in the FAQ...

  • 28 Replies
  • 5170 Views
*

Mackie

  • 36
  • +0/-0
in the FAQ...
« on: November 11, 2007, 10:32:44 AM »
towards the top in the FAQ, it reads:

Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead

now that cant be entirely true, as the media and civilians were allowed to attend the launch. there were rockets there, and they did take off if i'm not mistaken.

i'm well aware of fe's thoughts on space travel, and on the current space program (space shuttle). however, i am also aware that rockets are highly volatile, thusly, precision instruments, whether attached to a car trying to break the land speed record, or allegdly, taking humans to space. my point being, rockets cost money, and alot of it, especially in the late 60's and 70's when the perfection of rockets was still relatively new technology (the rocket itself being a very old instrument, created by the Chinese during the 9th century, but these were crude at best). So if the US government was to spend an insane amount of money on the construction, testing and use of these rockets, they would be at a loss, because from what i can tell, there is really not much of a profit margin in telling everyone the earth is round, especially after the military costs to protect the ice wall from your average schmuck.

so thats my rant. hope you enjoyed reading it more than i enjoyed typing it (not alot) :P
Tom Bishop: Space photos are a conspiracy. The horizon we see outside our windows is flat.

Representative From Uzbekistan: that's like saying cheese is a verb

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35188
  • +1/-0
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2007, 11:18:41 AM »
towards the top in the FAQ, it reads:

Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead

now that cant be entirely true, as the media and civilians were allowed to attend the launch. there were rockets there, and they did take off if i'm not mistaken.

You aren't mistaken, but the FAQ is old.  What we mean is that they did not go to the moon or orbit the Earth.  They came down quietly and pretended to send pictures from up there.

i'm well aware of fe's thoughts on space travel, and on the current space program (space shuttle). however, i am also aware that rockets are highly volatile, thusly, precision instruments, whether attached to a car trying to break the land speed record, or allegdly, taking humans to space. my point being, rockets cost money, and alot of it, especially in the late 60's and 70's when the perfection of rockets was still relatively new technology (the rocket itself being a very old instrument, created by the Chinese during the 9th century, but these were crude at best). So if the US government was to spend an insane amount of money on the construction, testing and use of these rockets, they would be at a loss, because from what i can tell, there is really not much of a profit margin in telling everyone the earth is round, especially after the military costs to protect the ice wall from your average schmuck.

Perfection is the key word.  They did not have to make the rockets that great as recorded, because there would not be extended space travel.

*

Mackie

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2007, 11:35:15 AM »
well, what i meant by precision was that so they didnt explode on the platform, or catch fire where they weren't supposed to, ie. the cockpit, as witnessed early on in the apollo program.

still takes alot of money, just to get to that point. however, not going to the moon may save a chunk on fuel, but not a lot, as most of the fuel is used to get the craft off the ground.

i just thought i'd bring that to attention, as it seems kind of silly to me.
Tom Bishop: Space photos are a conspiracy. The horizon we see outside our windows is flat.

Representative From Uzbekistan: that's like saying cheese is a verb

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2007, 11:35:37 AM »
They obviously used their mad photoshop skillz to trick people attending the launches  ;D
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2007, 11:37:39 AM »
The FAQ is outdated.  It is possible to go to space on an FE.

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2007, 11:41:08 AM »
The FAQ is outdated.  It is possible to go to space on an FE.

Possible--- but not cost effective to have developed computer imaging programs back in the day.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

Mackie

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2007, 11:44:27 AM »
i <3 photoshop. in fact, i will now photoshop all of existance itself.

and that intrigues me trekky, ive read a lot on fe'ers saying space travel is impossible on this forum, most of which are used to dispel (sp?) NASA's photographs and the RE theory of space travel. i wont get into mathematics or anything, im no good with advanced physics, but nevertheless, my interest has been peaked.
Tom Bishop: Space photos are a conspiracy. The horizon we see outside our windows is flat.

