Here is my question: how do you (RE-ers who use that argument) know that GPS satellites are not natural celestial objects (some invisible, very slow-moving "star"). Let me explain: What we call GPS satellites actually don't respond to any queries sent from the consumer devices.Nobody is suggesting they do. The satellites broadcast messages that the devices passively receive.
They only tell the time (in some very cryptical manner) that GPS devices can decipher.There is nothing cryptic about it - it's just a datetime stamp in UTC format.
So, GPS devices compute the distance from them to the "satellites" using the time it took the radio-waves to travel that distance, and compute their location using some complicated mathsIt's not that complicated.
I realize that this begs the question of how the "clocks" stay synchronized.The satellites all use extremely accurate atomic clocks - they don't need to synchronise.
. Like I've said, they send some very cryptical information, that is, each of them "communicates" the time differently, and GPS devices can recognize which "satellite" it is and decrypt that.No, all the satellites use the same message format.
Second counter-argument might be, well, that this is essentially a conspiracy theory. Well, the reason companies don't want to admit that they don't actually control those satellites is probably money they get from the government to "sustain satellites". And since GPS devices have been on the market, nobody decided to shut down the system just to show that they can (And I am not claiming this is a proof, just merely an explanation. I know that, if the earth is round, they would really have reasons not to do that).I can't really follow what you are trying to say here?? What does this mean "... how do those stars that emit radio-waves based on the time work."? What stars?
The third counter-argument is probably that I have no explanation for how do those stars that emit radio-waves based on the time work. Well, you are essentially falling into the same trap that creationists do. Just because we can't explain how something works or was formed naturally, doesn't mean it was created.
I've seen the International Space Station with my own eyes through my telescope. It's really there and looks exactly the same as the images you've seen.
Or a projection:I've seen the International Space Station with my own eyes through my telescope. It's really there and looks exactly the same as the images you've seen.Get ready to be called a government paid shill, a lier, drunk when you saw it, you misidentified it.
Being inspired by such RET creativity, we might, for example, humbly hypothesize that using modern laser projectors, governments of Earth can draw any constellations in the sky and imitate "ISS", "spaceships", "comets", "asteroids"... whatever they please. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[nb]
Dig yourself in that direction and in the literature you'll find curious descriptions of some peculiar experiments, in which the government agencies were producing fumes, vapours etc. in the upper atmospheric layers, many years ago. How do you think, why they were doing that? Do you think they've stopped doing that? Do you think they're telling the public everything they are doing? Why, for example, noctilucent clouds were so seldom, if ever, noticed before the 20th century?These noctilucent clouds of course.
The satellites all use extremely accurate atomic clocks - they don't need to synchronise.Correction:
Look at it this way: A few years before the first launch, scientists figure out the exact mechanics and orbits that would be required. A few years later, an object with the exact same mechanics and orbit predicted appears - and every single nation, including sworn enemies of the nation responsible for the launch, admit that it was indeed a real satellite.How do you know all of that? I mean, there weren't any consumer devices back then. Also, there is nothing we can do now to test that.
In addition to that, we already know that large orbital objects exist as more than just points of light. As many before me have brought up, you can (With a powerful telescope) see the International Space Station and make out surprisingly fine details.I don't believe that those powerful telescopes even exist. I think they are kept at a high price just so nobody would try to buy them and that they could keep the conspiracy going. But soon enough, it will become very obvious.
Nobody is suggesting they do. The satellites broadcast messages that the devices passively receive.Well, before reading about the GPS on Wikipedia, I used to think that the devices are not just passive receivers.
There is nothing cryptic about it - it's just a datetime stamp in UTC format.
The satellites all use extremely accurate atomic clocks - they don't need to synchronise.
No, all the satellites use the same message format.If you had read the Wikipedia page about GPS (as I have), you wouldn't have such misconceptions.
I can't really follow what you are trying to say here?? What does this mean "... how do those stars that emit radio-waves based on the time work."? What stars?Pseudolites.
I've seen the International Space Station with my own eyes through my telescope. It's really there and looks exactly the same as the images you've seen.First, how do you know that it indeed was ISS and not something natural? To me, anything seems more likely than that there are people in some man-made machine that breaks almost all the laws of nature we are used to. And, I want an honest answer, do you think that they would be able to see you with that telescope even though they are 300 miles up in the sky?
Luke 22:35-38 & rabinoz: You are trying to emotionally abuse FE-ers, right? Well, that's because you realize you don't have any rational defense for your beliefs.I have a completely rational defense for my beliefs. Though I often don't feel the need to waste too much time answering some way out ideas from people like our dear "Humble_Scientist", who completely ignore any evidence presented!
Dear Rabinoz,Highlights are mine!
If I am not mistaken, your question was, how and why we can see certain stars in the sky. I am just trying to help you, providing useful (I hope) hints. I do not want to exert any intellectual or propaganda pressure on you, for it could hamper and distort your mental development. I mean, if you are really interested in finding a suitable answer to your question, let your brain itself find it in the most natural and least painful way. I am not going to do any harm to you. Just relax and let the truth gradually penetrate your mind.
Please note that the very fact you are here and speaking to me - means you do doubt your current perception of your life and the Universe. You do feel there's something wrong, you are trying to find a solution to your problems, and that is why you are posting here. There is no reason to deny that. There is nothing shameful in that. We all learn.
One problem with gps transmitters being natural is that they also send out their location, which changes as the orbit.It doesn't. They are supposed to be moving around the Earth at the same speed as the Earth spins. And it is called geostationary. On the FE (which doesn't spin), they simply aren't moving.
