Scale of the space conspiracy

its not the 1st time tom has been proven wrong lol. id also like to point out that we are talking about the scale of the conspiracy not planets orbits. FETs do like to drag things of course.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 11:06:13 AM

Astronomers do not predict the position of celestial bodies based on Kelpean orbits. They use pattern-based analysis like the ancients did.

LIAR !

http://www.davidcolarusso.com/astro/

http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/ellipse.html#twig02a

At the bottom of the second page the author freely admits that the method is not very accurate, and that the method is only accurate for some parts of the year.

It's despicable that RE'ers fight for guesswork and speculation rather than controlled scientific experimentation.

Are you kidding? How can you say that without doing any yourself? They are giving you evidence that can be tested, but you're dismissing it with one excuse after another with no explanations.

Astronomers do not predict the position of celestial bodies based on Kelpean orbits.

Yes they do.  I'm an Astronomer.  I have a degree in Astrophysics & a masters in Solar Physics, and I've been stargazing for 35 years.  You are not an astronomer.

I've done these equations long-hand - they are extremely tedious, but they work.

They use pattern-based analysis like the ancients did.

Stop lying. 

At the bottom of the second page the author freely admits that the method is not very accurate, and that the method is only accurate for some parts of the year.

At the bottom of the page, it details how the errors in the calculated position of Mars can be analysed to show the regular gravitational tug of Jupiter.  Notice the errors are of the order of a minute of arc.  Can your model do better than this ?

Yes, you do need to dissect a raccoon. If you think you can learn anything about what a raccoon's internals by watching a raccoon decompose do you are clearly delusional. Dissecting a raccoon and studying its organs would constitute an experiment which would get to the truth of the matter. Observing a decomposing raccoon and then thinking that you know anything about the internals of a raccoon is a disgusting action befitting of an astronomer.

Astronomers are looking at stars and trying to explain the chemical reactions in them, without direct samples, through observation alone. They guess at the distance and size of distant stars based on their color. Watching a "family" of stars would not give you any more information about stars when you are still ignorant about very basic things such as what they are made of, their age, and how distant they are.

Here's an example using your analogy.

You're been watching the hundreds of raccoon in your backyard for some time.  You've come up with various hypotheses about them, things like 'raccoon are strict herbivores,' 'raccoon are mammals,' etc.  Some of these hypotheses you've been able to rule out, like raccoon being strict herbivores, simply by watching them and seeing them eat meat.  For other hypotheses you've collected some valuable supporting evidence, like raccoon being mammals.  You notice that they don't lay eggs and that they give live birth to their young, for example, ruling them out as reptiles.  We could go on and on.

Now you watch many raccoon decay.  Based on all of the information you've already collected, and by comparing that information to what you know about things that have been studied in a laboratory setting, you can make some pretty accurate predictions about what you'd expect to see when a raccoon dies and decays.  You're likely to see a heart, liver, intestines, a bunch of blood, etc.  It could have been falsified.  You could have seen six hearts and no blood and whatever else.  But, you didn't.  You saw exactly what was predicted by the leading theories in biology.

All you've done is collect light from a dead raccoon.  Now you absolutely know what is going on inside the raccoon.  You know about it's internal organs, cell biology, and everything else modern science has to say about those organs themselves that were revealed by the decay.

What's delusional about that?

The planets are easily predicted, as they follow patterns in the sky. This is how modern astronomers predict the position of the planets, and how the Ancient Greeks and Ancient Babylonians were able to predict the position of the planets thousands of years ago, despite the fact that they did not even believe in the heliocentric model of RET.

Here's a sample chart from 2007 showing the longitude of the planets in the sky:



This, of course, says nothing about the nature of the solar system they were predicted under. It is simply the method astronomers have been using to predict the position of the planets for thousands of years, up to the modern present. If you believe that this constitutes a proof of your model you are sad and mistaken.

What's sad is how intentionally deceitful you have to be to make a point.  I literally laughed out loud when I discovered what mikulaforecasting is.

