Height of the Dome Calculated by Meteor Velocity

erm that sounds like a pretty sound approach to measuring the speed of a meteor shower, multiple targets, multiple sizes, multiple materials.

No, it's not. It's indirect and involves several models and assumptions about RET. Prove that the speed is measured directly.

Quote from: mak3m on November 29, 2019, 09:03:34 AM

erm that sounds like a pretty sound approach to measuring the speed of a meteor shower, multiple targets, multiple sizes, multiple materials.

No, it's not. It's indirect and involves several models and assumptions about RET. Prove that the speed is measured directly.

How does FET measure the speed of meteors? How does FET predict the occurrence and location of meteor showers?

nothing was measured carefully about meteors. you can't measure the distance of what you don't know the velocity, you can't calculate the velocity of something you don't know the distance. all the distance and speed claims made about meteorites are estimates. it is no different other than claiming otherwise to basing this claim on religious evidence. at least we know that God is more truthful than your so-called observers. at least that's what I get compared to you.

Did you just refute your own method of map making?

Quote from: wise on November 29, 2019, 02:51:37 AM

nothing was measured carefully about meteors. you can't measure the distance of what you don't know the velocity, you can't calculate the velocity of something you don't know the distance. all the distance and speed claims made about meteorites are estimates. it is no different other than claiming otherwise to basing this claim on religious evidence. at least we know that God is more truthful than your so-called observers. at least that's what I get compared to you.

Did you just refute your own method of map making?

Nope. You are not a careful reader. The base of the map depends on distances in Europe being reliable. I've many times said it. You weak follower.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 29, 2019, 10:25:42 AM

Quote from: wise on November 29, 2019, 02:51:37 AM

nothing was measured carefully about meteors. you can't measure the distance of what you don't know the velocity, you can't calculate the velocity of something you don't know the distance. all the distance and speed claims made about meteorites are estimates. it is no different other than claiming otherwise to basing this claim on religious evidence. at least we know that God is more truthful than your so-called observers. at least that's what I get compared to you.

Did you just refute your own method of map making?

Nope. You are not a careful reader. The base of the map depends on distances in Europe being reliable. I've many times said it. You weak follower.

But you dont account fir wind speeds, actual plane speeds, and if you have european distances then why you nesd to make a map using plane flights?

Quote from: wise on November 29, 2019, 10:34:23 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 29, 2019, 10:25:42 AM

Quote from: wise on November 29, 2019, 02:51:37 AM

nothing was measured carefully about meteors. you can't measure the distance of what you don't know the velocity, you can't calculate the velocity of something you don't know the distance. all the distance and speed claims made about meteorites are estimates. it is no different other than claiming otherwise to basing this claim on religious evidence. at least we know that God is more truthful than your so-called observers. at least that's what I get compared to you.

Did you just refute your own method of map making?

Nope. You are not a careful reader. The base of the map depends on distances in Europe being reliable. I've many times said it. You weak follower.

But you dont account fir wind speeds, actual plane speeds, and if you have european distances then why you nesd to make a map using plane flights?

This is not the issue, or you ara delibarety doing it to manipulate the issue and send it to A&R. I'll not be a part of your game. I've explanined it and case closed. Return to the issue, return to topic.

What method did you use to estimate the distance to the dome?

Quote from: mak3m on November 29, 2019, 09:03:34 AM

erm that sounds like a pretty sound approach to measuring the speed of a meteor shower, multiple targets, multiple sizes, multiple materials.

No, it's not. It's indirect and involves several models and assumptions about RET. Prove that the speed is measured directly.

It's almost impossible to capture a single meteorite, so they do a shower  various sizes  compositions etc. Analyse the data the results are published, speed is given as the best fit of the group.

It's a standard common practice when analysing big data.

Any so called assumptions are independently verifiable.

You are not a careful reader. The base of the map depends on distances in Europe being reliable. I've many times said it.

