Observing the ISS

Quote from: SSSavio on September 08, 2009, 10:01:52 AM

Quote from: John Davis on September 08, 2009, 08:48:08 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on September 08, 2009, 08:05:06 AM

Quote

It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.

My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.

How do you propose we "go around and discover" and infinite area?

The concept of an infinite earth is simply absurd. Neither the universe is infinite. The proposal of an infinite earth come into play only to cover the holes in the theory. Ok, i was thinking why none flat earther in history try to enter the NASA or any other space institute to prove they are conspirator and to put the hands on tecnologies that can help him demonstrate that the earth is really flat.

It came into play to explain several phenomenon, some of which the RE theories fail to explain.

Science is always in evolution. If I have a good theory that explain so many things but fail explaining something, not necessarily I have to conclude that my theory is wrong. I can conclude that I am missing something, somehow. But I can't push into my theory things that I know are completely absurd, like an infinite earth, only to cover the holes in my theory.

Ok.

Interestingly, in attempting to come up with some actual numbers, I managed to show that the energy required to lift an object into space in FET would actually be less than that required to send it into orbit in RET, simply because RET requires acceleration to orbital velocity whereas FET allows dark energy to pick up after a few thousand kilometres. I hereby retract my previous statement; sustained spaceflight should be quite possible in FET.

Mmmmm. Not really true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

The page you have linked to is a statement of hypothesis, which is not the same thing as knowledge.

Again, not really true. Ret has a decent explanation. Fet does not.

Nuclear fusion has never been experimentally validated as a sustainable source of energy.

What is the difference in having an "unkown source of energy" instead of billions, if they are all stars?

Because FET only has one freak instance to explain. What is more probable, that billions of objects all over the Universe somehow developed an untested and unverified method of producing energy, or that we simply have one unexplained power source that is providing energy to all the stars?

Why a big bang sholud produce things that are so different and unique? You know, you take an enormous and ultra-dense ball of matter, and make them blow: the phisic laws are the one that we can see, so why the big bang produces this odd things? I think it's more natural thinking that in the space there a re tons of galaxy and stuffs like that, quite similar one to another. It is a more realistic scenario. What sort of big bang projects things only "upwards", while there is nothing "downwards"?

I think it's more likely "outwards" than "upwards". We've just been moving for so long that everything around us appears to accelerate in the same direction. There may very well be other Earths out there, also moving outwards from the initial Big Bang in different directions.

Ok. So, I'm now putting the fingers here, just near my eyes, and I see that it is much more big than the Sforza Castle. Accordig to FEt, my finger is bigger than a castle.

No, that is not what I said. Please read my post again.

I think you, as some other FEt, like relativity. It happens because of gravitation.

Where is your evidence for this?

My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.

Large-scale observations of the Earth are not so easy for an individual to perform. Those who do have the capability to perform these observations are hiding the truth from the public.

Quote from: John Davis on September 08, 2009, 03:10:11 PM

Quote from: SSSavio on September 08, 2009, 10:01:52 AM

Quote from: John Davis on September 08, 2009, 08:48:08 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on September 08, 2009, 08:05:06 AM

Quote

It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.

My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.

How do you propose we "go around and discover" and infinite area?

The concept of an infinite earth is simply absurd. Neither the universe is infinite. The proposal of an infinite earth come into play only to cover the holes in the theory. Ok, i was thinking why none flat earther in history try to enter the NASA or any other space institute to prove they are conspirator and to put the hands on tecnologies that can help him demonstrate that the earth is really flat.

It came into play to explain several phenomenon, some of which the RE theories fail to explain.

Science is always in evolution. If I have a good theory that explain so many things but fail explaining something, not necessarily I have to conclude that my theory is wrong. I can conclude that I am missing something, somehow. But I can't push into my theory things that I know are completely absurd, like an infinite earth, only to cover the holes in my theory.

And who is the arbiter of the absurd?  Churches were once.  Now?  The farce that is the scientific community - lead by greed and what can only be called fashion - is in its place.

No, no one can be an arbiter of the absurd - everything must be considered.  Time and time again these arbiters, in many cases the science community, has pushed back advances that may have come earlier or have dismissed ideas that would have been fruitful due to either their vanity, their adherence to fashion, or for plain old wealth.

Or is it you that are arbitrating in this instance?   Unless there is a valid concern, that goes against a theory - not because it is "unfashionable" or ridiculous as you put it - then it should be considered.

Not so long ago many of our ideas would have been consider black magic and absurd.

