The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium

  • 547 Replies
  • 269750 Views
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #270 on: November 25, 2007, 07:01:00 AM »
What's unrealistic?  Eric being on topic?  I agree.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

eric bloedow

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #271 on: November 25, 2007, 08:52:12 AM »
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!

i still haven't heard ANY answer for this question: just HOW would this "consipracy" TAKE control without the people it's supposedly infuencing NOTICING it was taking over?!

this thread reminds me of an old movie: Capricorn One.
in this movie, NASA makes a partially fake mars landing; that is, an unmanned ship landed on mars and they faked the video of the astronauts walking around from a place on earth.
but the ship burned up on re-entry into earth's atmosphere!
so the astronauts stole an airplane and fled; and after a crash, continued on foot. one of them succeeded in getting back to civilian land, and went on to EXPOSE the fake!

and FErs claim that ALL space travel; the apollo moon landings, all space shuttle missions, all photos made by NASA, the ISS, are ALL fake?!

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #272 on: November 25, 2007, 09:07:45 AM »
What's unrealistic?  Eric being on topic?  I agree.

well your comment on his iraq being fake was

"What?  Do you have ADHD or something?"

which i interpreted as u saying that a fake war in iraq is a unrealistic idea
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #273 on: November 25, 2007, 09:18:31 AM »
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
Except that is not what microgravity is.  Which you claimed it was.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #274 on: November 25, 2007, 09:18:59 AM »
"What?  Do you have ADHD or something?"

which i interpreted as u saying that a fake war in iraq is a unrealistic idea
Read for comprehension next time.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #275 on: November 25, 2007, 10:10:05 AM »
Did i just correctly read somebody say that both world wars were faked?

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #276 on: November 25, 2007, 10:12:29 AM »
Did i just correctly read somebody say that both world wars were faked?

just ww2 apparently
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #277 on: November 25, 2007, 10:13:47 AM »
So most of the male sex on the planet was wiped out for what purpose?

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #278 on: November 25, 2007, 10:14:54 AM »
So most of the male sex on the planet was wiped out for what purpose?

a "film"
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #279 on: November 25, 2007, 10:16:52 AM »
kickass film except it was 5 years long and killed everyone who would be able to watch it.

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #280 on: November 25, 2007, 12:20:21 PM »
Two parts:

For the love of God... did you even comprehend the POINT of my post?  :headdesks:
I don't see any point in your post.

I explained it a couple of posts ago.

Quote
It's a word used by laymen to describe some repeatedly observed events.
Some repeatedly observed events of what?

Objects falling at a consistently observed acceleration, for one.



Quote
:headdesks:  This is what I mean, you failed to comprehend the purpose of my post...
And your purpose was...?

Explained it a couple of posts ago.



Quote
The words "interactions" and "forces" are interchangeable in this context.  That is why you often hear the phrase "four fundemental forces."  Lets not play semantics so we look intelligent, eh?
Eh, we use "interactions" because there's no such thing as gravitational "force".

Something that could cause a change in acceleration?  The curve in geometric spacetime does exactly that.  Force is another made up word to describe certain observations.


Quote
When laymen use the term "gravity" they mean "that which causes bodies to fall."  Newton's model integrates falling with orbital motion.  That alone makes it better than (most) FE. 
What mechanism makes gravity to cause things fall? How does gravity cause things to fall?

Ok, this particular question is irrelevant to my point, but I suppose you won't shut up about it until I answer it.

The mechanism that causes objects to fall is (likely) nothing but the geometrical curve of space.  Like in Newton's first law, objects remain in the motion they are until acted upon by some force, however, moving in an infinite straight line is no longer an option because massive bodies distort the space in which the object is moving.  Thus, the mechanism that causes bodies to fall is simply them following the path of space-time (which happens to be curved toward large masses).  This is at present the best model we have, and the explanation is certainly imprecise, but surely you get the point.  Mass bends space and space "tells" mass how to move.



Quote
What is an influence?  What CAUSES influence?  By what MECHANISM does influence occur?
An influence is a force. When I push a block, I apply influence (or force) to the block to make it move.

First you defined a force as an influence, then you defined an influence as a force.  Nice circular reasoning there.  You have failed to define a force and you have failed to define the mechanism in which forces (or influences) operate. 




Quote
What is acceleration?  By what mechanism do bodies accelerate?  Force?  But what causes forces?  By what mechanism do forces opperate?
Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity. Bodies accelerate when force is applied. Force is caused by an external agent.


