841

Flat Earth General / Re: Navigation, Why Use GPS Satellites?

« on: February 19, 2016, 02:29:10 PM »

"To calculate the distance the GPS receiver is from each satellite, the receiver first calculates the time that this signal has taken to arrive. It does this by taking the difference between the time at which the signal was transmitted (this time is included in the signal message) and the time the signal was received (by using an internal clock). As the signals travel at the speed of light, even a 0.001 second, 1ms error, (or signal delays), equates to a 300km inaccuracy of the calculated distance!"
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Accuracy_of_GPS_data

1 ms error or delay can cause 300km inaccuracy? Who can live with that?

'Error' is not the same as 'signal delay'. (You have added that to the source you quote, which is naughty). The signal delay is what is used to determine the distance of the satellite. 'Error' here refers to inaccuracies in the calculation of that signal delay.

The article goes on to explain how such inaccuracies are overcome - by using a minimum of 4 satellites, and applying error correction algorithms.

Even at the speed of light, about 300,000 km/sec, the delay in sending a signal from a satellite to the receiver, which is 20,200 km is substantial. The delay of communication between the two is in fact 20,200km/300,000km = 0.067 sec. or 67ms.
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=23761

 Does that mean the delay would be...I'm not even going to say the results.

As you have calculated, the delay would be 67ms. Why would that be a problem for most applications?

So, you be the judge. I'm just putting out what I've learned and what I've learned looks impossible to me.

It seems to me that you are determined to judge GPS impossible, despite managing to reference (and, I hope, read), several articles which explain how it works and how the various difficulties are overcome.

The authors of the various articles you reference clearly have no doubt that it is a working system. They have the same information as you do, in fact probably more. Why do they also not conclude it is impossible, like you?

842

Flat Earth General / Re: Navigation, Why Use GPS Satellites?

« on: February 18, 2016, 01:58:03 PM »

To me the fallacy here is the more satellites involved the greater number of errors will happen. If one satellite produces ranging errors the more satellites sending signals will produce more ranging errors. I would think the fewer the better.

The more satellites involved, the more information is available and the better the end estimate (of position) will be.

Think of measuring the length of a stick. Take one measurement and all you have is that measurement with its associated error. Measure it ten times and take the average, then you are likely to be to be closer to the true length.

843

Flat Earth General / Re: Navigation, Why Use GPS Satellites?

« on: February 18, 2016, 01:44:58 PM »

As noted, the video doesn't mention signal strength. It says that the distance to the satellite is calculated from the time the signal takes to travel.

She doesn't say signal strength, she say it picks up the signal from the satellite. The signal strength is the is the physics of picking up the signal. If the signal is weak the satellite assumes a lock on the satellite and then based on the time the signal was sent figures out the distance. However, If the signal strength is weak it could be because of other reasons and not because the satellite is far away.

There is no assumption that a weak signal is an indication of a far away satellite. The distance is calculated from the time alone, which is independent of signal strength.

Read what I wrote below, "GPS Satellite Location Errors".

Again, what is your source for that? It is incorrect, I believe. Do you have any other sources that suggest satellite distance is calculated from signal strength?

844

Flat Earth General / Re: Navigation, Why Use GPS Satellites?

« on: February 18, 2016, 12:26:54 PM »

If the signal that I receive is 10 dB, that will tell my receiver that the satellite equates to 1000 miles away. If the signal I receive is 100 dB, that will tell my receiver that the satellite equates to 100,000 miles away. So, what is it? Is the satellite 1000 or 100,000 miles away?

The receiver doesn't calculate the distance to the satellite from the signal strength. It calculates it from the time taken by the signal to reach the receiver. The speed of the signal is the speed of light, independent of signal strength, and so the distance to the satellite is proportional to the time taken by the signal.

Read this:

GPS Satellite Location Errors

GPS satellite location errors are cause by many sources, the dominant of which being variations in signal strength caused by effects other than range. If some other effect acts to reduce the signal strength then the sensor interprets this weak signal as longer range than reality.  The below image shows how range errors from each receiver contribute to overall satellite location error.
 

