151

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Planets

« on: May 24, 2009, 05:55:29 AM »

Dear me, let's not start this Neptune nonsense again. Unless you can give a reason for Uranus to have an irregular orbit in a FE model which doesn't require Neptune, or some other mysterious object or force, there's no reason to dismiss the RE model because of it.

With regard to the topic, Venus is a problem in a FE model. The parallax that Venus experiences during a transit as you move around the planet is tiny, about 10 arc-seconds on a surface half a degree across. Even having Venus pressed up against the surface of the Sun would yield greater movements than this, if you hold that the FE Sun is as close as believed.

152

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dispelling some myths about NASA

« on: May 23, 2009, 04:44:01 PM »

I haven't sen any evidence of a satellite based GPS system.

I'm sure you haven't, much like nobody here's seen evidence it's a ground based one. But regardless, the GPS was never known as a ground based system before it was known as a satellite one, beyond a small test mock-up.

They sure do if you want to his Moscow from a missile base in Kansas.

Why would a space program be needed to follow a ballistic trajectory?

153

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dispelling some myths about NASA

« on: May 23, 2009, 04:27:17 AM »

No they wouldn't. GPS existed as a tower based system long before it existed as a satellite based one. Look up the LORAN system.

The LORAN system is not the GPS, and the GPS was never a ground based system beyond a small test mock-up. Ground based systems have plenty of problems, which is why we have a satellite based system operating alongside the LORAN system. One system covers the weaknesses of the other.

NASA was created in the 50's so that America could claim to have ICBMs and the ability to annihilate foreign nations at the drop of a hat.

Sure sounds like a big benefit from claiming to have a space program to me.

Inter-continental ballistic missiles do not need a space program.

154

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radiance of the sun

« on: May 22, 2009, 10:09:02 AM »

An obvious experiment to detect bendy light is to shine a laser. Such a device works, in simple terms, by bouncing a beam of light back and forth between a mirror and a semi-transparent mirror, amplifying the beam at each pass. Under a bendy light model, the beam would be bent up in the laser, coming out of the device smeared upwards. In a RE model, it would come out as a straight beam.

And the Sun's just as bright at the poles as it is at the equator. You don't have to reset your camera every time you move North or South.

155

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rowbothams' Perspective

« on: May 22, 2009, 06:58:56 AM »

Yes we've heard of it.  We've also heard that it doesn't prove anything.  Too many things in life that are counter intuitive for Occam's Razor to mean much of anything.

So be it, but you still need something to justify one model over another.

156

Flat Earth General / Re: proof of a conspiracy

« on: May 22, 2009, 06:54:04 AM »

we discussed this already. we determined that NASA used a heliocentric orbit around the sun to curve the flight pattern of the probe. in order to determine the bend that gravity would have on the probe one needs to know the mass of both objects involved and their distance from each other. without those, the gravitational pole on the probe cannot be determined. without the mass ofthe earth, the mass of the sun can not be determined. even with the earths mass you can only be so accurate.

And I explained that you don't need the mass of an object to determine it's gravitational pull. You can determine it's pull by looking at the time period and distance of an object in orbit around it.

and, in regards to the car analogie, it's a bit more like trying to drive over a 1cm target that's 100 miles away when the car only travels at 80 miles an hour by remote control. then throw in variable gravity, a tornado, and communication  errors

A car which is covered in cameras and is moving at about 0.014 miles an hour, yes. I'm sure you could hit the target at that speed.

157

Flat Earth General / Re: proof of a conspiracy

« on: May 21, 2009, 04:23:01 AM »

while the readjustment of the orbit of the probe is a lot easier as you get closer to mars, it's difficult to get that close. (missing by a million miles) once they've gotten to a certain pointlose the ability to correct the orbit enough to hit the planet. (the point of no return)

And? You can make as many corrections as needed. That's like saying it's Impossible to drive across a country, as your destination is going to appear tiny from where you start off at, and if you pointed your car in the correct direction and just drove, you would probably miss it. There's more to it than just an accurate lob.

we established that solar wind still has an immeasurable effect, and nobodies answered my complaints that the mass of the sun and earth are immeasurable to the degree required. I recognize that there are estimates out there, but considering the accuracy required, it's not possible.

