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.


Messages - NASA_Lies

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 31, 2011, 01:05:55 PM »
Well, its looks like the only person willing to argue with you is officially ClockTower. He has been trolling you for page after page while the entire forum sits back and laughs. Please stop posting and let this pathetic thread with no real point die.

You say that as if there are other threads that have a point.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 31, 2011, 12:25:01 PM »
You're welcome. Enjoy your ignorance. You must live in a sad world thinking that you can define a reference frame using a point as opposed to a coordinate system. I even drew a nice picture for you, and you still didn't understand. It's funny how you didn't include the picture in your post ;)
Well, I guess we're not done. I guess it was silly of me to expect you to stand by what you said.

So...

Please do tell me why you think that I think that "you can define a reference frame using a point as opposed to a coordinate system". AFAIK, asking what the point in the orbit the attitude changes does not imply that I'm using a point to define a reference frame. Thanks.

So then let's for simplicity's sake make that statelite's orbit directly over the Equator at all times. Now is its attitude with a reference point, say the Rotational North Pole, the same throughout its orbit? If we change its orbit eccentricity to 1, does the attitude with the NP at some point in its orbit differ now from before the change?

What are you doing dude.

If you are not using a point as a reference, what are you using?

A coordinate system. A point does not give enough information with regards to attitude. Once again, my illustration of the situation, which I was hoping even ClockTower would understand.


3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 31, 2011, 09:31:41 AM »
So then let's for simplicity's sake make that statelite's orbit directly over the Equator at all times. Now is its attitude with a reference point, say the Rotational North Pole, the same throughout its orbit? If we change its orbit eccentricity to 1, does the attitude with the NP at some point in its orbit differ now from before the change?

Just so we have an understanding of exactly what's going on here, I've made a diagram. The X coordinate of the earth centered system is pointed towards the north pole, Z is facing to the right, and Y to the lower left. I've also included velocity vectors just for fun.

The X component of the spacecraft's attitude will always be parallel to the earth centered system, but since the earth is rotating, the Y and Z components will deviate. However, the spacecraft's attitude will remain constant with respect to an inertial (non-rotating) reference frame.

Nothing changes with respect to attitude when the spacecraft changes its orbital eccentricity from 0 to 1.
You did read my question, didn't you? Would you care to answer it?

We're done here.
Thanks for the concession. Okay, so, back to where we were...

You're welcome. Enjoy your ignorance. You must live in a sad world thinking that you can define a reference frame using a point as opposed to a coordinate system. I even drew a nice picture for you, and you still didn't understand. It's funny how you didn't include the picture in your post ;)

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 30, 2011, 05:45:18 PM »
So then let's for simplicity's sake make that statelite's orbit directly over the Equator at all times. Now is its attitude with a reference point, say the Rotational North Pole, the same throughout its orbit? If we change its orbit eccentricity to 1, does the attitude with the NP at some point in its orbit differ now from before the change?

Just so we have an understanding of exactly what's going on here, I've made a diagram. The X coordinate of the earth centered system is pointed towards the north pole, Z is facing to the right, and Y to the lower left. I've also included velocity vectors just for fun.

The X component of the spacecraft's attitude will always be parallel to the earth centered system, but since the earth is rotating, the Y and Z components will deviate. However, the spacecraft's attitude will remain constant with respect to an inertial (non-rotating) reference frame.

Nothing changes with respect to attitude when the spacecraft changes its orbital eccentricity from 0 to 1.
You did read my question, didn't you? Would you care to answer it?

We're done here.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 30, 2011, 02:30:47 PM »
Can we go back to the bit about how the ISS remains at the same angle with respect to Earth's surface. At first NASA_lies asked how it does this. Then ClockTower said something, then within a few posts NASA is deriding ClockTower for not reading the link he posted...a link which explained how the ISS remains at the same angle with respect to Earth's surface.

Have I missed something?

Nope, you are 100% correct. I was hoping ClockTower wouldn't notice, and it seems he hasn't. Looks like you've been paying more attention than he has.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 30, 2011, 11:06:33 AM »
Looks to me more like two people trying to discuss a subject they understand nothing about and neither seems to know what the ultimate point of the argument is. Its like watching people technobabble with Ryan, neither party has a clue what they're saying and its hilarious. The only difference is this time both of you appear to be serious and that is very unfortunate.

