9761

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 23, 2014, 08:42:04 PM »

There is NO evidence that space "bends". What we have are accelerators which measure acceleration. There is no device which can detect that space is bending.

There IS evidence that moving frames cause time dilation. Ie. the experiment where the put a clock on a jet and a clock on the ground. This is direct evidence that time dilates.

There is also direct evidence that space does bend.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm

Not only was there a device that could directly measure it, but also its called your eye and a telescope and observe the gravitational lensing around dense objects.

Wrong. Incorrect. Frame dragging is described as follows:

Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer.

The clock is moving faster because the clock is experiencing more acceleration, and therefore in a different frame of reference. We saw the same thing in the clock-on-a-jet experiment. It is caused by frames of reference. There is nothing directly telling us that "space is bending". It is telling us that clocks put under acceleration will experience time dilation.

What evidence is there that space is actually bending? There is NONE.

Your second link deals with light bending around stars. But, again, there could be a lot of things pulling light towards stars, not just the bending of space. QM has another explanation for that. Light bending towards stars or a ball moving towards the earth does NOTHING to tell us that space itself is bending.

9762

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 23, 2014, 04:16:13 PM »

There is NO evidence that space "bends". What we have are accelerators which measure acceleration. There is no device which can detect that space is bending.

There IS evidence that moving frames cause time dilation. Ie. the experiment where the put a clock on a jet and a clock on the ground. This is direct evidence that time dilates.

9763

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: December 22, 2014, 02:23:34 AM »

You mean the same scientists who said it was possible to get to space and then, when provided with ten times the budget succeeded?

The US had to pay more for their rockets because they didn't have the benefit of slave labor.

Also, throwing money at scientists doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics.

The scientists are on record saying it was not against the laws of physics.  Why are you claiming more expertise than those you said were authorities on the matter?

Actually, the scientists are on record for saying that a rocket would need to enter earth orbit to reach intercontinental targets.

  Where in that link does it say anything about the A9/A10 needing to achieve orbit in order to reach the US?  Perhaps you're thinking about the A11 and A12 designs.

Did you read the link you posted? The A9/A10/A11/A12 are all stages of a four stage orbital rocket designed to hit America from Europe. The top two stages A9 and A10 can be used as a stand alone tactical rocket, but the operational range falls far short of the 4,100 miles between Washington DC and Germany. Under the illustration of the A9 and A10 configuration the operational range reads "500 Miles".

9764

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: December 21, 2014, 06:03:06 AM »

You mean the same scientists who said it was possible to get to space and then, when provided with ten times the budget succeeded?

The US had to pay more for their rockets because they didn't have the benefit of slave labor.

Also, throwing money at scientists doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics.

9765

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: December 21, 2014, 05:57:53 AM »

ICBMs do not exist. At best we have ballistic missiles.

Tom, ICBMs are ballistic missiles.  The clue is in the name.

I think it is the IC he objects to, not the BM (pun intended).

I have never seen a single valid reason as to why ICBMs should be impossible on a flat earth.  In fact, I would think that, in some ways, they might even be easier on a flat earth because you don't have to worry about the curvature of the earth or the Coriolis effect.

It's not possible for a rocket to take off from the US and hit Moscow without earth orbit. Why do you think the US had to bother making a space program, real or not, if ballistic missiles could travel that far?

Check me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that ICBMs (namely Atlas) came before the space program.

I don't understand why you're equating "ICBMs do not exist" to "it is physically impossible for ICBMs to ever exist". Could you clarify?

Actually, it's Tom's position, not mine, and I think that he just did.

Because sending a rocket to the moon is much more energy intensive than sending one from Washington to Moscow. But that does not answer why Earth's orbit cannot be attained.

Despite the devastation of the V2 against London and its indefensible nature, Hitler couldn't hit the US from Germany with the V2 no matter how much fuel he put into it.

The V-2 was never designed to reach the US.  That would be the A9/A10, a design which never made it past the drawing board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_%28rocket_family%29#A9.2FA10

There you go. Read your link of the rocket required to reach the US. Earth orbit required to cross intercontinental distances.

