What would it take to fake the ISS?

Yes, the lighting aspect was troubling me, but I thought I'd leave that until the logistics were solved.

However, the illumination aspect could be tied up with the logistics.  As one aircraft took the baton from another, it could  illuminate while the other went dark...

Exactly, seemed worth bringing up. It solves one of the concerns I had too; if there is a switch-over over the sea, then if there was no control over the brightness they would need to be able to accelerate and decelerate very quickly. If they can choose to go dark/go bright however they could take as long as they need.

Quote

though the latter is potentially problematic in models with a self-illuminating moon and so no established means for light to reach and reflect off the ISS.

It reflects sunlight, not moonlight, so is this relevant?

Also, if this is an aircraft flying at a much lower altitude, then it's not going to reflect anything really, and must be self-illuminating.

In models where the moon reflects sunlight, there is a pre-existing mechanism that allows for the spotlight sun to illuminate what is essentially the underside of an object; without that, the ISS being illuminated by sunlight consistently is a much trickier proposition.

Self-illumination does seem the smarter way to go though for the ISS, by most metrics.

Anyway, personal notes for me to get back to. It's said that:
The ISS will be visible on Wednesday 28th November, 6:52 briefly, at a height of 12 degrees, appearing 10 degrees above SSW and disappearing 12 degrees above SSW, in Thurso, Scotland.
The ISS will be visible on Wednesday 28th November, at 6:51, for 1 minute, at a height of 35 degrees , appearing 19 degrees above WSW and disappearing 35 degrees above WSW, in Plymouth, England.
The distance from Plymouth to Thurso as the crow flies is approximately 914km. Over a shorter area such as this the RE and FE figures shouldn't differ much, but either way this is accepted to be only an approximation. Ideally will use other measurements to corroborate and iron out any error.

You can just start with satellites, and before you bullshit me with the "oh, its a projected hologram that's projecting on nothing, the giant light that's shining it in the sky is invisible, it never gets distorted by weather or clouds and the projector moves around the entire world somehow!", I think it's common sense that projectors don't work like this.

You can view and predict the orbit of satellites using a telescope. If you're really going to tell me that it's just a random flying object that flies forever, looks exactly like a satellite and moves at the exact speed predicted and just so happens to always be there, with a straight face, there is nothing that can help you, I'm not kidding.

That assumes the ISS is flying in the same direction the earth is rotating.  If the ISS is flying in the opposite direction the earth rotates on its axis, the speed wouldn't need to be as fast. 

Oh wait, does this assume the Earth is flat? 

Well then it wouldn't matter, the speed would have to be pretty fast in either direction.

Quote from: Platonius21 on November 22, 2018, 09:43:19 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 22, 2018, 09:11:42 AM

  Anyone want to calculate what kind of altitude/velocity they would need to maintain to look like the ISS?

That's exactly why I said we need to start with the distance involved in a single transit -- it's the only way to calculate the needed velocity to transit in 92 minutes.  Nobody want's to accept the distance RE theory provides, but otherwise it seems there is only a guess.  Nobody will be convinced of anything based on guesswork.

If you don't know the difference between a guess and a bound I can't help you.

Yeah -- you made a guess at a lower bound. How is that confusing?

Quote from: Jane on November 22, 2018, 09:45:33 AM

Quote from: Platonius21 on November 22, 2018, 09:43:19 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 22, 2018, 09:11:42 AM

  Anyone want to calculate what kind of altitude/velocity they would need to maintain to look like the ISS?

That's exactly why I said we need to start with the distance involved in a single transit -- it's the only way to calculate the needed velocity to transit in 92 minutes.  Nobody want's to accept the distance RE theory provides, but otherwise it seems there is only a guess.  Nobody will be convinced of anything based on guesswork.

If you don't know the difference between a guess and a bound I can't help you.

Yeah -- you made a guess at a lower bound. How is that confusing?

You say 'guess' like it was intended to be accurate. It wasn't. That is the point of a lower bound. It is not necessarily an accurate figure, merely one less than any reasonable option or any model I have seen.

If you are not going to contribute to this thread please do not clutter it.

Easiest way to fake the ISS is to build a real one as documented.

