of this with drawings, the actual devices used and the documentary evidence that this took place). Surveying has been around since Egypt (one of the pieces of evidence is the maths needed to do these things were developed at these times - besides the tables that have the written records of these calculations and the reason for them), and by the time of Eratosthenes, this was advanced enough to make surveys beyond the horizon and thus be sufficient to detect any curvature.
This is news to me. Can you provide a link? I thought the ancient Greeks were the first to determine that the earth was round, and the Egyptians believed it was flat.
As for the Luna Eclipses, well it is not proof, of course, but it is a reason to consider that the Earth is round. It is not complete disproof of a flat Earth (and was never intended to be), but it is sufficient to cast doubt and that there might be some other explanation that is could be true. All it says is that there is no easy explanation that we have that can be tested that explains this phenomena. So if an explanation comes along that can be tested (and it is found not ot be false) then it means that a Round Earth has to be considered (although not necessarily true). It is a reason not to shut out things because they disagree with you.
I agree. I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that the earth is round until you've seen enough evidence to rule it out. That's exactly what Rowbotham did!
Also, keep in mind the 24 hour time zones. When it is noon in Hawaii, it is approximately midnight in the Middle East and vice versa. How can it be noon and midnight simultaneously? It is certainly impossible with a flat earth and a sun millions of times more massive.
Ah. You think the sun in FE is similar in size to the sun in RE. That might be the problem; we think the earth is much more massive than the sun, and due to the aforementioned spotlight effect the sun only illuminates part of the earth at a time.
The problem with a near and small Sun is distance. As the calculated Diameter of the FE is (according tot he FAQ): 24,900 miles (more than 40,000 km), and the FE Sun is supposed to be 3,000 miles above us, then the difference in distance between midday and Sunset/rise distances to the Sun is more than 4 times the distance. Basic geometry states that the distance to an object is doubled, then the apparent size is halved. This means that the FE sun at midday is more than4 times the size at sunrise. But this is not the case now is it as you can plainly see just by looking.
Yes, this appears to be some kind of glare.
The explanation is "Atmospheric Effects", but we know the refractive index of Air, we can test it directly. And guess what, it is no where near great enough to account for the variation in size. Also, as this would be extremely dependent on atmospheric condition, there would be cases where this would not work, but as nobody has ever observed a violation of this effect, then either that atmosphere is deliberately adjusting its self to make this occur, or the Sun can't really be just 3,000 miles above us.
As I've pointed out, there must be some property of the atmosphere that has not been duplicated in the laboratory. Lack of an observed violation of the effect of which you speak does not mean that such violations never occur.
Actually we do see an increase in the size of the Sun at sunrise/set, but most of this is due to an optical illusion which could not occur on a flat Earth. The illusion is caused by having a very distant object and comparing it to relatively nearby objects (as demonstrated here: http://www.moillusions.com/2008/12/moon-optical-illusion.html).
The moon exhibits the same effect. By your line of reasoning the moon must be a similar distance from the earth as the sun. It sounds like support for FET to me.
NOTE: I'm not going to the trouble fixing your mistakes in quoting so you're going to have to work out my responses yourself.
-
I don't know. I imagine if I saw it I would know. It would have to be strong enough to somehow overcome Rowbotham's proof against it.
However Rowbotham has made many mistakes and assumptions in his proofs. This calls into question the validity of his results (it doesn't disprove them, just calls into question their accuracy). This means that they can't be considered "the" proof of a FE without further evidence. Also, as others have attempted to repeat Robotham's experiments and got variable and some conflicting results, we have to considder, even if you think it unlikely, that Rowbotham might be wrong.
Also, as was shown in Google Earth, even using a Round Earth model, where the actual shape is not determined by reality, but the data that supports a Round Earth and the maths, that Rowbotham's results were able to be reproduced. As Google Earth definitely has a Round Earth, and Rowbotham's results were repeated on it, then there is no way that Rowbotham's experiments can actually determine the truth one way or the other.