This has been answered, but GPS satellites are not "stationary over the equator" - geostationary - this is at an altitude of about 35,786 km (22,236 miles). GPS satellites orbit at an altitude of about 20,200 km (12,550 miles) and each orbits the earth twice a day.QuoteOne problem with gps transmitters being natural is that they also send out their location, which changes as the orbit.It doesn't. They are supposed to be moving around the Earth at the same speed as the Earth spins. And it is called geostationary. On the FE (which doesn't spin), they simply aren't moving.
rabinoz:Well, I'll try! Yes to this part, but the air pressure can be reduced significantly without risk. Passenger aircraft are supposed to be pressurised to the equivalent of not higher than 2,400 m (8,000 ft). The air pressure here is about 75.3 kPa (10.9 psi) - compared to sea-level 101 kPa (14.7 psi). A lower pressure puts less stress on the aircraft structure, but passenger comfort (yes, I get ear problems on landing!) is important.
Really? Well, here is a question I ask when debating FE in a real life. Nobody has been able to give a sensical response, they all just start to attack me for not being a scientist. Here we go: If there is no gravitational acceleration, the air pressure should be zero. Air pressure is simply hydrostatic pressure (p=rho*g*h). So, if g is 0, so should be p, right? And people die when the air pressure lowers just slightly.
So, how could people, that is, astronauts on ISS, possibly survive zero g?You are correct, as you say, there is no air outside the ISS (or very little outside extreme altitude aircraft or balloons) to ventilate from. The only way to increase the "dynamic pressure" is increase the temperature. Also you can't distinguish between "dynamic pressure" and "static pressure" - it's all just pressure - Boyles law etc, etc.
Here is my list of possible responses and why I think they are wrong:
1. They create pressure using ventilation.
They can't. You can only lower the pressure with a ventilation. In every point in a path of a single particle the sum of dynamic pressure and static pressure should be equal. So if you increase the dynamic pressure (the kinetic energy of the particles), the static pressure actually lowers, and not increases.
2. They create pressure by compressing air using the walls of the ISS.This IS sort of the way it is done! The ISS is completely sealed and the atmosphere is kept at very close to that on the earth's surface, ie 101 kPa (14.7 psi) an 21% oxygen[1]. The air is filtered and regenerated as much as possible, but must be topped up with oxygen cylinders from re-supply missions (which also supplies fuel for re-orbiting when necessary).
Well, keep this in mind: outside of the ISS, there is zero pressure. Inside, there is then atmospheric pressure. What force would be acting on that wall (and the bigger area this wall has, the stronger the force is)? I am pretty certain no material could sustain that! Also, shouldn't then the air in the ISS be much denser than the air here on the Earth? After all, we all know that p*V=n*R*T. If it is, how come would the astronauts survive?!
3. They survive because the pressure of air inside them is also zero (it gradually decreases when they travel to the ISS).
So, how could they possibly breathe then? I mean, look, breathing is possible because, when the volume of air inside the lungs increases, the static pressure decreases. But, since the sum of statical and dynamical pressure has to stay constant, the air flows into the lungs. And when the volume of lungs decreases, exactly the opposite happens and the air flows away from the lungs. And if the static pressure is always zero, that simply couldn't happen.
So, what are the other possibilities (or maybe one of my refutations is wrong)?
You are trying to debunk a system, yet you haven't any idea how it works. ::)QuoteOne problem with gps transmitters being natural is that they also send out their location, which changes as the orbit.It doesn't. They are supposed to be moving around the Earth at the same speed as the Earth spins. And it is called geostationary. On the FE (which doesn't spin), they simply aren't moving.
QuoteLook at it this way: A few years before the first launch, scientists figure out the exact mechanics and orbits that would be required. A few years later, an object with the exact same mechanics and orbit predicted appears - and every single nation, including sworn enemies of the nation responsible for the launch, admit that it was indeed a real satellite.How do you know all of that? I mean, there weren't any consumer devices back then. Also, there is nothing we can do now to test that.QuoteIn addition to that, we already know that large orbital objects exist as more than just points of light. As many before me have brought up, you can (With a powerful telescope) see the International Space Station and make out surprisingly fine details.I don't believe that those powerful telescopes even exist. I think they are kept at a high price just so nobody would try to buy them and that they could keep the conspiracy going. But soon enough, it will become very obvious.QuoteNobody is suggesting they do. The satellites broadcast messages that the devices passively receive.Well, before reading about the GPS on Wikipedia, I used to think that the devices are not just passive receivers.QuoteThere is nothing cryptic about it - it's just a datetime stamp in UTC format.QuoteThe satellites all use extremely accurate atomic clocks - they don't need to synchronise.QuoteNo, all the satellites use the same message format.If you had read the Wikipedia page about GPS (as I have), you wouldn't have such misconceptions.QuoteI can't really follow what you are trying to say here?? What does this mean "... how do those stars that emit radio-waves based on the time work."? What stars?Pseudolites.QuoteI've seen the International Space Station with my own eyes through my telescope. It's really there and looks exactly the same as the images you've seen.First, how do you know that it indeed was ISS and not something natural? To me, anything seems more likely than that there are people in some man-made machine that breaks almost all the laws of nature we are used to. And, I want an honest answer, do you think that they would be able to see you with that telescope even though they are 300 miles up in the sky?
Luke 22:35-38 & rabinoz: You are trying to emotionally abuse FE-ers, right? Well, that's because you realize you don't have any rational defense for your beliefs.
And I know nobody of you is an ICT expert, nobody answered me this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64277.0#.VsOPeum0JEc (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64277.0#.VsOPeum0JEc)
This has been answered, but GPS satellites are not "stationary over the equator" - geostationary - this is at an altitude of about 35,786 km (22,236 miles). GPS satellites orbit at an altitude of about 20,200 km (12,550 miles) and each orbits the earth twice a day.OK, my bad. I should've checked it. I will do it in the future. I've no idea how I could have missed that part.
