It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

  • 4284 Replies
  • 240372 Views
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3270 on: September 15, 2015, 04:28:27 PM »
Already done it, psycho.

Starting at page 32 of this thread.

Now; give me an alternative hypothesis for what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS actually is.

Why is that so hard for you?

There is no alternative hypothesis. It is the ISS. Why is that so hard for you?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3271 on: September 15, 2015, 05:27:44 PM »
Our local Loa is somewhat impressive. He's a very good blend if obnoxious and idiotic: everything he says is wrong, you know he has to be a troll, but he just irritates enough to make you want to respond. I really do recommend blocking.

I think it's possible to agree with a conclusion, while rejecting reasoning: as I do for much of his claims.

That being said, you shouldn't be so opposed to suggesting alternative possibilities: doing so doesn't mean you have to accept them. What we observe as the ISS being the Norse trickster-god Loki who runs NASA and ESA and is secretly Vladimir Putin (I can't recall the Russian space agency's name offhand and blaming everything on Putin is entirely justified) and just enjoys trolling everyone is possible. Ridiculous, but possible.
It could be a painted plane or specifically designed jet engine, or a particularly fast balloon, or... If a conspiracy exists, we would already know that they're scientifically advanced for the time: the fakes they managed originally demonstrates this.

It is of course possible that it genuinely is a space station, and satellites etc, kept up in the same mechanism that moves the Sun, and they're merely mistaken about observation. That shouldn't be discounted, just because many flat earthers tend to favour conspiracy theories.

Of course, I'm not really sure what the point would be in answering the Loa's questions, given that you'll likely be ignored, or misrepresented. His spiel about rockets was quite a laughable example. He repeats the question, and as soon as you pose one in response he decides curses are a valid replacement for science.

Have fun in this thread, all of you. i'm not sure how, but I hope you do have fun.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3272 on: September 15, 2015, 11:57:00 PM »
Our local Loa is somewhat impressive. He's a very good blend if obnoxious and idiotic: everything he says is wrong, you know he has to be a troll, but he just irritates enough to make you want to respond. I really do recommend blocking.

I think it's possible to agree with a conclusion, while rejecting reasoning: as I do for much of his claims.

That being said, you shouldn't be so opposed to suggesting alternative possibilities: doing so doesn't mean you have to accept them. What we observe as the ISS being the Norse trickster-god Loki who runs NASA and ESA and is secretly Vladimir Putin (I can't recall the Russian space agency's name offhand and blaming everything on Putin is entirely justified) and just enjoys trolling everyone is possible. Ridiculous, but possible.
It could be a painted plane or specifically designed jet engine, or a particularly fast balloon, or... If a conspiracy exists, we would already know that they're scientifically advanced for the time: the fakes they managed originally demonstrates this.

It is of course possible that it genuinely is a space station, and satellites etc, kept up in the same mechanism that moves the Sun, and they're merely mistaken about observation. That shouldn't be discounted, just because many flat earthers tend to favour conspiracy theories.

Of course, I'm not really sure what the point would be in answering the Loa's questions, given that you'll likely be ignored, or misrepresented. His spiel about rockets was quite a laughable example. He repeats the question, and as soon as you pose one in response he decides curses are a valid replacement for science.

Have fun in this thread, all of you. i'm not sure how, but I hope you do have fun.

Sure, it doesn't have to be a space station, but here are some facts:
1. It is man made
2. It is in space
3. It travels at roughly 17,000 mph

It definitely looks man-made, it has some trackers on it, it's shape is not natural, it has a tracker on it that allows us to use a downloadable tracker app to check it's position. It orbits every roughly 90 minutes (can be verified with tracker), and I made an equation that can verify it's height above earth's surface (roughly) which is roughly 251 miles, which is in space. When we know it's orbits height we can calculate orbits circumference, and with the time to complete one orbit we can calculate it's speed. These are irrefutable facts. No plane or ballon can travel close to 17,000mph, the only way for such large objects to travel that fast with current technology is with the use of rockets. And it has to be extremely little atmosphere (basically a vacuum) to prevent the object to be slowed down by air resistance (the little amount of air there is requires regular boosts to be done by the ISS).
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3273 on: September 16, 2015, 04:17:36 AM »
Already done it, psycho.

Starting at page 32 of this thread.

Now; give me an alternative hypothesis for what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS actually is.

Why is that so hard for you?


'In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere.'


It becomes apparent when we look at the above statement you made back on page 32 of this thread, that your comprehension of the situation needs rectifying.

You've got it completely wrong when you've attempted to label the various components of the man/arm/ball/atmosphere example.


Firstly, let's look at the case of the cannon and the cannon ball. An explosive charge is ignited and this ejects the cannon ball out of the cannon. Due to Newton's 3rd law of motion (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) the cannon is recoiled (forced in the opposite direction) at a proportionate velocity corresponding to the mass and velocity of the cannonball. This reaction takes place regardless of the atmosphere, as the movement (recoil) of the cannon in one direction is the direct result of the cannonball being fired in the opposite direction, and this can also be described as 'conservation of momentum'. It's obvious that the cannon is not being forced in one direction, due to the cannonball pushing off the atmosphere. The mass of the cannon is moved in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the cannonball = conservation of momentum.


                                                   


When we look at a rocket and its fuel, it's exactly the same as a cannon and its cannonball.  You might disagree, but let's look further.
If we look at a rocket, we have the rocket body itself, and attached to this body is the rocket engine and the nozzle/s.  Let's imagine that the nozzles are similar to the cannons barrel.  We can now also make a comparison between the cannonball and the rocket's ejected fuel. What we must realise, is that the burnt fuel being continuously ejected out of the rocket engine nozzle/s has considerable weight (15 tons per second in the case of the Apollo Saturn V rocket).  Therefore we can make a direct comparison with the cannonball (has mass) and the rocket's ejected burnt fuel (has mass).






Now let's return to your analogy of the man/arm/ball/atmosphere (picture below).