Oh yeah? Feel free to point out any mistakes I've made in this thread. You not understanding what was written shows your lack of understanding, not mine.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 30, 2011, 10:05:41 AM »
I know your kicking right into argument mode and I like that, but sorry, still not buying it. You don't believe any of this crap. Keep trying to convince everyone though because it's entertaining as all hell.

If it is fake (which you cannot prove), then why wouldn't you just shut the hell up and go along with it instead of being a giant killjoy, especially since you readily admit that it's "entertaining as hell?"

Either way, go ruin a different thread, ClockTower and I were having an important discussion on orbital mechanics and attitude dynamics.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I'm new and I have some questions
« on: December 30, 2011, 09:27:11 AM »
Leaving the ongoing battle aside... didn't Einstein prove that aether is a fantasy? And isn't dark energy something that pulls things apart? This doesn't quite add up.

The aether is, much like the DE, unrelated to the RET one. Again, you should read the wiki page.

Or you could read Lord Of The Rings, they're both equal levels of made up fantasy.

You can't really compare them though, because one is far more entertaining than the other.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 30, 2011, 07:06:47 AM »
So then let's for simplicity's sake make that statelite's orbit directly over the Equator at all times. Now is its attitude with a reference point, say the Rotational North Pole, the same throughout its orbit? If we change its orbit eccentricity to 1, does the attitude with the NP at some point in its orbit differ now from before the change?

Just so we have an understanding of exactly what's going on here, I've made a diagram. The X coordinate of the earth centered system is pointed towards the north pole, Z is facing to the right, and Y to the lower left. I've also included velocity vectors just for fun.



The X component of the spacecraft's attitude will always be parallel to the earth centered system, but since the earth is rotating, the Y and Z components will deviate. However, the spacecraft's attitude will remain constant with respect to an inertial (non-rotating) reference frame.

Nothing changes with respect to attitude when the spacecraft changes its orbital eccentricity from 0 to 1.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 29, 2011, 03:05:19 PM »
Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.
You beg the question. The ISS is not in a circular orbit and does not keep the exact same angle between it and the Earth. Also the video capture is for more than half of an orbit. How did you measure that angle to determine that it was exactly the same throughout the orbit? With what precision can you measure that angle in any given frame? Wasn't the camera held by hand?
Try again.

So you've replied to my least relevant point. Congratulations. I'm beginning to think that you don't actually know shit about orbital mechanics or vehicle attitude control. Would this be far from the truth?
So no response at all? You must hate it when someone points out that you're not reading responses. I'll get to your other points with time--if any others are even worthy of a response. For example, I never claimed that the ISS doesn't use its own RCS, so responding to a straw man is low on my listm

So you still want to know to what precision I'm measuring, even though it's not relevant, and I already gave you a response about it? Are you angry or something? You should think about whether you're actually arguing the right point here.

Maybe if you would just look up how the space station controls its attitude instead of arguing out of your ass about irrelevant details while revealing your utter lack of knowledge in the field of astronautics, you might actually learn something about how the world works. That is why you're on this website, right?

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 29, 2011, 02:37:09 PM »
Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.
You beg the question. The ISS is not in a circular orbit and does not keep the exact same angle between it and the Earth. Also the video capture is for more than half of an orbit. How did you measure that angle to determine that it was exactly the same throughout the orbit? With what precision can you measure that angle in any given frame? Wasn't the camera held by hand?
Try again.

So you've replied to my least relevant point. Congratulations. I'm beginning to think that you don't actually know shit about orbital mechanics or vehicle attitude control. Would this be far from the truth?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 29, 2011, 02:19:39 PM »
1) So you agree that it's not circular. I also note that you agree that it's in orbit around the Earth. Thanks for that concession. Do tell us how that would not affect attitude.
2) Do you honestly believe that? The attitude must be constantly adjusted and is not perfectly constant as you claim. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_control_(spacecraft).
3) Again to what precision are you measuring? Just stating that you can see that it isn't changing does not make it so.
4) Irrelevant.