Passenger aircraft are supposed to be pressurised to the equivalent of not higher than 2,400 m (8,000 ft). The air pressure here is about 75.3 kPa (10.9 psi) - compared to sea-level 101 kPa (14.7 psi).
Everest has been climbed without oxygen (around 32 kPa or 6 psi).Your argument here is incoherent. The airplanes fly higher than Mount Everest, so the pressure on their altitude CAN'T be higher than at Mount Everest. Airplanes fly in so-called tropopause.
You are correct, as you say, there is no air outside the ISS (or very little outside extreme altitude aircraft or balloons) to ventilate from.Do you have any idea how the ventilators work? They work by making the air circulate. They don't have to have any air coming form outside.
The only way to increase the "dynamic pressure" is increase the temperature.Of course not. The kinetic energy (also called dynamic pressure) of a particle in a fluid can be increased also by the fluids movement. Didn't you learn about the Bernoulli's equation in the school?
Also you can't distinguish between "dynamic pressure" and "static pressure" - it's all just pressure - Boyles law etc, etc.You couldn't be more wrong. Look, imagine that you have two connected pipes with different diameters. Now, let some water flow threw them. Try to measure pressure on them both (using a manometer). I guarantee you that the pressure you are going to gage in the thiner pipe is lower. But, see, that's only because you measured only the static pressure. The total pressure is exactly the same (Bernoulli's principle), just the water flows faster in the thiner pipe increasing the dynamical pressure and thereby decreasing the static pressure. Sorry to tell you, but you've shown a complete lack of knowledge of physics.
Strangely enough weight is not quite the problem in the ISS structure as in commercial aircraft. Yes, you are correct that there are large forces on the walls, but that is not a particular problem. You should note that the ISS is much smaller in diameter (though longer) than the largest passenger aircraft.Yet, at the same time, you claim that the atmospheric pressure on the airplanes is only 25% less than the pressure on the surface and that there is no air outside the ISS. Well, using that information, you can deduce that the pressure acting on the wall of ISS is FOUR TIMES (100%/25%) grater than the pressure acting on the wall of an airplane (remember that forces are vectors?).
No, as you note yourself no-one can survive zero pressure.You still haven't refuted a statement that there MUST BE ZERO PRESSURE at the ISS. Also, your premise is false, there are animals who can survive zero pressure over a short period of time. Humans can't.
Remember that crew can spend long periods in the ISS.Circular logic! If I wasn't clear enough, I am arguing that ISS is impossible.
You "option 2" is the closest. The ISS is pressurised to close to sea-level conditions.You saying so doesn't make it so. As I've shown, that option is epistemically impossible (at least to me, and I guess to all of you).
I'll finish with E&OE - Errors and Omissions Expected!Look, you are one of the worst apologetics any ideology has ever had! You are asking me to believe something that is epistemically impossible only because of your blind assertions and circular arguments!
QuoteLook at it this way: A few years before the first launch, scientists figure out the exact mechanics and orbits that would be required. A few years later, an object with the exact same mechanics and orbit predicted appears - and every single nation, including sworn enemies of the nation responsible for the launch, admit that it was indeed a real satellite.How do you know all of that? I mean, there weren't any consumer devices back then. Also, there is nothing we can do now to test that.QuoteIn addition to that, we already know that large orbital objects exist as more than just points of light. As many before me have brought up, you can (With a powerful telescope) see the International Space Station and make out surprisingly fine details.I don't believe that those powerful telescopes even exist. I think they are kept at a high price just so nobody would try to buy them and that they could keep the conspiracy going. But soon enough, it will become very obvious.QuoteNobody is suggesting they do. The satellites broadcast messages that the devices passively receive.Well, before reading about the GPS on Wikipedia, I used to think that the devices are not just passive receivers.QuoteThere is nothing cryptic about it - it's just a datetime stamp in UTC format.QuoteThe satellites all use extremely accurate atomic clocks - they don't need to synchronise.QuoteNo, all the satellites use the same message format.If you had read the Wikipedia page about GPS (as I have), you wouldn't have such misconceptions.QuoteI can't really follow what you are trying to say here?? What does this mean "... how do those stars that emit radio-waves based on the time work."? What stars?Pseudolites.QuoteI've seen the International Space Station with my own eyes through my telescope. It's really there and looks exactly the same as the images you've seen.First, how do you know that it indeed was ISS and not something natural? To me, anything seems more likely than that there are people in some man-made machine that breaks almost all the laws of nature we are used to. And, I want an honest answer, do you think that they would be able to see you with that telescope even though they are 300 miles up in the sky?
Luke 22:35-38 & rabinoz: You are trying to emotionally abuse FE-ers, right? Well, that's because you realize you don't have any rational defense for your beliefs.
And I know nobody of you is an ICT expert, nobody answered me this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64277.0#.VsOPeum0JEc (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64277.0#.VsOPeum0JEc)
Of course I know how high passenger aircraft fly! But I said "pressurised to the equivalent of not higher than 2,400 m (8,000 ft)". We are not talking about the air pressure outside the aircraft, but the pressure in the cabin - pressurised!QuotePassenger aircraft are supposed to be pressurised to the equivalent of not higher than 2,400 m (8,000 ft). The air pressure here is about 75.3 kPa (10.9 psi) - compared to sea-level 101 kPa (14.7 psi).QuoteEverest has been climbed without oxygen (around 32 kPa or 6 psi).Your argument here is incoherent. The airplanes fly higher than Mount Everest, so the pressure on their altitude CAN'T be higher than at Mount Everest. Airplanes fly in so-called tropopause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropopause#Phenomena (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropopause#Phenomena)
Maybe I'm no expert on fluid mechanics! It was only a small part of study some 60 years ago, but yes, I know about Bernoulli and osmotic pressure! But, what is the slightest relevance of these to the pressure inside the ISS?QuoteThe only way to increase the "dynamic pressure" is increase the temperature.Of course not. The kinetic energy (also called dynamic pressure) of a particle in a fluid can be increased also by the fluids movement.QuoteAlso you can't distinguish between "dynamic pressure" and "static pressure" - it's all just pressure - Boyles law etc, etc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .but you've shown a complete lack of knowledge of physics.