The only real evidence that can be considered in a case like this is evidence that disproves one or the other as evidence that can support both is not really useful at all.
So, any evidence must be:
1) Reliable (ie we can check to see if it has been made up or faked in any way)
2) Repeatable (it has to not only occur due to specific conditions as FE and RE are global/planar phenomena)
3) Discriminatory (no, not in the derogatory sense, but that it allows us to discriminate between the propositions)
Would you agree that if this could be achieved then it would allow us to resolve this issue?
-
The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.
I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space. I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.
Except of course the meteor that came from Mars.
-
The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.
I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space. I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.
Except of course the meteor that came from Mars.
I highly doubt that that's in any concrete way a verifiable fact.
-
The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.
I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space. I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.
Except of course the meteor that came from Mars.
I highly doubt that that's in any concrete way a verifiable fact.
It is, using Spectroscopy. It is a well studied phenomena that certain materials absorb and emit light in very specific frequencies. By using this we have determined that there is a distinct and measurable arrangements of material in the Solar system. Each planet has a unique fingerprint of elements and isotopes of those elements. Thus, by examining the elements and isotopes of a Meteor, we can determine where it came from. Thus we can concretely determine that the Meteor in question actually came from Mars (and that the other bodies of the Solar system, and even the extra solar bodies, are made form the same stuff as the Earth).
-
The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.
I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space. I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.
Except of course the meteor that came from Mars.
I highly doubt that that's in any concrete way a verifiable fact.
It is, using Spectroscopy. It is a well studied phenomena that certain materials absorb and emit light in very specific frequencies. By using this we have determined that there is a distinct and measurable arrangements of material in the Solar system. Each planet has a unique fingerprint of elements and isotopes of those elements. Thus, by examining the elements and isotopes of a Meteor, we can determine where it came from. Thus we can concretely determine that the Meteor in question actually came from Mars (and that the other bodies of the Solar system, and even the extra solar bodies, are made form the same stuff as the Earth).
Without first-hand evidence of what the planets are composed of it can't be anything more than a theory that spectroscopy accurately predicts what they are composed of.
-
Without first-hand evidence of what the planets are composed of it can't be anything more than a theory that spectroscopy accurately predicts what they are composed of.
What would quality as first-hand evidence? At some point you're going to have to rely on a theory to test whether the two samples are correct. If you dismiss any experimental evidence because it relies on a theory being true, it would be impossible to sufficiently prove anything to you.
-
Without first-hand evidence of what the planets are composed of it can't be anything more than a theory that spectroscopy accurately predicts what they are composed of.
What would quality as first-hand evidence? At some point you're going to have to rely on a theory to test whether the two samples are correct. If you dismiss any experimental evidence because it relies on a theory being true, it would be impossible to sufficiently prove anything to you.
If it were somehow possibly to directly obtain a sample of Mars from the planet itself, and compare that sample's composition to the meteor's composition, and they matched, that would prove that Mars is at least partly composed of the same stuff the meteor is composed of.
-
The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.
I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space. I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.
Except of course the meteor that came from Mars.
I highly doubt that that's in any concrete way a verifiable fact.
It is, using Spectroscopy. It is a well studied phenomena that certain materials absorb and emit light in very specific frequencies. By using this we have determined that there is a distinct and measurable arrangements of material in the Solar system. Each planet has a unique fingerprint of elements and isotopes of those elements. Thus, by examining the elements and isotopes of a Meteor, we can determine where it came from. Thus we can concretely determine that the Meteor in question actually came from Mars (and that the other bodies of the Solar system, and even the extra solar bodies, are made form the same stuff as the Earth).
Without first-hand evidence of what the planets are composed of it can't be anything more than a theory that spectroscopy accurately predicts what they are composed of.
We can test all types of materials here on Earth. The important difference is not that there are new elements out there, but it is the ratios of them that are important. As we know the spectral lines of these materials here on Earth, then if we get the same spectral lines on some other body, then it is reasonable to assume that they are made form the same materials. Careful analysis will be able to reveal the ratios of the elements. Then, by looking at material that we know has not come from here on Earth, we can recheck the assumptions and change them from assumptions into fact.