Range errors are the limiting factor of signal strength systems since many factors affect signal strength beyond just the spacing of the satellites from the receivers. Examples include attenuation due to signal blockage and variations due to satellite orientation. The dominant factor, however, is an effect called “multipath” which is a factor in all location system types, and so is worth a short aside to aid in understanding.
When a satellite emits a signal, that signal is, by design, emitted in all directions so as to reach as many receivers as possible. This scattergun signal will bounce off any reflective surface, such as metal objects, and a single receiver may hear the signal from one satellite echoing off multiple surfaces. The effect is exactly the same as voice echoes heard when shouting in a large cavern or in the mountains.
In a manufacturing environment, which is filled with metallic objects, the chief concern of location systems is to cope with the damaging effects of multipath. For signal strength systems multipath can be very damaging indeed due to an effect known as signal cancellation.
A radio wave is just like a wave on the ocean: an undulating surface which moves along at a certain speed (the speed of light in the case of radio waves). In the ocean, waves can come from multiple directions and when two peaks meet a very large wave can build up locally as the peaks add together. Similarly a peak from one direction can coincide with a trough from another direction and these completely cancel each other leaving no wave at all. The phenomenon is familiar to surfers who understand that waves come in sets: they wait through the periods when the peaks and troughs are cancelling each other leaving very small waves, instead hoping to catch a period of peaks combining with peaks for the biggest surf of the set.
The exact same signal cancellation phenomenon affects radio waves as they bounce off multiple reflectors and arrive at a receiver from many directions. The adding and cancelling of peaks and troughs look to the receiver like increases and decreases in signal strength, which that receiver interprets as decreases and increases in satellite range even though the satellite may not be in that location at all. The result is that the error bands, as shown in the image, can grow very wide due to multipath, causing large errors in satellite location.

What is your source for that? I don't doubt that signal blockage and multipath effects can cause problems, particularly in built-up areas. But the implication that the receiver bases the satellite distance on signal strength is incorrect as far as I know.

There is no mention of signal strength in this wikipedia article: Error analysis for the Global Positioning System.

845

Flat Earth General / Re: Navigation, Why Use GPS Satellites?

« on: February 18, 2016, 12:01:01 PM »

If the signal that I receive is 10 dB, that will tell my receiver that the satellite equates to 1000 miles away. If the signal I receive is 100 dB, that will tell my receiver that the satellite equates to 100,000 miles away. So, what is it? Is the satellite 1000 or 100,000 miles away?

The receiver doesn't calculate the distance to the satellite from the signal strength. It calculates it from the time taken by the signal to reach the receiver. The speed of the signal is the speed of light, independent of signal strength, and so the distance to the satellite is proportional to the time taken by the signal.

846

Flat Earth General / Re: Navigation, Why Use GPS Satellites?

« on: February 18, 2016, 11:50:43 AM »

Here is one part of GPS I don't understand. I had tried earlier to explain what I meant, but I wasn't successful. I want to try again and maybe someone can help me. Iv'e not found anything that explains trilateration better then the below image, so I guess I will use it to try and explain what i mean. Basically it shows 3 satellites and the receiver location. The way I understand it is, the satellites transmits a signal and the receiver receives it. The signal has a time stamp of when the signal is sent out and when the receiver gets the signal it can tell when the signal is transmitted and by that it can tell the distance to the satellite. All images of this is like the one i'm using. It shows the signal and it says the signal falls on the location of the receiver. Now, I can understand this  if it is radar and the signal is reflected bask to the transmitter and then the transmitter can figure out time and distance, but we are talking about a radio signal that can go past the receiver or not getting to the receiver at all. Then it shows the second satellite doing the same thing and the signal again falls on top of the receiver. Then the third satellites signal falls right on top the receiver and that intersection of all three is where the receiver is located. What would the odds of that happening be?


I found an article of how GPS works and it explains what I'm talking about this way.

How Position is Determined
A GPS receiver "knows" the location of the satellites because that information is included in the transmitted ephemeris data (see below). By estimating how far away a satellite is, the receiver also "knows" it is located somewhere on the surface of an imaginary sphere centered at the satellite. It then determines the sizes of several spheres, one for each satellite and therefore knows the receiver is located where these spheres intersect.

The signal doesn't have to 'land on top of' the receiver. The signal travels outwards from the satellite so it will hit the receiver at some point if the receiver is in the way. So the odds of what is in the diagram happening is 100% if all three satellites are visible from the receiver.

847

Flat Earth General / Re: Navigation, Why Use GPS Satellites?

« on: February 17, 2016, 12:40:59 AM »

It is just that they often times use pseudolites mounted on cell towers for GPS purposes.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Is this okay?
http://www.google.ch/patents/US6597988

Yes - thank you. I also found this.

I'd not come across these before. Their use will necessarily be quite localised though.

848

Flat Earth General / Re: Navigation, Why Use GPS Satellites?