Bodies do NOT necessarily accelerate when a force is applied.  Have you heard of a coefficient of static friction?  This is where you have a frictional force opposing some other force with zero relative motion ==> zero acceleration.


Quote
What causes the external agent? Well, what causes you to push a block?

Hmm, did I first ask you this?  Because that was what I was trying to do...

Quote
What is work?  By what mechanism does Energy permit objects to do work?
Ever heard of a dictionary?

You didn't answer the question of what mechanism does energy permit objects to do work. 

Quote
This is a horrible definition.  Why should space only be three-dimensional?  What IS a dimension?  By what mechanisms do dimensions occur/exist?  What distinguishes one dimension from another?  How could one tell if space is three dimensional, four dimensional, or fifty-dimensional if one can only see in three dimensions? (Abbot)
Space = Length, width, and height. Hence, space is three-dimension.

Space is better defined as that medium in which events happen, but even that isn't such a good definition.



Quote
A measurement of events?  Wow.  This is even worse than your space definition.
A measurement of sequence of events. I thought your brain would be spinning fast enough to notice it... 

Time is more than that.  It can be considered a scaler quantity, it can be treated as a geometrical dimension.  To call it just the measurement of sequence of events is to invoke the linear time of Newton, which presumably you do not believe to be accurate.  Further, in some string theory models and some interpretations of quantum mechanics, time can be considered to have distinct inseparable units (like quanta).  If it is divided into units, it must BE something- more than just something we measure events by.


Quote
NONE of your definitions are ANY better than the ones these people have used for gravity.  They have no explanation.  They are simply observations.
Observation of what?

Humans observe objects falling at a constant acceleration (neglecting air resistance and terminal velocity).

 Humans then make up something that causes this and call it gravity.  Therefore, gravity becomes that which causes objects to fall.  The mechanism cannot be known at that point. Later, humans discover that their mathematical model that describes gravity also describes other types of motion with the same precision and accuracy.  Then the meaning of gravity must be modified to include this, so it is defined as a force (since it could cause an acceleration [because orbital bodies are accelerating, just like falling bodies]) and it just so happens that orbital motion can be described as a special case of falling motion using the same model.  Everything is fine- except Mercury's orbit.  Then a new model that describes it as the curvature of spacetime is adopted, and this model allows for the (former) anomaly of Mercury's orbit, etc.




Quote
By what mechanism does space and time allow events to occur?  Ever read Kant?  By what mechanism does spacetime become a four-dimensional continuum, when higher dimensional continua work as well? 
Why does an explosion occur? Space and time allow that to happen.

That does not explain why it occurs, it just explains that any event requires both a location in space and time.

Quote
Time cannot be separated from space because it depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light.

So what exactly is spacetime then?  By what mechanism does light travel at c?  And of course, by what mechanism does spacetime affect the motion of objects? (what CAUSES this: you can say that mass bends spacetime, and spacetime directs which direction matter should go, but what mechanism causes this?)

 
Quote
First of all, you did no better in your definitions...
It must feel so good to be so denial.

You haven't.  You haven't defined the following to the degree that you demand those that you guys have been haggling about gravity:

Force (pathetically you first defined force as an influence, and then when I asked what an influence was you defined it as a force)

You haven't defined the mechanism in which spacetime allows events to occur

Your definition of space was "height, width, depth" which is just lazy:

mathematical definition of space: any set of points that satisfy a set of postulates of some kind

Now, you managed to ignore the following, so I'll ask it again, or you can simply continue to ignore it, but since you demand this level of scrutiny from others, I would expect you can do it yourself:

"Why should space only be three-dimensional?  What IS a dimension?  By what mechanisms do dimensions occur/exist?  What distinguishes one dimension from another?  How could one tell if space is three dimensional, four dimensional, or fifty-dimensional if one can only see in three dimensions? (Abbot)"





Quote
Gravity in Newton's model is simply an observation of nature. 
Nature of what?

What?  Gravity in Newton's model is a word to describe some hypothetical thing that causes bodies to fall and orbit, etc.


Quote
No one knows where it comes from
Therefore its existence is fallacy.

Therefore the existence of the entire universe is fallacy.  Nice.

Quote
anymore than anyone knows where the strong nuclear force [again, force is commonly used interchangeably with interaction in this case, so I am useing that convention in spite] came from.
Right, which is why "interaction" is more accurate than "force".

Which is dodging the point.

Quote
gravity attracts mass in Newton's model.  It is simply fundemental => but completely modeled to astounding accuracy mathematically.
Again, how does gravity attracts mass?

