I appreciate that you started a new thread on this lol. Is it not enough evidence that we can see it?Slightly different issue.
I appreciate that you started a new thread on this lol. Is it not enough evidence that we can see it?
The first thing you would need to determine is if the ISS is an actual physical object (or potentially some projected image) which appears to multiple people at different locations at once, or if it is a projected image such that people looking at "it" from different locations are actually seeing different images.
The first thing you would need to determine is if the ISS is an actual physical object (or potentially some projected image) which appears to multiple people at different locations at once, or if it is a projected image such that people looking at "it" from different locations are actually seeing different images.
Start with the basics. Good idea. So the first thing is to know how far it has to travel in its 92 minutes so you can calculate the velocity it has to be moving at. Easy, and basic -- take a look at the flat earth map and see how far it has to travel.
Oh -- I forgot. There isn't a flat earth map.
No you don't need to do that in order to figure out if there actually is one . . .
I'm not kidding.
I appreciate that you started a new thread on this lol. Is it not enough evidence that we can see it?
I appreciate that you started a new thread on this lol. Is it not enough evidence that we can see it?
Actually, reread the title.
We re not supposed to be debating its existence.
She wants to explore how such a thing could be faked.
Ah, my bad..... why would you want to fake it? Other than to meet a FE requirement?I think the idea is tied to determining if it is real.
Start with the basics. Good idea. So the first thing is to know how far it has to travel in its 92 minutes so you can calculate the velocity it has to be moving at. Easy, and basic -- take a look at the flat earth map and see how far it has to travel.Like I said, all you need's a lower bound. It doesn't have to be a distance people accept as accurate, just so long as they accept it as a lower bound.
Oh -- I forgot. There isn't a flat earth map.
For the sake of error, I'll lop 10,000km off the RE measure of the length of the equator. Sure, it's a lot, but in the interests of giving the FE model every chance it seems a pretty good way of getting a lower bound.
<snip>
Remaining questions:
Altitude, air resistance, possibility of sustained flight.
Like I said, it's a lower bound; there's a difference between that and a guess. Chances are that distance will have to be accepted as a lower bound.
For the sake of error, I'll lop 10,000km off the RE measure of the length of the equator. Sure, it's a lot, but in the interests of giving the FE model every chance it seems a pretty good way of getting a lower bound.
<snip>
Remaining questions:
Altitude, air resistance, possibility of sustained flight.
Wait a minute -- I thought we were starting with the basics. The first, most basic question still remains: The distance traveled. You can't just guess at a distance in order to "give the FE model a chance". You have to know the distance in order to get the velocity. You have to know the velocity in order to know what kind of vehicle (if any) could be used, and to know if air resistance is a problem. If you start with a guess, the whole exercise is a guess.
Just tell me where I can find a map to get the distance from -- what's the problem here?
Like I said, it's a lower bound; there's a difference between that and a guess. Chances are that distance will have to be accepted as a lower bound.
For the sake of error, I'll lop 10,000km off the RE measure of the length of the equator. Sure, it's a lot, but in the interests of giving the FE model every chance it seems a pretty good way of getting a lower bound.
<snip>
Remaining questions:
Altitude, air resistance, possibility of sustained flight.
Wait a minute -- I thought we were starting with the basics. The first, most basic question still remains: The distance traveled. You can't just guess at a distance in order to "give the FE model a chance". You have to know the distance in order to get the velocity. You have to know the velocity in order to know what kind of vehicle (if any) could be used, and to know if air resistance is a problem. If you start with a guess, the whole exercise is a guess.
Just tell me where I can find a map to get the distance from -- what's the problem here?
If you want to revive the tired old map debate, start your own thread on it rather than derail this one, or better yet search for the truly tiresome number of times that discussion's been had. It doesn't really matter so long as we have the aforementioned lower bound.
Again, a map isn't necessary, just a very vague ballpark. No one is going to tell you that the distance from the US to UK is a couple of miles, for example. If you really want to get technical there's more reason to think the FE equator is longer rather than shorter than 40,000km due to the area it'd need to contain, but again, exact figures aren't what's important here. We are trying to determine if there is any possibility of this working, and in that case bounds are so much more useful.Like I said, it's a lower bound; there's a difference between that and a guess. Chances are that distance will have to be accepted as a lower bound.
For the sake of error, I'll lop 10,000km off the RE measure of the length of the equator. Sure, it's a lot, but in the interests of giving the FE model every chance it seems a pretty good way of getting a lower bound.
<snip>
Remaining questions:
Altitude, air resistance, possibility of sustained flight.
Wait a minute -- I thought we were starting with the basics. The first, most basic question still remains: The distance traveled. You can't just guess at a distance in order to "give the FE model a chance". You have to know the distance in order to get the velocity. You have to know the velocity in order to know what kind of vehicle (if any) could be used, and to know if air resistance is a problem. If you start with a guess, the whole exercise is a guess.
Just tell me where I can find a map to get the distance from -- what's the problem here?
If you want to revive the tired old map debate, start your own thread on it rather than derail this one, or better yet search for the truly tiresome number of times that discussion's been had. It doesn't really matter so long as we have the aforementioned lower bound.