Quote from: Platonius21 on November 22, 2018, 10:13:39 AM

Quote from: Jane on November 22, 2018, 09:45:33 AM

Quote from: Platonius21 on November 22, 2018, 09:43:19 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 22, 2018, 09:11:42 AM

  Anyone want to calculate what kind of altitude/velocity they would need to maintain to look like the ISS?

That's exactly why I said we need to start with the distance involved in a single transit -- it's the only way to calculate the needed velocity to transit in 92 minutes.  Nobody want's to accept the distance RE theory provides, but otherwise it seems there is only a guess.  Nobody will be convinced of anything based on guesswork.

If you don't know the difference between a guess and a bound I can't help you.

Yeah -- you made a guess at a lower bound. How is that confusing?

You say 'guess' like it was intended to be accurate. It wasn't. That is the point of a lower bound. It is not necessarily an accurate figure, merely one less than any reasonable option or any model I have seen.

If you are not going to contribute to this thread please do not clutter it.

Well, I am trying to contribute to this thread by indicating what I think is needed.  I don't know what other models you are referring to in order to come up with your "lower bound".  But using the RE model you can come up with an absolute lower bound that would be the circumference of the earth.  That leads to a distance of roughly 25000 miles or a minimum required velocity of about 16,000 miles per hour. That's a lower bound that the RE model would absolutely require.

What other model(s) are you referring to that you have seen that would suggest a smaller lower bound? Educate me.

This discussion is moving into areas that are so silly they could qualify for a monty python sketch. There are some things that are not up for discussion like distances between London and New York, or the distance around the equator. They are what they are. These distances are known and fixed. I’m sick of telling people that given all the thousands of  flights leaving all the airports in the world every single day of the year that distances between everywhere are known relative to one another.....end off I feel like banging my head against.....something! If not we would have aircraft dropping out the sky on a regular basis.
How do some people think that aircraft navigate from a to b...by magic pixie?
Need to bang head....
We have maps, we have fixed things like railways and roads that have known lengths, that don’t can’t! miraculously change length, some personage is advocating lopping off 5000 miles so of the length of the trans Siberian railway and saying that’s permissible ! I hope they tell Putin!

Countries, continents, towns and cities all have fixed locations, and known distances relative to each other. You can’t decide to move them as it takes your fancy it’s just not possible, nor very clever.
Excuse me while I bang my head and be sick......mmmmm that’s better.
Remember the impossibility of a flat earth map, or to put it another way of a flat earth.

This discussion is moving into areas that are so silly they could qualify for a monty python sketch. There are some things that are not up for discussion like distances between London and New York, or the distance around the equator. They are what they are. These distances are known and fixed. I’m sick of telling people that given all the thousands of  flights leaving all the airports in the world every single day of the year that distances between everywhere are known relative to one another.....end off I feel like banging my head against.....something! If not we would have aircraft dropping out the sky on a regular basis.
How do some people think that aircraft navigate from a to b...by magic pixie?
Need to bang head....
We have maps, we have fixed things like railways and roads that have known lengths, that don’t can’t! miraculously change length, some personage is advocating lopping off 5000 miles so of the length of the trans Siberian railway and saying that’s permissible ! I hope they tell Putin!

Countries, continents, towns and cities all have fixed locations, and known distances relative to each other. You can’t decide to move them as it takes your fancy it’s just not possible, nor very clever.
Excuse me while I bang my head and be sick......mmmmm that’s better.
Remember the impossibility of a flat earth map, or to put it another way of a flat earth.

Yeah, well obviously the world is round.  Jane is trying to run a thought experiment on one aspect of the flatties' claims.

Lonegranger, stop spamming. If you're not interested in the discussion, you don't have to read it.

Lonegranger, stop spamming. If you're not interested in the discussion, you don't have to read it.

This is what I signed up for, this is why I made an account on this forum. To laugh at flat earthers and there stupid arguements. Some of the arguements (including the flat earth theory itself) that FEers come up with literally baffling and entertaining at the same time. The moon doesn't reflect sunlight? The ISS is self illuminating? This could absolutely be in a comedy TV series such as Monty Python or the Simpsons. Loneranger keeps on stating absolute, irrefutable truth that no one can argue with and it is ignored repeatedly. We know terrestrial distances very accurately and I would hope that you FEers have experienced those distances for yourselves but all of a sudden poof! For some magical reason NASA or the NWO has warped spacetime and shortened those distances or made them longer? Oh my I cant wait until someone denies this evidence again, it just shows the purposeful stupidity of FE believers.