Yes, "forces are vectors", so what? You say "the pressure acting on the wall of ISS is FOUR TIMES (100%/25%) grater (sic)" If you want to be so fussy 10.9 psi pressurisation and 3.47 psi outside pressure (at 35,000 ft), a difference of 7.54 psi cf 14.7 at sea level. I believe that makes it less than 2 TIMESQuoteStrangely enough weight is not quite the problem in the ISS structure as in commercial aircraft. Yes, you are correct that there are large forces on the walls, but that is not a particular problem. You should note that the ISS is much smaller in diameter (though longer) than the largest passenger aircraft.Yet, at the same time, you claim that the atmospheric pressure on the airplanes is only 25% less than the pressure on the surface and that there is no air outside the ISS. Well, using that information, you can deduce that the pressure acting on the wall of ISS is FOUR TIMES (100%/25%) grater than the pressure acting on the wall of an airplane (remember that forces are vectors?).
Also, where did you get those informations about the comparison of the dimensions of the worlds largest airplane and the size of the ISS? Sorry, I just couldn't find it by Googling, so I guess you just made it up.
So, your statement is not only a blind assertion, but also contrary to what you've said before.
Look, basic common sense, ISS has many more machines in it, so it's area must be way greater than the area of an airplane. And just like a balloon breaks when you increase its area and pressure in it by blowing the compressed air in it, the same should happen to the walls of ISS. I know that ISS walls probably can sustain greater forces than a balloon could, but we ARE talking about the forces that are by the orders of magnitude greater (force being the product of the pressure and the area).
Object | Length | Diameter | Comment |
Zvezda module: | 13.1 m | 4.35 m | combination of spheres and canisters. |
Laboratory Destiny: | 8.4 m | 4.2 m | |
Boeing 747-8F: | 70.66 m | Fuselage width 6.36 m approx | |
Airbus A380: | 72.72 m | Fuselage width 7.14 m |
You still haven't refuted a statement that there MUST BE ZERO PRESSURE at the ISS.Why would I refute( rubbish about Tardigrades)QuoteRemember that crew can spend long periods in the ISS.
Circular logic! If I wasn't clear enough, I am arguing that ISS is impossible.QuoteYou "option 2" is the closest. The ISS is pressurised to close to sea-level conditions.You saying so doesn't make it so. As I've shown, that option is epistemically impossible (at least to me, and I guess to all of you).
Look, you are one of the worst apologetics any ideology has ever had! You are asking me to believe something that is epistemically impossible only because of your blind assertions and circular arguments!
Re: Highest altitude of ConcordeThe air pressure at 70,000 feet (21,357 m) is 4.9 kPa or about 0.045 atmospheres! The Concorde was not a big as the ISS, but there is so little difference in pressure between 0.045 atmospheres at 0.00 atmospheres that it makes no difference to the design strength needed.
I remember talking to an ex Concorde FO years ago and while talking about Concorde's fastest Atlantic crossing, he said that the aircraft in general just wanted to go higher and higher and faster and faster.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .In 1998 when I flew from EXT to LHR onboard G-BOAC, we had an extra flight engineer onboard to talk to the passengers and when we asked him what was the highest altitude the aircraft flew at, he replied the magic number of 70,000 feet.
However, that's irrelevant to this discussion. The satellites don't actually emit information about their location. That is calculated by the GPS device (the receiver).Well, that's a new one. Discount Chemist is trying to relate not using clocks to GPS, but now...transmitters don't send out their position...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNSS_positioning_calculation#Calculation_steps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNSS_positioning_calculation#Calculation_steps)
Stop talking rubbish about "Tardigrades", we are talking about people!
And what do you claim: "The ISS is pressurised to ?"
And what "Circular logic!" ?
What on earth are you talking about with As I've shown, that option is epistemically impossible (at least to me, and I guess to all of you).
You have shown nothing of the sort! All you have shown is that you don't know how do do it!
I must be slow! In your post you posed what seemed like questions which I answered in good faith, then get is all thrown back in my face. The trouble is you know nothing of engineering design or capabilities!OK, sorry, I was trolling a lot (red herring and quote mining). But you really can't blame me. Just put yourself in the FE-er's shoes, just for a second. What do you see? You see smart people believing something that you see every day with your own eyes that it is wrong. You naturally try to talk about it with them and change it. But they use all of their intelligence to defend the indefensible position. How does that make you feel? I mean, it really makes me feel furious. Sorry about that, but that's simply the human nature. If I try to change myself, I just feel guilty.
Maybe I am "one of the worst apologetics any ideology has ever had! ", but your lack of understanding is abysmal.
Of course I know how high passenger aircraft fly! But I said "pressurised to the equivalent of not higher than 2,400 m (8,000 ft)". We are not talking about the air pressure outside the aircraft, but the pressure in the cabin - pressurised!
