9781

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon shrimp data

« on: December 14, 2013, 04:40:46 PM »

Also:

9782

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon shrimp data

« on: December 14, 2013, 04:32:46 PM »

While I agree that the space walk videos were highly suspect, calling them a controversy is pretty off-base.

OH THE... outrage???

Stop the presses! Youtube commenters and conspiracy theorist websites alike are in an uproar over China's alleged fake space walks.

Nobody really cares.

China released dialogue between the taikonauts of a successful launch hours before the craft actually launched:

http://www.david-kilgour.com/2008/Sep_29_2008_03.php

China posts fake rocket launch story

CHINA'S leading Xinhua news agency reported the successful flight of the Shenzhou VII - complete with detailed dialogue between the astronauts -  hours before the nation's third-ever manned space mission had even lifted off.

On Thursday morning, Xinhua posted a story on its website saying the Shenzhou capsule had been successfully tracked flying over the Pacific Ocean even though the rocket and its three astronauts had not yet been launched.

The article, dated September 27, described the rocket in flight, complete with a sharply detailed dialogue between the three astronauts.

Excerpts are below:

"After this order, signal lights all were switched on, various data show up on rows of screens, hundreds of technicians staring at the screens, without missing any slightest changes ...

"One minute to go!' 'Changjiang No.1 found the target! ...

"The firm voice of the controller broke the silence of the whole ship. Now, the target is captured 12 seconds ahead of the predicted time ...

"The air pressure in the cabin is normal!

"Ten minutes later, the ship disappears below the horizon. Warm clapping and excited cheering breaks the night sky, echoing across the silent Pacific Ocean."

An editor at Xinhau told AFP that the story had been posted due to a technical problem.

"We dealt with it after we had found it," the editor said.

The Shenzhou VII was launched from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre in northwestern China  shorlty after 9pm (AEST) Thursday.

The mission, expected to last three to four days, is devoted almost entirely to the execution of the spacewalk, and is expected to help China master the technology for docking two orbiters to create the country's first orbiting space station in the next few years.

9783

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon shrimp data

« on: December 14, 2013, 04:16:50 PM »

Did you expect the paparazzi to be there to photograph the landing or something?
Also: http://english.cntv.cn/special/lunarmission/index.shtml

Actual video and telemetry data would be nice in the face of their space walk controversy.

9784

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon shrimp data

« on: December 14, 2013, 03:58:26 PM »

Apparently they already landed. But where are the video from this event? All I've seen released from China is a news announcement.

9785

Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch

« on: December 13, 2013, 09:07:24 AM »

I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.

There are plenty of internal combustion powered cars that can achieve over 400mph.  The theory behind engines is the same.  The Technology differs. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record

I am glad you agree. It is not the same technology.

Technology differs = Different Technology

if you look at the second on the list (the goldenrod) you'll note it IS exactly the same technology.

4 Chrysler hemi V8 engines, naturally aspirated, 409mph.

But what of the fastest on the list powered with the turbine? If this highly intelligent argument of "it's all the same, just scale up" works so well then what is stopping the Goldenrod from simply adding more engines until it broke the the land and air records for fastest vehicle on earth?

9786

Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch

« on: December 13, 2013, 08:46:36 AM »

I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.

There are plenty of internal combustion powered cars that can achieve over 400mph.  The theory behind engines is the same.  The Technology differs. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record

I am glad you agree. It is not the same technology.

Technology differs = Different Technology

The fastest vehicle in your list was propelled with a large turbine. The last I checked consumer cars didn't have turbines in them.

9787

Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch

« on: December 12, 2013, 04:31:51 PM »

Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet.

Citation please.

since that's above the service ceiling of most aircraft I suspect it's a made up figure, even Concorde wasn't rated past 60,000.

Now the blackbird's been decommissioned I'm not sure the military has anything save the U2 that flies that high.

The Concord's had a rated ceiling at 60,000 feet because anything beyond that is where Military Airspace begins. It general flew at around 59,000 feet.

Military Airspace is enforced at such altitudes because that is where it becomes difficult to shoot things down. It is the realm of MiGs and ICBMs.

9788

Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch

« on: December 12, 2013, 04:07:26 PM »

I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.

9789

Flat Earth Community / Re: BREAKING: Cooling system fails on the space station.

« on: December 12, 2013, 08:41:48 AM »

Is it a coincidence NASA's budget is currently under assault by Congress?

See: https://www.google.com/search?q=NASA+budget+cuts#q=NASA+budget+cuts&tbm=nws

9790

Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch

« on: December 12, 2013, 07:34:27 AM »

This is incorrect.  The blueprints for the Saturn V are not available because they were destroyed during a routine NASA housecleaning (though I imagine that explanation will seem like part of the conspiracy to some).  With all of the advances in technology since the late '60's, you wouldn't really want to duplicate one anyways.