Well this was a waste of time.

This is what I signed up for, this is why I made an account on this forum. To laugh at flat earthers

No flat earthers have posted in this thread.

literally baffling and entertaining at the same time. The moon doesn't reflect sunlight? The ISS is self illuminating?

This thread is a thought experiment to explore flat eathers claims that the ISS is fake.  The question is, if you were going to fake the ISS, is it possible and if so, how?

Since the ISS can be zoomed in on by publicly available telescopes, the telescope industry would need to be “in” on it as well.

Since the ISS can be zoomed in on by publicly available telescopes, the telescope industry would need to be “in” on it as well.

Was going to tackle the question of what would present the appearance that can be seen later, probably with just the shape of whatever craft it is, and potential aerodynamic issues, but you've piqued my curiosity. What do you imagine the telescope industry doing?

The proven fact is that all the videos from the ISS do not correspond to its estimated speed of movement.

Can you back that up? If it is indeed a "proven fact"?

Quote from: Lamaface on November 23, 2018, 08:49:29 AM

Since the ISS can be zoomed in on by publicly available telescopes, the telescope industry would need to be “in” on it as well.

Was going to tackle the question of what would present the appearance that can be seen later, probably with just the shape of whatever craft it is, and potential aerodynamic issues, but you've piqued my curiosity. What do you imagine the telescope industry doing?

Good question!
Mediocre answer:

I guess each telescope would have to have some kind of complementary mirror system that can be used to project an image of the ISS into the viewing thingy. You can’t have a recording playing on loop for obvious reasons.

Also, I appreciate your effort in this thought experiment Jane. I hope the thread will not derail into lunacy.

Quote from: Lonegranger on November 22, 2018, 02:33:11 PM

This discussion is moving into areas that are so silly they could qualify for a monty python sketch. There are some things that are not up for discussion like distances between London and New York, or the distance around the equator. They are what they are. These distances are known and fixed. I’m sick of telling people that given all the thousands of  flights leaving all the airports in the world every single day of the year that distances between everywhere are known relative to one another.....end off I feel like banging my head against.....something! If not we would have aircraft dropping out the sky on a regular basis.
How do some people think that aircraft navigate from a to b...by magic pixie?
Need to bang head....
We have maps, we have fixed things like railways and roads that have known lengths, that don’t can’t! miraculously change length, some personage is advocating lopping off 5000 miles so of the length of the trans Siberian railway and saying that’s permissible ! I hope they tell Putin!

Countries, continents, towns and cities all have fixed locations, and known distances relative to each other. You can’t decide to move them as it takes your fancy it’s just not possible, nor very clever.
Excuse me while I bang my head and be sick......mmmmm that’s better.
Remember the impossibility of a flat earth map, or to put it another way of a flat earth.

Yeah, well obviously the world is round.  Jane is trying to run a thought experiment on one aspect of the flatties' claims.

Mr Crab...thanks for that. However if one is going to conduct a thought experiment let’s at least nudge it the realms of possibility. If you are going to lop of 10K kilometres off the circumference of the earth, something gotta give....shrink the continental USA?, given the way the interior states vote that might not be a bad thing.  However an experiment that magically reduces the known size of the world is pretty pointless on account of its futility.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 23, 2018, 04:01:05 AM

Quote from: Lonegranger on November 22, 2018, 02:33:11 PM

This discussion is moving into areas that are so silly they could qualify for a monty python sketch. There are some things that are not up for discussion like distances between London and New York, or the distance around the equator. They are what they are. These distances are known and fixed. I’m sick of telling people that given all the thousands of  flights leaving all the airports in the world every single day of the year that distances between everywhere are known relative to one another.....end off I feel like banging my head against.....something! If not we would have aircraft dropping out the sky on a regular basis.
How do some people think that aircraft navigate from a to b...by magic pixie?
Need to bang head....
We have maps, we have fixed things like railways and roads that have known lengths, that don’t can’t! miraculously change length, some personage is advocating lopping off 5000 miles so of the length of the trans Siberian railway and saying that’s permissible ! I hope they tell Putin!