Representative From Uzbekistan: that's like saying cheese is a verb

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2007, 11:46:43 AM »
Yeah, the theory is that the stars have a gravitational pull unlike the Earth and spacecraft can balance between the UA and the pull from the stars and maintain orbit.

*

Mackie

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2007, 11:51:31 AM »
ah. and that makes sense, to some degree, but stars would have to have to be of a fairly decent size before they create a gravitational effect, and if they're as small as they seem through my eyes on the ground, and the sun being as large as it is, and the distance between the sun and that stars is ony 100 miles, then for me, thats cause for disbelief.
 
feel free to explain it further if im not grasping correctly.
Tom Bishop: Space photos are a conspiracy. The horizon we see outside our windows is flat.

Representative From Uzbekistan: that's like saying cheese is a verb

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2007, 12:01:12 PM »
Yeah, it doesn't make much sense.  That's Flat Earth for you.
By the way, I am a round Earther, I just enjoy the chats here.


*

Mackie

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2007, 12:06:20 PM »
ah, thus creating weightlessness, very good

and yes, i have a pretty good idea of who the serious re'ers and fe'ers are. ive been reading this site for about a month now while im at work.
i thought i'd get the whole picture before posting. unlike other people.

mackie = an non-conventional n00b :D
Tom Bishop: Space photos are a conspiracy. The horizon we see outside our windows is flat.

Representative From Uzbekistan: that's like saying cheese is a verb

*

ozmax

  • 44
  • +0/-0
  • bhut seks
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2007, 08:47:20 PM »
It is possible to go to space on an FE.

Does that mean it's ok to assume that you could take a picture from space, and once and for all show what shape this stupid planet is?

Oh I forgot, when NASA does that it's a load of shit.
advocate of simulated commiseration

?

Captain Alitus

  • 151
  • +0/-0
  • Lord of the Lizard People
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2007, 09:08:42 PM »
They obviously used their mad photoshop skillz to trick people attending the launches  ;D
You need mad PS skillz to use vacuum tube photoshop :D
Quote from: McDonalds Fan
Why is it when I throw a delicious McNugget up in the air it always comes back down into my eagerly awaiting mouth?

?

Duuurh

Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2007, 02:58:04 AM »
If the earth was moving upwards at 9.8 m/s we would all be crushed you're all wasting your lives

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2007, 04:09:15 AM »
Trekky, space travel is not possible in the traditional sense. I'm not sure why you're BSing the new people with this.

You can in all probability get to space, but you'd need to constantly eject mass to stay above the Earth. Thus, in the traditional sense, it's not possible to simply stay up there.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2007, 04:45:49 AM »
If the earth was moving upwards at 9.8 m/s we would all be crushed you're all wasting your lives

First, understand the Earth is supposedly accelerating upwards at 9.8m/sē. As we accelerate along with it, we are constantly moving at higherspeeds meaning that the push we feel remains constant. Should we push off of the Earth, or jump, we increase our speed and then drift until the Earth catches up. We don't feel velocity, but we feel acceleration or change in velocity. Look up the Equilvalence Principle, courtesy of TheEngineer.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Mackie

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2007, 06:43:50 AM »
okay, so would that not contradict a little thing called terminal velocity?
Tom Bishop: Space photos are a conspiracy. The horizon we see outside our windows is flat.

Representative From Uzbekistan: that's like saying cheese is a verb

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2007, 06:53:08 AM »
Apparently not.  ???
Although its a bit over my head, apparently extreme speeds add differently. I think the idea is that constant acceleration is modeled differently at speeds close to the speed of light.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2007, 06:56:40 AM »
Ok, the earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s^2.  When you jump off the ground, you have added to your velocity, but you are no longer accelerating.  The earth still is.  The earth simply accelerates up to your new velocity. 