Ridiculous argument.

Hafele-Keating and the attempt to surpress it.  If one looks at the original data, one sees clearly no change happens where is predicted.

From what I've been able to gather, the main controversy of Hafele-Keating has to do with insufficient precision of  the atomic clocks used in the experiment.  It seems that a 25th anniversary recreation of the experiment using more accurate atomic clocks confirmed the original conclusions. 

On return to NPL the travelling clock was predicted to have gained 39.8 ns, including an additional geometric factor. This compared remarkably well with a measured gain of 39.0 ns. We estimated the uncertainty due to clock instabilities and noise to be around ?2 ns. This short flying clock experiment therefore provided a clear demonstration of relativistic effects.

Quote from: John Davis on September 08, 2009, 11:48:06 PM

Hafele-Keating and the attempt to surpress it.  If one looks at the original data, one sees clearly no change happens where is predicted.

From what I've been able to gather, the main controversy of Hafele-Keating has to do with insufficient precision of  the atomic clocks used in the experiment.  It seems that a 25th anniversary recreation of the experiment using more accurate atomic clocks confirmed the original conclusions. 

Quote from: http://web.archive.org/web/20050411015134/http://www.npl.co.uk/publications/metromnia/issue18/

On return to NPL the travelling clock was predicted to have gained 39.8 ns, including an additional geometric factor. This compared remarkably well with a measured gain of 39.0 ns. We estimated the uncertainty due to clock instabilities and noise to be around ?2 ns. This short flying clock experiment therefore provided a clear demonstration of relativistic effects.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the actual data published.  It had to do with misrepresenting the data.  While there was controversy concerning the precision also, this was not the main issue, iirc.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the actual data published.  It had to do with misrepresenting the data.  While there was controversy concerning the precision also, this was not the main issue, iirc.

Are you referring to the original experiment, or to the 25th anniversary reenactment?  Either way, gravimeters provide a far simpler method for measuring the variations in gravitation at various altitudes without having to worry about time dilation (the primary purpose of Hafele-Keating). 

Interestingly, in attempting to come up with some actual numbers, I managed to show that the energy required to lift an object into space in FET would actually be less than that required to send it into orbit in RET, simply because RET requires acceleration to orbital velocity whereas FET allows dark energy to pick up after a few thousand kilometres. I hereby retract my previous statement; sustained spaceflight should be quite possible in FET.

Ok, so you have to adjust the FAQ according to this new discovery. Now, if sustained spaceflight is possible, why is it impossible that we went to the moon or that there is an ISS orbiting the earth?

The page you have linked to is a statement of hypothesis, which is not the same thing as knowledge.

Oh yes. Same as you. But the REt hypothesis are quite realistic, i think.

Nuclear fusion has never been experimentally validated as a sustainable source of energy.

Same for your sun.

Because FET only has one freak instance to explain. What is more probable, that billions of objects all over the Universe somehow developed an untested and unverified method of producing energy, or that we simply have one unexplained power source that is providing energy to all the stars?

I think it's more probable the billions of objects. Because only one object looks like an anomaly.

I think it's more likely "outwards" than "upwards". We've just been moving for so long that everything around us appears to accelerate in the same direction. There may very well be other Earths out there, also moving outwards from the initial Big Bang in different directions.

So there are more infinite earth. Illogic.

No, that is not what I said. Please read my post again.

I think your way of calculating the distance is wrong. Can you tell me your method?

Where is your evidence for this?

Big Masses produces space distortion. The evidence is that the light bends when approaching massive body.

Large-scale observations of the Earth are not so easy for an individual to perform. Those who do have the capability to perform these observations are hiding the truth from the public.

Hoax. I understand. Why FEers does not have a scientific community?

Quote from: John Davis on September 09, 2009, 06:51:49 AM

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the actual data published.  It had to do with misrepresenting the data.  While there was controversy concerning the precision also, this was not the main issue, iirc.

Are you referring to the original experiment, or to the 25th anniversary reenactment?  Either way, gravimeters provide a far simpler method for measuring the variations in gravitation at various altitudes without having to worry about time dilation (the primary purpose of Hafele-Keating). 

Can't find the 25th, overviewed the original.

The original purpose of Hafele-keating actually had nothing to do with time dialation.  They bastardized the results later to fit time dialation to justify their money spent. 

As far as I know, gravimeters only really show differences based on density of mass.  If one measures at the top of a mountain and then compares it to the relative mass at that area (in a smart fashion of course) one sees no discernable difference.