I did above, but I was trying not to leave Newton's model because the point was that ultimately there are simply constants of the universe that cannot be explained, they can only be described.

Quote
Actually, you still haven't answered this:

Quote
Now, explain what causes the force of gravity, how does it attract mass, and where does it come from.

It was never my aim to answer that.  Newton's model cannot answer that.  My point is that every model must rely on things that cannot be explained, only described.

Quote
The REASON Newton is superior is because his model does more than simply state it's existence- he integrates it into a model that has predictive abilities that go far beyond simply watching objects fall.
And?

Most FE models cannot do that.  That's pretty much it on that subject.
The Earth rests on an Infinite stack of Turtles...
Stop raping the llamas!
I'm a platypus gynecologist, damn it!
"I once taught a rabbit to fly with only a string..." -Now

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #281 on: November 25, 2007, 12:23:01 PM »

Quote
First of all, science does not explain WHY something works.
Really? It explains why I am typing right now.

No it does not, because science cannot describe causality, because no one can.  Science can make observations that follow from other observations and then infer that one caused the other, but science cannot know.  If we make the assumption that even a caused even b, then in that model science can explain that be occurred because a occurred.  But even so, eventually you will reach an infinite regression of causes, something science cannot address.

Quote
Third, gravity in the sense of Newton's model is none of these things: "An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses."
Uh, gravity, in Newtonian sense, is all of these things.

Occurrence:  an occurrence requires a point in space and time.  Gravity in Newton's model is simply that which causes certain types of acceleration. It is made up, therefore it does not exist in space or time and so it is not an occurrence.

Circumstance (an incident or occurrence [discussed above], a condition, detail, part, or attribute, with respect to time, place, manner,agent, etc):  Gravity in Newton's model is just something that causes a particular kind of acceleration- it is defined as a force because it causes acceleration, but as shown earlier (by you), a force is not something that can easily be defined either.  A force is not a circumstance.  A force occurs, but it is not an occurrence.

Fact that is perceptible by the sense:  Gravity has no shape, color, sound, smell, texture, etc in Newtons model.


Gravity is NOT a phenomenon in Newton's model.

Quote
Gravity is simply a model showing a relation between one body of nature and another.
A model of what?

A model of a particular kind of motion.  A particular kind of motion is observed and then described mathematically.  This mathematical model is then applied to similar types of motion and is found to be very accurate.

Quote
Did you know Einstein was uncomfortable with his own work in quantum mechanics?  What's your point here?
My point was that Newton already knew his theories had many fallacies.

Not that many, just several assumption he had to make (for example his failure to define time in some adequate way).  As far as it's explanatory power however, how could Newton know of them before certain inconsistent observations were made later on?


Quote
Newton certainly didn't know WHY IT EXISTED- but he knew his model had uncanny accuracy in predictions.
Right, fundamentally flawed accuracies.

Relativity also has a very interesting fundamental flaw- it cannot be unified with quantum mechanics (at this point).  Every model has fundamental flaws- because all are ultimately based on what we can observe in some way.

Quote
"Gravity" (this time in the laymen sense) is simply something that is observed.
Really? Have you taken a picture of gravity?

Certainly by this point I've made it clear what I believe gravity is in Newton's model- nothing but a mathematical construct that happens to describe certain types of occurrences.

Quote
  Newton's model of gravity is superior because it incorporates several seemingly unrelated occurances into one mathematical framework.  This is the entire point of theoretical physics- and once again in Newton's case, his model was extremely useful and accurate.
I don't see any usefulness of his model other than pulling "forces" out of his ass to explain events.

You've done it!  You've hit upon the point I've been trying to make this whole time! Every scientific model does something like that.  This is the point I am trying to make.  EVERY model pulls something out of thin air. 

It just so happens that some match observation better than others.



Quote
Quote
My pen falls. I'll explain it: there's force of gravity pulling it down! I'm being thrown outwards in a car. I'll explain it: there are centrifugal forces pushing me out!

A force in Newton's model is described as that which causes an acceleration.  So within Newton's model that would be correct.

Interestingly, you've hit my point again.  Every model does something similar.  It hypothesizes something that cannot be verified to exist, but which if allowed to exist within the model matches what we observe.

Quote
OBVIOUSLY Newton's model, which has been DETHRONED BY EINSTEIN'S MODEL (and was mentioned in my first post in this thread, incidently), is not going to explain everything- DUH- that's why it has been relagated to uses that do not require a terribly great deal of precision.
Then why did you even use his model (or his formula) when you should be using Einstein's instead? I guess you love fallacies...

