Testing the fake ISS

So I've seen a lot of people who claim that footage from the Internation Space Station is fake and I thought I would use some maths to show that it's not.

Most of the people I've seen who claim the ISS is fake say that the footage is captured on a 747 that is accelerating downward, simulating microgravity. If you think the ISS is fake for some other reason, this post does not apply to you.

Before I begin, I'd like to state a few things. First, if you want to get a reply from me, make sure you read the entire post. If it becomes apparent that you did not read the post, don't expect me to respond. Other that that I will try to respond to as many people as I can. If my math is wrong, I urge you to reply so that I can correct it. Second, no information I'm using is given to me by "the government" or whatever institution is responsible for perpetuating the round Earth conspiracy. Anybody can independently verify my methodology and my results using nothing more than a pen, some paper, a measuring tape, and a stopwatch.

Now, on to the proof.

If you watch this video,

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

you can see that there is one single uncut piece of footage from 2:22 to 7:10. This would suggest that the 747 used to capture this footage must be capable at accelerating downwards for at least 288 seconds. That's not entirely unreasonable. NASA does (or used to) receive a lot of money from the US government, and it's feasible that they could have developed an aircraft capable of prolonged acceleration like this.

Well, thanks to mathematics, we can calculate exactly the altitude that the aircraft would need to be in order to accelerate downwards for this long.

The formula we will use is d=(1/2)*a*t² where d is the total displacement, a is the acceleration, and t is the time elapsed. If you don't believe me, note that (1/2)*a*t²=∫a*t*dt and remember that a*t is equal to velocity and that displacement is the indefinite integral of velocity. If you still don't believe me you can go here (http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/physics/mechanics/kinematics/EquationsForAcceleratedMotion/Origins/Displacement/Origin.htm) and it will explain another way that this function is derived.

So now we have the formula and the time elapsed. Now we just need the acceleration. We know that gravitational acceleration is about 9.8  m/s². If you don't believe me, you can measure this yourself by dropping an object from several meters in the air and timing how long it takes to get to the ground. You can then plug the height from which the object was dropped and the time elapsed in to the function I gave above to find the acceleration.

So, let;s plug in our variable and see what we get.

d=(1/2)*a*t²
d=(1/2)*(9.8 )*(289)²
d=(4.9)*(83521)
d=409252.9

So, we get a displacement of 409252.9 meters, or roughly 409 kilometers. That means that in order to get the footage, our aircraft must start from at least 409 km. As it so happens, by sheer coincidence, the ISS allegedly orbits Earth at about 400 km, and we all know how much rocket fuel is needed to get cargo to that altitude. A conventional aircraft simply can not lift a TV set the size of the ISS to that altitude. That kind of force requires a rocket, and rockets aren't cheap.

So now I ask you: Is that reasonable? Is it reasonable that NASA would go through all the trouble of launching fake rockets then launch real rockets and hide it from the public? Is it reasonable that NASA, CSA, ESA, and FKA all launch several rockets each day and hide them from the public, only to launch fake rockets once every few months and show the public those? What do they gain from this?

So now you're faced with two options.
1. Accept that the  ISS is, in fact, real.
2. Believe that the governments of the world are involved in a conspiracy which costs several orders of magnitude more than the budgets of NASA, CSA, ESA, and FKA combined.

Great job, it is what i have tried to explain to a lot of flat earthers on, for instance, facebook. A lot of them said that the the maths were part of the conspiracy too or simply said that it was all fake without giving any proof.
Since those were incredibly stupid i would like to see the reaction of these ones that are more intelligent

Not hard to find 1/2 hour clips from ISS. The flatwits are full of it. Be happy.

Actually, if you assume that the aircraft started by moving up and reached it's apogee in the middle of that uncut footage you would only need it to go 102 kilometers.  That's definitely more reasonable, but that's not to say that it is reasonable.

The video that most of your video was cut from is this ISS tour video:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available
(by the way, you embed videos by removing the s from https and putting it in a url tag)

This has much longer uncut footage from the ISS.  I haven't found the exact length of the longest uncut portion, but it's definitely a lot longer then in your video.  This would mean that the zero G plane would have to actually go to space and it would probably have to use rockets and multiple stages to get the vertical speed necessary.  Launching the station into a high sub orbit every time you want a few minutes of footage would be a lot more expensive then making an actual station because you would have to launch it every time you want to create a video and not just once.