Countries, continents, towns and cities all have fixed locations, and known distances relative to each other. You can’t decide to move them as it takes your fancy it’s just not possible, nor very clever.
Excuse me while I bang my head and be sick......mmmmm that’s better.
Remember the impossibility of a flat earth map, or to put it another way of a flat earth.

Yeah, well obviously the world is round.  Jane is trying to run a thought experiment on one aspect of the flatties' claims.

Mr Crab...thanks for that. However if one is going to conduct a thought experiment let’s at least nudge it the realms of possibility. If you are going to lop of 10K kilometres off the circumference of the earth, something gotta give....shrink the continental USA?, given the way the interior states vote that might not be a bad thing.  However an experiment that magically reduces the known size of the world is pretty pointless on account of its futility.

Do you not know what a lower bound is too? It's not meant to be accurate, it's meant to be less than the real answer.

Do you not know what a lower bound is too? It's not meant to be accurate, it's meant to be less than the real answer.

And then comparing it to something to declare it is "within the realm of possibility" isn't really useful at all.
Sure, your lower limit is within the realm of possibility, but the actual speed likely isn't. If the distance is accepted as roughly 40 000 km (which I would say is a more reasonable lower limit and I see no reason to cut off the 10 000 km), then you have a speed of roughly 27 000 km/hr. It seems you lopped 10 000 km off just to make it work, to get it below the 21245 km/hr speed of the Falcon.

If you want to say the idea is within the realm of possibility in general you should go for the upper limit. Without getting into tricky math, I would put the upper limit at something like 126 000 km, meaning a speed of roughly 84 000 km/hr, based upon it completing loops which on the FE are bounded by the edge of Earth at 20 000 km from the centre (I don't think anyone has claimed that the regions of Earth man has explored which the ISS would cover is greater than 40 000 km wide), and for the RE, it is a circle with a radius of roughly 6800 km.

Another option may be assuming it is a circular path and then determining the diameter, but that relies upon specific FE or RE maps, but I'm not 100% sure on just how valid it is but my instinct would be a circle of diameter of 20 000 km based upon the AEP map and that if it goes 10 degrees south of the equator at the opposite side of its circle it would be 10 degrees north. That gives a more reasonable upper bound of roughly 63 000 km and thus roughly 42 000 km/hr. (and yes, I am aware that that doesn't capture the complete orbital path which is more akin to a circular path which itself is rotating, and that if the accepted path is taken i think it wouldn't actually be a circle, just close to it, for the AEP.)

For a lower bound agreed upon by everyone we would need to consider Sandokhan's map/FE which has a radius of a mere 6363.6363 km, so following a similar method we can half that to get the radius of the circle above that map giving a distance of roughly 20 000 km, and thus a speed of 13 000 km/hr.

But that assumes it is just the one body. You may have multiple such craft completing much smaller loops at a higher or lower speed (or alternatives which don't have a physical craft).

Do you not know what a lower bound is too? It's not meant to be accurate, it's meant to be less than the real answer.

Well Jane, I am still waiting for your answer.  I gave you an absolute lower bound that is figured based on round earth understanding. You just came up with a lower bound much less than that based on "other theories you have seen".

What theory is your lower bound based on?  Please tell us. You can't just make up some smaller lower bound that makes it less difficult for your faking scenario.

And just to correct your mis-understanding the definition of a lower bound for some unknown value. A lower bound is a value that your unknown cannot be less than.  It's usually based on some kind of logic as to why the unknown cannot be less than the lower bound.

In the example I gave, based on a round earth, the lower bound for the transit distance is the circumference of the earth. The transit distance absolutely has to be greater than that; how much greater depends on the altitude of the fake ISS, but it can't be zero altitude.

So -- I am still waiting to hear what your lower bound is based on.

It seems you lopped 10 000 km off just to make it work, to get it below the 21245 km/hr speed of the Falcon.