So, you just pronounce a number as a lower bound and it's not a guess. And it will have to be accepted as a lower bound. Because you say so. And I'm not trying to start a debate on the FE map, I just want to know where I can find one because it's needed to get this analysis going and show how the ISIS is being faked. If this whole exercise is based on guesswork, no one will believe it -- that's not what you want is it?
For the purposes of this thread I presume we are discounting any independent photos of the ISS in orbit? As of course the fakers would then have not just have something up there in the right time and place, but something that looked exactly like the ISS as well.Fair point, probably should at the question of how it appears the way it does to consideration. I was initially focused on the more readily apparent traits, have to get those working first before we start taking photos through telescopes.
If we are discounting this, then I presume the only way to fake it is via some kind of relay of multiple aircraft. Anyone want to calculate what kind of altitude/velocity they would need to maintain to look like the ISS?
I've no idea how would smoothly handle the switch from one aircraft to the next....
Anyone want to calculate what kind of altitude/velocity they would need to maintain to look like the ISS?That's exactly why I said we need to start with the distance involved in a single transit -- it's the only way to calculate the needed velocity to transit in 92 minutes. Nobody want's to accept the distance RE theory provides, but otherwise it seems there is only a guess. Nobody will be convinced of anything based on guesswork.
Anyone want to calculate what kind of altitude/velocity they would need to maintain to look like the ISS?That's exactly why I said we need to start with the distance involved in a single transit -- it's the only way to calculate the needed velocity to transit in 92 minutes. Nobody want's to accept the distance RE theory provides, but otherwise it seems there is only a guess. Nobody will be convinced of anything based on guesswork.
As far as sustained flight goes, the two options I can think of are refuelling in the air, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling) and having enough redundancies for any repairs to be done similarly, or there being a switchover when the ISS is over the sea etc. The number of potential observers from the sea is greatly diminished from over the land, the chances of it being seen by anyone with any interest in what it could mean is minimal.Yes, the lighting aspect was troubling me, but I thought I'd leave that until the logistics were solved.
In the first case we'd need a second craft to be able to accelerate to the same speed as the ISS in order to transfer fuel. In the second, it's the acceleration/deceleration that's going to be trickier.
Though this does raise another question. The ISS appears as a particularly bright light in the sky; is this something the ISS can choose to switch on and off, a giant bank of floodlights of whatever, or is it a natural result of the altitude it's at? The former would at least make the switchover easier (the replacement has much longer to accelerate before it becomes visible, with some coordination it could be done fairly smoothly),
However, the illumination aspect could be tied up with the logistics. As one aircraft took the baton from another, it could illuminate while the other went dark...Quotethough the latter is potentially problematic in models with a self-illuminating moon and so no established means for light to reach and reflect off the ISS.It reflects sunlight, not moonlight, so is this relevant?
Also, if this is an aircraft flying at a much lower altitude, then it's not going to reflect anything really, and must be self-illuminating.
Yes, the lighting aspect was troubling me, but I thought I'd leave that until the logistics were solved.Exactly, seemed worth bringing up. It solves one of the concerns I had too; if there is a switch-over over the sea, then if there was no control over the brightness they would need to be able to accelerate and decelerate very quickly. If they can choose to go dark/go bright however they could take as long as they need.
However, the illumination aspect could be tied up with the logistics. As one aircraft took the baton from another, it could illuminate while the other went dark...
In models where the moon reflects sunlight, there is a pre-existing mechanism that allows for the spotlight sun to illuminate what is essentially the underside of an object; without that, the ISS being illuminated by sunlight consistently is a much trickier proposition.Quotethough the latter is potentially problematic in models with a self-illuminating moon and so no established means for light to reach and reflect off the ISS.It reflects sunlight, not moonlight, so is this relevant?
Also, if this is an aircraft flying at a much lower altitude, then it's not going to reflect anything really, and must be self-illuminating.
You can just start with satellites, and before you bullshit me with the "oh, its a projected hologram that's projecting on nothing, the giant light that's shining it in the sky is invisible, it never gets distorted by weather or clouds and the projector moves around the entire world somehow!", I think it's common sense that projectors don't work like this.
You can view and predict the orbit of satellites using a telescope. If you're really going to tell me that it's just a random flying object that flies forever, looks exactly like a satellite and moves at the exact speed predicted and just so happens to always be there, with a straight face, there is nothing that can help you, I'm not kidding.
Anyone want to calculate what kind of altitude/velocity they would need to maintain to look like the ISS?That's exactly why I said we need to start with the distance involved in a single transit -- it's the only way to calculate the needed velocity to transit in 92 minutes. Nobody want's to accept the distance RE theory provides, but otherwise it seems there is only a guess. Nobody will be convinced of anything based on guesswork.
If you don't know the difference between a guess and a bound I can't help you.
Anyone want to calculate what kind of altitude/velocity they would need to maintain to look like the ISS?That's exactly why I said we need to start with the distance involved in a single transit -- it's the only way to calculate the needed velocity to transit in 92 minutes. Nobody want's to accept the distance RE theory provides, but otherwise it seems there is only a guess. Nobody will be convinced of anything based on guesswork.
If you don't know the difference between a guess and a bound I can't help you.
Yeah -- you made a guess at a lower bound. How is that confusing?