-
We can test all types of materials here on Earth. The important difference is not that there are new elements out there, but it is the ratios of them that are important. As we know the spectral lines of these materials here on Earth, then if we get the same spectral lines on some other body, then it is reasonable to assume that they are made form the same materials.
This is where I disagree. I don't think it's reasonable to assume any such thing. It's reasonable to hypothesize, if you're into that sort of scientific method, but until we have first-hand evidence I don't feel it's reasonable to assume anything.
-
We can test all types of materials here on Earth. The important difference is not that there are new elements out there, but it is the ratios of them that are important. As we know the spectral lines of these materials here on Earth, then if we get the same spectral lines on some other body, then it is reasonable to assume that they are made form the same materials.
This is where I disagree. I don't think it's reasonable to assume any such thing. It's reasonable to hypothesize, if you're into that sort of scientific method, but until we have first-hand evidence I don't feel it's reasonable to assume anything.
So if we make a measurement at one location, it is not reasonable to assume that it can occur at other locations. Does this mean that the experiments that Rowbotham did at the Bedford level don't really make any statement about the rest of the World?
Why would something as specific as Spectral lines, if shown to be the same in two samples, not be reasonable to have the same cause? Why, really I'd like to know.
The spectral lines in Spectroscopy are extremely precise. There has been no example where spectral lines have been shown to not match material found here on Earth. In fact, when they did this for the Sun, initially they got lines that didn't correspond to any element that was thought to exist here on Earth, but it did conform to the lines as predicted by atomic theory to the second element in the periodic table. They called this element Helium (from the Greek Helios, meaning Sun). Knowing this they began looking for Helium here on Earth (which they knew should be very rare due to gravity - yes, helium proves that we are not accelerating as a cause of "gravity") and they did find it. Ever had a helium Balloon? Well it is because of spectroscopy that we actually discover it and you could not have those balloons if spectroscopy didn't work.
So we know by direct observational evidence that Spectroscopy works, and that it can give us information about other objects that we can't directly touch. That information tells us a lot about those other objects, and violates predictions made from FET (and therefore count as evidence against FET).
-
So if we make a measurement at one location, it is not reasonable to assume that it can occur at other locations. Does this mean that the experiments that Rowbotham did at the Bedford level don't really make any statement about the rest of the World?
Why would something as specific as Spectral lines, if shown to be the same in two samples, not be reasonable to have the same cause? Why, really I'd like to know.
The spectral lines in Spectroscopy are extremely precise. There has been no example where spectral lines have been shown to not match material found here on Earth.
This is the kicker right here. I don't think there's any reason to assume that the results aren't skewed somehow when we point an instrument at some object in space.
So we know by direct observational evidence that Spectroscopy works, and that it can give us information about other objects that we can't directly touch. That information tells us a lot about those other objects, and violates predictions made from FET (and therefore count as evidence against FET).
Which predictions are you talking about?
-
So if we make a measurement at one location, it is not reasonable to assume that it can occur at other locations. Does this mean that the experiments that Rowbotham did at the Bedford level don't really make any statement about the rest of the World?
Why would something as specific as Spectral lines, if shown to be the same in two samples, not be reasonable to have the same cause? Why, really I'd like to know.
The spectral lines in Spectroscopy are extremely precise. There has been no example where spectral lines have been shown to not match material found here on Earth.
This is the kicker right here. I don't think there's any reason to assume that the results aren't skewed somehow when we point an instrument at some object in space.
There is no evidence that the lines are skewed at all, None. So based on evidence there is no reason not to reach that conclusion.
Also, we can track objects that have come from elsewhere in the solar system and if they hit Earth we can get those direct measurement. This has been done and we can see that they are made from the same stuff.
So we know by direct observational evidence that Spectroscopy works, and that it can give us information about other objects that we can't directly touch. That information tells us a lot about those other objects, and violates predictions made from FET (and therefore count as evidence against FET).