Yes, "routine housecleaning" I'm sure.

What about all of the other blueprints for other non-Saturn V rockets which have gone into orbit, where are those? Lost in "routine housecleaning" as well?

9791

Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch

« on: December 12, 2013, 07:24:31 AM »

"High-Power rockets in the United States, are only federally regulated in their flight guidelines by the FAA"

the FAA, because they regulate pretty much anything big that flies, they're not a fan of you flying stuff into planes, it makes for depressing headlines.

All you need is a license, a flight plan and proof your contraption is safe, same as a helicopter, plane, or zeppelin.

Incorrect. Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet. The FAA isn't going to let you go into military airspace with a device nearly identical to an ICBM based on a flight plan.

The plans for NASA's specific rockets are kept confidential yes, but then are the plans for pretty much all commercial craft, that doesn't mean other people can't build planes, helicopters or rockets. You just can't build the governments specific rockets (unless you can somehow reverse engineer one).

See Markjo's post above. Rockets past a certain thrust power are regulated.

Would you care to cite this law, please?  To the best of my knowledge, rocket engines above a certain thrust level are regulated, but the technology itself not secret.

Just as you said, rockets past a certain threshold are restricted. See the wikipedia page on Model Rocket Motor Classification. Anything past O requires government oversight.

Since the engines in these professional rockets operate differently, it constitutes a different rocket technology. The Saturn V  rocket (A U class rocket) isn't using the same engine design as an O class rocket available to hobbiests. O class rockets are typically solid state or hybrid engines, while the Saturn V's rocket engine is a specially designed liquid rocket with special fuel injector pumps, heat exchangers, turbines, pressure tranducers, etc. -- all researched to a tune of many millions of dollars. It was not a matter of taking a high powered model rocket motor and scaling up.

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.

You're right Tom, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is super-duper-tippy-top-hush-hush-secret.
http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/f-1-supp.html
http://hackaday.com/2011/09/01/engine-hacks-liquid-fuel-amateur-rocket-roundup/
http://www.gramlich.net/projects/rocket/
http://store.fastcommerce.com/SystemeSolaire/liquid-propellant-rocket-kit-ff8081811928eb610119331daa8d6729-p.html

BTW, the space shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters and several ICBMs and IRBMs use similar solid rocket technology that amateur rocket enthusiasts use.

I did not say that liquid fuel technology was secret.

A gasoline powered drilling machine which could drill through the earth and send a nuke to china would be a government secret. Inferior gasoline engines are not. The fact that the public has access to both gasoline and lesser drilling machines which could drill sewers and subway terminals is inconsequential. It is not the same technology.

9792

Flat Earth Community / Re: The FES

« on: December 10, 2013, 09:41:51 PM »

I don't think I've seen anything that fully describes the purpose of the FES (I could be barking up the wrong tree here). What's its guiding principle, it's vision?

Previous Flat Earth Societies have traditionally practiced on a philosophy of empiricism. Read the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe for a primer.

Admittedly, in recent years many people have posted their theories on the public forum no matter how outlandish or unsupported, which are often repeated. I do have some ideas for subjecting theories to an empirical litmus test the society can use when vetting itself, similar to the ones Rowbotham implies in the text. Perhaps the upcoming Zetetic Council can play a role in providing guidelines for new theories.

9793

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Hosting earth not a globe

« on: December 09, 2013, 10:16:43 PM »

http://library.tfes.org/library/samuel_rowbotham_-_earth_not_a_globe.pdf

Can you post the link on the home page? Just for ease of finding ENaG link. Also this other link is not a PDF, shorter download time, and easier to use.
            http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Honestly I'd rather have something liek that, but the guys are so busy, its not a priority.

There are programs which can rip a website, such as the HTTrack Website Copier.

It would be a matter of someone ripping that website and uploading the files to a new directory on the github repository and putting a link in the cms. Eventually Parsifal would publish it. This isn't something which can't be done by us.

9794

Announcements / Re: Our new homepage is now live

« on: December 09, 2013, 02:36:44 PM »

Suggestion: Text on the main post should be black, and one size bigger.

9795

Announcements / Re: We have our first cloud-hosted subdomain!

« on: December 09, 2013, 02:09:22 AM »

Whenever I post files somewhere, they seem to eventually disappear from the internet after a time. For example, blip.tv deleted the 'How they did it' videos discussing the moon landing hoax. Google Video deleted the 'In Search of the Edge' by Bullfrog Films and 'Flat Earth' by Pantheon Movies.

I have In Search of the Edge on DVD, but some of the other videos above may be irrevocably lost.