Anyone want to calculate what kind of altitude/velocity they would need to maintain to look like the ISS?That's exactly why I said we need to start with the distance involved in a single transit -- it's the only way to calculate the needed velocity to transit in 92 minutes. Nobody want's to accept the distance RE theory provides, but otherwise it seems there is only a guess. Nobody will be convinced of anything based on guesswork.
If you don't know the difference between a guess and a bound I can't help you.
Yeah -- you made a guess at a lower bound. How is that confusing?
You say 'guess' like it was intended to be accurate. It wasn't. That is the point of a lower bound. It is not necessarily an accurate figure, merely one less than any reasonable option or any model I have seen.
If you are not going to contribute to this thread please do not clutter it.
This discussion is moving into areas that are so silly they could qualify for a monty python sketch. There are some things that are not up for discussion like distances between London and New York, or the distance around the equator. They are what they are. These distances are known and fixed. I’m sick of telling people that given all the thousands of flights leaving all the airports in the world every single day of the year that distances between everywhere are known relative to one another.....end off I feel like banging my head against.....something! If not we would have aircraft dropping out the sky on a regular basis.Yeah, well obviously the world is round. Jane is trying to run a thought experiment on one aspect of the flatties' claims.
How do some people think that aircraft navigate from a to b...by magic pixie?
Need to bang head....
We have maps, we have fixed things like railways and roads that have known lengths, that don’t can’t! miraculously change length, some personage is advocating lopping off 5000 miles so of the length of the trans Siberian railway and saying that’s permissible ! I hope they tell Putin!
Countries, continents, towns and cities all have fixed locations, and known distances relative to each other. You can’t decide to move them as it takes your fancy it’s just not possible, nor very clever.
Excuse me while I bang my head and be sick......mmmmm that’s better.
Remember the impossibility of a flat earth map, or to put it another way of a flat earth.
Lonegranger, stop spamming. If you're not interested in the discussion, you don't have to read it.
This is what I signed up for, this is why I made an account on this forum. To laugh at flat earthersNo flat earthers have posted in this thread.
literally baffling and entertaining at the same time. The moon doesn't reflect sunlight? The ISS is self illuminating?This thread is a thought experiment to explore flat eathers claims that the ISS is fake. The question is, if you were going to fake the ISS, is it possible and if so, how?
Since the ISS can be zoomed in on by publicly available telescopes, the telescope industry would need to be “in” on it as well.Was going to tackle the question of what would present the appearance that can be seen later, probably with just the shape of whatever craft it is, and potential aerodynamic issues, but you've piqued my curiosity. What do you imagine the telescope industry doing?
Good question!Since the ISS can be zoomed in on by publicly available telescopes, the telescope industry would need to be “in” on it as well.Was going to tackle the question of what would present the appearance that can be seen later, probably with just the shape of whatever craft it is, and potential aerodynamic issues, but you've piqued my curiosity. What do you imagine the telescope industry doing?
This discussion is moving into areas that are so silly they could qualify for a monty python sketch. There are some things that are not up for discussion like distances between London and New York, or the distance around the equator. They are what they are. These distances are known and fixed. I’m sick of telling people that given all the thousands of flights leaving all the airports in the world every single day of the year that distances between everywhere are known relative to one another.....end off I feel like banging my head against.....something! If not we would have aircraft dropping out the sky on a regular basis.Yeah, well obviously the world is round. Jane is trying to run a thought experiment on one aspect of the flatties' claims.
How do some people think that aircraft navigate from a to b...by magic pixie?
Need to bang head....
We have maps, we have fixed things like railways and roads that have known lengths, that don’t can’t! miraculously change length, some personage is advocating lopping off 5000 miles so of the length of the trans Siberian railway and saying that’s permissible ! I hope they tell Putin!
Countries, continents, towns and cities all have fixed locations, and known distances relative to each other. You can’t decide to move them as it takes your fancy it’s just not possible, nor very clever.
Excuse me while I bang my head and be sick......mmmmm that’s better.
Remember the impossibility of a flat earth map, or to put it another way of a flat earth.
Do you not know what a lower bound is too? It's not meant to be accurate, it's meant to be less than the real answer.This discussion is moving into areas that are so silly they could qualify for a monty python sketch. There are some things that are not up for discussion like distances between London and New York, or the distance around the equator. They are what they are. These distances are known and fixed. I’m sick of telling people that given all the thousands of flights leaving all the airports in the world every single day of the year that distances between everywhere are known relative to one another.....end off I feel like banging my head against.....something! If not we would have aircraft dropping out the sky on a regular basis.Yeah, well obviously the world is round. Jane is trying to run a thought experiment on one aspect of the flatties' claims.
How do some people think that aircraft navigate from a to b...by magic pixie?
Need to bang head....
We have maps, we have fixed things like railways and roads that have known lengths, that don’t can’t! miraculously change length, some personage is advocating lopping off 5000 miles so of the length of the trans Siberian railway and saying that’s permissible ! I hope they tell Putin!
Countries, continents, towns and cities all have fixed locations, and known distances relative to each other. You can’t decide to move them as it takes your fancy it’s just not possible, nor very clever.
Excuse me while I bang my head and be sick......mmmmm that’s better.
Remember the impossibility of a flat earth map, or to put it another way of a flat earth.