« on: February 16, 2016, 01:46:54 PM »

You've not answered my question I presented you above. Please do.

I answered your question here.

It is just that they often times use pseudolites mounted on cell towers for GPS purposes.

Do you have any evidence for this?

849

Flat Earth General / Re: Navigation, Why Use GPS Satellites?

« on: February 16, 2016, 12:56:57 PM »

Let me ask you, If it takes 3 or 4 satellites to locate you on earth, and they are all traveling at different directions and at a speed of 14,000 km/hour, what do you think the odds would be for 4 satellites to be in the precise location necessary for your receiver to triangulate you while you are going around chasing satellites? Also, how long do you think it would take for these satellites to get into the precise position. Just think about that for a minute. They get a few meter accuracy. Even if 7 satellites are available it seems almost impossible. I would think as one gets into position the others would have moved out of position. I can see this continually happening and maybe after a long time you may get 3 or 4 satellites in the perfect position for your receive to get a lock. Do you see what I mean or do you think I'm crazy? Because I can visualize it happening like that.

The satellites don't need to get into any precise position. They merely have to be visible from your receiver. The triangulation calculations do the rest.

Also, they move in carefully planned orbits to ensure that many are visible from any one place:

850

Flat Earth General / Re: Navigation, Why Use GPS Satellites?

« on: February 15, 2016, 02:26:05 PM »

Keep in mind that they aren't going to come out and say that it would work fine for satellite TV.

Why not? And who are they anyway?

You have to research to see if troposphere scatter seems plausible. I've done that and I believe it could be.

So you think it is plausible. Where is your third party evidence that it is the case.

Why do you think that it being via satellites is not plausible?

851

Flat Earth General / Re: Navigation, Why Use GPS Satellites?

« on: February 14, 2016, 10:48:21 AM »

I may be wrong, But from what I read, it seem the earth’s magnetic field would be a good way to navigate around the world instead of using satellites. The electronic components are small and relatively cheap. The navigational network would be much cheaper then satellites and the end results seem to be the same for both.

Even better to use both. From your own link:

Why do we need magnetic navigation when Global Position System (GPS) is readily available? GPS provides precise point location but only measures travel direction when in constant motion. A GPS receiver must collect several sets of latitude and longitude pairs to obtain direction. In addition, GPS signals may become blocked due to obstructions, adverse terrestrial and space weather, ionospheric conditions or being underwater or underground. Hence, compasses complement GPS receivers to attain precise and immediate navigational headings for air, ground, and water-based systems. Electronic compasses and the WMM commonly co-exist in GPS receivers.

So, tell me why we are not using the (WMM) to navigate?

I don't really understand why you're asking this, since from your own post and sources we are using the WMM in many situations, albeit not on its own.

852

Flat Earth General / Re: Free Thinkers

« on: January 31, 2016, 02:02:08 AM »

A free thinker is someone who isn't hindered by "established knowledge". We will question anything and everything. We are also happy to be proved wrong. Being a free thinker usually shows how much "established knowledge" is unverifiable and thus questionable.

We rarely find ourselves wrong due to not committing ourselves to a view that is questionable.

The indoctrinated dislike free thinkers because they believe implicitly on assumptions that we question.

You write "established knowledge" in quotes, presumably because in your view it is not actually established. Can I ask then, if you think there is a body of established knowledge (no quotes) that is established and verified?

And if so, would you say that the majority of what is generally considered known is established, or merely "established"?

853

Flat Earth General / Re: Free Thinkers

« on: January 30, 2016, 01:42:22 PM »

The term "Free thinker" comes up quite a lot in this forum. So I was wondering...

Who here would describe themselves as a free thinker? And if so, what do you mean by that?

What is it that distinguishes someone who is a free thinker from one who is not?

Yeh, not sure on free thinking. How about you give us an example on a free thought you have had so we can get an idea of what you are on about?

I'm not sure either. That was the gist of my post. It's a term that is used a lot here and I'm interested to know what posters mean by it.

854

Flat Earth General / Free Thinkers

« on: January 30, 2016, 01:25:57 PM »

The term "Free thinker" comes up quite a lot in this forum. So I was wondering...

Who here would describe themselves as a free thinker? And if so, what do you mean by that?

What is it that distinguishes someone who is a free thinker from one who is not?

855

Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctic sun

« on: January 26, 2016, 06:53:06 AM »

Is Admiral Byrd also considered a "tin foil hat conspiracy nutter" ?