Yes, "forces are vectors", so what? You say "the pressure acting on the wall of ISS is FOUR TIMES (100%/25%) grater (sic)" If you want to be so fussy 10.9 psi pressurisation and 3.47 psi outside pressure (at 35,000 ft), a difference of 7.54 psi cf 14.7 at sea level. I believe that makes it less than 2 TIMESSorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. English is not my first language. But I don't think that that's entirely my fault, since you said:
Passenger aircraft are supposed to be pressurised...You should've said something like: "The pressure in the cabin is kept at…". Besides that, the word "pressurised" is not even in my dictionary.
Maybe I'm no expert on fluid mechanics! It was only a small part of study some 60 years ago, but yes, I know about Bernoulli and osmotic pressure! But, what is the slightest relevance of these to the pressure inside the ISS?I explained what I meant, but I don't blame you if you didn't read that. Namely, they claim that ISS is able to turn urine back into water using the same method that we use to desalinate water. Well, I've read in my chemistry textbook that we do that by putting the semipermeable membrane between the salt and sweet water and then putting something on that salt water to increase its pressure above the osmotic pressure. But in zero-g, that is completely unfeasible, isn't it?
Context, context! I believed we were talking about possible ways to increase the pressure inside the ISS and apart from anything else how is the "dynamic pressure" due to a high velocity going to help anyone breath - or osmotic pressure?I had assumed you had those same misconceptions about physics people I talked to in real life had. These people seem to honestly believe that you can increase the pressure by making the air circulate, that people are able to survive zero pressure if the pressure is decreased gradually, that you can desalinate water using filter-paper, and so on. And that really annoys me, and when I try to explain to them why it is wrong, they usually just attack me for not being a scientist and they don't trust me.
You are really low! just because you could not find the information "Sorry, I just couldn't find it by Googling, so I guess you just made it up." That is your failure, not mine!I still have no bright idea how did you calculate the total area from that data.
partly from" http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/179225main_ISS_Poster_Back.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/179225main_ISS_Poster_Back.pdf)
The modules are shaped like canisters and spheres.
I know the pressure is the other direction, but the pressure at the test depth of some submarines (950 ft) is about 28 atmospheres! The test pressure on LPG transports is about 17 atmospheres. Yes I know that weight is less of a problem, but the ISS is pressurised to 1 atmosphere not 28!So, you are claiming that submarines are pressured with 28 atmospheres. Well, to me, that seems very unlikely. First of all, as a FE-er, I am not allowed to believe in submarines until I see enough evidence of them. As far as I am concerned, I've heard only the stories about them. When I tell things like that to people in real life, they consider me crazy, but, to me, that's not a proof of any kind. Second of all, even if they do exist, it is still unlikely that they endure pressure of 28 bars. That hydrostatic pressure would only occur at around 285 meters. I've calculated it using p(h)=rho*g*h. The atmospheric pressure inside the submarine and above the see cancel each other out. Density (rho) of water is around 1000, g is 9.81 and one bar of pressure is equivalent to 10ˆ5 Pascals (so, p(h) is 28*10ˆ5). If you don't trust me, solve the equation. And the actual depth at which that pressure would be total is significantly lower. First of all, it is decreased by the buoyancy. And the buoyancy force is proportional to the volume of that submarine. So, the pressure is decreased by p(u)=rho*g*V/S (I don't know if that formula is correct, I deduced it from F(u)=rho*g*V and p=F/S. If you think that it's wrong, tell me.) I can't calculate it because I don't know neither the volume (V) neither the area (S) of that submarine. Also, even if the submarine somehow reaches that depth, it will probably be moving very fast. And the formula of the dynamic pressure is p(d)=rho*vˆ2/2. (I have no intuitive explanation for why it would be exactly that, but it doesn't contradict my experience) So, the pressure acting on it is also going to be decreased by the dynamic pressure, and it grows very fast compared to the speed. In fact, I've calculated that a submarine of dimensions 1x1x1 meter (and I guess the actual submarines are much bigger) moving at 3m/s (and I guess the actual submarines move a lot faster) relatively to the water would have to go as deep as 390 meters to achieve that pressure of 28 atmospheres. I have never even heard of someone claiming that they go that deep. And the depth is greater (thanks for correcting my spelling of that word, BTW) the greater the volume and speed is. Third of all, it really isn't a good analogy. I mean, the pressure an object can endure is affected by the shape of that object and by the direction at which that pressure is acting on (from the inside or the outside). Most of the people, including you, already know that, but are not aware to what extent. A chick is able to break the shell of an egg using only its beak, while a chicken can literally lie on that egg without breaking it. And ISS is supposed to be made mostly of spheres, right? Well, that should be impossible!
Why would I refuteIf I wasn't clear, I am sorry, I was saying that it is impossible to KEEP any pressure close to the atmospheric inside the ISS.
"there MUST BE ZERO PRESSURE at the ISS."
? At an altitude of 400 km the air pressure is near enough to ZERO - who's arguing?
My statement "Remember that crew can spend long periods in the ISS." was to justify the sea level pressurisation and not the 8,000 ft pressurisation used in commercial aircraft, nothing more!
I would not claim to know how to do it either, but the engineers that design aircraft, etc do know!Here we go again! That's one of the stupidest RE arguments, yet one of the most common. I mean no disrespect to you, hey, I was once a RE-er using exactly that argument. Look, I realize that nobody knows everything. I realize that there might be something that I think I know but that isn't true, and that that leads me to the wrong conclusion. But can't you at least TRY to reach the truth?! You had been in school for decade(s), so why shouldn't you be allowed to use what you had learned?