                                                         


Ok, let's start by looking at how you've labelled the various components, and if this has been done correctly?

You stated that it's the man's arm which is the exhaust?  Actually, the man's arm is the 'explosive force' that is propelling the ball, and is exactly the same as the explosive charge that fires the cannonball out of the cannon's barrel. In turn, this is exactly the same as the ignition of the fuel in the rocket's combustion chamber and subsequent ejection out through the engine nozzle/s.

You then state that the 'ball represents an external mass such as the atmosphere'?  Well, it's not hard to laugh at this statement.
The ball is the ball. How does the ball suddenly turn into a representation of atmospheric mass?  The ball that is being thrown by the man is exactly the same as the cannon ball being 'thrown' by the cannon. This is also exactly the same as the rocket engine 'throwing' fuel out of its nozzle/s. To bring the atmosphere into the equation is nonsensical and completely irrelevant.

So in conclusion, your labelling of the 'man throwing a ball' example is completely wrong.

Let's apply the labels correctly now in relation to the example of a rocket -

1/  The man IS the rocket
2/  The man's arm IS the explosive force - (fuel being ignited in the combustion chamber of the rocket) which in turn throws the ball. The man's arm is NOT the exhaust as you incorrectly assert.   
3/  The ball IS the burnt fuel (huge mass) being ejected out of the engine nozzle/s.


So in applying Newton's 3rd law to the above situations, we have established that the 3 examples are exactly the same, and the 'recoil' of the cannon, the man and the rocket are the direct consequences of the 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction' law, which is COMPLETELY independent of whether there is an atmosphere or not, as it's NOT the atmosphere which is 'pushing' on the cannonball, the ball, or the burnt fuel coming out of the rocket's engine, and forcing the cannon, man or rocket in the opposite direction.

Therefore, because the atmosphere is not even part of the equation/process by which a rocket engine produces thrust forces, there is no reason what so ever why a rocket engine cannot produce thrust (movement force) in a vacuum, as the laws of conservation of momentum hold true regardless of the medium through which an object is travelling.
 













« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 07:14:44 PM by chtwrone »
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3274 on: September 16, 2015, 04:23:59 AM »
I'm sorry chtwrone, but I have the distinct feeling that was a wasted effort.

Sure, it doesn't have to be a space station, but here are some facts:
1. It is man made
2. It is in space
3. It travels at roughly 17,000 mph

It definitely looks man-made, it has some trackers on it, it's shape is not natural, it has a tracker on it that allows us to use a downloadable tracker app to check it's position. It orbits every roughly 90 minutes (can be verified with tracker), and I made an equation that can verify it's height above earth's surface (roughly) which is roughly 251 miles, which is in space. When we know it's orbits height we can calculate orbits circumference, and with the time to complete one orbit we can calculate it's speed. These are irrefutable facts. No plane or ballon can travel close to 17,000mph, the only way for such large objects to travel that fast with current technology is with the use of rockets. And it has to be extremely little atmosphere (basically a vacuum) to prevent the object to be slowed down by air resistance (the little amount of air there is requires regular boosts to be done by the ISS).

The Putin-is-secretly-every-satellite hypothesis would explain those observations too. An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely: and the speed of the ISS is only accurate if you accept the given altitude. How do you verify this, without relying on altitudes of such things as the Sun and moon, which would vary in the FE model? Of course, this may mean the ISS is in fact moving faster, but it should still be acknowledged.

Assuming everything you say is accurate, that does lend more credence to the genuine-but-mistaken FE hypothesis of space travel. I'll add that to my list of things to research in depth.
However, there is no inherent reason why we would know every kind of technology that has been developed. A decent part of military work is keeping secrets: there may well exist a craft capable of those speeds.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3275 on: September 16, 2015, 04:28:45 AM »
I'm sorry chtwrone, but I have the distinct feeling that was a wasted effort.

Sure, it doesn't have to be a space station, but here are some facts:
1. It is man made
2. It is in space
3. It travels at roughly 17,000 mph

It definitely looks man-made, it has some trackers on it, it's shape is not natural, it has a tracker on it that allows us to use a downloadable tracker app to check it's position. It orbits every roughly 90 minutes (can be verified with tracker), and I made an equation that can verify it's height above earth's surface (roughly) which is roughly 251 miles, which is in space. When we know it's orbits height we can calculate orbits circumference, and with the time to complete one orbit we can calculate it's speed. These are irrefutable facts. No plane or ballon can travel close to 17,000mph, the only way for such large objects to travel that fast with current technology is with the use of rockets. And it has to be extremely little atmosphere (basically a vacuum) to prevent the object to be slowed down by air resistance (the little amount of air there is requires regular boosts to be done by the ISS).

The Putin-is-secretly-every-satellite hypothesis would explain those observations too. An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely: and the speed of the ISS is only accurate if you accept the given altitude. How do you verify this, without relying on altitudes of such things as the Sun and moon, which would vary in the FE model? Of course, this may mean the ISS is in fact moving faster, but it should still be acknowledged.

Assuming everything you say is accurate, that does lend more credence to the genuine-but-mistaken FE hypothesis of space travel. I'll add that to my list of things to research in depth.
However, there is no inherent reason why we would know every kind of technology that has been developed. A decent part of military work is keeping secrets: there may well exist a craft capable of those speeds.

I think the 'wasted effort' was on your part, as I did not make the quoted statement.

Please refer to the correct person, thanks.

Modification pending I assume?
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3276 on: September 16, 2015, 04:36:37 AM »
I'm sorry chtwrone, but I have the distinct feeling that was a wasted effort.

