Re: moon landings.
« Reply #80 on: September 23, 2014, 08:04:23 PM »
Yes, surveying exactly... using the reference you provided ... and I quote... Refraction and curvature[edit]

The curvature of the earth means that a line of sight that is horizontal at the instrument will be higher and higher above a spheroid at greater distances. The effect may be significant for some work at distances under 100 meters.

The line of sight is horizontal at the instrument, but is not a straight line because of refraction in the air. The change of air density with elevation causes the line of sight to bend toward the earth.

The combined correction for refraction and curvature is approximately:[3]
\Delta h_{meters} = 0.067 D_{km} ^2  or \Delta h_{feet} = 0.021 \left(\frac {D_{ft}}{1000} \right)^2
For precise work these effects need to be calculated and corrections applied. For most work it is sufficient to keep the foresight and backsight distances approximately equal so that the refraction and curvature effects cancel out. Refraction is generally the greatest source of error in leveling. For short level lines the effects of temperature and pressure are generally insignificant, but the effect of the temperature gradient dT / dh can lead to errors.[4]


Over the distance of Bedford Canal experiment, this correction is 6.7m.  Yet such a correction is NEVER applied in any mining or civil engineering project... and in particular NOT  the Chunnel which is well over this distance.  The reason, we are told, is because the rate of refraction CANCELS out the rate of curvature on the earth.  But this is nonsense of course, because the air density close to sea level will be the same for a horizontal line of sight.  To get light to bend 6.9m over the distance of 10 km with a line of sight over sea level... you guys just believe anything....

The GPS reference will have to be explained to me.  GPS outcomes are easily achieved from land stations and blimps.  Even if the satellite myth were true, there is simply no need to deploy such things to achieve GPS.  And why don't we have any pics of the north and south pole from these satellites?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3695
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #81 on: September 24, 2014, 01:06:52 AM »
I have never seen a blimp. Can you show me pictures of your GPS blimps? 

Why are you expecting photos from a GPS satellite?  That is not their function.

Why would I expect you to accept such a photo when you are apparently hung up on things like the BLE?

FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

Re: moon landings.
« Reply #82 on: September 24, 2014, 09:31:16 AM »
Hi Rama... you will have to look elsewhere for the satellite GPS discussion.. I didn't raise it and, quite frankly, I don't give a damn. 

I simply point out that satellites are not relevant to the previous discussion and, moreover, that any "benefits" attributed to them could be achieved in any either model of the world, namely global or dinner plate.   The reference to the poles was made by me to clearly indicate my view that both satellites and the Poles are covered in BS as well.

Summarising the discussion to date.  A CGI reproduction does not prove a pic of a man on the moon is real.  There are no real world applications of the correction to survey data  to compensate for the putative curvature of the earth.  There is no curving of light running parallel to the ocean because the medium does not vary with distance, only with altitude.  The purported lunar landing missions to the purported moon are physically impossible for many reasons, not the least of which is the inability to provide sufficient quantity of "sublimatable" liquid to maintain a temperature that would permit humans to continue to function.  Of course that discussion used the questionable assumptions that there is a vacuum in space.  The point being that the BS based on BS assumption is entirely contradictory of its own assumptions and is a complete fail.

So I am still looking for a globalist who would like to discuss the Flat Earth topic for an internet radio program.  If any globalists are interested, please send me a message.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3695
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #83 on: September 24, 2014, 11:35:17 AM »
I realize why you mentioned satellites and I responded because of the logical deficiency contained in your view. My hope is that you realize this deficiency so that you can appreciate all the other evidence before you.
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 262
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #84 on: September 24, 2014, 04:58:26 PM »
  The whole point is that any ship will ALWAYS be in front of the horizon because the undisturbed sea level is flat.  If the earth was a globe then two points ten kilometres apart would have a hump 1.9m high etc etc.
There is a hump, and ships are not always in front of the horizon.

Ships..   start looking at 7.30 minutes.
Video was shot from an elevated position, the ship isn't beyond the horizon, and seems as though camera operator, or whoever added the text, is confusing 'melting into the horizon' with lack of resolution at low magnification.  I am mildly surprised they didn't try claiming 'restoration' between 1x and whatever maximum power is.

  I can see ships in the distant horizon with the use of a telescope down to the waterline when they should have long disappeared over the horizon. 
  I can see ships disappear down over the horizon with the use of a telescope.  What was your elevation?  I've seen distant hills sink beyond the waterline/horizon as I lowered my viewing elevation without increasing my distance, and also noticed buildings at the shoreline compress due to refraction (pictures available if desired).  I have also viewed a major city located at basically sea-level, half sunk below the horizon when viewed from 2,500 feet 60 miles away with no other distant significant hills to block the view.