Read the two bold parts above.  The reason I used it is because every model pulls things out of thin air.  That is exactly what theoretical physics does- it pulls shit out of thin air that happen to predict what is observed.

Quote
Why don't you exlpain in one mathematical formula how the FE model explains why objects fall and why the sun rotates in a circle above the surfase?  If you don't mind, one that I can plug the numbers in and test (and see that the same mathematical forumal that predicts in detail how objects fall and also predicts in detail how the sun moves accross the sky).
Who says I believe in a flat Earth?

It doesn't matter if you do or not, but presumably you would have some FE model we could use?

Quote
Right, useful only in inertial reference frames.

Quote
Yes, so much so that it is still used today in civil engineeing, astronomy (when great precision is not needed), etc etc.
Really? I'm pretty sure most of the events happening in this universe are undergoing acceleration.

Newton's laws can be derived from Einstein's and act as a specific limiting circumstance in Einstein's model.

Quote
Great precision is not needed? No wonder why NASA fails all the time...

The word "great" is relative there.  You can use Newton's laws and the other non-relativity classical understandings of nature in engineering (statics, for example), and other things like that.  When something involves very high velocities and more extreme circumstances (like rocket launches) you must use Einstein's model)


Quote
Newton makes predictions that are tested in the heavenly bodies, on Earth, every non-extreme inertial reference frame.
What is "non-extreme inertial reference frame"?

When everything that is being examined is under relatively the same conditions.  When the accelerations of objects are very close enough to where the effects of relativity are negligible.  It was not meant to be used as a technical term.

Quote
  You don't make a model to match particulars- you observe particulars, then make a model that predicts both the particulars and the generals.  Newton's model does this.  How does FE model?
According to Tom, what is the shape of the ground? Flat.

Quote
You've got the scientific method exactly backwards here.  You don't start with the final conclusion and then try to explain it, adjusting your model until it matches the final conclusion (ala creationism).
When did I say science starts with a conclusion?

Unfortunately for Tom, standing on a large enough sphere, a tangent plane is indistinguishable from standing on a flat plane.  This reminds me of the derivative concept in calculus.  If you draw a tangent line onto a curve in cartesian coordinates, and then "zoom in" closer and closer, the closer you get, the closer the tangent line approaches the actual curve itself.  If you go small enough, the straight tangent line and the curve become indistinguishable.

So, to put it more succinctly, Tom cannot know that the world is flat just by standing on it and looking.  Therefore, "using science to explain why the world is flat" is starting from a conclusion.


With the explanation above the following should make sense now.

Quote
You observe something and make PREDICTIONS that you test (please note, that although the world has been observed to be more or less spherical [which of course is propaganda] the model still predicts large spherical bodies [center of mass, gravitation], because your model precludes the possibility of seeing the flat Earth, you CANNOT SAY "use science to explain the flat Earth" because in YOUR model YOU CANNOT EVER SEE IT because the conspiracy will stop you...).  You can NEVER know for sure if the final conclusion is correct (which is why you cannot start with the flat Earth and then try to explain it)- you can only know that the final conclusion your model predicts consistently matches your tested predictions.
Internets just couldn't get any weirder...



Quote
Newton's model makes many predictions and they all are correct to a high degree.
:o

Hopefully you can now see where I'm trying to go with this.

Quote
But even more important, Newton's model is simple and eloquent- this is the entire point of theoretical physics- to explain the most occurances with the simplest mathematical model.  Newton will defeat most FE models here- and it isn't even the current RE model.
What about it?

Hopefully you can now see where I'm trying to go with this.

Quote
Plausibility?  Please explain.  This seems to be embarrasingly weak.  Science is not about plausibility, it is about mathematical models, prediction and testing.
If science is not about plausibility, it would be bsing and not holding the truth.

Science is about "bsing" to a rigorous degree of accuracy (however, certain rules are followed in this bsing).  If you want truth, study philosophy.

Quote
Is it plausible that one can "travel into the future" simply by changing one's acceleration or location for a spell and then returning home?  No, sounds like science ficiton- yet it is observed reality, predicted by Einstein's model.
Speed of light is science fiction?

It would sound that way to someone not in the know.  So... by what mechanism does light always travel at c in a vacuum?

Quote
  Not very plausible at all.  But correct.
Speed of light is plausible and correct.

If it was plausible then the consequences of relativity would be intuitive.  They are not, unless you are educated in the theory itself.