I lopped it off because it was a convenient figure and with how much map disagreement there is, it can be argued world would be a bit smaller. Sure, it happens to be within range of basically the fastest essentially-in-atmosphere manmade vehicle, but that's not much of a concession given that both of those disintegrated, and honestly was just coincidence. I used a smaller value simply because if we stuck with the RE measurement, a lot of people would reject it there and then. Always better to go lower, if you don't give something every chance then you've not made a persuasive argument against, and equally you wouldn't end up with the parameters of possibility if it does end up working.

For a lower bound agreed upon by everyone we would need to consider Sandokhan's map/FE

Sandokhan's model has very different physics which, like I mentioned, I'm not yet appealing to. He explains the ISS (and indeed other satellites) with reference to laevorotatory subquarks and an antigravity effect which, yeah, fixes a lot of problems but also need a lot of changes to accepted physics to get to. Sandokhan's model of chronological and spatial scales only exist as far as I've seen within such models.

But that assumes it is just the one body. You may have multiple such craft completing much smaller loops at a higher or lower speed (or alternatives which don't have a physical craft).

Given that the ISS is in sight theoretically nearly all the time, except when it's oversea, the practicalities of that don't really help, especially with it only being visible from one location at a time. You might be able to use it as an explanation for the ISS crossing an ocean, I suppose, vanishing from one side and another one continuing the journey, but issues like that are why I used such a low bound. However many objects there are, with only one visible at a time this suffices as a lower estimate.

What theory is your lower bound based on?  Please tell us. You can't just make up some smaller lower bound that makes it less difficult for your faking scenario.

Yes. I can. That's the point. It's lower. Still faces plenty of problems, but if at the end of all this the conclusion is "The ISS can be faked with no difficulty whatsoever so long as you accept a 30,000km length equator," are you really so insecure that that bothers you?

It is a value that is low enough to feasibly contain most if not all FE models and still allow room to explore. Key word: low. I am giving this model every chance to work so that either a) it will be especially convincing if it turns out not to work, b) it will give an idea of how feasible FET is and ballpark estimates of various values if it does work, thus givng more data that can be discussed elsewhere. If that seriously bugs you so much, butt out.

I lopped it off because it was a convenient figure and with how much map disagreement there is, it can be argued world would be a bit smaller.

The point is why?
Why lop off 10 000 km?
You are just pulling it out of no where, which raises the question of what is the point?

Remember, typically the FEers indicate the world is larger, and that is why planes between Australia and Africa make stops in the Middle East.
So I would pick the RE number as a lower bound and note that for FE it will likely be larger.
If you want to just pull a lower bound out of no where, why not pick 10 km/hr?

I used a smaller value simply because if we stuck with the RE measurement, a lot of people would reject it there and then.

Likewise picking a smaller number, seemingly to make it fit, would also result in it being rejected then and there, for not faking the ISS but some watered down version of it.

As this meant to be for the FEers or the REers?
Is it to try and show the FEers that it can't be faked, in which case sure, go for a lower bound, but have some justification for it or they will likely just claim it is even lower.
Is it to try and show the REers it can be? In which case a lower bound they completely disagree upon wouldn't work.

Sandokhan's model has very different physics

Even without that very different physics, you can still look at his map and see what it would take to fake the ISS on his model.

if at the end of all this the conclusion is "The ISS can be faked with no difficulty whatsoever so long as you accept a 30,000km length equator," are you really so insecure that that bothers you?
<snip>
If that seriously bugs you so much, butt out.

Naaah -- I wouldn't be insecure about that --  I would be laughing at it.  And imagining all the flat earth map mavens running off to make sure whatever map they divine has a 30,000 kilometer equator because that is what Jane and friends needed to come up with their fake ISS scenario.

Always better to go lower, if you don't give something every chance then you've not made a persuasive argument against, and equally you wouldn't end up with the parameters of possibility if it does end up working.

I think this is an entirely worthy thought experiment. And it's fine to use the lower bound as a starting point. And maybe it doesn't have to be too complicated. Here's how I would fake it.

- A modified U2 spy plane or similar.
- With solar arrays attached powering ram jets for continuous uninterrupted speedy flight.
- As Jane mentioned, repairs done in flight over the seas. If the solar panels are just for show, then in flight refueling.

Here's the ISS compared to a U2:

Is it to try and show the FEers that it can't be faked, in which case sure, go for a lower bound, but have some justification for it or they will likely just claim it is even lower.
Is it to try and show the REers it can be? In which case a lower bound they completely disagree upon wouldn't work.