Maybe "You've many times said it" but that does not make it true.

And the distances in the Southern Hemisphere are also known to good accuracy but you cannot admit it because it proves your map quite wrong.

That might be why Tom Bishop and Sandokhan both claim that maps like yours are quite wrong and propose different layout:

That's funny! Tom Bishop who knows a thousand times as much you about the flat earth says that flight fits on his flat earth just fine.
His continental layout looks like the one on the left and Sandokhan, who's infinitely smarter than you has similar ideas like the one one the left.

FE Bipolar Map Promoted by Tom Bishop

Sandokhan's "True" Flat Earth Map

So why shouldn't that QANTAS flight QFA63 be a genuine flight? It's flown 5 times a week!

Quote from: totallackey

"Someone told someone else this story and someone else put together these cool pictures!"

No, Jerry Williams, a real person and that's his real name, flew non-stop from Sydney to Johannesburg and videoed the whole flight.
The video shown has excerpts from it and details of the route from Jerry's GPS.

Quote from: Macarios on November 29, 2019, 06:34:41 AM

This is about your biased signature:



Also, see this:

http://www.miracles-of-quran.com/earth.htm

Why did not tell anything about hamzah's signature? Reported because unrelated the issue.

It is in YOUR signature, brought to this and every topic you have post in.

I was lucky enough to see this meteor live with naked eyes...  It took about 40 seconds between appearing over the eastern horizon and disappearing over the west.
There is no way this could have come from any kind of dome.

https://sattrackcam.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/more-on-21-september-2012-fireball-why.html

How sad it is. You argue about stupid things. I saw how in 3 seconds a group of UFOs flew from horizon to horizon. And what, how can some movement in the sky determine the height of a certain vault?
Stupidity is utterly ...

First off, this isn't going to apply to all models. Obviously we're sticking to dome models, though a variation of the principle might be usable to determine the height of the dark energy exclusion zone or equivalent in UA models. The assumptions I make are:

1. Meteors are rocks falling from any part of the dome.
2. The majority of the dome is vacuum or close to vacuum.
3. Whatever causes gravity, whether UA or some basic rule, is approximately uniform throughout the dome.

If this is the case then we have all we need to get a decent estimate for the height of the highest part of the dome. We use observations of the speeds of meteors; the fastest observed meteors (specifically, the Leonids) travel at 72,00m/s
Source: https://www.amsmeteors.org/meteor-showers/meteor-faq/#3
You might disbelieve some of the RE explanations there, but in terms of the raw observation there would be no reason to lie. The Leonid showers are fairly regular and the speed could theoretically be verified.

We then use the suvat equations

s stands for displacement, the distance a particle has travelled. u is the initial velocity of the particle, v the final velocity, a the acceleration, t the time taken.
We are approximating heavily, but nonetheless, we seek to find a value for s.
a=9.8m/s/s, the force of gravity/UA/some equivalent. u is zero, the rock is stationary before it falls from the dome. v is taken to be the highest known speed of 72000m/s.

We then substitute into the fourth suvat equation above to calculate. just plug the values in to find:
s=264,489km

As I said this is approximate. This may not be the absolute highest part of the dome, but if these are the fastest falling rocks then they must come from a particularly high location, and if it is even in the ballpark then the dome's height (assuming it takes the most natural shape) is unlikely to vary too much in the area of it directly above the Earth. Equally there might be other factors in the meteor's speed, but presumably the acceleration from the fall is dominant.
Other meteors are far slower, but working under the principle it is easier to lose speed than to gain it this still seems approximately close.

This value is big, but compared to RE cosmic numbers it's positively miniscule.

So, how do any FEers feel about this value? Do you agree with my calculations, think there's a major flaw, like the ballpark estimate, dislike it...
Discuss, I guess.