There is a series of four well known astronomical observations which clearly demonstrate that the motion of the sun is geocentric and not heliocentric.
Such as?

Re: moon landings.
« Reply #85 on: September 24, 2014, 10:00:00 PM »
Hi Model29,

the point is that if there was a curve on the earth as you have accepted as fact, then we would be unable to see the vessel at the waterline.  There are no ifs or buts about this point when the observation is taken at eye level from the waters edge.

The papers are:

Michelson and Morley 1887 "on the relative motion of the earth and Luminiferous Aether"
Airy G 1871 Proc Royal Sc. London V 20 p35
Michelson and Gale 1925 Astrophysical Journa v61 pp 140-5 Detection of 24 hr . rotation of aether around earth to 2% accuracy
Sagnac M 1913 "Sur la preuve de la realite de ''ether lumineaux par l'expeience de l'inerpherograph tournant" (On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether using the experiment of a turning interferometer")  Comptes Rendus v157 p708-710 and 1410-1413.  (proof the aether really exists - demolishing the BS of relativity)

enjoy... and welcome to the real world!

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3695
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #86 on: September 24, 2014, 11:06:51 PM »
Oh dear. The Sagnac effect is perfectly well explained by special relativity and Michaelson-Morley experiments have been repeated and have continued to yield a null result to ever increasing levels of discrimination, up to 10-17 level.  Why do you think you are an expert in physics?
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

Re: moon landings.
« Reply #87 on: September 25, 2014, 10:26:40 AM »
yes Rama.... your worst nightmare... someone familiar with physics...I obtained my BSc from the University of Melbourne in 1979 with a physics major.  I then read Engineering and obtained BEng and later an MBA... so please don't expect me to be phased by ad hominem attacks such as "what makes you such and expert in physics" and all the attempts to paint me as a "know it all".  I claim no expertise, but I do claim the capability to understand sound reasoning in matters of physics and engineering when I hear it or read it.  I would speculate that you may find discussions with me a pleasant change compared to persons that obtain their knowledge of these matters directly from the doubly entendred “Big Bang Theory television series..  As a very special favour to you, I shall present some very, very sound reasoning for you to cogitate on, adapted from Malcolm Bowden.  As I did with Model29, I welcome you to the real world, now becoming heavily populated!

The Michelson Morley Experiment was expected to demonstrate that earth moved through the Aether at 30km/s because, after all, wasn't this the speed of the earth around the sun in the direction of travel?  It was very, very awkward when the results were between 1 and 10 km/s wasn't it? In a desperate attempt to explain this RATHER embarrassing result, the Fitzgerald-Lorenz contraction was invented, with absolutely no justification provided for this “solution”.  This solution was only invented to overcome the idea that the earth was stationary in the Aether.  To complete this travesty, the Einstein myth and “Special Relativity” were invented to “abolish” the Aether.  Einstein's biographer commented: “The problem that now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives.  The first was that the earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable (???).  The second was that the Aether was carried along by the earth in its passage through space, a possibility which had already been ruled out... by a number of experiments, notably those of... James Bradley.  The third solution was that the Aether simply did not exist, which to many nineteenth century scienties was equivalent to scrapping current views of light, electricity and magnetism and starting again.” Ronald Clark, 1971

In fact, the first possibility is the only one that fits all of the results of the experiments carried out... i.e. the earth is stationary in a rotating Aether.  Einstein's relativity theory was supposedly verified by the Transit of Venus experiment, the results of which were HOPELESS and would not possibly stand scrutiny today.

The Michelson Gale Experiment demonstrated that the Aether was passing across the surface of the earth once every twenty four hours. However, it was unclear if the earth was moving or the Aether.

The Airy experiment proved that water filled telescopes did not have to be tilted more than air filled telescopes because the moving starlight was carried by a rotating Aether that was passing across a stationary earth.  If the earth was moving, then the water filled telescope would need more tilt.