The air pressure at 70,000 feet (21,357 m) is 4.9 kPa or about 0.045 atmospheres! The Concorde was not a big as the ISS, but there is so little difference in pressure between 0.045 atmospheres at 0.00 atmospheres that it makes no difference to the design strength needed.So, let me try to rephrase that story: The airplane started to move uncontrollably and they think they reached some impossible altitude, but somehow they survived. Wow! Well, I know that's against all odds. Let's for the sake of argument assume that airplanes exist. Does that mean that this story is true? Well, no. It could be made up to be sold to the newspapers. And let's assume that this is true, that people who wrote this story truly believed that. What is more likely: that they were deceived by the instruments or that they really reached the altitude they thought was impossible?
Engineering saying:Of course they want us to think that. But you, if you want to reach the truth, should ask for a proof. I know that people would consider you crazy. But you will still win the vast majority of debates. And that will give you a great pleasure. When I try to talk people out of believing in airplanes, for example, they ridicule me. They ask me even to visit a psychiatrist. But, when asked, they have to admit they have never seen an airplane, yet alone flown in it, and that they really have no rational justification for believing in them. Yet they still think I am irrational. Well, every truth passes through three stages of acceptance: ridicule, serious opposition and acceptance. And, so, I know that, if airplanes really don't exist, they will accept that and consider me the smartest man on the planet. And if they do, OK, I will be ridiculed once again, but only for a short time.
Difficulties handled immediately, Impossibilities take a little longer
You believe what you like, but from what I can see you fail to back it with any actual facts!What do you mean by that? I mean, come on, aren't the laws of physics facts? And, you know what, when I ask that in real life, they just attack me. One of my friends told me: "If you honestly believe that, why don't you do some experiments with manometers in an anti-gravity chamber and win a nobel prize?" And when I explained to him that anti-gravity chambers don't exist and that manometers wouldn't work on zero-gravity, he started whining about how rude and arrogant I am. But, hey, do you know how much pleasure I felt winning that debate?
However, that's irrelevant to this discussion. The satellites don't actually emit information about their location. That is calculated by the GPS device (the receiver).Read step 2. ::)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNSS_positioning_calculation#Calculation_steps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNSS_positioning_calculation#Calculation_steps)
Wow, I did not read that wall of text, but I did skim over it. It looks like you are being an honest RE'er.It really would be a good idea to indicate which post you are referring to! The previous post was:
Anyway, tl;dr
OK, rabinoz, you are right, I will try not to be rude when talking about FET any more.If it's that one then "FlatEarthDenial " is most certainly not a RE'er.
. . . . . . . . . . .
This is getting too long to include it all, so I will delete some.Then I can only agree with you and apologise, but I was trying to reply to an earlier tl;dr "wall of text".
Nuff said!
OK, rabinoz, you are right, I will try not to be rude when talking about FET any more.
Passenger aircraft are supposed to be pressurised...
You should've said something like: "The pressure in the cabin is kept at…". Besides that, the word "pressurised" is not even in my dictionary.
No, I should not have said "The pressure in the cabin is kept at…". maybe I could has said "Passenger aircraft are required to be pressurised...", Airlines are "supposed" or "required" to keep the cabin pressure at not more than the equivalent of not more than 8,000 ft, BUT how do I know that they always do? You are supposed to drive your car below the speed limit, but I doubt that you always do!
BTW "pressurised" is British or Australian spelling "pressurized" is the US one - the like their "Zees".
. . . . . Namely, they claim that ISS is able to turn urine back into water using the same method that we use to desalinate water. Well, I've read in my chemistry textbook that we do that by putting the semipermeable membrane between the salt and sweet water and then putting something on that salt water to increase its pressure above the osmotic pressure. But in zero-g, that is completely unfeasible, isn't it?
That is the basic "reverse osmosis" process, but why would you say "But in zero-g, that is completely unfeasible, isn't it?" zero-g has nothing to do with the process. The pressure is applied by a pump, not gravity.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
The modules are shaped like canisters and spheres.
I still have no bright idea how did you calculate the total area from that data.
I was not expecting you to want calculate "total area"?
. . . . . . . . . .
I know the pressure is the other direction, but the pressure at the test depth of some submarines (950 ft) is about 28 atmospheres! The test pressure on LPG transports is about 17 atmospheres. Yes I know that weight is less of a problem, but the ISS is pressurised to 1 atmosphere not 28!
So, you are claiming that submarines are pressured with 28 atmospheres. Well, to me, that seems very unlikely. First of all, as a FE-er, I am not allowed to believe in submarines until I see enough evidence of them. As far as I am concerned, I've heard only the stories about them.
No, the pressure in submarines is around atmospheric.
My wording "but the ISS is pressurised to 1 atmosphere not 28" was not the best. I meant that the pressure difference between the inside and outside is much higher in the submarine than in the ISS - my apologies.
. . . . . . . That hydrostatic pressure would only occur at around 285 meters . . . . .
About right, remember it's salt water, and yes that is the depth test for the Los Angeles Class (I think) nuclear submarine.
. . . . . . I can't calculate it because I don't know neither the volume (V) neither the area (S) of that submarine. Also, even if the submarine somehow reaches that depth, it will probably be moving very fast.
The "dynamic pressure" will depend greatly on the hull shape - I guess neither you nor I could calculate that. As for speed, I don't that the US would say but the Russians claimed to have followed a Los Angeles Class nuclear submarine at over 55 kph!
. . . . . . I mean, the pressure an object can endure is affected by the shape of that object and by the direction at which that pressure is acting on (from the inside or the outside). . . . . . .
To be clear, I don't believe in airplanes either, they just happen to make the FET easier to defend.