Mikulaforecasting is a website that attempts to forecast market changes using stuff like planetary positions and powers of nine.  They're selling a book with chapter titles like "CHAPTER 2: Forecasting Prices: Using Cell Numbers" and "CHAPTER 15: Mikula’s Square of Nine Planetary Angles."  Seriously, Google all of that 'square of nine' garbage that's plastered all over their stuff.  They're trying to sell you market predictions.  Terrible ones.  I hope you didn't buy.

Please try and provide a legitimate, credible source that agrees with any of the claims you're making.

Yes they do.  I'm an Astronomer.  I have a degree in Astrophysics & a masters in Solar Physics, and I've been stargazing for 35 years.  You are not an astronomer.

I've done these equations long-hand - they are extremely tedious, but they work.

Attempted methods may exist, but they do not work and are not used.

At the bottom of the page, it details how the errors in the calculated position of Mars can be analysed to show the regular gravitational tug of Jupiter.  Notice the errors are of the order of a minute of arc.  Can your model do better than this ?

The errors are not on the scale of minutes of an arc. In comparing the position of mars from prediction to reality the author states: "Differences in the RA are five arc minutes and about 20 arc seconds in declination."

Quote from: Major Twang on December 20, 2012, 01:10:24 PM

Yes they do.  I'm an Astronomer.  I have a degree in Astrophysics & a masters in Solar Physics, and I've been stargazing for 35 years.  You are not an astronomer.

I've done these equations long-hand - they are extremely tedious, but they work.

Attempted methods may exist, but they do not work and are not used.

Are you telling him what he does and doesn't use?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 08:34:39 AM

Yes, you do need to dissect a raccoon. If you think you can learn anything about what a raccoon's internals by watching a raccoon decompose do you are clearly delusional. Dissecting a raccoon and studying its organs would constitute an experiment which would get to the truth of the matter. Observing a decomposing raccoon and then thinking that you know anything about the internals of a raccoon is a disgusting action befitting of an astronomer.

Astronomers are looking at stars and trying to explain the chemical reactions in them, without direct samples, through observation alone. They guess at the distance and size of distant stars based on their color. Watching a "family" of stars would not give you any more information about stars when you are still ignorant about very basic things such as what they are made of, their age, and how distant they are.

Here's an example using your analogy.

You're been watching the hundreds of raccoon in your backyard for some time.  You've come up with various hypotheses about them, things like 'raccoon are strict herbivores,' 'raccoon are mammals,' etc.  Some of these hypotheses you've been able to rule out, like raccoon being strict herbivores, simply by watching them and seeing them eat meat.  For other hypotheses you've collected some valuable supporting evidence, like raccoon being mammals.  You notice that they don't lay eggs and that they give live birth to their young, for example, ruling them out as reptiles.  We could go on and on.

Your analogy is bunk. No one has done experiments on the stars. There is not a library of previous experimental studies scientists have done with different kinds of stars, as there are with different kinds of animals.

A more appropriate analogy would be if an entirely new kind of living creature which was neither a reptile or mammal wandered into your back yard and you tried to write a book on it based on observation alone.

Now you watch many raccoon decay.  Based on all of the information you've already collected, and by comparing that information to what you know about things that have been studied in a laboratory setting,

Stars have NOT been studied in a laboratory setting. Please name the scientist who reproduced Stellar Fusion in a lab.

What's delusional about that?

Everything about your analogies are delusional. You seem too dense for words.

Quote from: garygreen on December 20, 2012, 03:44:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 08:34:39 AM

Yes, you do need to dissect a raccoon. If you think you can learn anything about what a raccoon's internals by watching a raccoon decompose do you are clearly delusional. Dissecting a raccoon and studying its organs would constitute an experiment which would get to the truth of the matter. Observing a decomposing raccoon and then thinking that you know anything about the internals of a raccoon is a disgusting action befitting of an astronomer.

Astronomers are looking at stars and trying to explain the chemical reactions in them, without direct samples, through observation alone. They guess at the distance and size of distant stars based on their color. Watching a "family" of stars would not give you any more information about stars when you are still ignorant about very basic things such as what they are made of, their age, and how distant they are.

Here's an example using your analogy.