Finally, the Sagnac experiment proving that there IS an Aether.  He split a beam of light and sent the two beams in opposite directions around a path, recombined the beams, and noted their interference fringes. The whole system was on a turntable anhe then turned it at 2 revolutions per second, remeasured the fringes and found they had changed.  This was due to the movement of the mirrors, which made the parth for one beam longer and the other shorter.  This proved that the Aether existed because once the light left the source, its speed was controlled by the comparatively stationary Aether in the laboratory.  THIS DEMOLISHED THE THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2521
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #88 on: September 25, 2014, 12:22:24 PM »
The Michelson Gale Experiment demonstrated that the Aether was passing across the surface of the earth once every twenty four hours. However, it was unclear if the earth was moving or the Aether.
Foucault's pendulum and stellar aberration prove that it's the earth moving, not the aether.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #89 on: September 25, 2014, 12:38:45 PM »
... THIS DEMOLISHED THE THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
Nope. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

Also FET relies on SR. See: http://wiki.tfes.org/Special_Relativity#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light

Now, would you please return to the thread's topic: "moon landings"? Thanks.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: moon landings.
« Reply #90 on: September 25, 2014, 09:14:00 PM »
Markjo, the Foucault experiment is better explained by Barbour J. and Bertotti B. "Gravity and Intertia in a Machian Framework" Il Nouovo Cimento 32(B):1-27, 11 March 1977 and also Gerardus Bouw's "Geocentric Papers".  The earth is stationary.

Gulliver, SR doesn't apply where significant gravity exists and it is bogus. It's creation came about entirely to demolish the Aether.  But the Aether is now marching boldly back into physics Gulliver.  Soon all of you will fear and tremble at its majestic return.  The top physicists of the time walked out on Einsteins lectures as they were considered to be rubbish.  At first Einstein claimed he had never even heard of the Michelson-Morley experiment and then later recanted.  How disingenuous is that?

A stationary earth fits all of the data without flim flam.  Your house of cards is now collapsing.

As I noted earlier, it was not I that brought this thread here.

I simply stated that CGI renderings do not prove that a photo purporting to be a man on the moon is genuine.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2521
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #91 on: September 25, 2014, 09:58:49 PM »
Markjo, the Foucault experiment is better explained by Barbour J. and Bertotti B. "Gravity and Intertia in a Machian Framework" Il Nouovo Cimento 32(B):1-27, 11 March 1977 and also Gerardus Bouw's "Geocentric Papers".  The earth is stationary.

Mach's principle?  Seriously? 
The theory in its present form is still very rudimentary and incomplete and so far merely provides the framework of a Machian theory of gravity and inertia. In particular, the behaviour of rods and clocks and the related problem of the anisotropy of inertial mass can be fully understood only when the rest of physics has been brought into this Machian framework.

As for geocentrism... You do realize that geocentrism is, for the most part, still a round earth model, don't you?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Re: moon landings.
« Reply #92 on: September 25, 2014, 10:51:58 PM »
of course Machs principle... the arithmetic holds ups perfectly and it doesn't require faith, unlike relativity... which doesn't apply in such and such a circumstance but does apply bla bla bla.

Many geocentrists can't quite bring themselves to fight two battles at one time.  The evidence for a motionless earth and a rotating Aether does not depend upon the shape of the earth.

And how is it that you know so much about these things Markjo?  And why, if you believe the earth is a globe in relativistic universe, are you haunting the corridors of the Flat Earth Society? 

And the same question of you Gulliver.. why do you choose to tell me (and presumably others) where they can put information and in which thread and generally act as a gatekeeper?

I ask simply to understand the dynamics of the tfes... are you one of the instigators and or controllers herein?  What is your power?

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2521
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #93 on: September 26, 2014, 01:10:59 AM »
of course Machs principle... the arithmetic holds ups perfectly and it doesn't require faith, unlike relativity... which doesn't apply in such and such a circumstance but does apply bla bla bla.
From what I've heard about Mach's principle, no on is exactly sure just what Mach's principle really says.

Many geocentrists can't quite bring themselves to fight two battles at one time.  The evidence for a motionless earth and a rotating Aether does not depend upon the shape of the earth.
That's because a round stationary earth is a far easier battle to fight than a flat stationary earth.

And how is it that you know so much about these things Markjo?  And why, if you believe the earth is a globe in relativistic universe, are you haunting the corridors of the Flat Earth Society? 
I'm helping FE'ers improve FET by pointing out flaws in their models.

I ask simply to understand the dynamics of the tfes... are you one of the instigators and or controllers herein?  What is your power?
Some call me an RE DA (devil's advocate).  Apparently I'm an FE'er but argue RE for kicks.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #94 on: September 26, 2014, 06:59:55 AM »
...Gulliver, SR doesn't apply where significant gravity exists and it is bogus. ...
Nope. See previous reference for list of experiments that disprove your outlandish claim.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2521
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #95 on: September 26, 2014, 12:22:13 PM »
SR doesn't apply where significant gravity exists and it is bogus. ...
Actually, SR (the equivalence principle, in particular) says that gravity is the same as acceleration and is a principle tenet of many FE models.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Re: moon landings.
« Reply #96 on: September 26, 2014, 08:17:46 PM »
Gulliver, relativistic arguments that are said to "prove" relativity are snuffed out once the Aether is proven to exist.  The Sagnac experiment clearly demonstrates the Aether exists.  The results of the experiment are EXACTLY as Sagnac calculated.  The split light beams experience drag and change the fringe patterns, an effect which is used for the gyroscopic compass in aircraft.  Without Aether, this effect could not be observed.  If there is no Aether, then the fringe patterns would not alter and gyroscopes could not work.  There is NO relativistic explanation of this effect.  Please DO NOT bother with the Wikipedia entry on this, the inertial reference frame at any velocity still does not explain this. 