Mr Crab...thanks for that. However if one is going to conduct a thought experiment let’s at least nudge it the realms of possibility. If you are going to lop of 10K kilometres off the circumference of the earth, something gotta give....shrink the continental USA?, given the way the interior states vote that might not be a bad thing. However an experiment that magically reduces the known size of the world is pretty pointless on account of its futility.
Do you not know what a lower bound is too? It's not meant to be accurate, it's meant to be less than the real answer.And then comparing it to something to declare it is "within the realm of possibility" isn't really useful at all.
Do you not know what a lower bound is too? It's not meant to be accurate, it's meant to be less than the real answer.
It seems you lopped 10 000 km off just to make it work, to get it below the 21245 km/hr speed of the Falcon.I lopped it off because it was a convenient figure and with how much map disagreement there is, it can be argued world would be a bit smaller. Sure, it happens to be within range of basically the fastest essentially-in-atmosphere manmade vehicle, but that's not much of a concession given that both of those disintegrated, and honestly was just coincidence. I used a smaller value simply because if we stuck with the RE measurement, a lot of people would reject it there and then. Always better to go lower, if you don't give something every chance then you've not made a persuasive argument against, and equally you wouldn't end up with the parameters of possibility if it does end up working.
For a lower bound agreed upon by everyone we would need to consider Sandokhan's map/FESandokhan's model has very different physics which, like I mentioned, I'm not yet appealing to. He explains the ISS (and indeed other satellites) with reference to laevorotatory subquarks and an antigravity effect which, yeah, fixes a lot of problems but also need a lot of changes to accepted physics to get to. Sandokhan's model of chronological and spatial scales only exist as far as I've seen within such models.
But that assumes it is just the one body. You may have multiple such craft completing much smaller loops at a higher or lower speed (or alternatives which don't have a physical craft).Given that the ISS is in sight theoretically nearly all the time, except when it's oversea, the practicalities of that don't really help, especially with it only being visible from one location at a time. You might be able to use it as an explanation for the ISS crossing an ocean, I suppose, vanishing from one side and another one continuing the journey, but issues like that are why I used such a low bound. However many objects there are, with only one visible at a time this suffices as a lower estimate.
What theory is your lower bound based on? Please tell us. You can't just make up some smaller lower bound that makes it less difficult for your faking scenario.Yes. I can. That's the point. It's lower. Still faces plenty of problems, but if at the end of all this the conclusion is "The ISS can be faked with no difficulty whatsoever so long as you accept a 30,000km length equator," are you really so insecure that that bothers you?
I lopped it off because it was a convenient figure and with how much map disagreement there is, it can be argued world would be a bit smaller.The point is why?
I used a smaller value simply because if we stuck with the RE measurement, a lot of people would reject it there and then.Likewise picking a smaller number, seemingly to make it fit, would also result in it being rejected then and there, for not faking the ISS but some watered down version of it.
Sandokhan's model has very different physicsEven without that very different physics, you can still look at his map and see what it would take to fake the ISS on his model.
if at the end of all this the conclusion is "The ISS can be faked with no difficulty whatsoever so long as you accept a 30,000km length equator," are you really so insecure that that bothers you?
<snip>
If that seriously bugs you so much, butt out.
Always better to go lower, if you don't give something every chance then you've not made a persuasive argument against, and equally you wouldn't end up with the parameters of possibility if it does end up working.
Is it to try and show the FEers that it can't be faked, in which case sure, go for a lower bound, but have some justification for it or they will likely just claim it is even lower.You gave the justification for it: FEers typically say it's larger. I'm just leaving wiggle-room, this is far enough from the typical values that it's likely to be accepted as that lower bound. Sure, they could go lower, but why is that a flaw with this? If anything it's a good thing because it gives more concrete data about the FE model. I'd call that a plus.
Is it to try and show the REers it can be? In which case a lower bound they completely disagree upon wouldn't work.
No, because of the different physics, like I said. Trying to do anything beyond the basics is a disaster waiting to happen unless I want to start deriving or rereading the mathematical consequences of ether. I'm not diving into the deep end immediately for the purpose of analysing one model. Like I keep saying, the intent is to move onto altered physics (the accelerator giving it a boost in whirlpool models, projections in dome models...) if and only if it is required.Sandokhan's model has very different physicsEven without that very different physics, you can still look at his map and see what it would take to fake the ISS on his model.
Always better to go lower, if you don't give something every chance then you've not made a persuasive argument against, and equally you wouldn't end up with the parameters of possibility if it does end up working.
I think this is an entirely worthy thought experiment. And it's fine to use the lower bound as a starting point. And maybe it doesn't have to be too complicated. Here's how I would fake it.
- A modified U2 spy plane or similar.
- With solar arrays attached powering ram jets for continuous uninterrupted speedy flight.
- As Jane mentioned, repairs done in flight over the seas. If the solar panels are just for show, then in flight refueling.
Here's the ISS compared to a U2:
(https://i.imgur.com/PiBCmyy.jpg)
Always better to go lower, if you don't give something every chance then you've not made a persuasive argument against, and equally you wouldn't end up with the parameters of possibility if it does end up working.
I think this is an entirely worthy thought experiment. And it's fine to use the lower bound as a starting point. And maybe it doesn't have to be too complicated. Here's how I would fake it.