The solar wind is also a tiny effect, and easy to compensate for. The mass of the Sun and the Earth are not needed.

recall that I am not saying that we don't HAVE a measurement of any of these things, only that it is impossible to obtain such a measurement to the degree necessary (1cm, 100 miles away) is 18 billion dollars a year enough to hit that?

if it is, assassinations should be carried out with pistols protractors and calculators.

But you don't need such accurate measurements. A probe is not ballistic like a bullet, it's steerable like a car or plane.

158

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: WHY do you believe in a Flat Earth?

« on: May 20, 2009, 07:19:21 AM »

The earth appears flat, therefore there is no reason to assume any other shape.

This response has always mystified me. I've never seen the planet as a 40,000km wide flat plane. The Earth has never appeared flat to me, so for what reason should I assume such a shape?

159

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunset question.. and yes I have read the FAQ

« on: May 20, 2009, 05:32:37 AM »

Bendy light, a magnifying atmosphere and vanishing perspective lines. At least, that's what I recall hearing from FEers in prior threads.

I've honestly no idea how it works. FE proponents just say it works, but never go into the details of exactly how.

160

Flat Earth General / Re: proof of a conspiracy

« on: May 20, 2009, 05:21:13 AM »

note that this is .4 degrees. that misses the target by (quick math)

.01 degrees (necessary range) goes into .4 400 times

multiply 400 by diameter of mars (2607) equals 1042800

so everytime they correct themselves they miss by over a million miles.

that is not accurate enough.

Suppose you were to do that same correction exercise 20,000 km from Mars. Is it going to put it off course by such a large degree?

the gravitational pull of the sun cannot be calculated with enough accuracy because we cannot isolate the sun and the earth. there is other mass that places a pull on the earth which, while not enough to impact or gigantic boulder is enough to screw with equations related toa small probe.

There will be variations that we cannot predict, yes. That's part of the reason we perform mid-course corrections, to keep it on course should these variations nudge it off of it.

if we don't know the earths measurements as accurate as necessary the entire thing is impossible.

Far as I can tell, we know them well enough.

161

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Flat Earth

« on: May 19, 2009, 04:28:27 AM »

No matter how you look at it, gravity is not simple.

A force pulling mass together is no more complex than one accelerating it upwards. Dismissing a model because you feel it's not simple is pointless if there's nothing simpler to go in it's place.

162

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dispelling some myths about NASA

« on: May 18, 2009, 06:55:55 AM »

The fact NASA's getting money doesn't imply there's in on a conspiracy. America's department of transport gets over 60 billion a year. Would you then assume there's someone mocking up all the roads you don't use and pocketing the excess?

163

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth

« on: May 15, 2009, 05:01:25 AM »

The problem I see is not so much that the change is impossible to detect due to it's size, it's impossible to detect due to the fact that it will be lost in a myriad of other things acting on the objects. If you were to repeatedly drop the objects, I doubt they would fall in exactly the same place every time with an accuracy of a few hundredths of a millimetre.

164

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Astronauts in zero gravity

« on: May 14, 2009, 05:01:09 PM »

there was a cut in the scene I pointed out. they replaced the guy with a manequin. you just didn't catch it cause they're good.

if Hollywood can do that kind of filmwork than NASA definitely can.

There are a number of differences between replacing a hooded person leaning against a wall with a mannequin, and getting 10 people to have almost identical positions and velocities as they did beforehand in a microgravity environment.

Personally I dislike the idea of using a vomit comet in the first place, as the Kibo module is far larger than the C-9 NASA uses for it's microgravity training.

165

Flat Earth General / Re: proof of a conspiracy

« on: May 14, 2009, 04:50:50 PM »

I did not find any useful information in either of those sites. can you please direct me to where the information you alluded to is?

This page of the first site give information on some ways used to find the velocity and position of the probe.

166

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar Eclipse

« on: May 14, 2009, 09:54:55 AM »

Naturally the sun and the moon emit different types of light. The sun appears bright and yellow while the moon appears cool and silver. Would it not be possible to filter out one type of light and not the other?

Different types of light? The light the Moon 'emits' is given out by the Sun in far greater quantities; there's no light given out by Moon that isn't given out by the Sun.

167

Flat Earth General / Re: proof of a conspiracy

« on: May 14, 2009, 05:08:10 AM »

but, also remember that the planet used cannot be mars, because the planet will move. unless the point in space which mars WILL occupy when the probe reaches there is used (virtually impossible) the measurements will not be accurate.