To the bit about shape, yes! To the rest, better I don't comment!Quote from: FlatEarthDenialIf I wasn't clear, I am sorry, I was saying that it is impossible to KEEP any pressure close to the atmospheric inside the ISS.Quote from: rabinozWell, I don't see that you (or I for that matter) are really qualified to definitively answer that. But for me all the evidence seems to indicate that the ISS can be kept at 1 atmos.Quote from: FlatEarthDenial. . . . . . . . . .Quote from: rabinozThe air pressure at 70,000 feet (21,357 m) is 4.9 kPa or about 0.045 atmospheres! The Concorde was not a big as the ISS, but there is so little difference in pressure between 0.045 atmospheres at 0.00 atmospheres that it makes no difference to the design strength needed.Quote from: FlatEarthDenialSo, let me try to rephrase that story: The airplane started to move uncontrollably and they think they reached some impossible altitude, but somehow they survived.Quote from: rabinozWhat on earth are you talking about? The Concorde regularly flew at 60,000 ft, but has flown as high as 70,000 ft, end of story! Where did "move uncontrollably" come in! You do imagine the most outlandish things.Quote from: FlatEarthDenial. . . . . . . What is more likely: that they were deceived by the instruments or that they really reached the altitude they thought was impossible?Quote from: rabinozBoy, what an imagination!Quote from: FlatEarthDenial. . . . . . . . . . . If airplanes exist, they are too complicated for anyone to understand exactly how they work (each part). . . . . . . . . . how could the instruments show that they are higher than possible, that doesn't mean that the RE . . . . . . . . . .Quote from: rabinozNobody ever said that "the instruments show that they are higher than possible"! - except you.Quote from: FlatEarthDenialWhen I try to talk people out of believing in airplanes, for example, they ridicule me.Quote from: rabinozNo, I pity you. There is absolutely no point my saying anything to you as you will be forced to call me an out right liar because aeroplanes do exist. I have seen at least hundreds, and flown in dozens.Quote from: FlatEarthDenialQuote from: rabinozYou believe what you like, but from what I can see you fail to back it with any actual facts!Quote from: FlatEarthDenialWhat do you mean by that? I mean, come on, aren't the laws of physics facts?Quote from: rabinozNo, the "Laws of Physics" are not "facts". Though my argument was that you application of them didn't disprove anything!
The "Laws of Physics" are used to explains the "facts" we observe.
back in the 1687 came out with his "Laws of Motion". They described the facts as he knew them about motion.
But, from 1905 on Einstein comes along and extends them to apply to velocities approaching light speed. If Newtons "Laws" were "facts" they could hardly have been changed. Also Newton was not "wrong", in that his Laws explained quite well any motion he was able to observe. Also in his time velocity of light was thought infinite!Quote from: FlatEarthDenial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And I really shouldn't even be attempting to prove that ISS doesn't exist. The burden on proof is definitely on you. Don't take it as an attack, take it as a fact.
Anyway, I would suggest we get back to the topic of the GPS.Quote from: rabinozOK, let's finish on the "fact" that in my opinion there is so much evidence that the ISS, GPS satellites and Geostationary exist that there can be little doubt of there existence!And get back to the topic of the GPS.
What? I think you messed up your quotes, there, Rabby.Almost certainly! I removed all the nesting, though I think I have still ascribed the right stuff to whom it belonged! (I hope). In any case that "converstaion" was getting too out of hand.
Hey wait a minute, don't Flathead Earthers claim space is fake? So what would a "natural" object looking like the ISS be doing in a fake, non-existent outerspace? Unless it's on the INSIDE of the dome...wait, I'm getting confused.
Hey wait a minute, don't Flathead Earthers claim space is fake? So what would a "natural" object looking like the ISS be doing in a fake, non-existent outerspace? Unless it's on the INSIDE of the dome...wait, I'm getting confused.
One of the problems with the flat earth theory is that there is no standard answer to any question. From my limited exposure to the theory, some believe there are no satellites at all, some believe in so called pseudo satellite that are floating in the aether, and I am sure some believe something completely different.
The original post posses the question of how do we know that gps satellites are not natural celestial bodies, so I am assuming the poster is referring to pseudo satellites or something similar. My answer was directly related to that question.
/quote]
So, let me try to rephrase that story: The airplane started to move uncontrollably and they think they reached some impossible altitude, but somehow they survived. Wow! Well, I know that's against all odds. Let's for the sake of argument assume that airplanes exist. Does that mean that this story is true? Well, no. It could be made up to be sold to the newspapers. And let's assume that this is true, that people who wrote this story truly believed that. What is more likely: that they were deceived by the instruments or that they really reached the altitude they thought was impossible?
See, if you are a FE-er, you automatically reject any explanation involving the rotundity of the Earth as wrong. Think of the people of different religions talking about miracles. They never see their god, they always just try to explain something that they couldn't explain otherwise using their religion. It is obvious that they are making arguments from ignorance.
See, the same goes for the story you just told. If airplanes exist, they are too complicated for anyone to understand exactly how they work (each part). Even if an engineer says that they couldn't explain how could the instruments show that they are higher than possible, that doesn't mean that the RE is the most probable explanation.
In fact, I think that that explanation is not even wrong. It contradicts with what we see every single day.
"Well, I know I sure don't get it, so it must not be possible. . ."Quote from: RabinozI would not claim to know how to do it either, but the engineers that design aircraft, etc do know!Here we go again! That's one of the stupidest RE arguments, yet one of the most common. . .
But can't you at least TRY to reach the truth?!One of the stupidest FE arguments, yet one of the most common. "I don't get it ==> It's not true. / You don't get it ==> You're lazy and/or stupid." Based on the logical fallacy of a double standard. If you have enough understanding of a concept to demonstrate that the loose ends don't meet up, then go ahead and argue against it.
What is more likely: that they were deceived by the instruments or that they really reached the altitude they thought was impossible?