- A modified U2 spy plane or similar.
- With solar arrays attached powering ram jets for continuous uninterrupted speedy flight.
- As Jane mentioned, repairs done in flight over the seas. If the solar panels are just for show, then in flight refueling.
Here's the ISS compared to a U2:
(https://i.imgur.com/PiBCmyy.jpg)
Specifications (U-2S)
Data from International Directory,[175] USAF Fact Sheet[176][177]
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 63 ft (19.2 m)
Wingspan: 103 ft (31.4 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 1,000 ft² (92.9 m²)
Aspect ratio: 10.6
Empty weight: 14,300 lb (6,486 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 40,000 lb (18,144 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F118-101 turbofan, 17,000 lbf (84.5 kN)
A minor problem to ingenious flat-earthers.I think this is an entirely worthy thought experiment. And it's fine to use the lower bound as a starting point. And maybe it doesn't have to be too complicated. Here's how I would fake it.
- A modified U2 spy plane or similar.
- With solar arrays attached powering ram jets for continuous uninterrupted speedy flight.
- As Jane mentioned, repairs done in flight over the seas. If the solar panels are just for show, then in flight refueling.
Here's the ISS compared to a U2:
(https://i.imgur.com/PiBCmyy.jpg)
Ramjet engines don’t work on electricity.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/jq2oidcmojc88x1/ISS%20and%20moon%2C%20614348main_jsc2012e017827_wp_1600-1200.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/2yarlkldg6cssb7/ISS%20from%20614348main_jsc2012e017827_wp_1600-1200.png?dl=1) |
Yeah except the U2 is tiny compared to the ISS:QuoteSpecifications (U-2S)
Data from International Directory,[175] USAF Fact Sheet[176][177]
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 63 ft (19.2 m)
Wingspan: 103 ft (31.4 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 1,000 ft² (92.9 m²)
Aspect ratio: 10.6
Empty weight: 14,300 lb (6,486 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 40,000 lb (18,144 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F118-101 turbofan, 17,000 lbf (84.5 kN)
[ISS 109m wide]
Yeah except the U2 is tiny compared to the ISS:Minor problem[1] :D! The U2 could not fly at 400,000 m altitude either so would be far closer to the observers.
There is no compatibility between ISS and the U2, size for one thing, the aerodynamics of the ISS is absurd, the ISS would collapse under its own weight, let alone get off the ground.Always better to go lower, if you don't give something every chance then you've not made a persuasive argument against, and equally you wouldn't end up with the parameters of possibility if it does end up working.
I think this is an entirely worthy thought experiment. And it's fine to use the lower bound as a starting point. And maybe it doesn't have to be too complicated. Here's how I would fake it.
- A modified U2 spy plane or similar.
- With solar arrays attached powering ram jets for continuous uninterrupted speedy flight.
- As Jane mentioned, repairs done in flight over the seas. If the solar panels are just for show, then in flight refueling.
Here's the ISS compared to a U2:
(https://i.imgur.com/PiBCmyy.jpg)
Using an angular size of 60 arc seconds, I calculate that a 109m wide ISS is 375km high, which is... actually not too far off the 408km figure, so not bad for using values where the degree of error is going to be kinda absurd. (I lose 5km by adding 0.0001 to the angle alone).
If the ISS has the width of a U2, using the figure you gave, I find that it's approximately 108km high. 117km if I go direct and don't use angular size. It is however also a decent bit lower than the Falcon; it is higher than the Karman line, but there is still resistance that'd be significant at these velocities. Let's use 117km.
The more pressing concern is the 802km/h top speed, significantly slower than the ~20,000km/h required. Modification and the fact that it's operating in near-vacuum might help with that, though I'd need to do a bit more research on drag at those altitudes.
Yeah except the U2 is tiny compared to the ISS:But we aren't standing beside it, we are looking at it up in the sky.
Can you back that up? If it is indeed a "proven fact"?All evidence is on YouTube. Where people did a detailed analysis. Including in Russian. He who seeks will always find - as we say.
And you can't link to them because? and you know this analysis is correct because?QuoteCan you back that up? If it is indeed a "proven fact"?All evidence is on YouTube. Where people did a detailed analysis. Including in Russian. He who seeks will always find - as we say.
And you can't link to them because? and you know this analysis is correct because?QuoteCan you back that up? If it is indeed a "proven fact"?All evidence is on YouTube. Where people did a detailed analysis. Including in Russian. He who seeks will always find - as we say.
Earlier in the thread there were videos showing the height and speed determined from the ground and they showed it to be correct and as expected.
I cannot believe people are saying " what does it take to fake the ISS" Can it not be accepted that the 100s of missions going to and from where and footage of all of it are not enough ? Im sure everyone has seen this but I will post the link anyway. Come on guys.Reading the first post should not be too much to ask. Seriously.
This is a thread dedicated to actually analysing an FE belief some people hold. If all you're interested in doing is insulting FET or claiming victory in one post or just generally not contributing, please hit back. If you're confident this won't work then contribute, add facts that hold from an FE perspective to help calculate, and don't clutter the thread so there's a simple, easy read-through disproof. If on the other hand you think it could work, let's see if that can be proved and, in the same vein, it's an easy read-through of a counter to an RE argument.