Quote from: markjo on September 09, 2009, 07:11:41 AM

Quote from: John Davis on September 09, 2009, 06:51:49 AM

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the actual data published.  It had to do with misrepresenting the data.  While there was controversy concerning the precision also, this was not the main issue, iirc.

Are you referring to the original experiment, or to the 25th anniversary reenactment?  Either way, gravimeters provide a far simpler method for measuring the variations in gravitation at various altitudes without having to worry about time dilation (the primary purpose of Hafele-Keating). 

Can't find the 25th, overviewed the original.

The original purpose of Hafele-keating actually had nothing to do with time dialation.  They bastardized the results later to fit time dialation to justify their money spent.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how Hafele-Keating could reasonably relate to anything but time dilation.  Why else would they send the planes around the world in opposite directions?  If anything, this would confirm the rotation of the earth on its axis because the difference in the clock readings was greater than zero because the planes were traveling at the velocity of the rotation of the earth +/- the velocity of the planes relative to the rotation of the earth.  Granted, they may not have come up with a precise value for the dilation, but the fact that they measured a value greater than zero to a high degree of confidence is significant.

As far as I know, gravimeters only really show differences based on density of mass.  If one measures at the top of a mountain and then compares it to the relative mass at that area (in a smart fashion of course) one sees no discernable difference.

I suppose that depends on what type of gravimeter you use.  Some are essentially high precision strain gauges that measure the weight of a known mass (essentially an accelerometer).  Others time the rate of a ball dropping (or rising and dropping) a known distance.  Granted, the mining industry does use gravimetric surveys to help locate areas of different density, but I would think that the difference in density would have less of an effect on a gravimeter than that of altitude (but I haven't done the research to confirm this yet).

http://parma.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/8275600

This video shows the ISS passing in front of the moon. Nice video.

Ok, so you have to adjust the FAQ according to this new discovery. Now, if sustained spaceflight is possible, why is it impossible that we went to the moon or that there is an ISS orbiting the earth?

I do not have the power to edit the FAQ. Furthermore, while sustained spaceflight may be possible in FET, orbit is not possible, making every one of NASA's launches thus far doomed to failure because their trajectories would simply have brought them back down to Earth.

Oh yes. Same as you. But the REt hypothesis are quite realistic, i think.

As is the FET hypothesis.

Same for your sun.

Glad we agree.

I think it's more probable the billions of objects. Because only one object looks like an anomaly.

So how are billions of anomalies more likely than a single one?

So there are more infinite earth. Illogic.

That model does not work with an infinite Earth. I personally am a subscriber to the finite Earth branch of FET.

I think your way of calculating the distance is wrong. Can you tell me your method?

I used the figures given in the FAQ, to be honest. I am not aware of any other FE figures for these distances, and I do not have the time to make such measurements myself.

Big Masses produces space distortion. The evidence is that the light bends when approaching massive body.

Where is your evidence that this is the effect which causes the celestial plane to rotate?

Hoax. I understand. Why FEers does not have a scientific community?

Basically, this website holds the few true FEers left in the world. The remaining FE scientific community isn't really big enough to do anything more than debate it on an internet forum at the moment, because the Conspiracy has brainwashed the majority of the population into believing its RE propaganda.

http://parma.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/8275600

This video shows the ISS passing in front of the moon. Nice video.

I still maintain that it is a hologram.

I do not have the power to edit the FAQ. Furthermore, while sustained spaceflight may be possible in FET, orbit is not possible,

But what is the moon doing? And the sun (according to FE Theory)?

Quote from: SSSavio on September 10, 2009, 08:10:49 AM

http://parma.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/8275600

This video shows the ISS passing in front of the moon. Nice video.

I still maintain that it is a hologram.

Shame you have no evidence it's a hologram.

But what is the moon doing? And the sun (according to FE Theory)?

Sorry, I should have said that geocentric orbit is not possible.

Shame you have no evidence it's a hologram.

It wouldn't be a very good conspiracy if I did, now would it?

Quote from: SSSavio on September 10, 2009, 08:10:49 AM

http://parma.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/8275600

This video shows the ISS passing in front of the moon. Nice video.

I still maintain that it is a hologram.

  How does one use a hologram to project a dark image in front of a luminous body?

Sorry, I should have said that geocentric orbit is not possible.

What kind of orbit are the moon and sun in (according to FE theory) and what stops other objects from doing the same?

It wouldn't be a very good conspiracy if I did, now would it?