Sure, it doesn't have to be a space station, but here are some facts:
1. It is man made
2. It is in space
3. It travels at roughly 17,000 mph

It definitely looks man-made, it has some trackers on it, it's shape is not natural, it has a tracker on it that allows us to use a downloadable tracker app to check it's position. It orbits every roughly 90 minutes (can be verified with tracker), and I made an equation that can verify it's height above earth's surface (roughly) which is roughly 251 miles, which is in space. When we know it's orbits height we can calculate orbits circumference, and with the time to complete one orbit we can calculate it's speed. These are irrefutable facts. No plane or ballon can travel close to 17,000mph, the only way for such large objects to travel that fast with current technology is with the use of rockets. And it has to be extremely little atmosphere (basically a vacuum) to prevent the object to be slowed down by air resistance (the little amount of air there is requires regular boosts to be done by the ISS).

The Putin-is-secretly-every-satellite hypothesis would explain those observations too. An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely: and the speed of the ISS is only accurate if you accept the given altitude. How do you verify this, without relying on altitudes of such things as the Sun and moon, which would vary in the FE model? Of course, this may mean the ISS is in fact moving faster, but it should still be acknowledged.

Assuming everything you say is accurate, that does lend more credence to the genuine-but-mistaken FE hypothesis of space travel. I'll add that to my list of things to research in depth.
However, there is no inherent reason why we would know every kind of technology that has been developed. A decent part of military work is keeping secrets: there may well exist a craft capable of those speeds.

I can tell by your post that you just skimmed through my post.

Quote
The Putin-is-secretly-every-satellite hypothesis would explain those observations too.

I have no idea what this hypothesis is. Your original post:
Quote
What we observe as the ISS being the Norse trickster-god Loki who runs NASA and ESA and is secretly Vladimir Putin (I can't recall the Russian space agency's name offhand and blaming everything on Putin is entirely justified) and just enjoys trolling everyone is possible. Ridiculous, but possible.
Doesn't explain what it is, at all.

Quote
An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely: and the speed of the ISS is only accurate if you accept the given altitude. How do you verify this, without relying on altitudes of such things as the Sun and moon, which would vary in the FE model? Of course, this may mean the ISS is in fact moving faster, but it should still be acknowledged.

If you read my post thoroughly, you would have read this:
Quote
and I made an equation that can verify it's height above earth's surface (roughly) which is roughly 251 miles, which is in space. When we know it's orbits height we can calculate orbits circumference, and with the time to complete one orbit we can calculate it's speed.
Also, it has to be moving outside of any type of dense medium in order to maintain it's speed, which would have to be roughly 16,600mph or so at ground level. So it has to be moving in a vacuum.

Quote
A decent part of military work is keeping secrets: there may well exist a craft capable of those speeds.
It would burn up if it tried to fly in dense atmosphere, and the fuel required to keep it flying would not fit, and would not be able to follow with the vessel.
And what sounds more plausible - There exists a super-advanced alien-like technology that let's a completely non-aerodynamic large heavy object fly through somewhat dense air at 17,000mph that only requires a boost every x months or so to maintain it's speed, or that rockets exist and works completely how we expect them to, and that they put parts in space that was assembled into something, wether it be a space-station or something else?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3277 on: September 16, 2015, 05:17:36 AM »
Quote
The Putin-is-secretly-every-satellite hypothesis would explain those observations too.

I have no idea what this hypothesis is. Your original post:
Quote
What we observe as the ISS being the Norse trickster-god Loki who runs NASA and ESA and is secretly Vladimir Putin (I can't recall the Russian space agency's name offhand and blaming everything on Putin is entirely justified) and just enjoys trolling everyone is possible. Ridiculous, but possible.
Doesn't explain what it is, at all.
Divine intervention and trickery with a tongue-in-cheek name. It is entirely possible all space travel is a trickster deity running every organization and putting illusions in space just for laughs.
Likely? No, I'm not proposing it as a serious hypothesis, just pointing out the problem in the outright refusal to acknowledge alternatives. An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely.

Quote
Quote
An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely: and the speed of the ISS is only accurate if you accept the given altitude. How do you verify this, without relying on altitudes of such things as the Sun and moon, which would vary in the FE model? Of course, this may mean the ISS is in fact moving faster, but it should still be acknowledged.

If you read my post thoroughly, you would have read this:
Quote
and I made an equation that can verify it's height above earth's surface (roughly) which is roughly 251 miles, which is in space. When we know it's orbits height we can calculate orbits circumference, and with the time to complete one orbit we can calculate it's speed.
This would be why I specifically asked how you verified this. Appealing to an 'equation' without offering any explanation or context, or even what the equation is, is not an answer. If I was to say I had an equation which showed the Earth was flat, you would justifiably want to at least know what the equation was. Hence my question, how were you able to verify this height without relying on measurements that would be inaccurate if the world were flat?
What is your equation?

Quote
Also, it has to be moving outside of any type of dense medium in order to maintain it's speed, which would have to be roughly 16,600mph or so at ground level. So it has to be moving in a vacuum.
...
It would burn up if it tried to fly in dense atmosphere, and the fuel required to keep it flying would not fit, and would not be able to follow with the vessel.
And what sounds more plausible - There exists a super-advanced alien-like technology that let's a completely non-aerodynamic large heavy object fly through somewhat dense air at 17,000mph that only requires a boost every x months or so to maintain it's speed, or that rockets exist and works completely how we expect them to, and that they put parts in space that was assembled into something, wether it be a space-station or something else?
There is quite a lot of ground between "Dense, ground-level atmosphere," and "Vacuum," and you don't take into account, for example, a streamlined shape reducing the resistance. Don't forget how hard it is to view the ISS in any detail, and how what we observe may not be all there is.

Certainly, I do think it is more likely space travel is genuine, I just don't believe the evidence is quite as overwhelming as many of you seem to.

I think the 'wasted effort' was on your part, as I did not make the quoted statement.

Please refer to the correct person, thanks.

Modification pending I assume?
I am aware: that is why it says 'Master Evar', and why I'm talking to him. I was talking about your rather lengthy address to our local Loa.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3278 on: September 16, 2015, 05:49:03 AM »
Quote
Divine intervention and trickery with a tongue-in-cheek name. It is entirely possible all space travel is a trickster deity running every organization and putting illusions in space just for laughs.
Likely? No, I'm not proposing it as a serious hypothesis, just pointing out the problem in the outright refusal to acknowledge alternatives. An alternative hypothesis does not mean one you find likely.