1) You're welcome. I also admit that the earth is not a sphere (it is an oblate spheroid), but it is close enough that it is often modeled as such. As such, the ISS's orbit is close enough to circular that it can be modeled as such.

Either way, orbital parameters simply don't affect attitude, there is no relationship between them. If you think the orbit of a spacecraft somehow affects the direction it's facing, then you should probably show me how. You asserting that it somehow does does not make it so.

2) You're getting warmer. If only you'd pay attention to the source you posted, the answer is in there.

3) You never asked for my precision before, you asked for my reasoning. I gave it. The precision is not very high, but it does not need to be for the purposes of this observation. It is clear that there is no major change in angle over the period of time during which this video takes place.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Maps?
« on: December 29, 2011, 01:44:52 PM »
...

The sun revolves in a circular pattern above the disc, changing positions above the disc to compensate for seasons.
What force accounts for the circular pattern and the changing positions?

My theory on the mechanics behind this phenomenon.

I'll have another posted in the next couple days.

15
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: relativity and black holes
« on: December 29, 2011, 12:00:44 PM »
So the other day I had a random thought that I think is has not been asked on this forum before.
so the faster you go the denser you get according to relativity.( you gain mass but your length shrinks) so if you are going fast enough shouldn't you collapse into a black hole? and since it is all relative isn't there a reference frame where we all collapse into a black hole? does anyone know how relativity deals with this? I am probably missing something obvious...

The problem is that you're not defining your reference frame correctly. Think about the problem of one of a pair of twins going on a rocket and taking a short trip at close to the speed of light. They were both moving close to the speed of light relative to one another, yet when the rocket brother comes back, he finds a world where his twin is much older than he is. He experienced time dilation, but the earth-bound brother did not.

The reason is acceleration. The rocket brother was in the accelerating reference frame and the earth bound brother was not. Acceleration is not relative, it is absolute. Therefore, in order for everything in the universe to gain mass due to relativity, the universe would have to accelerate. Then you could define a non-accelerating reference frame in which relativistic effects such as time dilation and increased mass effect all bodies in the universe.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 29, 2011, 08:39:41 AM »
The time lapse is not long enough to show any altitude loss due to orbit. Are you referring to the actual angle orientation of the camera compared to the earth?

Yes, the angle is what I was referring to. I never mentioned anything about altitude. Maybe you misread when I said "attitude?"

Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.
You beg the question. The ISS is not in a circular orbit and does not keep the exact same angle between it and the Earth. Also the video capture is for more than half of an orbit. How did you measure that angle to determine that it was exactly the same throughout the orbit? With what precision can you measure that angle in any given frame? Wasn't the camera held by hand?

1) The ISS has a periapsis of 376 km an an apoapsis of 398 km. It is approximately circular. Either way, that doesn’t affect its attitude.

2) Actually, yes it does keep the same orientation with the earth at all times. This might not be relevant to this discussion, but still an interesting point of information.

3) The location of the horizon does not change, and you can see parts of the ISS in the picture. Therefore you have enough information to see that the angle does not change. There is no need to measure the angle, because it’s relative angle that we are worried about. That is, a change in angle between the previous and the current. It also doesn’t matter if the camera was held by hand or not since you can see both the horizon and part of the ISS in all frames.

4) It starts next to Canada and ends just as Antarctica enters view. Probably between a third and a half, definitely not more than a half. We're probably talking about 35-40 minutes.


17
The ones that you are looking for can only be viewed through powerful telescopes, which is both irrelevant to this conversation and inadmissible as evidence.

Irrelevant to which conversation? The one I was having with markjo was specifically about said telescopes, so they are absolutely relevant. I'm not really interested in a conversation with a lazy and unimaginative troll such as you.

I am most certainly not unimaginative.

18
I have no problem understanding that.  However you seem to have a problem understanding that if the number of barely visible galaxies within the tiny area of the HUDF is representative of the rest of the universe, then the vast majority of galaxies in the universe are in the barely visible category.

Your second sentence contradicts the first, since what I just finished explaining was why it's false. The quality of the HUDF is not representative of the rest of the observable universe, it's only representative of the rest of its farthest extremes.

So you're saying I can go outside right now and see on the order of 150 sextillion (half of the total number if, as you claim, you can observe most of the stars) stars?