You can work out accurately where the planets will be many hundreds of years into the future. It should be fairly easy to work out where Mars will be when the probe reaches the right point in it's orbit.

other than that all you need to do is be able to find the position of a space probe in space from a picture, and of course, show your work.

There's a fair bit more to working out the probe's position than just looking at a photo it's taken. It's just that a photo is one of the things that can be done to help confirm that it's on the right track.

There are a lot of things to working out where probes are and where they are going, and it would take quite a while to explain them all. There are sites available that tell you about how these things are worked out, if you are that interested. I'm probably not qualified to explain every little detail about it.

168

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth

« on: May 13, 2009, 01:29:50 PM »

Again, EP is valid only LOCALLY. Einstein make this point quite clear in his papers and texts. He states without reservation that gravitational fields are radial.

You can't dodge the issue saying that we need only consider one object at a time. FET must face the very real problem that two objects falling from the same height over the Earth at two distant points fall toward each other. RET explains the observation; FET does not. RET is the better model.

I'm not considering one object at a time. I'm considering one frame of reference, which is that of the person falling. From that reference frame, the Earth appears to be accelerating towards you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tower

I'll repeat: Since this makes up part of Einsteins Equivelence Principle its pretty obvious that it'll be observed.

Someone has observed the two objects move together by less than 2 hundredths of a millimetre, and been able to put it down to the direction the objects are being attracted in and nothing else?

169

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth

« on: May 12, 2009, 04:42:12 PM »

The effect of the gravitational field is radial, but the Equivalence Principle's effect of an accelerated object is not. Hence the OP's point that one object falling over two distant points fall in different directions in one model than the other is absolutely beyond reproach and you really should respect it.

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. You could indeed drop two objects from the same height from distant points, and they would move closer together as they fall if you assume a RE. This doesn't change the fact that from the point of view of one of the objects, the Earth is accelerating towards it. I also can't see the original poster making a point like this anywhere.

170

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth

« on: May 12, 2009, 09:59:10 AM »

You can claim the earth accelerating upwards crap along with the crap of a flat earth, they fit nicely. But it doesnt work with a round earth, thats what i was trying to say to jack or whatever.

But someone else has confused what i was trying to achieve and has started trying to explain relativity bla to me. Which i half ass get anyway, but dnt really care.

You are having relativity explained to you as you need to understand relativity models things relative to other things, which in short means that the Earth, relitive to you, is accelerating up towards you.

As usual for FEers, you omit the phrase LOCALLY. FE fails once you make the correction as other poster point out successfully.

I'm not a FEer. I'm not sure how adding 'locally' makes any difference.


I don't enjoy taking this side in debates, but the point is both models work perfectly well for explaining the apparent downwards force we experience. The two behave, from our point of view, the same, and any problem with one in this area is going to be a problem with the other

171

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth

« on: May 12, 2009, 04:18:59 AM »

I mean what the hell, which is right? By saying nothing is accelerating are they just saying space is bending or something aye, not that we are moving though space, or some confusing crap.

It's the equivalence principle. What it essentially says is that being pulled down to Earth by an apparent force of gravity would feel exactly the same as the Earth being accelerated up into you.

172

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oceans in RET

« on: May 10, 2009, 05:55:46 AM »

Think of a mass balance. If you put a kilogram of mass on one side, and ten kilograms on the other, is the lighter side going to go down to try to push the heavy stuff up to where it weighs less, or is the heavy side going to go down?

Think of a mass balance where the weight can flow between sides. If you put one newton of weight on one side, and 10 newtons on the other, 4 and a half newtons of the weight is going to flow across to the lighter side, but no more.

But if things were happening as you are suggesting, g would be equal everywhere at sea level. Otherwise the gravitational field vectors at the surface would be angled towards the poles, from low g to high g, which should cause the water to flow towards the poles.

I see no reason why the apparent downwards force at the surface of a spinning fluid should be equal all over the surface, and I see no reason why a weaker apparent downward force at the equator should imply the vectors should be angled towards the poles.

173

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Neptune does not exist

« on: May 09, 2009, 03:16:30 PM »

Neptune exists. Anyone can go and look at it with a reasonable pair of binoculars or a small telescope. Galileo saw it and mistook it for a star nearly 400 years ago. This is daft.