I didn't deny or propose any theories, I only posted some irrefutable facts.

Quote
This would be why I specifically asked how you verified this. Appealing to an 'equation' without offering any explanation or context, or even what the equation is, is not an answer. If I was to say I had an equation which showed the Earth was flat, you would justifiably want to at least know what the equation was. Hence my question, how were you able to verify this height without relying on measurements that would be inaccurate if the world were flat?
What is your equation?

I'll dig it up later, I posted it in some buried thread. It's a function, where the time t it takes for the ISS to pass through roughly 20 of an observers FOV gives you height H above observer. If you had an equation that irrefutably proved flat earth, I'd believe in it.

The equation is not very exact, but you'll know if the ISS is in space or not.

Quote
There is quite a lot of ground between "Dense, ground-level atmosphere," and "Vacuum," and you don't take into account, for example, a streamlined shape reducing the resistance. Don't forget how hard it is to view the ISS in any detail, and how what we observe may not be all there is.

Certainly, I do think it is more likely space travel is genuine, I just don't believe the evidence is quite as overwhelming as many of you seem to.

With dense I mean anywhere between at least 0-60km height. Space officially starts at 100km height. Even at just below 100km almost continuous propulsion would be needed to keep an object in orbit.
Quote
a streamlined shape
ISS? Streamlined shape? Sorry, but that's just a joke. You can see through binoculars or a telescope how "streamlined" it is.

I know you think space travel is genuine. But everything you propose it could be otherwise has no scientific ground to it. There DEFINITELY is some sort of man-made object in space travelling at roughly 17,000mph in earth orbit. That is my point.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3279 on: September 16, 2015, 06:03:49 AM »
Quote
But, I'll still give you the original equation :

D(ISS Orbit)=2H+8000miles

O(ISS Orbit)=[pi](2H+8000)miles

D(Earth)= 8000miles

H(ISS height over earth)=H

t(Time spent in 20 of your field of view straight overhead)  (variable)  (in seconds)

T(Time for ISS to make one full lap in orbit)=5400s

S(Length ISS travel along 20 of your field of view straight overhead)=2*H*tan(10)miles  (Using trigonometry, since this is only an approxmation and the arc is pretty small)=0.3527Hmiles  (roughly)

t/T=S/D(ISS Orbit) -> ts/5400s=0.3527Hmiles/[pi](2H+8000)miles  (equability)

t/5400=0.3527H/[pi](2H+8000)

t=0.3527H*5400/[pi](2H+8000)=1904.3H/[pi](2H+8000)

t[pi](2H+8000)=1904.3H

t[pi]2H+t[pi]8000=1904.3H

1904.3H-t[pi]2H=t[pi]8000

H(1904.3-2t[pi])=t[pi]8000

H=t[pi]8000/(1904.3-2t[pi])

Actually, it seems likesomething went wrong when I posted the equation in the earlier post, as it seems to be missing a number 2. I will edit that one quickly. This equation will only give you an approximation, as you can only approximate 20 of your FOV, approximate the time it travels and because it is doesn't take the curvature into account. But it is close enough to calculate if it is in space or not.

EDIT:

Almost forgot:

D=Diameter

H=Height

S=Straight

t/T=Time

The equation, with the step-by-step solution.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Heiwa

  • 8702
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3280 on: September 16, 2015, 09:24:46 AM »
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure. 

I have seen it several times passing above my terrasse from NW to SE just after sunset. It is lit up by the setting Sun. Always same speed and altitude and appearance. It is easy to photograph it. It is just a bright blob = a balloon.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3281 on: September 16, 2015, 09:53:35 AM »
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure. 

Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3282 on: September 16, 2015, 10:02:09 AM »
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure. 

I have seen it several times passing above my terrasse from NW to SE just after sunset. It is lit up by the setting Sun. Always same speed and altitude and appearance. It is easy to photograph it. It is just a bright blob = a balloon.

Yeah, cause that looks like a balloon right?

Tell me the magic that let's a balloon that's far far denser than the medium (=vacuum) it's in float. You said it yourself, at 100km and above basically no air exists. There's nothing to float in. And why use a balloon when the thing has already reached orbit? That's the stupidest most ignorant claim I've read so far. If you believe it is at 370 000m altitude and travels at 7 500m/s then why don't you think it can be a space station? If you believe it is in fact in space and in orbit then why do you believe it can't be a space station but instead a completely useless balloon? A space station would be more useful than a balloon. Are you so desperate to try to convince us that it is not a space station?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3283 on: September 16, 2015, 10:04:55 AM »
I'll dig it up later, I posted it in some buried thread. It's a function, where the time t it takes for the ISS to pass through roughly 20 of an observers FOV gives you height H above observer. If you had an equation that irrefutably proved flat earth, I'd believe in it.
You may believe it, but you'd want to see it first, that was all I was saying.
Thanks for the maths. From what I can see the basic idea is to note the distance it travels, the circumference of its orbit in terms of the altitude, gauge how long it would take, and solve for H. The clear initial problem is the value for the diameter of the Earth D: if the world was flat, this would clearly be a false value.
Give me a little time, I'll see what I can figure out if we assume an altitude of 100miles/160km.

Quote
ISS? Streamlined shape? Sorry, but that's just a joke. You can see through binoculars or a telescope how "streamlined" it is.
Again, that assumes you can make out every detail with binoculars. if you look at pictures of the ISS taken from Earth, they're always fairly blurred. You can make out the basic shape, but that doesn't preclude, for example, additions above or in the blur, or black elements intended to make streamlined the design.
As a note on 'continuous propulsion', as it is the ISS is meant to be Solar powered.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3284 on: September 16, 2015, 10:21:53 AM »
I'll dig it up later, I posted it in some buried thread. It's a function, where the time t it takes for the ISS to pass through roughly 20 of an observers FOV gives you height H above observer. If you had an equation that irrefutably proved flat earth, I'd believe in it.
You may believe it, but you'd want to see it first, that was all I was saying.
Thanks for the maths. From what I can see the basic idea is to note the distance it travels, the circumference of its orbit in terms of the altitude, gauge how long it would take, and solve for H. The clear initial problem is the value for the diameter of the Earth D: if the world was flat, this would clearly be a false value.
Give me a little time, I'll see what I can figure out if we assume an altitude of 100miles/160km.