You're been watching the hundreds of raccoon in your backyard for some time.  You've come up with various hypotheses about them, things like 'raccoon are strict herbivores,' 'raccoon are mammals,' etc.  Some of these hypotheses you've been able to rule out, like raccoon being strict herbivores, simply by watching them and seeing them eat meat.  For other hypotheses you've collected some valuable supporting evidence, like raccoon being mammals.  You notice that they don't lay eggs and that they give live birth to their young, for example, ruling them out as reptiles.  We could go on and on.

Your analogy is bunk. No one has done experiments on the stars. There is not a library of previous experimental studies scientists have done with different kinds of stars, as there are with different kinds of animals.

A better analogy would be if an entirely new kind of living creature which was neither a reptile or mammal wandered into your back yard and you tried to write a book on it based on observation alone.

Quote

Now you watch many raccoon decay.  Based on all of the information you've already collected, and by comparing that information to what you know about things that have been studied in a laboratory setting,

Stars have NOT been studied in a laboratory setting. Please name the scientist who reproduced Stellar Fusion in a lab.

Quote

What's delusional about that?

Everything about your analogies are delusional. You seem too dense for words.

I think you missed the point of his analogy altogether. Basically, you're supposed to forget that there are books and studies that are at the library. He's talking about observation. You're just countering it by ignoring what he is saying and stating that other people have done more extensive studies than the hypothetical situation that is described. He isn't saying that's the only way to study raccoons, he's describing how you can study them strictly by observation.

I think you missed the point of his analogy altogether. Basically, you're supposed to forget that there are books and studies that are at the library. He's talking about observation. You're just countering it by ignoring what he is saying and stating that other people have done more extensive studies than the hypothetical situation that is described. He isn't saying that's the only way to study raccoons, he's describing how you can study them strictly by observation.

GG said that we can learn more about raccoon by comparing their behavior to what other mammals do, and make educated guesses for how they are internally structured through our knowledge of how other mammals are internally structured. But this falls on the assumption that we have a body of knowledge from previous experiments and studies. The analogy falls flat on its face because we have no previous experiments with the stars to look back on.

Your analogy is bunk. No one has done experiments on the stars. There is not a library of previous experimental studies scientists have done with different kinds of stars, as there are with different kinds of animals.

A more appropriate analogy would be if an entirely new kind of living creature which was neither a reptile or mammal wandered into your back yard and you tried to write a book on it based on observation alone.

Stars have NOT been studied in a laboratory setting. Please name the scientist who reproduced Stellar Fusion in a lab.

You're getting too caught up on the details of your disastrous analogy.  The point of my interpretation of your analogy is that we learn about things we cannot bring into a laboratory by comparing our observations to physics that we can demonstrate in a laboratory setting.  Absorption lines recorded by spectrographs are a good example.  They give us information about the chemical composition of the star, among other things.

Stars are made of atoms.  We understand atoms and experiment with them in laboratories.  We can use what we learn about atoms to make sense of our observations of stars.

And, nuclear fusion has definitely been achieved in the laboratory.  Apparently you've never heard of the hydrogen bomb.

The errors are not on the scale of minutes of an arc. In comparing the position of mars from prediction to reality the author states: "Differences in the RA are five arc minutes and about 20 arc seconds in declination."

Again you resort to petty deceptions.

The author isn't talking about the general accuracy of his calculations there.  He does that later in a section titled "Accuracy."  He's comparing the accuracy of his QBASIC program to pen-and-paper calculations.

He later tests his analysis by comparing it to recorded planetary positions.  He finds the following:

The main features of the RA error time series for Mars are:
...The maximum error (including the peaks) is less than 1 minute of time for position dates within 5 years of the element date.

The main features of the DEC error time series for Mars are:
...The maximum error (including the peaks) is less than 5 minutes of arc for 5 years either side of the date of the elements.

Five minutes of arc isn't much.  Being able to predict the location of a planet in the sky five years from now within 5' is pretty impressive.  That's ~1/6 of the apparent size of the Moon.



He even graphs his error rates for you.  Notice how non-linear the deviations are.  Welcome to planetary perturbations.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 04:32:27 PM

Please name the scientist who reproduced Stellar Fusion in a lab.

And, nuclear fusion has definitely been achieved in the laboratory.  Apparently you've never heard of the hydrogen bomb.

I'm not trying to be picky, but these are clearly two different things. This strikes me as intentional dodging.