There are so many flaws in the above post that its difficult to know where to start.
The most obvious one is few if any, meteors fall vertically downwards, that fact renders all of the above statement pretty meaningless, regardless of the simplistic mathematical attempt. All the recent meteors that have been captured on dash cams, security cams or any other cam have shown objects entering the atmosphere obliquely, before either exploding at high altitude or burring up in the atmosphere. Its estimated that only around 5% of meteors become meteorites and make it to the surface.
Imagining that a dome could be made from the same material as that of meteorites is nothing short of laughable. It's in the same nonsensical ballpark as Phew.

We compare the results from the application of four different methods
to determine the speed of meteoroids from single station radar data.
The methods used are the pre-t₀ amplitude, post-t₀ amplitude,
pre-t₀ phase and the Fresnel transform (FT) methods. Speeds
from the first three methods are compared to the FT method since,
requiring the use of the entire records of both the amplitude and
phase data, this method is the most accurate of the four.

(from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-5075-5_56)

As you can see, the data is collected from the meteoroids themselves,
not from some other comparable bodies.

Quote from: wise on November 29, 2019, 10:34:23 AM

You are not a careful reader. The base of the map depends on distances in Europe being reliable. I've many times said it.

Maybe "You've many times said it" but that does not make it true.

And the distances in the Southern Hemisphere are also known to good accuracy but you cannot admit it because it proves your map quite wrong.

That might be why Tom Bishop and Sandokhan both claim that maps like yours are quite wrong and propose different layout:

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2019, 10:23:00 PM

That's funny! Tom Bishop who knows a thousand times as much you about the flat earth says that flight fits on his flat earth just fine.
His continental layout looks like the one on the left and Sandokhan, who's infinitely smarter than you has similar ideas like the one one the left.

FE Bipolar Map Promoted by Tom Bishop

Sandokhan's "True" Flat Earth Map

So why shouldn't that QANTAS flight QFA63 be a genuine flight? It's flown 5 times a week!

Quote from: totallackey

"Someone told someone else this story and someone else put together these cool pictures!"

No, Jerry Williams, a real person and that's his real name, flew non-stop from Sydney to Johannesburg and videoed the whole flight.
The video shown has excerpts from it and details of the route from Jerry's GPS.

Knocking a hoof as a sign of solidarity.  And I suggest you read the most CORRECT maps. Since it is impossible to move the projection of the ball to an infinite horizon. Actually, to be honest with yourself. That 's not possible to make the right map at all. Since, according to the laws of rhymodynamics, all dimensions are always relative. You need to understand in which plane you want to have some idea of the dimensions. Space will bend. Read the works of scientists as they tried to measure distances in the mountains, and what came out of it. Our land inside is hollow, and its shell behaves exactly according to the laws of physics.


There are English subtitles. Don 't complain, try to understand, I 'm trying to write in English!

There are a number of sources of info on the Internet which describe how meteor velocities are measured.  Here's one example.

https://www.britastro.org/radio/projects/Detection_of_meteors_by_RADAR.pdf

I get the feeling some people on this site are not interested in facts preferring instead to just invent their own version of 'reality' regardless.
When it comes to the opening statement of this thread which falls in the 'alternative reality' ballpark. One only has to spend a few evenings of the yeas on prescribed dates looking at the heavens to experience the true reality of meteors.
In early January there is the Qaudrantids
In April the Lyrids
In May the Eta Aquariids
In July the Delta Aquariids
In early August the Alpha Capricornids
In mid-August the Perseids
In early October the Draconids
In late October the Orionids and the Taurids
In December the Leonidsand the Ursids.

All these showers are associated with Comet tails or some other heavenly body which we happen to pass through on predicted dates. The nonsense posted by the originator of this discussion clearly demonstrates the lengths some people will go to avoid the realities of the world.

I get the feeling some people on this site are not interested in facts preferring instead to just invent their own version of 'reality' regardless.

My thoughts exactly.  But if that is true then how are we ever going to achieve anything if some people will only ever accept their own preferred, beliefs based only version of 'reality' regardless of what evidence to the contrary is presented?