Quote
ISS? Streamlined shape? Sorry, but that's just a joke. You can see through binoculars or a telescope how "streamlined" it is.
Again, that assumes you can make out every detail with binoculars. if you look at pictures of the ISS taken from Earth, they're always fairly blurred. You can make out the basic shape, but that doesn't preclude, for example, additions above or in the blur, or black elements intended to make streamlined the design.
As a note on 'continuous propulsion', as it is the ISS is meant to be Solar powered.

Quote
The clear initial problem is the value for the diameter of the Earth D: if the world was flat, this would clearly be a false value.

It won't matter too much. In fact, this would give a much higher H. The orbit on a flat earth would have D= 12,400miles, which would definitely be greater than 8000miles+2*251miles=8502miles.

Quote
if you look at pictures of the ISS taken from Earth, they're always fairly blurred. You can make out the basic shape, but that doesn't preclude, for example, additions above or in the blur, or black elements intended to make streamlined the design.
As it passes the moon:

No hidden elements, no streamlined shape.

Quote
As a note on 'continuous propulsion', as it is the ISS is meant to be Solar powered.
For electricity, yes. For propulsion, no. All propulsion in space for now requires newtonian thrust (a propellant is shot in the opposite direction to cause forwards propulsion).
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3285 on: September 16, 2015, 10:28:56 AM »
Quick note on calculation, I assume you mean O(ISS orbit) rather than D(ISS orbit) at this point:

Quote
t/T=S/D(ISS Orbit)

Also, I believe you should have used sine rather than tan for the triangle. A twenty degree view looking up, with the altitude H at either side of that angle of 20: if you want to use trig, I'd bisect that triangle down the middle to form a right angle along the ISS' route (which looks like what you did): but this line wouldn't touch the ISS' actual route so, to be more specific, it would be better to use the side from the original triangle, which you know does intersect the ISS' route, and which would be the hypotenuse.
Comparatively small issue, just worth pointing out.
(Let me know if you want me to add a diagram, it's always a pain to express that kind of thing in words).

Quote
It won't matter too much. In fact, this would give a much higher H. The orbit on a flat earth would have D= 12,400miles, which would definitely be greater than 8000miles+2*251miles=8502miles.
Perhaps; this is what I'm going to calculate, the length of an 'orbit' assuming 100miles altitude.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3286 on: September 16, 2015, 10:51:22 AM »
Quick note on calculation, I assume you mean O(ISS orbit) rather than D(ISS orbit) at this point:

Quote
t/T=S/D(ISS Orbit)

Also, I believe you should have used sine rather than tan for the triangle. A twenty degree view looking up, with the altitude H at either side of that angle of 20: if you want to use trig, I'd bisect that triangle down the middle to form a right angle along the ISS' route (which looks like what you did): but this line wouldn't touch the ISS' actual route so, to be more specific, it would be better to use the side from the original triangle, which you know does intersect the ISS' route, and which would be the hypotenuse.
Comparatively small issue, just worth pointing out.
(Let me know if you want me to add a diagram, it's always a pain to express that kind of thing in words).

Quote
It won't matter too much. In fact, this would give a much higher H. The orbit on a flat earth would have D= 12,400miles, which would definitely be greater than 8000miles+2*251miles=8502miles.
Perhaps; this is what I'm going to calculate, the length of an 'orbit' assuming 100miles altitude.

Quote
Quick note on calculation, I assume you mean O(ISS orbit) rather than D(ISS orbit) at this point
Yes, thank you.

Quote
Also, I believe you should have used sine rather than tan for the triangle. A twenty degree view looking up, with the altitude H at either side of that angle of 20: if you want to use trig, I'd bisect that triangle down the middle to form a right angle along the ISS' route (which looks like what you did): but this line wouldn't touch the ISS' actual route so, to be more specific, it would be better to use the side from the original triangle, which you know does intersect the ISS' route, and which would be the hypotenuse.
No, tan is definitely better. I might have to make a sketch to show you why. That'll come tomorrow. Please add a diagram, it would help.

Quote
Perhaps; this is what I'm going to calculate, the length of an 'orbit' assuming 100miles altitude.

If you have two circles with D=12,400miles and 8,500miles then the one with D=12,400 miles is obviously going to have a larger circumference. And because of:
t/T=S/O(ISS Orbit)   (Fixed the D for an O)

If O gets larger then S also has to be larger, as t and T should be constant (Same on both flat and round earth).
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3287 on: September 16, 2015, 11:11:41 AM »
The major flaw is that you're assuming a) a circle, and b) an orbit around a RE.
The easiest way I can see is simply to use speed. We determine how long it takes for the ISS to cross our observed section: we'll use sine, for now, it'll be easy to change.

Assuming H=100, (arbitrary, just a gauge), and the distance the ISS crosses is d:

d = 200sin(10) = 34.73 miles

Clearly the speed of the ISS, S, is, where t is the time to cross the 20 arc from your PoV:

S = d/t

And so, if it takes 5400s to complete one orbit, we can easily to deduce that the total length of the orbit O is:

O = 5400S = 187540/t

We just need to know the time t in order to calculate. Then it's easy to determine if this is a feasible number (though it would be easier with an FE map, this will be either in a grey area, or clearly beyond possibility), and we can see if the ISS must exist, or could be faked.

Also, thank you for your photo of the ISS going past the moon.