Quote
Science can NEVER be 100% correct.  I'm just not understanding the fuss here.
Yes, and?

Again, hopefully you can now see where I'm trying to go with this.

Quote
We use the model that is the simplest yet most predictive, until a better one arrives.
General relativity has arrived. So, can you stop using Newton?

That was never the point.  But hell, general relativity is not perfect.  It has issues with the very very small, so we need yet another model.  See?


Quote
We, as scientsts, do not make claims (or should not) about absolute reality- we can only say that x has a very high probability of being more correct than y.
I might be wrong but, are you saying you're a scientist?

No, that was not what I was saying.  I was using the term very loosely, in the "those who use the scientific method" sense, but being a student studying towards a science degree... well, does holding a science degree make you a scientist?  Then next summer I'll have one (although a pissant associates).

Want to try to actually respond to the point there?  I've gone back and emboldened it for you:

"(scientists) do not make claims (or should not) about absolute reality- (they) can only say that x has a very high probability of being more correct than y."



Quote
Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions.
...Which is why I've been saying that Newton's theory is useless and we should be using Einstein's instead.

I don't use Newton's, that wasn't my point (although Newton's can be used as a subset of Einstein's under the right conditions to make the math easier- again, they can be derived from Einstein's)
The Earth rests on an Infinite stack of Turtles...
Stop raping the llamas!
I'm a platypus gynecologist, damn it!
"I once taught a rabbit to fly with only a string..." -Now

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #282 on: November 25, 2007, 04:30:38 PM »
Good, so we finally agree Newton's model is trash and the force of gravity does not exist. That is the main point of my posts, but I guess it must took you thousands of words to comprehend it...

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #283 on: November 25, 2007, 04:54:14 PM »
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.

I said the effects of gravity can be manifested simply by loading a man in a rocket accelerating at 9.8m/s2, far away from sources of gravity. Hence, gravity = acceleration.

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #284 on: November 25, 2007, 06:34:30 PM »
Hence, gravity = acceleration.
Would that not be 'gravitation' = acceleration?
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.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #285 on: November 25, 2007, 06:51:33 PM »
Well, apparently some people are not used to or do not understand the term "gravitation", so I just use the term "gravity" instead. However, gravitation is the better term.

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #286 on: November 25, 2007, 10:23:53 PM »
I don't see how the GPS *companies* could have any bearing on the conspiracy. Whether or not someone claims this or that unit is good or not... doesn't effect how the mechanism works.

A GPS receiver is nothing more than a modified cell phone receiver. It just receives signals at a different frequency from various sources. It either works... or it doesn't regardless of who says it does.

Also, the only way you could get anything like a GPS receiver to work on a global scale as they do is to have multiple signal origins throughout the sky. The only way to have consistent signal sources at a reasonable altitude is to use satellites in a geo-sync orbit.

And, no you can't use weather balloons or other buoyant / flying aircraft because your signal point of origin would be constantly changing and you would therefore not have a point of reference for the receiver. Just another signal from a random point in space. It won't work.

I've discussed something similar in the Moon Bounce post.

KB0RQB clear. 
Dyslexics are teople poo!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #287 on: November 25, 2007, 10:29:44 PM »
And, no you can't use weather balloons or other buoyant / flying aircraft because your signal point of origin would be constantly changing 
And this doesn't happen with satellites?

Quote
KB0RQB clear.
What are you supposed to be, some sort of trucker?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #288 on: November 25, 2007, 11:33:11 PM »
And, no you can't use weather balloons or other buoyant / flying aircraft because your signal point of origin would be constantly changing 
And this doesn't happen with satellites?
Not the same way no. Balloons and aircraft are either at the whim of weather or constrained by fuel requirements respectively.
Although satellites constantly communicate position, they have a pre-set orbit that can be assumed for calculations. In the end: a satellite has a known trajectory, known path, and therefore known signal origin. A balloon cannot have a known path (beyond perhaps a vague knowledge of the weather pattern that day), the only thing that can be obtained is perhaps rate of ascent and ceiling.

No matter how you slice it, you can't get a patterned flight path, continuously from any source other than an orbit based object for any reasonable length of time. Nice try though.
Quote
KB0RQB clear.
What are you supposed to be, some sort of trucker?

If only you knew. Sorry, but 11 meters (Citizens Band, or CB for those of you wishing to lash out at ham radio and have no clue what it is beyond "breaker breaker good buddy") is reserved for public use by anyone with a "CB" radio. Much like the newer "FRS" radios that the FCC freed up a VHF/UHF band for public use.