We have had space based images of the Earth for several decades now.  Not just a few but umpteen of them from both private and public sector based sources.  These provide definitive proof of the shape of the Earth.  How many photos of a flat Earth have you ever seen?  Flat earth believers do not accept these images because they counter their beliefs so they simply dismiss them as fakes or hoaxes.  Why would the vast majority of people on the planet care two hoots about what a very small minority think for their own obscure reasons?

Your description of why meteor showers happen is correct and well established. We see activity rates vary from year to year because how many meteors we see depends entirely on the density of the meteoroid stream that the Earth encounters.  The ZHR* also typically increases after midnight because the Earths rotation turns us towards the oncoming meteors. Before midnight meteors are playing 'catch up' so we only see the fastest moving meteors.

I used to be a member of the British Meteor Society and they published their 'radiant catalogue'.  There were more meteor showers listed in that than I have ever seen since and lots of data about each one.  You couldn't make that sort of data up!

Zenithal Hourly Rate = the predicted activity rate of a meteor shower based on the radiant point being on the observers zenith and no Moon present.

No, it's not. It's indirect and involves several models and assumptions about RET. Prove that the speed is measured directly.

How do you 'prove' anything to anyone who doesn't want to believe something in the first place?

I get the feeling some people on this site are not interested in facts preferring instead to just invent their own version of 'reality' regardless.
When it comes to the opening statement of this thread which falls in the 'alternative reality' ballpark. One only has to spend a few evenings of the yeas on prescribed dates looking at the heavens to experience the true reality of meteors.
In early January there is the Qaudrantids
In April the Lyrids
In May the Eta Aquariids
In July the Delta Aquariids
In early August the Alpha Capricornids
In mid-August the Perseids
In early October the Draconids
In late October the Orionids and the Taurids
In December the Leonidsand the Ursids.

All these showers are associated with Comet tails or some other heavenly body which we happen to pass through on predicted dates. The nonsense posted by the originator of this discussion clearly demonstrates the lengths some people will go to avoid the realities of the world.

Are you definitely interested in the facts? Do you know why WHOLE of our world has recently been divided by a wall into blue and red parts?

I think the discussion is always useful, otherwise you will not believe this fact. But archaeologists have already proven it by finding rings on which everything is depicted.

And that once again proves that the earth is a ball...

There are a number of sources of info on the Internet which describe how meteor velocities are measured.  Here's one example.

https://www.britastro.org/radio/projects/Detection_of_meteors_by_RADAR.pdf

+

Lovely picture... the point of it is?

Lovely picture... the point of it is?

I suspect that Heavenly Breeze is agreeing with you but my understanding of Russian Pony Pictorial language is minimal so I might be wrong.
If you read and write Russian this might be your chance to practice it.
Heavenly Breeze says that Google translate isn't so crash hot on Russian possibly because Russian is such a different type of language.

Best of luck .

why isn't the dome gone then? The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, surely that thin dome would have disappeared, seeing how many have struck the lunar surface in thst time.

Doesnt have to be thin.
It could be infinitely thick.
Who knows

Quote from: Timeisup on December 03, 2019, 01:32:05 AM

I get the feeling some people on this site are not interested in facts preferring instead to just invent their own version of 'reality' regardless.
When it comes to the opening statement of this thread which falls in the 'alternative reality' ballpark. One only has to spend a few evenings of the yeas on prescribed dates looking at the heavens to experience the true reality of meteors.
In early January there is the Qaudrantids
In April the Lyrids
In May the Eta Aquariids
In July the Delta Aquariids
In early August the Alpha Capricornids
In mid-August the Perseids
In early October the Draconids
In late October the Orionids and the Taurids
In December the Leonidsand the Ursids.

All these showers are associated with Comet tails or some other heavenly body which we happen to pass through on predicted dates. The nonsense posted by the originator of this discussion clearly demonstrates the lengths some people will go to avoid the realities of the world.