Anyway, on the sine/tan issue, apologies for my terrible paint diagram (my scanner's broken):



Those were my thoughts. We know that, at each side of the 20 degree angle we measure, the ISS is at height H: it would seem better to use that length that we know is accurate rather than, as I'm assuming you did, use the middle length for a tan calculation.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3288 on: September 16, 2015, 11:46:54 AM »
The major flaw is that you're assuming a) a circle, and b) an orbit around a RE.
The easiest way I can see is simply to use speed. We determine how long it takes for the ISS to cross our observed section: we'll use sine, for now, it'll be easy to change.

Assuming H=100, (arbitrary, just a gauge), and the distance the ISS crosses is d:

d = 200sin(10) = 34.73 miles

Clearly the speed of the ISS, S, is, where t is the time to cross the 20 arc from your PoV:

S = d/t

And so, if it takes 5400s to complete one orbit, we can easily to deduce that the total length of the orbit O is:

O = 5400S = 187540/t

We just need to know the time t in order to calculate. Then it's easy to determine if this is a feasible number (though it would be easier with an FE map, this will be either in a grey area, or clearly beyond possibility), and we can see if the ISS must exist, or could be faked.

Also, thank you for your photo of the ISS going past the moon.

Anyway, on the sine/tan issue, apologies for my terrible paint diagram (my scanner's broken):



Those were my thoughts. We know that, at each side of the 20 degree angle we measure, the ISS is at height H: it would seem better to use that length that we know is accurate rather than, as I'm assuming you did, use the middle length for a tan calculation.

Quote
The major flaw is that you're assuming a) a circle, and b) an orbit around a RE.

a/ Orbits are elliptical, if they are stable without changing parent body. The orbit of ISS should be more or less circular. We are obviously assuming that no random undiscovered unexplained and unobserved orbital law or mechanic is introduced into this.

b/ True, but as I pointed out the height would be even greater on a flat earth, it would be even higher in space, and the speed would also be even higher.

Quote
Assuming H=100, (arbitrary, just a gauge), and the distance the ISS crosses is d:

d = 200sin(10) = 34.73 miles

Where did you get 200 from in d=200sin(10). Don't you mean 100? In which case d would be 17.36 miles.

Quote
And so, if it takes 5400s to complete one orbit, we can easily to deduce that the total length of the orbit O is:

O = 5400S = 187540/t

Where did you get 187540 from? 187540 what?

Quote
Anyway, on the sine/tan issue, apologies for my terrible paint diagram (my scanner's broken):

Those were my thoughts. We know that, at each side of the 20 degree angle we measure, the ISS is at height H: it would seem better to use that length that we know is accurate rather than, as I'm assuming you did, use the middle length for a tan calculation.

This is why sin is not good to use - H will no longer be the distance ABOVE the observer, and therefore won't be the distance ABOVE the ground, but it will be distance away from the observer when it is 10 below straight above the observer. You'll have to add extra calculations for that. H may be off by 10-20 miles if we don't account for that. The middle length is the actual height, which is what we want to calculate, that is the point of this calculation.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3289 on: September 16, 2015, 12:51:54 PM »
Quote from: Master Evae
Orbits are elliptical, if they are stable without changing parent body.
True, but we aren't dealing with an orbit in the strictest sense, if we are on a FE with no space travel.

Quote
Where did you get 200 from in d=200sin(10). Don't you mean 100? In which case d would be 17.36 miles.
Twice 100: using 100sin(10) would give you one triangle, but for the total distance covered by the 20 degrees, you need to double it to include the other.

Quote
Where did you get 187540 from? 187540 what?
Miles: it's the product of 5400 (seconds) and d (miles per second).

Thanks for your correction, I see what you mean, I was using the cliche use of a circle. I tried to make mine more generally useful as a 20 degree arc crossing directly over the observer at halfway would be much trickier to achieve. Correcting, I think we'll find:

O = 190433 miles/t

Which should make falsifying the FE model with no space travel possible, depending on what t is.
This looks like a good tool for determining when it'll be visible:
http://iss.astroviewer.net/
Open invitation to readers, I guess. I'll wait to see when it's an accessible time for me.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3290 on: September 16, 2015, 02:14:44 PM »
Quote from: Master Evae
Orbits are elliptical, if they are stable without changing parent body.
True, but we aren't dealing with an orbit in the strictest sense, if we are on a FE with no space travel.

Quote
Where did you get 200 from in d=200sin(10). Don't you mean 100? In which case d would be 17.36 miles.
Twice 100: using 100sin(10) would give you one triangle, but for the total distance covered by the 20 degrees, you need to double it to include the other.

Quote
Where did you get 187540 from? 187540 what?
Miles: it's the product of 5400 (seconds) and d (miles per second).

Thanks for your correction, I see what you mean, I was using the cliche use of a circle. I tried to make mine more generally useful as a 20 degree arc crossing directly over the observer at halfway would be much trickier to achieve. Correcting, I think we'll find:

O = 190433 miles/t

Which should make falsifying the FE model with no space travel possible, depending on what t is.
This looks like a good tool for determining when it'll be visible:
http://iss.astroviewer.net/
Open invitation to readers, I guess. I'll wait to see when it's an accessible time for me.

I see why it's 200.

It's late here, I'll check the rest tomorrow.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3291 on: September 16, 2015, 07:17:12 PM »
Already done it, psycho.

Starting at page 32 of this thread.

Now; give me an alternative hypothesis for what the light in the sky you claim is the ISS actually is.

Why is that so hard for you?


'In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere.'


It becomes apparent when we look at the above statement you made back on page 32 of this thread, that your comprehension of the situation needs rectifying.

You've got it completely wrong when you've attempted to label the various components of the man/arm/ball/atmosphere example.