Funny how most who would argue against you on this will claim fantastic things.  I await the silliness that should follow this one.  Someone will in time come on here and claim that the vomit comet planes are just for show and part of the conspiracy.  The "real" zero G planes are much larger and can maintain zero G indefinitely.  I await that response or something akin to it. 
I still think that there are really no flat Earth believers out there.  Everyone claiming to be one is just trolling for fun.  I still cannot fathom (scepti used this word, so I thought I would incorporate it) anyone having that limited of a perspective of the world as to actually believe this.  I will still however endeavour to correct obvious stupidity when i see it.

Great job, it is what i have tried to explain to a lot of flat earthers on, for instance, facebook. A lot of them said that the the maths were part of the conspiracy too or simply said that it was all fake without giving any proof.
Since those were incredibly stupid i would like to see the reaction of these ones that are more intelligent

That's the thing though. The maths can't be part of the conspiracy because anybody could derive this formula independently with a simple knowledge of calculus, and calculus was first "invented" in the 1600s, long before any space agencies or modern governments existed.

Actually, if you assume that the aircraft started by moving up and reached it's apogee in the middle of that uncut footage you would only need it to go 102 kilometers.  That's definitely more reasonable, but that's not to say that it is reasonable.

That could have happened, but the aircraft would need to start from the ground with an upwards velocity of 2822 m/s, which again, can not be achieved with a conventional aircraft.

Funny how most who would argue against you on this will claim fantastic things.  I await the silliness that should follow this one.  Someone will in time come on here and claim that the vomit comet planes are just for show and part of the conspiracy.  The "real" zero G planes are much larger and can maintain zero G indefinitely.  I await that response or something akin to it. 
I still think that there are really no flat Earth believers out there.  Everyone claiming to be one is just trolling for fun.  I still cannot fathom (scepti used this word, so I thought I would incorporate it) anyone having that limited of a perspective of the world as to actually believe this.  I will still however endeavour to correct obvious stupidity when i see it.

I can only imagine their excuse will involve something like "reverse centrifuge chambers" or some other ridiculous nonsense. I think it's quite likely that a lot, or even most, of flat earthers are just pretending and having some fun, but there are definitely some people out there who really believe this stuff. Look up TheMorgile on Youtube if you haven't seen him already. I think that guy is a genuine flat earther. As for folks like jeranism, I have my doubts.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on June 29, 2015, 12:16:52 PM

Actually, if you assume that the aircraft started by moving up and reached it's apogee in the middle of that uncut footage you would only need it to go 102 kilometers.  That's definitely more reasonable, but that's not to say that it is reasonable.

That could have happened, but the aircraft would need to start from the ground with an upwards velocity of 2822 m/s, which again, can not be achieved with a conventional aircraft.

Most zero G planes start by moving up, so I just calculated for that.  It still is definitely still very unreasonable and impractical, but i was just mentioning it.  When I have time I will try to find the longest uncut part of the ISS tour video I linked and do the calculations for that.

Here is another one from the industry come here to defend its pitiless cruel profession.

Here is another one from the industry come here to defend its pitiless cruel profession.

Hey...

I'm not in the industry yet and it's hardly cruel with all the science it does.

If I am approached and told about a conspiracy then you people here will be the first to know, but I haven't and I don't ever expect to be approached by a NASA employee claiming that the Earth is flat.

Quote from: modestman on June 29, 2015, 05:09:32 PM

Here is another one from the industry come here to defend its pitiless cruel profession.

Hey...

I'm not in the industry yet and it's hardly cruel with all the science it does.

If I am approached and told about a conspiracy then you people here will be the first to know, but I haven't and I don't ever expect to be approached by a NASA employee claiming that the Earth is flat.

MIkeman,   I'd suggest you ignore modestman,  he's just a particularily nasty troll,  all he ever does is insults.

Here is another one from the industry come here to defend its pitiless cruel profession.

-
What industry exactly are you talking about? I'm not part of any industry, I'm just a first year engineering student. If you mean to say that education as a whole is antithetical to the flat earth, well, you're absolutely right.

You forgot the 3rd option: stick head in sand

you can see that there is one single uncut piece of footage from 2:22 to 7:10. This would suggest that the 747 used to capture this footage must be capable at accelerating downwards for at least 288 seconds.