Which predictions are you talking about?
If you are claiming that the planets are not made of the Same stuff as Earth, then they would have different spectral lines.
Spectral lines are not just a colour, they are a very distinct band of many precise frequencies for each element that is unique as a finger print. What you are saying is that just by looking at something that is a distance away changes this unique fingerprint in such a way as to make it look like something else. It is like if you looked at my fingerprints and your finger prints up close and saw that they were different, then looked at your finger prints far away and found that for some magical reason they were now absolutely 100% identical to mine.
Read up abut it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
-
If it were somehow possibly to directly obtain a sample of Mars from the planet itself, and compare that sample's composition to the meteor's composition, and they matched, that would prove that Mars is at least partly composed of the same stuff the meteor is composed of.
Isn't that assuming that the theory behind the mechanisms used to determine the sample's composition is correct?
-
Which predictions are you talking about?
If you are claiming that the planets are not made of the Same stuff as Earth, then they would have different spectral lines.
Spectral lines are not just a colour, they are a very distinct band of many precise frequencies for each element that is unique as a finger print. What you are saying is that just by looking at something that is a distance away changes this unique fingerprint in such a way as to make it look like something else.
Not just that. I'm proposing that the planets are composed of some exotic material or materials that keep them buoyed above the earth. I actually don't think it's part of the general model but it's been something I've been trying to build on. I see your point though. Perhaps they are composed partly of elements we find on earth but still primarily (or just enough to make the difference) of these exotic materials, which are entirely alien to earth, and for some reason don't show up on spectography readings.
It is like if you looked at my fingerprints and your finger prints up close and saw that they were different, then looked at your finger prints far away and found that for some magical reason they were now absolutely 100% identical to mine.
LMAO. I think from millions of miles away it might be impossible to tell the difference between our fingerprints.
-
Which predictions are you talking about?
If you are claiming that the planets are not made of the Same stuff as Earth, then they would have different spectral lines.
Spectral lines are not just a colour, they are a very distinct band of many precise frequencies for each element that is unique as a finger print. What you are saying is that just by looking at something that is a distance away changes this unique fingerprint in such a way as to make it look like something else.
Not just that. I'm proposing that the planets are composed of some exotic material or materials that keep them buoyed above the earth. I actually don't think it's part of the general model but it's been something I've been trying to build on. I see your point though. Perhaps they are composed partly of elements we find on earth but still primarily (or just enough to make the difference) of these exotic materials, which are entirely alien to earth, and for some reason don't show up on spectography readings.
It is like if you looked at my fingerprints and your finger prints up close and saw that they were different, then looked at your finger prints far away and found that for some magical reason they were now absolutely 100% identical to mine.
LMAO. I think from millions of miles away it might be impossible to tell the difference between our fingerprints.
::) It was an analogy. ::)
Yes, we do not have a method of looking at fingerprints millions of kilometres away. But if we did, then the analogy stands.
The thing about spectroscopy is that it does allow us to look at something close up and far away and get the same readings. In the analogy it is like we really did have that device that allowed us to look at finger prints both close up and far away.
Since light travels from the object to us (or how could we see it?), then if the "Fingerprint" is in the structure of the light that reaches us, then we can look at that structure and use its uniqueness (the fingerprint) to identify it. If that uniqueness is based off some property of the source, then we can use that uniqueness to tell us about the source of that light.
That is what spectroscopy does. By using the light emitted (or reflected) from a surface, we can examine the properties of that light that would be changed by the properties of the source.
-
we can examine the properties of that light that would be changed by the properties of the source.
In addition to any properties of a medium.
-
In addition to any properties of a medium.
But there's no evidence that any medium between the Earth and the celestial objects should change the spectral lines of the light passing through it.
If you then take the observations of the planet's spectral lines as evidence that there is a line changing medium between the two objects, then all you've done is move the problem of why the planets has the same spectral lines when they behave differently to why the medium between the two adjusts spectral lines.
-
In addition to any properties of a medium.