See, the same goes for the story you just told. If airplanes exist, they are too complicated for anyone to understand exactly how they work (each part). Even if an engineer says that they couldn't explain how could the instruments show that they are higher than possible, that doesn't mean that the RE is the most probable explanation.Thrust/drag/lift/gravity, each part can be considered individually, let the engineers fuss about the big picture and individual parts for optimization. If anybody knows all that, chances are an industrial espionage suit is following, or they just have an airplane and know it works.
And I really shouldn't even be attempting to prove that ISS doesn't exist. The burden on proof is definitely on you. Don't take it as an attack, take it as a fact.Yes. I should have to prove that an artificial observable object in the sky exists. Get a telescope, look up where it should be at, go outside, and look at it. Done? No conspiracy stuff? You can see it for yourself?
all, as a FE-er, I am not allowed to believe in submarines until I see enough evidence of them.Implying the Allies pretended to almost lose WWI in the Atlantic and that anti-submarine convoy tactics remain in use purely to preserve the Conspiracy.
If there is no gravitational acceleration, the air pressure should be zero. Air pressure is simply hydrostatic pressure (p=rho*g*h). So, if g is 0, so should be p, right?This applies only to atmospheric pressure, where there is no ceiling. Instead the gas is held together by Earth's gravity holding it against the planet (RET of course), so instead of an upper boundary there's increased downward force, dependent on p, the density of the gas, and h, the height of the column of air. As one progresses away from the center of gravity (up) g decreases, the air pressure decreases because less air presses down from above and with less weight.
And people die when the air pressure lowers just slightly.
Here is my list of possible responses and why I think they are wrong:
1. They create pressure using ventilation.
They can't. You can only lower the pressure with a ventilation. In every point in a path of a single particle the sum of dynamic pressure and static pressure should be equal. So if you increase the dynamic pressure (the kinetic energy of the particles), the static pressure actually lowers, and not increases.
2. They create pressure by compressing air using the walls of the ISS (and probably bringing Pascal's law into debate just to sound smarter).
Well, keep this in mind: outside of the ISS, there is zero pressure. Inside, there is then atmospheric pressure.
What force would be acting on that wall (and the bigger area this wall has, the stronger the force is)?No. The bigger the area, the weaker that force is per square inch.
I am pretty certain no material could sustain that!
Also, shouldn't then the air in the ISS be much denser than the air here on the Earth? After all, we all know that p*V=n*R*T. If it is, how come would the astronauts survive?!
3. They survive because the pressure of air inside them is also zero (it gradually decreases when they travel to the ISS).Well, you're right, this potential response would be pretty dumb. Just because their internal pressure decreases doesn't mean they defy human anatomy.
So, how could they possibly breathe then? I mean, look, breathing is possible because, when the volume of air inside the lungs increases, the static pressure decreases. But, since the sum of statical and dynamical pressure has to stay constant, the air flows into the lungs. And when the volume of lungs decreases, exactly the opposite happens and the air flows away from the lungs. And if the static pressure is always zero, that simply couldn't happen.
So, what are the other possibilities (or maybe one of my refutations is wrong)?
Here is my question: how do you (RE-ers who use that argument) know that GPS satellites are not natural celestial objects (some invisible, very slow-moving "star").From my own plain old technically baseless common sense:
Okay, so: GPS.
GPS satellite constantly broadcasts the time, its location, then a garbled binary string. The receiver reads the binary string until it fully loops so it knows when in the satellite's output the receiver first started "listening", why I can't tell you for sure. I'd have to see the receiver's code. The time difference from the timestamp in the code to the time known by the receiver is how long it took the EM waves. This, combined with the broadcasted location of where each signal came from, allows the distance from each satellite to be calculated, and thus the receiver can determine its location.
A fourth signal is also used to help ensure accuracy and help synchronize the receiver's time.
The satellite's are maintained by everybody's friend the US gov. They synch the satellites' atomic clocks every day and ensure their location data is up to snuff.
Now for the garbled binary: here's where synching and the fourth satellite come in, again if I understand it right. You need n linear equations to solve any system of n variables, in this case 3D + time. Distance-rate-time is linear. So if you have three satellites you might have a range of points you could be at because you have many figures for plausible coordinates, all dependent on the time deviation of the receiver.
If all of the satellites are synched, the point of entry in that garbled binary string can reliably tell you exactly how long each signal took from all four satellites and you can definitively narrow down what the fourth variable time deviation is, so that fourth satellite is necessary in computing the actual time it took for the other three signals to reach the receiver and resynching the receiver clock.
So, tl;dr
Here is my question: how do you (RE-ers who use that argument) know that GPS satellites are not natural celestial objects (some invisible, very slow-moving "star").From my own plain old technically baseless common sense:
- Widely observed satellite launches.
- One could hack the receiver just to watch it do its work and see how structured it all is.
From this post:
- Stars don't broadcast binary loops.
- Stars don't broadcast their locations with a timestamp. Sure would make astronomy easier, though.
- Contrary to popular belief, the stars aren't maintained by NASA.
Honestly, you're usually better at derailing than this, and that was why I was disappointed with your post lol.One could hack the receiver just to watch it do its work and see how structured it all is.How do you know what it broadcasts? Oh, wait, is that what the NASholes told you? lol
Honestly, you're usually better at derailing than this, and that was why I was disappointed with your post lol.One could hack the receiver just to watch it do its work and see how structured it all is.How do you know what it broadcasts? Oh, wait, is that what the NASholes told you? lol
I would say that that is what your mom told me, but I would likely get banned again. Instead, I will agree with your mom about being disappointed.:(
I would say that that is what your mom told me, but I would likely get banned again. Instead, I will agree with your mom about being disappointed.:(