Besides putting a Boeing 747 at 409 km above the ground and let it accelerate downwards, there is another way, which is by making the aircraft to follow a curved trajectory.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Zero_gravity_flight_trajectory_C9-565.jpg
When the aircraft curves downwards, it can simulate micro gravity. I believe this method is the one that is mostly agreed by flat earthers, and here is the proof that it is not possible to use this method in order to fake 288 seconds of uncut micro-gravity footage.

Instead of just taking the words from Wikipedia, I calculated the maximum possible time for the passenger to experience micro gravity myself
http://imageshack.com/a/img537/3853/hsNFuf.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img909/3707/mczaNk.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img913/2025/C1jBO4.jpg
(I used a scanner app on my phone, as I don't have access to a proper scanner at the moment)

In order to fake the video, at least 288 seconds of micro gravity has to be simulated. With possible circumstances and pushing the 747 to top speed, it can only simulate micro gravity for 39.56 seconds. Even by pushing the equation to give maximum time possible (at this point it is impossible in reality) and using the SR-71 "Blackbird", it can only simulate 200.48 seconds of micro gravity.

By the way Poko, if you start a thread with equations, no flat earther will respond properly, as equations can only be debunked by equations. So, unfortunately, this thread will just be full of round earthers.
And yes, I'm also an engineer

By the way Poko, if you start a thread with equations, no flat earther will respond properly, as equations can only be debunked by equations. So, unfortunately, this thread will just be full of round earthers.
And yes, I'm also an engineer

Indeed, I have employed the flat earther's greatest fear: math. Also, I envy your handwriting. Usually when I work out a math problem on paper, my writing is unintelligible to anyone but myself, and even I can't tell what I've written a few days after, but your writing is pretty clear.

Quote from: hello_there on June 29, 2015, 09:43:09 PM

By the way Poko, if you start a thread with equations, no flat earther will respond properly, as equations can only be debunked by equations. So, unfortunately, this thread will just be full of round earthers.
And yes, I'm also an engineer

Indeed, I have employed the flat earther's greatest fear: math. Also, I envy your handwriting. Usually when I work out a math problem on paper, my writing is unintelligible to anyone but myself, and even I can't tell what I've written a few days after, but your writing is pretty clear.

It's not a case of flat Earth theorists, or alternative Earth theorists being afraid of math/equations/calculations. It's about being uninterested in globalists spewing the stuff to try and prove what cannot be legitimately proved.
Of course you can work out descending planes and no cuts in video but that's assuming there's only one thing happening at that particular time.
Don't forget green screen and harnesses and CGI and many other things that will be added in to make this kind of drivel.

When you want to play at real life and make real life things, then that's the time to play with math. Playing with math for fantasy models is fine if that's your goal in life. Just don't try to push the crap onto people that can see it for what it is.

You people live in a cocoon. A fantasy world that was set out for you to play in. Throw you a donut and a cold drink from time to time and you're as happy as a pig in shit.

Quote from: Poko on June 29, 2015, 10:20:34 PM

Quote from: hello_there on June 29, 2015, 09:43:09 PM

By the way Poko, if you start a thread with equations, no flat earther will respond properly, as equations can only be debunked by equations. So, unfortunately, this thread will just be full of round earthers.
And yes, I'm also an engineer

Indeed, I have employed the flat earther's greatest fear: math. Also, I envy your handwriting. Usually when I work out a math problem on paper, my writing is unintelligible to anyone but myself, and even I can't tell what I've written a few days after, but your writing is pretty clear.

It's not a case of flat Earth theorists, or alternative Earth theorists being afraid of math/equations/calculations. It's about being uninterested in globalists spewing the stuff to try and prove what cannot be legitimately proved.
Of course you can work out descending planes and no cuts in video but that's assuming there's only one thing happening at that particular time.
Don't forget green screen and harnesses and CGI and many other things that will be added in to make this kind of drivel.

When you want to play at real life and make real life things, then that's the time to play with math. Playing with math for fantasy models is fine if that's your goal in life. Just don't try to push the crap onto people that can see it for what it is.

You people live in a cocoon. A fantasy world that was set out for you to play in. Throw you a donut and a cold drink from time to time and you're as happy as a pig in shit.

That's pretty funny,   you really should learn some maths,  you like theorizing and proposing different explanations of the world,  you might be amazed to find parallels with denspressure and some aspects of other areas of physics.   But you'll live out your life in your little cocoon without maths and never know.   Funny,  but sad in a way.