He went on the record as stating the world map paradigm was wrong.

Citation needed.

“Strangely enough, there is an area left in the world today an area as big as the United States that’s never been seen by a human being beyond the South Pole”.

Some more context from that " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">interview:

Interviewer: Is there any unexplored land left on this earth that might appeal to adventurous young Americans?

Byrd: Yes there is, not up around the north pole ... but strangely enough, there's left in the world today an area as big as the United States that's never been seen by a human being, and that's beyond the pole, on the other side of the south pole from middle America ... so I think there's a lot of adventure left at the bottom of the world.

Interviewer: Do you hope to see that?

Byrd: I do.

So, he's merely stating that at that time - I'm guessing around 1960 - large parts of Antarctica remained unexplored. He's not suggesting anything mysterious at all.

856

Flat Earth General / Re: Government Space Agencies Put On Blast (Blatant Fakery Exposed)

« on: January 25, 2016, 02:30:19 PM »

Now, again; how are the Voyagers transmitting data back to Earth from billions of miles away?

What is the strength of their transmitters?

What powers them?

How do they align their dishes with Earth?

What is the strength of the signal when it reaches Earth?

Surprisingly, many of your  questions are answered here.

857

Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX this Sunday, any predictions?

« on: January 20, 2016, 10:13:33 AM »

You mean the video that has already been posted?

  I havnt seen the footage. Have you got a link. I'd be interested in watching.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Here.

858

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA's Surveyor 3 was unable to photograph Antarctica in 1967

« on: January 17, 2016, 03:05:48 AM »

For clarification, these pictures were taken by ESSA 3, a weather satellite, and not Surveyor III, which was on the moon at the time.

(Source: link in OP.)

859

Flat Earth General / Re: Government Space Agencies Put On Blast (Blatant Fakery Exposed)

« on: January 16, 2016, 02:02:56 PM »

Okay, I'm not understanding your explanations. Let's try a different approach. Below are two scenarios that I think are basically the same. Let's not go into math or anything high level. I'm looking at this completely with my common sense. If I'm wrong, please explain as simple as you can why. In physics, an orbit is the path that an object makes around another object while under the influence of a source of centripetal force. Below is how I understand this orbit stuff works.

1. shoot a cannonball parallel to the earth. The cannon has enough gunpowder to hurl the ball far enough to actually miss the earth and go all the way around the earth and you better duck or the cannonball will hit you in the back of your head. That is one orbit of the cannonball.

2. Now, we take the cannon into space where there is no air resistance and we do the same thing. Except this time the ball continuously orbits the earth because there is no air resistance.

3. The ball continues this path, however gravity is trying to pull it down, but the inertia of the ball keeps that from happening. The ball keeps on going around the earth.

4. The force that gravity puts on the ball is called centripetal force.

5. The inertia of the ball that overcomes the force of gravity is called centrifugal force.
No. The gravitational pull on the ball isn't 'overcome', in fact it is yielded to completely. However, the inertia of the ball combines with the gravitational pull to give a circular path such that the ball doesn't get closer to the earth. There is no centrifugal force involved.

6. Both centripetal and centrifugal force balance each other out because one pulls and the other in a sense pushes away.
No. There is no centrifugal force and the forces on the ball are not balanced - the only force acting on the ball is the centripetal pull of gravity. This is why it is accelerating towards the earth, i.e going in a circle. Note that if the forces on the ball were balanced it would be going in a straight line!

7. Because of these two forces are balanced the ball will continue, staying parallel to the earth as it orbits around it.
Again, there is only one force and no balancing of forces. And again, if the forces were balanced the ball would travel in a straight line, not a circle.

From everything I've read and heard, this is the way the ISS stays in orbit around the earth. So we can call the ball the ISS. I hope we all agree on this. The other thing they say and show us is the crew floats around while on board. Now, I want to present the same scenario, except I want to substitute an airplane for the ISS. I'm not comparing the two because I certainly know the differences. I just want to demonstrate something that I would think we all can relate to.

The airplane will be traveling at 40,000 ft. going 500 mph and it will have a means to be refueled while in flight.

1. It leaves the runway and makes it's way upward going fast.

2. It flies in the atmosphere so it will need control surfaces and engines.

3. The plane continues on its straight flight around the earth. However, gravity is trying to pull it down to the earth but the engines and control surfaces keep that from happening and that keeps the inertia of the plane moving forward.

4. The force that gravity puts on the plane is called centripetal force.
I don't think it would ever be referred to as centripetal force in this case, but yes, gravity is acting on the plane.