But there's no evidence that any medium between the Earth and the celestial objects should change the spectral lines of the light passing through it.
Is there any evidence that any medium between the earth and the celestial bodies wouldn't change the spectral lines of the light passing through it?
-
Is there any evidence that any medium between the earth and the celestial bodies wouldn't change the spectral lines of the light passing through it?
No, in much the same way there isn't any evidence of a small teapot between Mars and Jupiter. None of the models suggest anything between the planet and celestial objects, so why should we simply assume such thing exists when a problem is found in the model?
My main problem is that that it doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it somewhere else. It may solve the question of why celestial light sources look the way they do, but it brings up the question of why whatever is there interferes in the way it does, and what caused it to be there in the first place.
-
In addition to any properties of a medium.
But there's no evidence that any medium between the Earth and the celestial objects should change the spectral lines of the light passing through it.
Is there any evidence that any medium between the earth and the celestial bodies wouldn't change the spectral lines of the light passing through it?
Could we not use spectroscopy to analyze the composition of a meteor before and after it hits the EArth? Would that not eliminate the variable of "properties of the medium"
And if this has been done someone please find the source
An intrigued
Cinlef
-
Could we not use spectroscopy to analyze the composition of a meteor before and after it hits the EArth? Would that not eliminate the variable of "properties of the medium"
And if this has been done someone please find the source
An intrigued
Cinlef
No, that has not been done. October of 2008 was the first and only time Astronomers were able to predict that a meteoroid would impact with the earth, and that one burned up before reaching the surface:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/meteor-predicte.html
-
Could we not use spectroscopy to analyze the composition of a meteor before and after it hits the EArth? Would that not eliminate the variable of "properties of the medium"
And if this has been done someone please find the source
An intrigued
Cinlef
No, that has not been done. October of 2008 was the first and only time Astronomers were able to predict that a meteoroid would impact with the earth, and that one burned up before reaching the surface:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/meteor-predicte.html
Good catch Tom.
But in theory is what I described was done, that would eliminate the whole issue of a distorting medium would it not?
I ask since it is likely that meteor prediction will be more accurate in the future increasing the odds of what I described occurring.
Though I suppose since NASA or some related agency is most likely the ones who would end up examining the meteor an argument can be made that confirming the spectroscopy results on Earth to the satisfaction of the FES would be difficult from a practical standpoint.....
A thoughtful
Cinlef
-
In addition to any properties of a medium.
But there's no evidence that any medium between the Earth and the celestial objects should change the spectral lines of the light passing through it.
Is there any evidence that any medium between the earth and the celestial bodies wouldn't change the spectral lines of the light passing through it?
Classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. I never want to see one of you FE proponents accuse someone of using logical fallacies again.
-
Classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. I never want to see one of you FE proponents accuse someone of using logical fallacies again.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't saying that it is proven that a medium would influence it, because we don't know that it wouldn't.
There was no attempt to prove anything (true or false) within that post, but instead he asked a question provoking investigation. When a scientist conducts an experiment, he looks for every variable that can change in order to eliminate the unnecessary variables. If anything, he is helping to set guidelines for experimentation. Cinlef then took Roundy's concern of a possible contaminating variable, into account when he devised his experiment.
-
Just had a little poke around on the Internet. Seems some people managed to get a spectral analysis of the Sudan meteorite, although I don't know if anyone has found a piece that survived re-entry yet.
After positional information, the next challenge was to obtain spectral data -- information on the color of the object, which would help to classify it and determine its origin. The first I heard of such data being captured successfully was from this item on the MPML by Alan Fitzsimmons and coworkers at Armagh Observatory: "We obtained optical spectra of 2008 TC3 using the 4.2m William Herschel Telescope and ISIS spectrograph on Oct 6.93-6.94UT. The spectra cover the range 546-995nm at a resolution of 4nm. Initial analysis of the spectra via comparison with the solar analogue 16CygB reveals a featureless reflectance spectrum with no indication of the silicate absorption feature longward of 800nm."