This conspiracy thing doesn't hold up for me. Can the Flat Earth Society give us its "official" number for how many are in this conspiracy?

Yes, we can.

Quote from: garygreen on December 20, 2012, 08:41:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 04:32:27 PM

Please name the scientist who reproduced Stellar Fusion in a lab.

And, nuclear fusion has definitely been achieved in the laboratory.  Apparently you've never heard of the hydrogen bomb.

I'm not trying to be picky, but these are clearly two different things. This strikes me as intentional dodging.

I'm not trying to be picky, but the process of fusing hydrogen into helium is the same in a hydrogen bomb or in a star. This strikes me as intentional delaying.

Quote from: garygreen on December 20, 2012, 08:41:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 04:32:27 PM

Please name the scientist who reproduced Stellar Fusion in a lab.

And, nuclear fusion has definitely been achieved in the laboratory.  Apparently you've never heard of the hydrogen bomb.

I'm not trying to be picky, but these are clearly two different things. This strikes me as intentional dodging.

Perhaps I'm the one being overly picky, but "stellar fusion" isn't a thing.  He either meant "nuclear fusion" or "stellar nucleosynthesis."  The former has definitely been observed in a laboratory, and the causes and effects of fusing hydrogen into helium are the same everywhere.

The latter is the particular arrangement and genesis of elements heavier than hydrogen in a star.  Of course we can't "reproduce" nucleosynthesis in a lab (yet).  We can't create a star on Earth, and we couldn't observe it for billions of years. 

This is the point of my use of the raccoon analogy.  We don't have to dissect a raccoon in a laboratory to learn things about them.  It would be ideal, yes; but, it's not always possible.  We could learn a great deal about the biology of a raccoon by observing many of them (over time and with increasingly sophisticated instruments) and comparing what we learn with sound biological principles.

The same is true of stars.  There are lots of different ways to probe the interior of the Sun without bringing it into a lab.

So why respond by asserting something he has not denied?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 29, 2012, 09:10:17 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 20, 2012, 08:41:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 04:32:27 PM

Please name the scientist who reproduced Stellar Fusion in a lab.

And, nuclear fusion has definitely been achieved in the laboratory.  Apparently you've never heard of the hydrogen bomb.

I'm not trying to be picky, but these are clearly two different things. This strikes me as intentional dodging.

I'm not trying to be picky, but the process of fusing hydrogen into helium is the same in a hydrogen bomb or in a star. This strikes me as intentional delaying.

Whoa!  That is a big claim from a Round earther.  Are you are arguing that a thermonuclear explosion is a sustained nuclear reaction that is regulated by gravitational forces?

-Physicists and astronomers wouldn't be "in on it".

This is the most insulting comment I have ever seen from Tom Bishop. Every single astronomer has the knowledge to distinguish between the world as FE'ers show it and what real scientists have discovered. Every one of them should be in on the conspiracy, getting a million dollars per year or something to have them silenced. And not only the ones in the US, but the ones in every country in the world, including the underdeveloped ones.

And the same goes for physicists. Every single one of them knows enough to distinguish between the word games played in this forum and the real physics that have been applied to the exploration of space.

Scientists are intensely curious and love their discipline. They feel insulted every time someone tries to pass pseudo-science as science in any paper posted as scientific, whether it is in their field or not. Just look at the circus that occurred when Pons and Fleischmann tried to pass a poorly investigated claim about cold fusion as a scientific discovery. The only way they could all agree on keeping a conspiracy secret would be with astounding amounts of money for each one of them, and even then there would be whistle blowers.

It would be theoretically possible to fool every scientist in the world about the space program, but it would be many times more expensive than just doing the exploration. And the more expensive it is, the more people have to be in on it, and the more you would get whistle blowers.

It would be theoretically possible to fool every scientist in the world about the space program

Good point.

but it would be many times more expensive than just doing the exploration

Wrong. This hypothesis is debunked repeatedly here on the forum. Feel free to search.

Quote from: RealScientist on January 03, 2013, 08:38:58 AM

It would be theoretically possible to fool every scientist in the world about the space program

Good point.