5. The inertia of the plane that overcomes the force of gravity is called centrifugal force.
As with the ball, there is no centrifugal force. BUT in this case there are forces opposing gravity and keeping the plane airborne - lift from the wings and power from the engine. It is not in free fall.

6. Both centripetal and centrifugal force balance each other out because one pulls and the other in a sense pushes away.
Wrong terminology, but yes, if the plane is maintaining constant speed and horizontal flight then the forces on it are balanced.

7. Because  these two forces are balanced the plane will continue, staying parallel to the earth as it orbits around it.
The term orbit really refers to unpowered inertial movement around a body at the necessary speed for the given altitude. Here we have horizontal flight, but yes, it is parallel to the ground.

Think about both scenarios, the ISS in orbit and the plane in orbit and answer these simply questions, please.

1. Do we all agree on my analogy between the two or I'm I missing something?
The scenarios are not analogous. The first is unpowered free fall orbiting. The second is powered flight at much less than orbital speed.

2. Why do they say ISS is free falling around the earth and the plane isn't? To me they both are simply orbiting the earth.
The ISS has one force acting on it - gravity. This is the definition of free fall. The plane has many forces acting on it - gravity, engine power, lift, wind resistance. It is also travelling much slower than the speed necessary for orbiting at its likely altitude.

3. The crew on board the ISS floats around, why don't the passengers and crew float around on the airplane?
Because the ISS and its crew are free falling, they are not resisting the pull of gravity, so they are weightless. It is only when gravity is resisted that a body has weight. The plane is not in free fall. Its passengers resist the pull of gravity because the plane is holding them up. Hence they are not weightless.

860

Flat Earth General / Re: Government Space Agencies Put On Blast (Blatant Fakery Exposed)

« on: January 15, 2016, 03:04:47 PM »

Anytime you are inside a car that goes around a corner you feel this outward force.
....
Give me your logic and explain why you don't feel an outward push when you go around a corner in a car.

When you go round a corner in a car you notice that your inertia carries you towards the outer side of the car because the car is moving contrary to your straight line direction. But you don't feel any force pushing you there. In fact the force you feel will be inward as the car door (say) forces you to follow the same path as the car. Think about it. Imagine the car is turning right. Do you feel any force pushing on your right hand side? Is your flesh at all compressed on your right hand side? Now imagine you have slid in your seat to be against the left hand door. Do you feel any force pushing on your left hand side? Is your flesh at all compressed on your left hand side? If the car is going round the corner too fast, which side of you will hurt, left or right? I hope you can now see that the force that you will feel is inward, not outward.

Going back to the ISS, in your view, what would happen to an astronaut if they stepped outside the spacecraft?

861

Flat Earth General / Re: Government Space Agencies Put On Blast (Blatant Fakery Exposed)

« on: January 15, 2016, 12:43:44 PM »

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Towards the end of that video the commentator says "The inhabitants of today's satellites are in a continuous state of weightlessness...". So he understands it.

No, he said if you drop the tire with the bugs inside they would be in a weightless condition.

I quoted him exactly. Listen at 6:13.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

You linked to that video earlier in the thread. It's good. As has been explained by others, the bug receives centripetal force from the base of the can and so is pressed against it. For astronauts in a spacecraft however, they receive centripetal force from gravity, not from the spacecraft, so they are not pressed against it.

Just out of interest, in your view, what would happen to an astronaut if they stepped outside the spacecraft?

862

Flat Earth General / Re: Government Space Agencies Put On Blast (Blatant Fakery Exposed)

« on: January 15, 2016, 08:44:52 AM »

When you say the astronauts are feeling no force applied to them at all, that's when you went astray. It is true that both forces are balanced acting on the spacecraft, I've said that many times. However, because the astronauts are inside a rotating body, accelerating or not, they will feel the effect of centrifugal force because there is no counter force acting upon them. Therefore they have no choice but to be forced against the wall opposite the earth. The only way they wouldn't is if they are strapped in a seat like a race car driver is strapped in his seat as the car is racing around a circular race track.

(My emphasis).

There is a counter force - the astronauts are subject to the same gravitational pull as the spacecraft. They all fall together. This is why they are weightless.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Towards the end of that video the commentator says "The inhabitants of today's satellites are in a continuous state of weightlessness...". So he understands it.

863

Flat Earth General / Poll: What are your honest beliefs about the shape of the earth?