You gave the justification for it: FEers typically say it's larger. I'm just leaving wiggle-room, this is far enough from the typical values that it's likely to be accepted as that lower bound. Sure, they could go lower, but why is that a flaw with this? If anything it's a good thing because it gives more concrete data about the FE model. I'd call that a plus.
I'm not looking for any outcome, just trying to see if it could be made to work, if there's any actual interest in that rather than mindless hatred towards the concept of a lower bound.

Quote from: Jane on November 23, 2018, 01:22:57 PM

Sandokhan's model has very different physics

Even without that very different physics, you can still look at his map and see what it would take to fake the ISS on his model.

No, because of the different physics, like I said. Trying to do anything beyond the basics is a disaster waiting to happen unless I want to start deriving or rereading the mathematical consequences of ether. I'm not diving into the deep end immediately for the purpose of analysing one model. Like I keep saying, the intent is to move onto altered physics (the accelerator giving it a boost in whirlpool models, projections in dome models...) if and only if it is required.

Quote from: Jane on November 23, 2018, 01:42:24 PM

Always better to go lower, if you don't give something every chance then you've not made a persuasive argument against, and equally you wouldn't end up with the parameters of possibility if it does end up working.

I think this is an entirely worthy thought experiment. And it's fine to use the lower bound as a starting point. And maybe it doesn't have to be too complicated. Here's how I would fake it.

- A modified U2 spy plane or similar.
- With solar arrays attached powering ram jets for continuous uninterrupted speedy flight.
- As Jane mentioned, repairs done in flight over the seas. If the solar panels are just for show, then in flight refueling.

Here's the ISS compared to a U2:

Ramjet engines don’t work on electricity.

Quote from: Jane on November 23, 2018, 01:42:24 PM

Always better to go lower, if you don't give something every chance then you've not made a persuasive argument against, and equally you wouldn't end up with the parameters of possibility if it does end up working.

I think this is an entirely worthy thought experiment. And it's fine to use the lower bound as a starting point. And maybe it doesn't have to be too complicated. Here's how I would fake it.

- A modified U2 spy plane or similar.
- With solar arrays attached powering ram jets for continuous uninterrupted speedy flight.
- As Jane mentioned, repairs done in flight over the seas. If the solar panels are just for show, then in flight refueling.

Here's the ISS compared to a U2:

Yeah except the U2 is tiny compared to the ISS:

Specifications (U-2S)

Data from International Directory,[175] USAF Fact Sheet[176][177]

General characteristics

Crew: One
Length: 63 ft (19.2 m)
Wingspan: 103 ft (31.4 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 1,000 ft² (92.9 m²)
Aspect ratio: 10.6
Empty weight: 14,300 lb (6,486 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 40,000 lb (18,144 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F118-101 turbofan, 17,000 lbf (84.5 kN)

Quote from: Stash on November 23, 2018, 04:20:57 PM

I think this is an entirely worthy thought experiment. And it's fine to use the lower bound as a starting point. And maybe it doesn't have to be too complicated. Here's how I would fake it.

- A modified U2 spy plane or similar.
- With solar arrays attached powering ram jets for continuous uninterrupted speedy flight.
- As Jane mentioned, repairs done in flight over the seas. If the solar panels are just for show, then in flight refueling.

Here's the ISS compared to a U2:

Ramjet engines don’t work on electricity.

A minor problem to ingenious flat-earthers.

But with no Space Shuttle docked, I don't know about looking like a U2.Still it might convince a few peasants - NASA fanboys .

And the ISS orbits the earth in about 92.7 minutes following a path similar to this:
So it passes over most countries every few day with quite accurate predictions available as to the path and time on sites like:
I.S.S. Tracker or Spot The Station, International Space Station.

Hence "to fake the ISS" would require objects that:

• looked like the ISS in profile, maybe modified U2s,
• could appear at any predicted location on time,
• travelling in the right direction and
• at what appeared from the ground to be the correct speed.

   
But the elephant in the room would be the hoaxing organisation's complete ignorance of where these observers might be.
They could easily be at sea so to me it seems well nigh impossible but I'm sure there are plenty here more devious than I.