Nope, can't see that many. The ones that you are looking for can only be viewed through powerful telescopes, which is both irrelevant to this conversation and inadmissible as evidence.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Is this site a joke?
« on: December 28, 2011, 02:26:03 PM »

All descriptions of this site (FAQ, main page, ect.) say that it is not a joke. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.

There you go again. I can also prove you're as stupid as astronomy is, just like the original poster.

Thus causing you to lose credibility in one fell swoop. I hope you don't have hardwood floors, because falling too fast from your throne of straws will definately cause your skull some trauma.

I say skull because your brain will be perfectly fine. Seeing as it is devoid of neurons.

Well aren't you a cutie :3

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Is this site a joke?
« on: December 28, 2011, 11:28:29 AM »
This site is a joke.

This site, although full of jokers, is not a joke.  ;)

Mizuki x

Untrue. If you're right, prove it.

All descriptions of this site (FAQ, main page, ect.) say that it is not a joke. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I'm new and I have some questions
« on: December 28, 2011, 10:20:39 AM »
In my theory, it's just that that much energy and matter exists. I suppose that someday,m assuming that the universe is not spherical, we'll run out of aether.
Of course, we know already that theory is wrong. How can such a large amount of energy be near the Earth and not cause the collapse of matter into a singularity?

Reference for the math: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42967.msg1066830;topicseen#msg1066830

Obviously because of its distribution and directionality.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about touristic space flights
« on: December 28, 2011, 10:16:23 AM »
... all I'm doing by posting in this thread is proving that it's possible. Burt Rutan is a genius; he probably has something greatly superior than my idea, but the fact remains that my idea proves that it is possible.
So having an idea proves something for you. That's quite a fantasy you have there.

Actually yes, the fact that it is possible does make it possible.

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about touristic space flights
« on: December 28, 2011, 09:19:09 AM »

So what you're saying is that they'd have to wear space suits outfitted with infitec 3D technology at all times. That doesn't sound particularly difficult. That in addition to a holographic display could potentially allow six people to look at the same screen and see different things. Guess how many people fit in SpaceShipTwo?

You're right actually. Weightlessness would be easy to simulate if they actually did fly up and did a vomit comet type trajectory.

Another possibility is that the windows actually are real, but the plane is placed in a room with projected images on the walls, kind of like a planetarium. That way everyone's perspective can be fooled no matter how many people are on board.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Is this site a joke?
« on: December 28, 2011, 07:20:56 AM »
Go read any book on astronomy in the world except one written by you tards to get your answer. Oh I forgot the entire world is involved in a conspiracy...for no apparent reason...

It's too bad you forgot that. You could have saved yourself a good bit of typing, not to mention time and frustration.

25
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Minecraft Server
« on: December 28, 2011, 07:14:58 AM »
What are you looking to build? I can jump on later.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Is this site a joke?
« on: December 28, 2011, 07:01:17 AM »
The fact that you can't come up with a good argument for RET and you can't refute ours doesn't make us stupid.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Is this site a joke?
« on: December 28, 2011, 06:49:30 AM »
Or are you people really this stupid?

Read the FAQ.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I'm new and I have some questions
« on: December 28, 2011, 06:30:30 AM »
Well, you're the experts here.

But where does all that energy come from? It's been pushing the Earth for four and a half billion years now, and the Earth certainly has quite a lot of mass.

(even if you do believe that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, during WWII or last Thursday, that energy still has to be huge, and it can't just appear from nowhere)

This has been the a subject of my research for quite some time. I will post a thread on it in the near future.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about touristic space flights
« on: December 28, 2011, 06:28:40 AM »
As a matter of fact, I think this is such a good idea that I am going to volunteer to be the FET representative to "fly" in Spaceship Two. I have already donated $600.61 to myself, I will be accepting donations from TFES members immediately.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Any analyses on this video from the ISS?
« on: December 27, 2011, 08:54:18 PM »
Continuing on like this after you clearly can't debate the topic anymore does nothing but make people not take you seriously. Soon the only person willing to argue with you will be ClockTower.

Ok fine. Now just explain to me how the ISS was able to keep the exact same angle between it and "earth" for a third of an orbit, especially since you claim it doesn't use its own RCS.

Pages: [1] 2