« on: January 14, 2016, 02:27:18 PM »

I've been browsing this site for a couple of weeks with some fascination. I'm curious about the people who come here, and what they actually believe about the shape of the earth. Hence this poll. If it has been done before and recently, apologies. Genuinely honest answers are encouraged.

864

Flat Earth General / Re: Government Space Agencies Put On Blast (Blatant Fakery Exposed)

« on: January 13, 2016, 02:53:55 PM »

According to Newton, "The very nature of the Centripetal Force demands and necessitates force which in its mode of operation is exactly the opposite of the Centripetal Force. Unless there were such force, repellent and repulsive force, then instead of there being that harmonious working of the universe that now exists, there must inevitably be gradual drawing together of all planets and satellites, of all stars and suns, into one vast, solitary, and ruinous body." These bodies in space are not being pulled towards the center of a circle any more then they are being repelled.

Don't you believe what Newton says?

A bit of googling tells me you're not quoting Newton here - this passage is from William George Hooper's "Aether and Gravitation" and represents Hooper's interpretation of centrifugal force, not Newton's.

This wikipedia page is informative about the history of centrifugal force and various scientists' interpretation of it.

865

Flat Earth General / Re: Government Space Agencies Put On Blast (Blatant Fakery Exposed)

« on: January 11, 2016, 03:09:23 PM »

The ISS certainly is pulling on the earth and based on your ball and string quote I had inferred that this was the force that Newton referred to as centrifugal. My research tells me however, that both Newton and I were wrong, and that the centrifugal force is an apparent force that acts on a body when viewed in a rotating reference frame.

Regardless, the only force acting on a satellite is the gravitational pull of the earth. Hence it is in free fall.

The analogy with the rock is quite correct, objects will orbit if they have sufficient velocity such that when they fall they 'miss' the earth.

866

Flat Earth General / Re: Government Space Agencies Put On Blast (Blatant Fakery Exposed)

« on: January 10, 2016, 03:05:01 PM »

Okay, let's get back to this again. Somewhere in this thread, I believe you said that the crew floated because they were free falling. The definition of free fall is:
Free fall
In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it.

It is my understand in order for a satellite to orbit the earth, there are two forces acting on it, centripetal and centrifugal. The centrifugal force is what keeps the satellite from free falling to earth. So, why do you say that the crew is in free fall?

It is correct that the ISS and its crew are in freefall. The only force acting on them is the gravitational pull of the earth. They are constantly accelerating towards the centre of the earth causing them to move in an orbit rather than a straight line.

This force would be categorised as centripetal in this situation. The corresponding centrifugal force (which is equal and opposite) would be the gravitational pull of the ISS acting on the earth.

This is Newton's analogy describing orbit:
A piece of string with ball attached to one of the ends is held firmly by the hand. An impulse or motion is imparted to the ball by the hand, that motion being continued by the movement from the hand. The first impulse given to the ball by the hand represents the Primitive Impulse. The tension on the string which holds the ball to its controlling centre represents the Centripetal Force, while the opposite force on the string, which takes up the Primitive Impulse and continues it, is represented by the Centrifugal Force.

You see, Newton is describing two forces. He believed you can't have centripetal force without centrifugal force because it would be unbalanced.

Or, are you saying you don't believe Newton.

Newton was entirely correct. There is both a centripetal force and a centrifugal force. In this case the centripetal force is the gravitational pull of the earth on the ISS. The opposite and balancing centrifugal force is the gravitational pull of the ISS on the earth.

The only force acting on the ISS is the gravitational pull of the earth. Hence it is in freefall.

867

Flat Earth General / Re: Government Space Agencies Put On Blast (Blatant Fakery Exposed)

« on: January 10, 2016, 02:26:57 PM »

Okay, let's get back to this again. Somewhere in this thread, I believe you said that the crew floated because they were free falling. The definition of free fall is:
Free fall
In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it.

It is my understand in order for a satellite to orbit the earth, there are two forces acting on it, centripetal and centrifugal. The centrifugal force is what keeps the satellite from free falling to earth. So, why do you say that the crew is in free fall?

It is correct that the ISS and its crew are in freefall. The only force acting on them is the gravitational pull of the earth. They are constantly accelerating towards the centre of the earth causing them to move in an orbit rather than a straight line.

This force would be categorised as centripetal in this situation. The corresponding centrifugal force (which is equal and opposite) would be the gravitational pull of the ISS acting on the earth.

868

Flat Earth General / Re: Greek Conspiricy

« on: January 09, 2016, 01:33:03 AM »

Poe's law