Quote from: RealScientist on January 03, 2013, 08:38:58 AM

but it would be many times more expensive than just doing the exploration

Wrong. This hypothesis is debunked repeatedly here on the forum. Feel free to search.

what about all the research and construction costs of an entire network of tens of thousands of invisible stratilites and invisible holographic projectors to fake satellites and space station. how much would this cost to do considering all the people needed to build and contole these things. baring in mind they aren't on minimum wage considering they have to be kept quite.

Quote from: Dr.Nor on January 03, 2013, 10:19:42 AM

Quote from: RealScientist on January 03, 2013, 08:38:58 AM

It would be theoretically possible to fool every scientist in the world about the space program

Good point.

Quote from: RealScientist on January 03, 2013, 08:38:58 AM

but it would be many times more expensive than just doing the exploration

Wrong. This hypothesis is debunked repeatedly here on the forum. Feel free to search.

what about all the research and construction costs of an entire network of tens of thousands of invisible stratilites and invisible holographic projectors to fake satellites and space station. how much would this cost to do considering all the people needed to build and contole these things. baring in mind they aren't on minimum wage considering they have to be kept quite.

Even starting with the figure of 400,000 people involved in the Apollo missions alone the cost of bribing everyone and containing the secret would, in my opinion, be far, far higher than the cost of actually doing the science for real.

400,000 people didn't go into space.

400,000 people didn't go into space.

Really???
Here was me thinking that they had all just squished up a bit to fit into that little lunar module.

Thank you for putting me right Captain Obvious.

Even starting with the figure of 400,000 people involved in the Apollo missions alone the cost of bribing everyone and containing the secret would, in my opinion, be far, far higher than the cost of actually doing the science for real.

There are some people so addicted to exaggeration that they can't tell the truth without lying.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on January 07, 2013, 08:56:06 AM

400,000 people didn't go into space.

Really???
Here was me thinking that they had all just squished up a bit to fit into that little lunar module.

Thank you for putting me right Captain Obvious.

Then why are you talking about them?  You have to justify these numbers and explain why they would need to be bribed, instead of just taking it for granted that every single person even remotely connected to the project would be fully aware of every little thing that their bosses do.

According to my research, it will require approximately 100 people to maintain such a conspiracy. Other research reports show anywhere from 75 to 125 This is in dramatic contrast with mexiboys 400.000. lol.

In the beginning there were a few more, but they are dead, and thanks to computer technology, one needs hardly to recruit more people.

According to my research, it will require approximately 100 people to maintain such a conspiracy. Other research reports show anywhere from 75 to 125 This is in dramatic contrast with mexiboys 400.00. lol.

In the beginning there were a few more, but they are dead, and thanks to computer technology, one needs hardly to recruit more people.

100?
Let's see... we'll start with the stratellites. In order to send signals to earth-bound dishes at the correct angle, there have to be several thousand. Let's be conservative about it and say there's 1000 of them. Each one will require a minimum of one person to launch and maintain them. So that's 1000 people right there.
Oh, and then there's the blokes who come and fix the dishes to your house. They'll need to know to point them at the nearest stratellite rather than some imaginary satellite, right? Let's add another thousand of them worldwide.
Let's not forget the military. Every air force in the world will need to know the stratellites are there so they don't see them on radar, think they're the enemy and shoot them down. Maybe every single pilot doesn't need to know, but their bosses do. And worldwide, that's going to come to at least another thousand.
Oh, I forgot about GPS - we need another bunch of people maintaining secret GPS transmitters on the ground and in the middle of the Pacific and everywhere else. Let's say at least another 500.
So we're up to 3,500 people already and that's just in order to replace satellites. I haven't even begun to factor in people working for space agencies, government members and retirees from all these occupations, who will still need to be paid for their silence.

According to my research, it will require approximately 100 people to maintain such a conspiracy. Other research reports show anywhere from 75 to 125 This is in dramatic contrast with mexiboys 400.00. lol.

In the beginning there were a few more, but they are dead, and thanks to computer technology, one needs hardly to recruit more people.

You do realize that there have been over 500 people (many of them civilians) that have (allegedly) been to space, don't you?

100 to maintain a nearly flawless massive worldwide conspiracy? (except for the youtube video leaks  )
is not Zetetic at all.
Either there is no conspiracy, or hundreds of thousands or more are involved, maybe even millions.
thats what it would take.