As I imagine everyone here knows, the International Space Station, or at least a light claimed to be it, can be seen on Earth
https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/
http://www.isstracker.com/
The ISS completes a journey in 92 minutes.
Goals of this thread
To determine the basic specs of the ISS. Things like how fast it needs to be going, whether there are any opportunities for it to be refueled, and potentially even height/size. Does it need to be in space? How feasible is it to function in atmosphere?
Things to do
If we can work out the distance along the ground the ISS appears to take, then on a flat Earth that easily tells us how much distance it covers itself and so its speed. Ideally we'll get a lower bound, so that we have the best chance of making the ISS work.
With that, we can calculate what could happen when it's out of view of land over the ocean (for however long that is), what acceleration would be needed for it to be replaced with a fuelled up version etc, or consider in-air refuelling. We can also determine how much force from air resistance and such it's under, and how that compares with objects like planes.
Calculate a minimum altitude, and from that an estimate as to mass to work out what forces (at a basic level) would be needed.
Caveats
Initially we'll work with basic principles as those will be most persuasive. If necessary, concepts like aetheric whirlpools and laevorotatory subquarks can be included if the conclusion is otherwise too unwieldy.
Why don't you just go to the source ? Plenty of info here to keep you occupied and you seem to have nothing else to do but come up with silly calculations that lead to nothing.You realise I'm a round earther, right? This is what's called 'making a good argument.' If you want to argue that FEers should accept official sources etc etc go do that somewhere else, and try to provide more than a random link to justify it else you're not going to come across particularly well.
Why don't you just go to the source ? Plenty of info here to keep you occupied and you seem to have nothing else to do but come up with silly calculations that lead to nothing.You realise I'm a round earther, right? This is what's called 'making a good argument.' If you want to argue that FEers should accept official sources etc etc go do that somewhere else, and try to provide more than a random link to justify it else you're not going to come across particularly well.
Personally I'm of the opinion that the reason RET is a better model than FET is because of reasons that can actually be determined, and equally I'm honest enough to admit that random bits of garbage thrown out don't inherently make a good argument. So if this ends with solid, numbers-based proof that the ISS can't exist on a flat Earth without some major changes, I wouldn't call that 'nothing,' I'd call that a good case. And if, on the flipside, this ends with the revelation that the ISS can be feasibly faked, then I'd call that worth knowing and a reason to retire that particular argument and move onto examining others (neutrino experiments, aligned telescopes, necessary properties of light...). Either way, worth it, there's no loss.
If this bugs you so much, butt out, there's a whole forum for you to get mad in.
. . . . . . . .
Hence "to fake the ISS" would require objects that:
- looked like the ISS in profile, maybe modified U2s,
- could appear at any predicted location on time,
- travelling in the right direction and
- at what appeared from the ground to be the correct speed.
But the elephant in the room would be the hoaxing organisation's complete ignorance of where these observers might be.
They could easily be at sea so to me it seems well nigh impossible but I'm sure there are plenty here more devious than I.
Given that altitude defines the reference length, density and dynamic viscosity, may be able to come up with a formula that ties everything together in terms of that variable. could get ugly, but would also help immensely.Update: ugly was an understatement. I've got a set of 14 simultaneous equations, with something of order 1030 on one side, and 10-11 on the other. Thanks to the magic of online calculators I can solve that, but one of those coefficients is still of order 10^-24 so it's a party.
Do you have any suggestions as to how the ISS could be faked considering these four points:Did you miss the fact that that's what this entire thread is working towards seeing if it's possible? This isn't magic, you don't wave your hands and get a justified answer in a flash of light, it takes work and work takes time.
Location, direction and speed basically come down to the same thing, assuming a path exists (which I'm just going to concede, map questions are a separate topic entirely and really no point in dredging that up on top of everything else). Appearance in of itself is easy, especially given the earlier discussion with Jimmy positing that it would need to essentially switch on illumination, so what we see is less significant than whether there is any vehicle of sufficient size and shape to keep at those velocities.
- looked like the ISS in profile, maybe modified U2s,
- could appear at any predicted location on time,
- travelling in the right direction and
- at what appeared from the ground to be the correct speed.
But my point is that observers can expect to see (and do see) the ISS anywhere along the predicted flight path.Location, direction and speed basically come down to the same thing, assuming a path exists (which I'm just going to concede, map questions are a separate topic entirely and really no point in dredging that up on top of everything else). Appearance in of itself is easy, especially given the earlier discussion with Jimmy positing that it would need to essentially switch on illumination, so what we see is less significant than whether there is any vehicle of sufficient size and shape to keep at those velocities.
- looked like the ISS in profile, maybe modified U2s,
- could appear at any predicted location on time,
- travelling in the right direction and
- at what appeared from the ground to be the correct speed.
This video shows a way to measure the ISS height using two cameras:For a fake ISS to be in the right location at the right time for videos like that would be quite impossible because the hoaxer had no knowledge of where Scott Manley and his daughter might be located.
Using Cameras To Measure The Real Altitude Of The Space Station, Scott Manley
Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim. If you aren't going to add anything, butt out.
Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim. If you aren't going to add anything, butt out.
Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim. If you aren't going to add anything, butt out.
No the whole point of the thread is how would you fake the ISS. Rab's point is inline with the question.