Firstly, let's look at the case of the cannon and the cannon ball. An explosive charge is ignited and this ejects the cannon ball out of the cannon. Due to Newton's 3rd law of motion (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) the cannon is recoiled (forced in the opposite direction) at a proportionate velocity corresponding to the mass and velocity of the cannonball. This reaction takes place regardless of the atmosphere, as the movement (recoil) of the cannon in one direction is the direct result of the cannonball being fired in the opposite direction, and this can also be described as 'conservation of momentum'. It's obvious that the cannon is not being forced in one direction, due to the cannonball pushing off the atmosphere. The mass of the cannon is moved in the opposite direction to that of the mass of the cannonball = conservation of momentum.


                                                   


When we look at a rocket and its fuel, it's exactly the same as a cannon and its cannonball.  You might disagree, but let's look further.
If we look at a rocket, we have the rocket body itself, and attached to this body is the rocket engine and the nozzle/s.  Let's imagine that the nozzles are similar to the cannons barrel.  We can now also make a comparison between the cannonball and the rocket's ejected fuel. What we must realise, is that the burnt fuel being continuously ejected out of the rocket engine nozzle/s has considerable weight (15 tons per second in the case of the Apollo Saturn V rocket).  Therefore we can make a direct comparison with the cannonball (has mass) and the rocket's ejected burnt fuel (has mass).






Now let's return to your analogy of the man/arm/ball/atmosphere (picture below).


                                                         


Ok, let's start by looking at how you've labelled the various components, and if this has been done correctly?

You stated that it's the man's arm which is the exhaust?  Actually, the man's arm is the 'explosive force' that is propelling the ball, and is exactly the same as the explosive charge that fires the cannonball out of the cannon's barrel. In turn, this is exactly the same as the ignition of the fuel in the rocket's combustion chamber and subsequent ejection out through the engine nozzle/s.

You then state that the 'ball represents an external mass such as the atmosphere'?  Well, it's not hard to laugh at this statement.
The ball is the ball. How does the ball suddenly turn into a representation of atmospheric mass?  The ball that is being thrown by the man is exactly the same as the cannon ball being 'thrown' by the cannon. This is also exactly the same as the rocket engine 'throwing' fuel out of its nozzle/s. To bring the atmosphere into the equation is nonsensical and completely irrelevant.

So in conclusion, your labelling of the 'man throwing a ball' example is completely wrong.

Let's apply the labels correctly now in relation to the example of a rocket -

1/  The man IS the rocket
2/  The man's arm IS the explosive force - (fuel being ignited in the combustion chamber of the rocket) which in turn throws the ball. The man's arm is NOT the exhaust as you incorrectly assert.   
3/  The ball IS the burnt fuel (huge mass) being ejected out of the engine nozzle/s.


So in applying Newton's 3rd law to the above situations, we have established that the 3 examples are exactly the same, and the 'recoil' of the cannon, the man and the rocket are the direct consequences of the 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction' law, which is COMPLETELY independent of whether there is an atmosphere or not, as it's NOT the atmosphere which is 'pushing' on the cannonball, the ball, or the burnt fuel coming out of the rocket's engine, and forcing the cannon, man or rocket in the opposite direction.

Therefore, because the atmosphere is not even part of the equation/process by which a rocket engine produces thrust forces, there is no reason what so ever why a rocket engine cannot produce thrust (movement force) in a vacuum, as the laws of conservation of momentum hold true regardless of the medium through which an object is travelling.
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

*

Heiwa

  • 8702
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3292 on: September 16, 2015, 09:44:18 PM »
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure. 

Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.

I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.

At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.

I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3293 on: September 16, 2015, 09:48:50 PM »
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure. 

Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.

I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.

At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.

I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.

Do you know what the sentence "You can check for yourself" even means? Because everyone who denies the ISS seems to have this inability to comprehend that.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3294 on: September 16, 2015, 10:38:35 PM »
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure. 

Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.

I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.

At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.

I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
 

Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?

I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?

Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS?  Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?

So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast.  But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it?  But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3295 on: September 17, 2015, 12:09:16 AM »
Quote from: Master Evae
Orbits are elliptical, if they are stable without changing parent body.
True, but we aren't dealing with an orbit in the strictest sense, if we are on a FE with no space travel.

Quote
Where did you get 200 from in d=200sin(10). Don't you mean 100? In which case d would be 17.36 miles.
Twice 100: using 100sin(10) would give you one triangle, but for the total distance covered by the 20 degrees, you need to double it to include the other.

Quote
Where did you get 187540 from? 187540 what?
Miles: it's the product of 5400 (seconds) and d (miles per second).

Thanks for your correction, I see what you mean, I was using the cliche use of a circle. I tried to make mine more generally useful as a 20 degree arc crossing directly over the observer at halfway would be much trickier to achieve. Correcting, I think we'll find:

O = 190433 miles/t

Which should make falsifying the FE model with no space travel possible, depending on what t is.
This looks like a good tool for determining when it'll be visible:
http://iss.astroviewer.net/
Open invitation to readers, I guess. I'll wait to see when it's an accessible time for me.

Yup, that seems right. I'd change sine for tan though, as I explained earlier.

So O=5400*2H*tan(10)/t => O=1904.3H/t

But this equation does require you to know two of the variables.

My equation for ISS height on a flat earth:

ts/5400s=2H*tan(10)miles/39000miles     (12400miles*[pi]=39000miles, roughly)

39000t/5400=2H*tan(10)

39000t/1904.3=H

H=39000t/1904.3

If we compare them:

Round earth: H=25133t/(1904.3-[tau]*t)

Flat earth: H=38956t/1904.3


The flat earth one will give a greater H when t is low, I'll calculate the t:

25133t/(1904.3-[tau]*t)=38956t/1904.3

38956t*(1904.3-[tau]*t)=25133t*1904.3

47860772t=74183911t-244768t^2

47860772=74183911-244768t

244768t=74183911-47860772=26323139

t=26323139/244768=107.5

So as long as t is smaller than 107.5 the ISS will be higher up on a flat earth than on a round earth.
At t=107.5, H=2,200 miles.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Heiwa

  • 8702
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3296 on: September 17, 2015, 12:11:26 AM »
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure. 

Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.