I mean, what is the argument here? That Neptune doesn't exist because Uranus's orbit should be irregular in a FE model but not in a RE model?

174

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Neptune does not exist

« on: May 08, 2009, 06:56:08 PM »

...Are you seriously suggesting that Neptune doesn't exist?

175

Flat Earth Debate / Re: High altitude aerial photographs.

« on: May 07, 2009, 04:50:03 PM »

As you travel over the curved surface, why does your measured altitude not change? Surely if you charted your course it should show an arc, or even a complete circle? The fact that sea level remains constant is further proof the Earth is flat.

Planes don't fly in perfectly straight lines.

176

Flat Earth General / Re: proof of a conspiracy

« on: May 07, 2009, 05:32:34 AM »

how do you plan to get the distance to the sun?

it still requires the distance to the sun, still not possible to the degree necessary.

As the previous poster pointed out, you can get the distance to the Sun by looking at the distance to the inferior planets.

to what degree will it be accurate too? without knowing the exact distance to the object being flown by, the kind of specific information we need can not be achieved.

knowing how fast light moves, how accurate could this measurement possibly be?

A system based on radio waves will be accurate to a few centimetres I believe, with more energetic waves providing greater accuracy. Getting that distance to a suitable accuracy is not a problem.

because at the scale we're talking about, the measurements matter to a single kilometer
tell me this, how far away is earth in this picture?

http://xplanet.sourceforge.net/Gallery/20030508_earth/earth_200.jpg

that is a picture of earth from the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. how far away is earth in that picture?
that's all NASA has to work with too.

If the image was not cropped, and I knew the field of view of the camera taking it, I could give you a value. I don't see why the measurement would matter to a single kilometre at this distance, as when very close to the planet, different systems are used to measure distances.

177

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth

« on: May 05, 2009, 05:06:05 PM »

Ever made pancakes? The bubbles come up and burst leaving small craters. You can apply this theory to moon. It was long-long ago hot and surface was liquid and when it cooled down then some bubbles reached to surface and leaved the crater like holes there. Isn't it reasonable?

However, given that the surface is flexible enough to allow the craters to form, said crates should not last long before sinking back into the soft and plastic Moon. Central peaks in craters and ray craters also do not fit into this model very well.

178

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Compass Magnetic Dip

« on: May 05, 2009, 09:29:44 AM »

No it isn't.

So where is the FE Sun, if not a few thousand miles above the surface of the Earth?

179

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Compass Magnetic Dip

« on: May 05, 2009, 06:39:17 AM »

Particles from the solar wind hitting the magnetic field where the lines are vertical?

But here's where it gets interesting, as the sun in a FE model is well inside the Earth's magnetic field. The solar wind starts off inside the planet's magnetic field, rather than striking it from outside.

180

Flat Earth General / Re: proof of a conspiracy

« on: May 05, 2009, 06:31:49 AM »

their paths are only predictable if you can find the mass, position, and inertial movement of all of them. the most accurate statistic presented by NASA's website is at the hundred thousand mile mark. it is no small task to find the mass of a planet.

The path a planet can be represented by an ellipse. The figures presented on the fact sheet on the NASA site do not represent the most accurate measurements that have been taken, and have been rounded. It's fairly easy to get a suitably accurate value for the mass of a planet using a flyby.

a picture can only help so much, just because I have a picture of any part of space does not mean I can find the position of the probe in space. maybe NASA can do it within a couble hundred cubic miles, but not to the degree of specificity necessary to be accurate.

I can't see why that accuracy wouldn't be enough.

a flyby only works if you know the distance from the planet to the object flying by. still impossible.

Why is that impossible? Surely you could bounce a signal from the probe to the planet and time how long it takes for a reflection to bounce back to get a distance.

EDIT: the mass of the sun is needed in order to predict the gravitational pull of the sun on the probe.

No it isn't.

It takes 31557600 seconds to perform one rotation of the Sun at Earth distance, and the Sun is 1.496 * 10^11 meters away. The velocity of the Earth is given by the formula v = (2 * pi * radius) /  time period, which gives a velocity of about 29785.7 m/s.

The acceleration required to produce circular motion at that velocity is given by the formula a = (2 * pi * v) / time period, which gives a gravitational pull of about 5.93 * 10^-3 m/s^2. At no point was the mass of the sun needed to get that figure.