Conspiracies. Is there anything they can't prove?

  How does one use a hologram to project a dark image in front of a luminous body?

Ask the Conspiracy.

What kind of orbit are the moon and sun in (according to FE theory) and what stops other objects from doing the same?

They orbit about the North Celestial Pole. Since there is no obvious large mass at the centre of their orbits, it is likely that they are charged objects, kept in orbit by the Earth's magnetic field. In order to place a spacecraft into orbit, we would not only need to launch it into space, but also give it kinetic energy and an electric charge, which would mean that it would need to be that much heavier to accommodate the technology to do so, requiring a lot more fuel to launch it in the first place.

I do not have the power to edit the FAQ. Furthermore, while sustained spaceflight may be possible in FET, orbit is not possible, making every one of NASA's launches thus far doomed to failure because their trajectories would simply have brought them back down to Earth.

This is what they do: go to the moon and come back to earth. Where is the contradiction?

So how are billions of anomalies more likely than a single one?

Simple: if they are billions, they are not anomalies. They are common.

That model does not work with an infinite Earth. I personally am a subscriber to the finite Earth branch of FET.

Mmmmm...

I used the figures given in the FAQ, to be honest. I am not aware of any other FE figures for these distances, and I do not have the time to make such measurements myself.

Believe me, your measurement is wrong, as the sustained spaceflight. Try again and you will see that the sun is much more far away. And it is very massive.

Where is your evidence that this is the effect which causes the celestial plane to rotate?

Dunno. But FEers have to choose: you believe in relativity or you believe only the aspects of relativity that patch your holes?

Basically, this website holds the few true FEers left in the world. The remaining FE scientific community isn't really big enough to do anything more than debate it on an internet forum at the moment, because the Conspiracy has brainwashed the majority of the population into believing its RE propaganda.

Mmmmm... have you ever stopped and thought why the number of FEers believers is so small?

I still maintain that it is a hologram.

No words for this one...

They orbit about the North Celestial Pole. Since there is no obvious large mass at the centre of their orbits

This large mass take the name of Mother Earth.

Quote

They orbit about the North Celestial Pole. Since there is no obvious large mass at the centre of their orbits

This large mass take the name of Mother Earth.

I wasn't aware the Earth was located five megametres above the north pole.

Quote from: markjo on September 10, 2009, 10:15:34 AM

  How does one use a hologram to project a dark image in front of a luminous body?

Ask the Conspiracy.

I was right. There's nothing the conspiracy can't do.

Quote from: Viceroy Bummer on September 10, 2009, 10:20:07 AM

What kind of orbit are the moon and sun in (according to FE theory) and what stops other objects from doing the same?

They orbit about the North Celestial Pole. Since there is no obvious large mass at the centre of their orbits, it is likely that they are charged objects, kept in orbit by the Earth's magnetic field. In order to place a spacecraft into orbit, we would not only need to launch it into space, but also give it kinetic energy and an electric charge, which would mean that it would need to be that much heavier to accommodate the technology to do so, requiring a lot more fuel to launch it in the first place.

Kinetic energy is not hard to come by. Electric charge is also not hard to come by.

Unless you can put some fact around that post I'm going to have to notch it up as a fantasy short story.

Quote from: SSSavio on September 10, 2009, 10:49:12 AM

Quote

They orbit about the North Celestial Pole. Since there is no obvious large mass at the centre of their orbits

This large mass take the name of Mother Earth.

I wasn't aware the Earth was located five megametres above the north pole.

I mean, the Moon orbiting around the Earth. This is common sense.

Quote from: markjo on September 10, 2009, 10:15:34 AM

  How does one use a hologram to project a dark image in front of a luminous body?

Ask the Conspiracy.

So you were just making a baseless accusation?  That's what I thought.

I mean, the Moon orbiting around the Earth. This is common sense.

The Moon does not orbit the Earth in FET. We know this because it is always visible from somewhere.

So you were just making a baseless accusation?  That's what I thought.

If the Earth is flat, then geocentric orbit is impossible. Therefore, the objects we see in the sky cannot really be there. That is the basis for my accusation.

The Moon does not orbit the Earth in FET. We know this because it is always visible from somewhere.

The explanation of it's visibilty stands in the fact that earth is round and the moon orbiting around it. But whatever, you don't believe the earth is round, so... this is pointless.

The explanation of it's visibilty stands in the fact that earth is round and the moon orbiting around it.

That is one possible explanation. However, we are not discussing RET, so it is also irrelevant.