Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Poko

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Testing the fake ISS
« on: June 29, 2015, 05:25:07 AM »
So I've seen a lot of people who claim that footage from the Internation Space Station is fake and I thought I would use some maths to show that it's not.

Most of the people I've seen who claim the ISS is fake say that the footage is captured on a 747 that is accelerating downward, simulating microgravity. If you think the ISS is fake for some other reason, this post does not apply to you.

Before I begin, I'd like to state a few things. First, if you want to get a reply from me, make sure you read the entire post. If it becomes apparent that you did not read the post, don't expect me to respond. Other that that I will try to respond to as many people as I can. If my math is wrong, I urge you to reply so that I can correct it. Second, no information I'm using is given to me by "the government" or whatever institution is responsible for perpetuating the round Earth conspiracy. Anybody can independently verify my methodology and my results using nothing more than a pen, some paper, a measuring tape, and a stopwatch.

Now, on to the proof.

If you watch this video,

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">! No longer available

you can see that there is one single uncut piece of footage from 2:22 to 7:10. This would suggest that the 747 used to capture this footage must be capable at accelerating downwards for at least 288 seconds. That's not entirely unreasonable. NASA does (or used to) receive a lot of money from the US government, and it's feasible that they could have developed an aircraft capable of prolonged acceleration like this.

Well, thanks to mathematics, we can calculate exactly the altitude that the aircraft would need to be in order to accelerate downwards for this long.

The formula we will use is d=(1/2)*a*t2 where d is the total displacement, a is the acceleration, and t is the time elapsed. If you don't believe me, note that (1/2)*a*t2=∫a*t*dt and remember that a*t is equal to velocity and that displacement is the indefinite integral of velocity. If you still don't believe me you can go here (http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/physics/mechanics/kinematics/EquationsForAcceleratedMotion/Origins/Displacement/Origin.htm) and it will explain another way that this function is derived.

So now we have the formula and the time elapsed. Now we just need the acceleration. We know that gravitational acceleration is about 9.8  m/s2. If you don't believe me, you can measure this yourself by dropping an object from several meters in the air and timing how long it takes to get to the ground. You can then plug the height from which the object was dropped and the time elapsed in to the function I gave above to find the acceleration.

So, let;s plug in our variable and see what we get.

d=(1/2)*a*t2
d=(1/2)*(9.8 )*(289)2
d=(4.9)*(83521)
d=409252.9

So, we get a displacement of 409252.9 meters, or roughly 409 kilometers. That means that in order to get the footage, our aircraft must start from at least 409 km. As it so happens, by sheer coincidence, the ISS allegedly orbits Earth at about 400 km, and we all know how much rocket fuel is needed to get cargo to that altitude. A conventional aircraft simply can not lift a TV set the size of the ISS to that altitude. That kind of force requires a rocket, and rockets aren't cheap.

So now I ask you: Is that reasonable? Is it reasonable that NASA would go through all the trouble of launching fake rockets then launch real rockets and hide it from the public? Is it reasonable that NASA, CSA, ESA, and FKA all launch several rockets each day and hide them from the public, only to launch fake rockets once every few months and show the public those? What do they gain from this?

So now you're faced with two options.
1. Accept that the  ISS is, in fact, real.
2. Believe that the governments of the world are involved in a conspiracy which costs several orders of magnitude more than the budgets of NASA, CSA, ESA, and FKA combined.

Pages: [1]