Markjo... Luka Popov "The dynamical description of the geocentric Universe" 26th April 2013. Abstract: Using Mach's principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual motion of the EArth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual revolution of the Universe around the fixed and catered Earth.  This can be performed by postulating the existence of vector a scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars.

And finally Rama, the MM experiment did not then and does not now yield a NULL result.  It yields a result between 1 and 10 km/sec CONSISTENT with the 24hr rotation of the Aether.  This was CONFIRMED with the Michaelson Gale experiment.

So, let's summarise the discussion to date.

CGI rendering do not prove that a pic of a man in a comical film prop was actually taken on the putative moon.
The physics of this putative moon landing on this putative moon is entirely inconsistent within it's own self defined conditions
The Aether is proven to exist
The Aether is proven to rotate around the earth every 24 hours
The Earth is proven to be stationary
The application of Mach's principle provides a completely satisfactory account of a geocentric universe as demonstrated by Barbour, Popov and others

Thanks for coming everyone.  I am still seeking a globalist to do a radio talk with me on the geocentric flat earth.  What about you Rama-set?  You are giving me the impression that you think that you will be able to pull my arguments apart easily.  You will be able to educate many people and alert them to all the kerazy thinking people such as me have.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2521
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #97 on: September 26, 2014, 08:22:08 PM »
This can be performed by postulating the existence of vector a scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars.
Have these "vector a scalar potentials" been experimentally verified?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #98 on: January 27, 2017, 04:36:48 PM »
The Russians determined back in 1959 that it was going to take four feet of solid lead to protect a person if they wanted to walk on the Moon's surface.

How did the Americans get over the radiation inside the Van Allen belt from space outside of earth's magnetic field? How did the US manage that with tin foil and little glass windows? What were their space suits made of? I have never had a proper answer to this.

Quote from: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/06/masonic-moon-landing-hoax.html
There is an area of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt 272 miles from Earth which the Russians could never pass. In fact in 1959 Bill Kaysing reported on a Russian study which discovered that the amount of radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in 4 feet of lead in order to avoid instant death. John Mauldin, a NASA physicist, said they would need at least two meters of thick shielding.
This was assuming that planes are all uniform. The Van Allen Belts are there, and they are deadly. However, by adjusting the inclination of the orbit of the transit to the moon, they were able to not hit the Van Allen Belts' most dangerous areas for any period of time. They did receive higher than normal doses of radiation, but those were well within tolerable limits, even under the annual max for nuclear power workers. There's a great article here, I would suggest reading the same article. Van Allen HIMSELF disputes that the astronauts would have survived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Environment

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4857
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #99 on: January 27, 2017, 04:39:50 PM »
The Russians determined back in 1959 that it was going to take four feet of solid lead to protect a person if they wanted to walk on the Moon's surface.

How did the Americans get over the radiation inside the Van Allen belt from space outside of earth's magnetic field? How did the US manage that with tin foil and little glass windows? What were their space suits made of? I have never had a proper answer to this.

Quote from: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/06/masonic-moon-landing-hoax.html
There is an area of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt 272 miles from Earth which the Russians could never pass. In fact in 1959 Bill Kaysing reported on a Russian study which discovered that the amount of radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in 4 feet of lead in order to avoid instant death. John Mauldin, a NASA physicist, said they would need at least two meters of thick shielding.
This was assuming that planes are all uniform. The Van Allen Belts are there, and they are deadly. However, by adjusting the inclination of the orbit of the transit to the moon, they were able to not hit the Van Allen Belts' most dangerous areas for any period of time. They did receive higher than normal doses of radiation, but those were well within tolerable limits, even under the annual max for nuclear power workers. There's a great article here, I would suggest reading the same article. Van Allen HIMSELF disputes that the astronauts would have survived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Environment

You know this discussion is over two years old, right? Did you not see the notice that you were posting in an ancient thread? I'd suggest maybe starting a new thread if you want to have a discussion around a particular topic. The person you quoted doesn't even have an account here anymore.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.