I believe that I disproved that possibility of faking the ISS. If you claim otherwise please present your case instead of your continual bitching.Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim.
All he did was list exactly the question I examined a while back in significantly less detail as it just concluced "Seems odd, let's not bother." He doesn't have a point, I'm not going to waste time on him.Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim. If you aren't going to add anything, butt out.
No the whole point of the thread is how would you fake the ISS. Rab's point is inline with the question.
I agree, it may all come down to speed.In of itself, the biggest issue would seem to be drag. Speed itself is only a partial factor; it's easier to go faster at higher altitudes after all. Then there's size; the HTV-2 Falcon was just four metres across, translating its speed to something comparable to a U2 is tricky.
If it's agreed that it is some sort of human made device and it follows a predictable path as anyone can see it, the conundrum is how does it make it's way in 92 minutes per cycle. If you solve for that fact alone, job done.
My only guess is that there's more than one. Maybe 50+ of them, that cloak and decloak as needed to somewhere make the appearance of going that fast.
I believe that I disproved that possibility of faking the ISS. If you claim otherwise please present your case instead of your continual bitching.Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim.
If you haven't a case just admit it.
I believe that I disproved that possibility of faking the ISS. If you claim otherwise please present your case instead of your continual bitching.Since the ISS is claimed to orbits the earth in just over 90 minutes there seems no way that there could be a "fake ISS" show up all these locations at the predicted times.Again, the whole point of this thread is to prove or disprove that claim.
If you haven't a case just admit it.
If you make another post like this, I'm going to ban you.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I find nothing wrong with what he said. Jane spends more time arguing the semantics of one's point then actually making a relevant point to the topic.Um. I'm trying to run calculations to confirm or deny what Rab just threw out with zero justification. What about that is semantics?
Ok, here we go! For context, the Reynolds' number of a U2 is roughly 27 million, by my calculations, and if my understanding is correct a smaller Reynolds number indicates more drag.
To calculate the Reynolds number of an ISS-substitute we need estimates of the altitude we want it to be (h), and the length of its journey (d). Technically we should work in metres, but it's a pain enough to use this so I kept h in km as that never actually enters into it; it cancels in finding L, and is only used in the main equation to approximate its corresponding density or viscosity.
If you want to derive this yourself:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24641/what-is-the-relation-between-an-airplanes-altitude-and-the-drag-it-is-experienc/24644
I used that, plus polynomial interpolation on what data I could gather. It should be more accurate from 0-85km, up to the thermosphere, but data on viscosity is lacking there beyond a paper that states in the abstract kinematic viscosity tends to zero, and so Reynolds' number would become infinite and drag as such minimal. L comes from proportions, something to simulate what the ISS is meant to be, V is just a basic calculation of velocity.
Looks awful, but is generally pretty simple if tedious to apply. Can be extended above 85km, but is likely to become unreliable the further you get.
(https://i.imgur.com/pMrBt0O.png)
The denominator is the most unreliable part. The numerator used more points to be accurate up to 200km. If I find more data, I'll update this.
This is probably most useful for those that have the software to program something that does all the work for you if you input the values. I used to, but not on this computer. Calculating directly is possible too, and definitely easier, if you have the data.
For example, the ISS mentioned as a lower bound, travelling at 5833m/s, at an altitude of 80km, has Reynolds number of almost two hundred thousand.
For comparison, the NASA X-43 rocket plane, which flew at a more defined altitude than the Falcon and is otherwise the fastest aerial vehicle I could find record of, had one of 17 million, meaning significantly less drag. If you want to run the numbers on other planes, please do and add them so we can get an idea of what kind of number makes for a feasible flight. Direct is probably fastest without some snappy way to get this approximation more wieldy, to be honest, making that a waste of time but hey, it was fun.
Why don't you use the Reynolds Calculator here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/reynolds.htmlThe phrase 'euqal to the dynamic viscosity' for one, the whole page feels a bit low-grade. I did come across that, but when I tried to confirm values via direct calculation the numbers came out off; I think that basically does just what my formula does, but with less data points as they clearly didn't spend too much effort on the rest of the page. I'm instinctively wary of any page that starts off with obvious MS paint. As an easier approximation though, sure, probably should've mentioned it.
And how is this relevant to faking ISS? Aircraft designs take into account physical limitations, such as when drag will exceed the ability of the aircraft to hold together. No aircraft could reach the speeds to fake the ISS within their maximum flight ceiling without their wings being torn from the fuselage.Which this gives a rough way to actually measure; the drag an aircraft can stand up to should at least compare with a potential ISS. When we're orders of magnitude away, it's not worth going into the nitty-gritty.
Why don't you use the Reynolds Calculator here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/reynolds.htmlThe phrase 'euqal to the dynamic viscosity' for one, the whole page feels a bit low-grade. I did come across that, but when I tried to confirm values via direct calculation the numbers came out off; I think that basically does just what my formula does, but with less data points as they clearly didn't spend too much effort on the rest of the page. I'm instinctively wary of any page that starts off with obvious MS paint. As an easier approximation though, sure, probably should've mentioned it.
My biggest concern though is lack of knowledge; it doesn't mention the points to which it's accurate, which does limit its usefulness. I can easily tell something goes wrong because if I plug in a high altitude and low speed it gives a low number, indicating higher drag from what I've seen, so...