It's not a case of flat Earth theorists, or alternative Earth theorists being afraid of math/equations/calculations. It's about being uninterested in globalists spewing the stuff to try and prove what cannot be legitimately proved.

So, you admit your dome hypothesis is basically an unfalsifiable hypothesis? That is the inference you're making here: the true nature of the planet we live on cannot ever be known (for whatever reason you make up ad lib). Is that your position, scepti? If so, why settle on your dome hypothesis then? Why not something more fun, like invisible fairies simulating gravity for a laugh and giant turtles farting creates the winds? I find that much more elegant and enchanting than your dome hypothesis   

Of course you can work out descending planes and no cuts in video but that's assuming there's only one thing happening at that particular time.

Ah, great. So you agree that, if everything is as it appears to be, that the ISS is indeed real and the Earth, by extension, is in fact an oblate spheroid that it orbits around? That's what I take from the above quote. You agree that the math doesn't support any type of vomit-comet plane ride to simulate the footage in this video? Fantastic stuff! We're finally getting somewhere with you! So, without provoking magic and uninvented technology, how do you explain this footage and the many, many more hours of footage just like it (some of it decades old, too)?

Don't forget green screen and harnesses and CGI and many other things that will be added in to make this kind of drivel.

You're asserting here with no evidence, scepti. That just won't do! Just who/where is this invisible army of CGI artists who edit/create/design these hours and hours of footage? You continually talk about hollywood movies and the realism (at times) of the CGI, but ignore the practicalities of such work: It can take an artist dozens of hours to render a single frame which isn't even counting the countless hours beforehand of conceptualizing the work. Either you're (once again) invoking an unfalsifiable hypothesis (conspiracy) or uninvented technology.

When you want to play at real life and make real life things, then that's the time to play with math. Playing with math for fantasy models is fine if that's your goal in life. Just don't try to push the crap onto people that can see it for what it is.

Wait, what? So... if you want things to actually work in the real world... you use mathematics? Does that not infer that it actually works? You're telling us to use mathematics in the real world to make real things that actually work but in the same breath tell us it's a fantasy? Either you're agreeing that the Earth is an oblate spheroid (as the math agrees) or you don't know what the word fantasy means..

You people live in a cocoon. A fantasy world that was set out for you to play in. Throw you a donut and a cold drink from time to time and you're as happy as a pig in shit.

Irony.

When you want to play at real life and make real life things, then that's the time to play with math. Playing with math for fantasy models is fine if that's your goal in life. Just don't try to push the crap onto people that can see it for what it is.

By your own admission, math only works in the real world. The maths I've done in my post clearly don't work on a flat world. That would mean the real world is not a flat world. I would urge you to learn the mathematical formulas that dictate how objects move, how gravity works, and how orbital mechanics work. You can do the observations yourself and see exactly how these formulas are derived.

Now that you have the knowledge of how orbital mechanics work and you are confident that that math isn't made up, you can whip out your telescope and start making observations. Your first task is to find the ISS (http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/#.VZJkpPlVhBc) and track its movement across the sky. You can use the time it took for the station to cross the sky completely to find its orbital period and velocity. Now you can use your own maths to find the shape of the station's orbit. Now, use your knowledge of the station's orbit and find out when it will next be in your field of view.

If you go outside and see the ISS again, would that convince you that the ISS is real? You've independently verified the formulas using your own observations and use nothing but your own observations to predict the movement of an orbiting object. NASA hasn't told you anything and you were still able to come up with the same results as them

If that doesn't prove that the world is round, it at least proves that math does work and that you can use it to predict things.

If that doesn't prove that the world is flat, it at least proves that math does work and that you can use it to predict things.

Typo.  You might want to fix that.

Quote from: Poko on June 30, 2015, 02:50:16 AM

If that doesn't prove that the world is flat, it at least proves that math does work and that you can use it to predict things.

Typo.  You might want to fix that.

A flat earther would have made a fuss about it, it's a good thing that you spotted that first.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on June 30, 2015, 11:40:55 AM

Quote from: Poko on June 30, 2015, 02:50:16 AM

If that doesn't prove that the world is flat, it at least proves that math does work and that you can use it to predict things.

Typo.  You might want to fix that.

A flat earther would have made a fuss about it, it's a good thing that you spotted that first.

Fixed it.