Are you definitely interested in the facts? Do you know why WHOLE of our world has recently been divided by a wall into blue and red parts?

I think the discussion is always useful, otherwise you will not believe this fact. But archaeologists have already proven it by finding rings on which everything is depicted.

And that once again proves that the earth is a ball...

I haven't the faintest what you're on about.

Doesnt have to be thin.
It could be infinitely thick.
Who knows

Based on the fact that radar apparently can't detect it, I'm more inclined to believe it's infinitely thin.

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on December 03, 2019, 02:39:46 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 03, 2019, 01:32:05 AM

I get the feeling some people on this site are not interested in facts preferring instead to just invent their own version of 'reality' regardless.
When it comes to the opening statement of this thread which falls in the 'alternative reality' ballpark. One only has to spend a few evenings of the yeas on prescribed dates looking at the heavens to experience the true reality of meteors.
In early January there is the Qaudrantids
In April the Lyrids
In May the Eta Aquariids
In July the Delta Aquariids
In early August the Alpha Capricornids
In mid-August the Perseids
In early October the Draconids
In late October the Orionids and the Taurids
In December the Leonidsand the Ursids.

All these showers are associated with Comet tails or some other heavenly body which we happen to pass through on predicted dates. The nonsense posted by the originator of this discussion clearly demonstrates the lengths some people will go to avoid the realities of the world.

Are you definitely interested in the facts? Do you know why WHOLE of our world has recently been divided by a wall into blue and red parts?

I think the discussion is always useful, otherwise you will not believe this fact. But archaeologists have already proven it by finding rings on which everything is depicted.

And that once again proves that the earth is a ball...

I haven't the faintest what you're on about.

**All these showers are associated with Comet tails or some other heavenly body which we happen to pass through on predicted dates. The nonsense posted by the originator of this discussion clearly demonstrates the lengths some people will go to avoid the realities of the world.**

About it.
It is very hard to find the truth. Although everything lies in plain sight. No one pays attention to real facts. Both believers in the flat world and believers in the ball. Sorry.

Quote

No, it's not. It's indirect and involves several models and assumptions about RET. Prove that the speed is measured directly.

How do you 'prove' anything to anyone who doesn't want to believe something in the first place?

By writing a paper or article which shows or references data showing that the speeds are derived directly without any model assumptions.

Quote from: Solarwind on December 03, 2019, 02:28:14 AM

Quote

No, it's not. It's indirect and involves several models and assumptions about RET. Prove that the speed is measured directly.

How do you 'prove' anything to anyone who doesn't want to believe something in the first place?

By writing a paper or article which shows or references data showing that the speeds are derived directly without any model assumptions.

Sure, like Macarios already pointed out:

Quote

We compare the results from the application of four different methods
to determine the speed of meteoroids from single station radar data.
The methods used are the pre-t₀ amplitude, post-t₀ amplitude,
pre-t₀ phase and the Fresnel transform (FT) methods. Speeds
from the first three methods are compared to the FT method since,
requiring the use of the entire records of both the amplitude and
phase data, this method is the most accurate of the four.

(from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-5075-5_56)

As you can see, the data is collected from the meteoroids themselves,
not from some other comparable bodies.

Nah, you would need to look into it further. The last source I posted stated that the radars are looking at ionization in the atmosphere and estimation of the resulting wind speed, along with models involving gravity and escape velocity.

Work on a report that goes through it from step A through Z.

Nah, you would need to look into it further. The last source I posted stated that the radars are looking at ionization in the atmosphere and estimation of the resulting wind speed, along with models involving gravity and escape velocity.

Work on a report that goes through it from step A through Z.

These fellows seem to map it out nicely:

"All-sky interferometric meteor radar meteoroid speed estimation using the Fresnel transform"
https://www.ann-geophys.net/25/385/2007/angeo-25-385-2007.pdf