Go by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient#BackgroundWhy don't you use the Reynolds Calculator here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/reynolds.htmlThe phrase 'euqal to the dynamic viscosity' for one, the whole page feels a bit low-grade. I did come across that, but when I tried to confirm values via direct calculation the numbers came out off; I think that basically does just what my formula does, but with less data points as they clearly didn't spend too much effort on the rest of the page. I'm instinctively wary of any page that starts off with obvious MS paint. As an easier approximation though, sure, probably should've mentioned it.
My biggest concern though is lack of knowledge; it doesn't mention the points to which it's accurate, which does limit its usefulness. I can easily tell something goes wrong because if I plug in a high altitude and low speed it gives a low number, indicating higher drag from what I've seen, so...
I don't think a lower number necessarily equates to higher drag.
While I'm not a fan of wikipedia, it provides some interesting information on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number
Go by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient#BackgroundWhy don't you use the Reynolds Calculator here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/reynolds.htmlThe phrase 'euqal to the dynamic viscosity' for one, the whole page feels a bit low-grade. I did come across that, but when I tried to confirm values via direct calculation the numbers came out off; I think that basically does just what my formula does, but with less data points as they clearly didn't spend too much effort on the rest of the page. I'm instinctively wary of any page that starts off with obvious MS paint. As an easier approximation though, sure, probably should've mentioned it.
My biggest concern though is lack of knowledge; it doesn't mention the points to which it's accurate, which does limit its usefulness. I can easily tell something goes wrong because if I plug in a high altitude and low speed it gives a low number, indicating higher drag from what I've seen, so...
I don't think a lower number necessarily equates to higher drag.
While I'm not a fan of wikipedia, it provides some interesting information on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number
My understanding is that for more aerodynamic shapes, the drag coefficient basically only depends on that number, and going by the link I found (and its claim that high kinematic viscosity=high drag and vice versa was corroborated by other resources) that's the direction it goes. There likely are situations where the correllation isn't so clear-cut, but we dismiss them because we want to use the most aerodynamic shape possible.
For a streamlined body to achieve a low drag coefficient, the boundary layer around the body must remain attached to the surface of the body for as long as possible, causing the wake to be narrow. A high form drag results in a broad wake. The boundary layer will transition from laminar to turbulent if Reynolds number of the flow around the body is sufficiently great. Larger velocities, larger objects, and lower viscosities contribute to larger Reynolds numbers.[9]
The Reynolds number will be low for small objects, low velocities, and high viscosity fluids.
If I'm reading that correctly, a lower number means less drag.Only if it's an increasing formula.
Larger velocities, larger objects, and lower viscosities contribute to larger Reynolds numbers.[9]This is the important part. If you spend much time google aerodynamic flow you find it gets a little non-intuitive. "There might be a few cases where viscous drag increases with Reynolds number (like laminar airfoils which lose their laminar bucket when the Reynolds number goes up), but in general the observation is true."
At hypersonic speeds, the Reynolds number starts to lose its significance and many othe factors come into play.
A low drag coefficient is low drag. Low drag allows for a narrow wake which allows for laminar flow which is principle in low Reynolds Numbers.
Additionally:QuoteThe Reynolds number will be low for small objects, low velocities, and high viscosity fluids.
All of those have low drag.
... flew 2000 miles per hour (3,200 km/h) at 126,000 feet (38,500 m), or 24 miles up. At this altitude and speed aerodynamic lift still carries 98 per cent of the weight of the plane, and only two per cent is carried by centrifugal force, or Kepler Force, as the space scientists call it.And on a flat earth there is no "centrifugal force, or Kepler Force".
But at 300,000 feet (91,440 m) or 57 miles up this relationship is reversed because there is no longer any air to contribute lift. Only centrifugal force prevails. This is certainly a physical boundary ...
(Quote from Von Kármán's autobiography, from Wikipedia)
My biggest concern though is lack of knowledge; it doesn't mention the points to which it's accurate, which does limit its usefulness. I can easily tell something goes wrong because if I plug in a high altitude and low speed it gives a low number, indicating higher drag from what I've seen, so...My understanding is that the Reynolds number is the velocity times a length (which can be the square root of an area of importance for drag) divided by the viscosity.
Things to do
If we can work out the distance along the ground the ISS appears to take, then on a flat Earth that easily tells us how much distance it covers ..
Calculate a minimum altitude, and from that an estimate as to mass to work out what forces (at a basic level) would be needed.
And from my experience, you cannot keep a secret that big for a long time.I am intrigued by your back story.
Second... you would have to fake out all the journalists who would is looking to make themselves famous.More focused on the practicalities for now, the rest gets way too nebulous to both with. I put my mass calculations aside for one day and now I can't find them, so hey, that's fun. And forgot about this thread. I do that a lot.
Once you get past those things, which is practically impossible, you would need to have a bunch of good video like hollywood style or even more so that would show the astronauts in the space station.
Finally, you would need to have the congress and all the law makers around the world agree to cover it up. There is lots of money going to the space program and the space station. All the time these programs are being challenged by people to shut them down. Why would they fight for it if it was not real?Basic conspiracy answer, they still get the money, so long as faking is cheaper than the reality...