9796

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Zetetic Council

« on: December 09, 2013, 02:01:20 AM »

I never said that Daniel does anything unique.  I'm just saying that he is the one that brought the FES back to life.  As I recall, Wilmore and John Davis have their own FESes as well.  If you want this to be another FES, then that's fine.  Just don't claim that this is the one and only FES and don't dismiss Daniel's place in FES history.  After all, if it wasn't for Daniel, then there wouldn't be any FES for you to splinter from.

Daniel hasn't done anything to build the community, it was all us. His place in FES history has been to sell some tshirt, disappear for months at a time, and copy-paste some old articles from the previous society onto his website, which he calls his "research".

Never once has he engaged in debate in the upper forums. He has not given his opinion on any aspect of the Flat Earth model. In his "Flat Earth Society" podcast neither the topic of a Flat Earth or the Flat Earth Society are discussed.

A president of the Flat Earth Society must engage in the subject matter.

9797

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Flat Earth Calendar

« on: December 09, 2013, 01:49:00 AM »

That's no use for Twitter because Twitter is 140 characters if memory serves me correcty.

Are there other calendar 'on this day' applications which are not Twitter?

9798

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Flat Earth Calendar

« on: December 08, 2013, 10:17:17 PM »

Another idea is to use dates from the Opinions of the Press section as important lectures Rowbotham gave with the appropriate newspaper snippit. It would provide good filler. Ie.--

On this day on May 19th, 1862, Rowbotham lectured at Greenwich University

"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, rivetting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for any one to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer's hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic philosophy. If 'Parallax' be wrong, for Heaven's sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. 'Parallax' is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.

9799

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Flat Earth Calendar

« on: December 08, 2013, 06:24:26 PM »

Here are some ideas for you:

Modern Flat Earth events
Rowbotham's Birthday & Death
William Carpenter's Birthday & Death
Hampden's Birthday & Death
Lady Bount's Birthday & Death
Samuel Shenton's Birthday & Death
Charles K. Johnson's Birthday & Death
Voliva's Birthday & Death

Anniversary of the Bedford Level Experiment
Anniversary of the Hampden Wallace Experiment
Anniversary of Lady Boiunt's Calico Sheet Experiment
Anniversary of the founding of the City of Zion

Date for the first publication of Earth Not a Globe
Date for the third, more accepted, edition of Earth Not a Globe
Date for first publication of Lady Blount's Earth Not a Globe Review
Date for Thomas Winship's publication of Zetetic Cosmogony
Date for first publication of Charles Johnson's Flat Earth News

Nice to have:

Date Charles K Johnson's house burned down
Date Samuel Birley Rowbotham graduated Medical School

Other Historic Dates

Date Columbus discovered America
Date the South Pole was discovered/reached
Date the North Pole was discovered/reached
Date the earth was first circumnavigated
Date the earth was first circumnavigated by plane at the equator
Date Washington Irving published his lies about Columbus discovering the earth to be round
Date of Hitler's first successful firing of the V2 into the edge of space
Date of first derigible/plane to reach the edge of space
Date Einstein published his work on General Relativity
Date Newton published his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica which establishes his theory on the three laws and his theroy of gravity as a force
Dates Graviton and Dark matter are theorized

Ancient Flat Earth Events
--Unfortunately most dates such as the rise and fall of Ancient Babylonia, and dates surrounsing ancient greek Flat Earth believers are inspecific
--May be able to get dates surrounding Cosmas Indicopleustes and the date of his publishing of The Christian Topology

NASA
--Space program dates could easily outnumber the rest of the list. I would suggest keeping it short.
--Remember to put "Claimed" and "Alleged" in the description, or otherwise start it with "On this date NASA lied about ..."

Date of first US Communications Satellite
Date of first Man in Space
Date of Apollo 11 landing
Date of first US-Russian cooperation in space
First probes to visit Venus/Mars/Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus/Neptune
International Space Station

Russia
Date the Soviet Space Agency was founded
First animal in orbit (Laika)
First artificial satellite in Earth orbit(Sputnick)
First ICBM (used to launch Sputnik)
First Russian Moon landing
MIR

ESA
Date of ESA Founding

China
Date of Chineese Space Agency founding
Date of first Chinese space walk

9800

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Which Economic System is Best?

« on: December 08, 2013, 10:43:06 AM »

It's cheaper than martial law?

Plus I suspect people in government quite like movies too.

Possibly. Although I somewhat doubt the government would take risks by filming $300 million dollar movies.

What about innovation?

When we had film cameras in an era monopolized by Kodak, someone else developed digital cameras to compete, eventually taking over the market. Today digital cameras dominate.

If the world had film cameras, sold and supplied by the government, and private enterprise did not exist, why would the government ever pour money into R&D in attempt to compete with itself? It seems like we would stay at the same technology level forever.