Aircraft must produce lift in order to stay aloft.  As long as they are producing an upwards acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, they are not getting any closer to the ground. 

Terminal velocity is reached when the drag force of the air on the skydiver equals the acceleration of the earth.  He is still falling, just no longer accelerating.  The atmosphere is pushed along with the earth.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Mackie

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2007, 07:06:27 AM »
okay, so i get that, and you all seem fairly smart, so i dont feel as though i have to tell you what terminal velocity is, but on the FE model, if its accelerating at a constant rate, then terminal velocity wouldnt exist, and that'd kill plenty of skydivers with malfunctioning chutes.
Tom Bishop: Space photos are a conspiracy. The horizon we see outside our windows is flat.

Representative From Uzbekistan: that's like saying cheese is a verb

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2007, 07:09:24 AM »
The air is accelerated by the Earth.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Mackie

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2007, 07:16:49 AM »
i know this, which is why i didnt say something about an atmosphere problem, but ive done a fair bit of reading on this before i began posting, but i didnt see all too much on this subject.

air accelerating would allow for drag, but it wouldnt stop a human from continuously accelerating, or, in this case, constantly deccelerating towards earth. (yes, i know the object in discussion isnt the human, but the fe itself accelerating towards the human). it would slow a human, that much is for certain, but with this model, there is no "top speed" per say.

im not about to stand fast on my position, and im here with open ears, so i hope you dont think im trolling.
Tom Bishop: Space photos are a conspiracy. The horizon we see outside our windows is flat.

Representative From Uzbekistan: that's like saying cheese is a verb

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2007, 07:27:08 AM »
"An object falling will fall 9.81 meters per second faster every second (9.81 m/sē). The reason an object reaches a terminal velocity is that the drag force resisting motion is directly proportional to the square of its speed. At low speeds the drag is much less than the gravitational force and so the object accelerates. As it speeds up the drag increases, until eventually it equals the weight."

Terminal velocity is the exact same on RE as it is on FE.

I'd like it if you could clarify where you see the difference.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Mackie

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2007, 07:31:48 AM »
i may be mistaken, but i was taught that terminal velocity was the "top speed" if you will, in which gravity can pull you at, since the earth is only the size it is, and no larger, it has a specific gravity (all this being taught to me on a RE background) and thus, has a specific gravitational power and speed it can pull at, this is why i was stumped at an accelerating earth, because the earth is the pane accelerating up to you, air would slow you down, yes, but i doubt that drag would stop you from accelerating all together.
Tom Bishop: Space photos are a conspiracy. The horizon we see outside our windows is flat.

Representative From Uzbekistan: that's like saying cheese is a verb

*

Mackie

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2007, 07:36:42 AM »
"An object reaches terminal velocity when the downward force of gravity equals the upward force of drag. The net force on the body is then zero, and the result is that the velocity of the object remains constant."

wikipedia's take on terminal velocity.
Tom Bishop: Space photos are a conspiracy. The horizon we see outside our windows is flat.

Representative From Uzbekistan: that's like saying cheese is a verb

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2007, 07:37:29 AM »
Yes, I was just posting that.

So, do you get it now?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Mackie

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #26 on: November 12, 2007, 07:39:15 AM »
yesm, i'll put my foot in my mouth :D

i aint got no formal learnin'. hi-hyuck. :P
Tom Bishop: Space photos are a conspiracy. The horizon we see outside our windows is flat.

Representative From Uzbekistan: that's like saying cheese is a verb

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #27 on: November 12, 2007, 07:42:00 AM »
Formal learning is overrated anyways.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Mackie

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: in the FAQ...
« Reply #28 on: November 12, 2007, 07:46:07 AM »
indeed it is, im a 19 year old, with an extensive vocabulary, who works for HP computers, i think im doin okay for my age. lol

Tom Bishop: Space photos are a conspiracy. The horizon we see outside our windows is flat.

Representative From Uzbekistan: that's like saying cheese is a verb