I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.

At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.

I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
 

Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?

I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?

Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS?  Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?

So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast.  But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it?  But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.

It is quite easy to predict and publish the trajectory of any satellite, so when the mysterious object appeared at the given time just after sunset above my terrasse (the sky was clear) it was easy to spot with my own eyes. It looked like a white shining dot. I evidently used binoculars and it was still a white shining dot. Using a telescope with its limited view was more difficult - the object passed from NW to SE in 6 minutes - so it soon got out of view.

Anyway, I have taken several photos of the object and enlarged them and ... always just a white, shining blot. I really do not trust the few photographers that say they have taken photos of the ISS from Earth.

They are as reliable as the photographers that say they took footage of the WTC12 911 top down collapses at NY. According my famous, reliable, scientific analysis and peer reviewed paper (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm ) such collapses are impossible and the photographers are simply cheating (and should be put in jail for supporting terrorism).

What do you think?

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3297 on: September 17, 2015, 12:16:23 AM »
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure. 

Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.

I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.

At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.

I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
 

Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?

I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?

Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS?  Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?

So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast.  But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it?  But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.

It is quite easy to predict and publish the trajectory of any satellite, so when the mysterious object appeared at the given time just after sunset above my terrasse (the sky was clear) it was easy to spot with my own eyes. It looked like a white shining dot. I evidently used binoculars and it was still a white shining dot. Using a telescope with its limited view was more difficult - the object passed from NW to SE in 6 minutes - so it soon got out of view.

Anyway, I have taken several photos of the object and enlarged them and ... always just a white, shining blot. I really do not trust the few photographers that say they have taken photos of the ISS from Earth.

They are as reliable as the photographers that say they took footage of the WTC12 911 top down collapses at NY. According my famous, reliable, scientific analysis and peer reviewed paper (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm ) such collapses are impossible and the photographers are simply cheating (and should be put in jail for supporting terrorism).

What do you think?

Can you please publish these enhanced pictures of the ISS, please?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Heiwa

  • 8702
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3298 on: September 17, 2015, 12:28:01 AM »
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure. 

Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.

I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.

At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.

I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
 

Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?

I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?

Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS?  Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?

So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast.  But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it?  But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.

It is quite easy to predict and publish the trajectory of any satellite, so when the mysterious object appeared at the given time just after sunset above my terrasse (the sky was clear) it was easy to spot with my own eyes. It looked like a white shining dot. I evidently used binoculars and it was still a white shining dot. Using a telescope with its limited view was more difficult - the object passed from NW to SE in 6 minutes - so it soon got out of view.

Anyway, I have taken several photos of the object and enlarged them and ... always just a white, shining blot. I really do not trust the few photographers that say they have taken photos of the ISS from Earth.

They are as reliable as the photographers that say they took footage of the WTC12 911 top down collapses at NY. According my famous, reliable, scientific analysis and peer reviewed paper (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm ) such collapses are impossible and the photographers are simply cheating (and should be put in jail for supporting terrorism).

What do you think?

Can you please publish these enhanced pictures of the ISS, please?

No, as I say they are just white blots on a black background and stored among many other pictures somewhere on some external hard disc. But why don't try yourself to take a photo of the ISS? With your intelligence it should be easy as 1, 2, 3.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship
« Reply #3299 on: September 17, 2015, 12:39:16 AM »
I think the ISS is a man-made satellite orbiting at say 370 000 m altitude with a speed of about 7 500 m/s. It is just a big silver colored balloon, diameter 200 m ! that has been blown up in situ using, e.g. helium at very low pressure. 

Please provide your photographs of it looking like a balloon.

I can describe it. The background or sky is black. Then there is the white dot or blot that remains a dot of blot at any enlargement.

At long exposure the dot makes a white line across the photo of the sky.

I have a feeling that all other photos showing something else looking like an insect are fake.
 

Do you think that using a good pair of binoculars or a telescope would help to resolve the object into something with a bit more detail, other than the featureless object that you might have seen?

I guess you've often seen the contrails made by aircraft as they cruise overhead at 30,000ft or more?
Did you know that you can actually see quite a detailed aircraft if you use a pair of binoculars to enhance the view?

Is it possible that your description of the pictures that have been taken of the ISS, that might look something like 'an insect', could actually be of the real ISS?  Or are you so completely dismissive of the possibility, that you will totally reject any photographic/video evidence without any further consideration?

So here we have pictures of the ISS that is following published orbital tracks, appearing at exactly the published times, pictures taken of the 'object' look exactly like the ISS should, and the 'object' is obviously very high and travelling fast.  But apparently this object can't possibly be the real ISS can it?  But FEers can never explain what else it might be, other than a balloon of course, lol.

It is quite easy to predict and publish the trajectory of any satellite, so when the mysterious object appeared at the given time just after sunset above my terrasse (the sky was clear) it was easy to spot with my own eyes. It looked like a white shining dot. I evidently used binoculars and it was still a white shining dot. Using a telescope with its limited view was more difficult - the object passed from NW to SE in 6 minutes - so it soon got out of view.

Anyway, I have taken several photos of the object and enlarged them and ... always just a white, shining blot. I really do not trust the few photographers that say they have taken photos of the ISS from Earth.

They are as reliable as the photographers that say they took footage of the WTC12 911 top down collapses at NY. According my famous, reliable, scientific analysis and peer reviewed paper (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm ) such collapses are impossible and the photographers are simply cheating (and should be put in jail for supporting terrorism).

What do you think?

Can you please publish these enhanced pictures of the ISS, please?

No, as I say they are just white blots on a black background and stored among many other pictures somewhere on some external hard disc. But why don't try yourself to take a photo of the ISS? With your intelligence it should be easy as 1, 2, 3.

If I find some time I might do it. But I don't need to, because others already has. Not one has posted an enhanced picture of the ISS where it is still only a large white blob. That's why I'd like to see it from you. But you're lying of course, otherwise you'd just have posted those pictures and laughed in my face.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!