KB0RQB is my licensed call sign that allows me to operate on a variety of bands (or frequency [sorry.. free-qwen-see] ranges)
It was merely a footnote to point out that some people have personal experience with things like this - not just theory.

I enjoyed your puns, but you are still trumped.

[Edited for formatting]

« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 11:35:36 PM by Optimus Prime »
Dyslexics are teople poo!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #289 on: November 26, 2007, 07:28:21 AM »
No matter how you slice it, you can't get a patterned flight path, continuously from any source other than an orbit based object for any reasonable length of time. Nice try though.
Wow, it's amazing that planes don't crash all the time.  Especially since they apparently can't know their position.  Hell, I'm amazed that I don't end up in a different state when I fly, not being able to know where I am, and all...

Quote
Quote
KB0RQB clear.
What are you supposed to be, some sort of trucker?
If only you knew.
I only ask 'cause in your first two posts you were pretending to be Optimus Prime.  Which almost got you banned, by the way.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #290 on: November 26, 2007, 10:06:47 AM »
This is in reply to TheEngineer: (Too many quotes get to buried after a while.. just MHO)

Well last reference first: Why would I get banned for presenting myself as a fictitious character I'm fond of? There are plenty of people in here that do it off and on all the time... Plus, what does that have to do with anything?

Anyway back to the main point with aircraft and position.

Yet again, you are stripping the main ingredient of my comment *reasonable length of time*.
Of course you can get the position of anything with a transmitter or beacon.

Problem is, unless you have unlimited refueling going on, with planes such as say.. the SR-71 that can achieve super high altitudes.. and run them in reasonably tight circles (I'd say that part is doable.. the circles bit).. you're looking at a bum theory.

No matter what the resources, from how many governments - you're never going to continuously refuel dozens of aircraft for well... years! It doesn't work. I'm sorry but it just doesn't work out that way.

It may not sound like too big a deal at first but stop and think about that... refueling about 1000lbs of fuel every 2 to 3 hours - 24 hours a day - 365 days per year.

That's like 2,920,000lbs of fuel for *one* aircraft per year bare minimum. I'm being conservative on fuel and burn time. From some of your posts - I can tell that you know this.

---

Also, you are still losing the line of sight on the satellites. Although a near-orbit aircraft might get close to doing the same job. You would still notice a drop in performance in valleys, rough terrain, canyons, etc where there is no line of sight aside from directly overhead (more or less).

In the end, there is no other explanation than an orbital system for GPS to work. I dn't care if you believe in FE or RE... the point is that for a radio transmission, in the GHz range to reach a receiver in the manner in which current GPS technology works. Satellites (or some similar orbital device you wish to choose) are the only explanation.

Before you say it could work on a lower frequency.. no it can't. That's another post, but it has to do with bounce and latency. It won't work for pinpoint locations.


Dyslexics are teople poo!

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #291 on: November 26, 2007, 10:27:10 AM »
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.

i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #292 on: November 26, 2007, 11:15:16 AM »
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.

i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
*Sigh*  What about objects without mass?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #293 on: November 26, 2007, 11:25:10 AM »
Well, massless objects are also affected by (and affect) space time.. are you referring to particles such as the graviton?

Dyslexics are teople poo!

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #294 on: November 26, 2007, 12:08:20 PM »
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.

i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
*Sigh*  What about objects without mass?
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...
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.

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #295 on: November 26, 2007, 12:19:40 PM »
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.

i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
*Sigh*  What about objects without mass?
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...

Why not? Shouldn't it? Isn't mass what makes them attract, according to gravity?

~D-Draw

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #296 on: November 26, 2007, 12:53:47 PM »
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!
So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.

i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
*Sigh*  What about objects without mass?
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...

Why not? Shouldn't it? Isn't mass what makes them attract, according to gravity?

~D-Draw

Mass is something that bends spacetime. The curvature of spacetime creates the effect of gravity. There are other causes for the warping of spacetime.
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.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #297 on: November 26, 2007, 03:37:25 PM »
Well, massless objects are also affected by (and affect) space time.. are you referring to particles such as the graviton?
Specifically, I am referring to light.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #298 on: November 26, 2007, 03:38:21 PM »
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...
What about massless objects attracting each other due to 'gravity'?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #299 on: November 26, 2007, 04:07:24 PM »
i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
...And without mass you get no gravity. I, however, can get gravity simply by energy and momentum. Or, in the rocket case, acceleration.