9766

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: December 21, 2014, 01:26:18 AM »

Because the earth is not a globe.

I see nothing in that that would prevent a ballistic missile travelling between continents.

Hitler tried, failed. More fuel means more weight, which means more fuel, which adds even more weight, meaning more fuel required, ad infinitum, limiting the overall effectiveness of ballistic rockets. Scientists said earth orbit needed to overcome physical and technological limitations. US space program started after war specifically to get ICBMs into orbit.

Hirer couldn't do it so it is impossible. I see...

I would trust Hitler as as authority. He put a lot of state money into researching the matter. The top scientists at NASA during the space race era were ex-Nazi war criminals.

9767

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: December 21, 2014, 01:00:13 AM »

Because the earth is not a globe.

I see nothing in that that would prevent a ballistic missile travelling between continents.

Hitler tried, failed. More fuel means more weight, which means more fuel, which adds even more weight, meaning more fuel required, ad infinitum, limiting the overall effectiveness of ballistic rockets. Rocket scientists in agreement that earth orbit needed to overcome physical and technological limitations. US space program started after war specifically to get ICBMs into orbit.

9768

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: December 21, 2014, 12:16:33 AM »

Because the earth is not a globe.

9769

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 20, 2014, 11:11:13 PM »

That link says that there are compasses that work that far north and south.  You think people traveling, even to a peninsula of antartica were not equipped properly?

There are swivel compasses that will take you a little further, where the needle is on a little bendable axle, but at a certain point the magnetic field lines point nearly straight down. There is no compass needle that can defy 'gravity'.

Citation required.  It seems more logical that an expedition would check it's position against multiple navigation markers to ensure that they are where they think they are.

If you landed on the Antarctic coast and followed signs that said "South Pole This Way," I doubt you would feel the need to double and triple reference your path against a plethora of navigating instruments. And if you did, and found some kind of discrepancy, you would likely brush it off as an interesting curiosity.

9770

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: December 20, 2014, 11:00:36 PM »

Because sending a rocket to the moon is much more energy intensive than sending one from Washington to Moscow. But that does not answer why Earth's orbit cannot be attained.

Despite the devastation of the V2 against London and its indefensible nature, Hitler couldn't hit the US from Germany with the V2 no matter how much fuel he put into it. Doing so would have ended the war. Once the US got a hold of the V2 technology when the war ended there was a push to develop it enough to catch onto earth orbit, strap a nuke on it, and give the ultimate weapon the ultimate position. Military defense and Cold War buildup sparked the country's race to space.

Did you learn nothing about the Cold War and its influence on the space program in high school?

9771

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: December 20, 2014, 10:33:01 PM »

ICBMs do not exist. At best we have ballistic missiles.

Tom, ICBMs are ballistic missiles.  The clue is in the name.

I think it is the IC he objects to, not the BM (pun intended).

I have never seen a single valid reason as to why ICBMs should be impossible on a flat earth.  In fact, I would think that, in some ways, they might even be easier on a flat earth because you don't have to worry about the curvature of the earth or the Coriolis effect.

It's not possible for a rocket to take off from the US and hit Moscow without earth orbit. Why do you think the US had to bother making a space program, real or not, if ballistic missiles could travel that far?

9772

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 20, 2014, 10:18:51 PM »

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.

I eagerly await your debunking of every successful test of General Relativity. It should be simple enough for you.

The "tests" of GR do not demonstrate that space bends. Watching light bend around a star only tells us that light bends around a star. It could be due to graviton puller particles, a force, or perhaps subatomic pusher fairies. There is no direct test for the concept of bending space fabric.

The curvature of space-time is the physical interpretation of the mathematics of GR.  Whatever is happening, GR is modelling and predicting it accurately and has not been falsified.  It is every bit as verified [sic] as Special Relativity.  Light bending around a star is of course not the only prediction of GR that has been verified; care to address those?

GR has not been verified. The last I checked there was no Grand Unified Theory. In Quantum Mechanics there is the theory of the graviton, which proposes that a subatomic messenger particle is the mechanism behind gravity, which is in direct contradiction to General Relativity which says that gravity is due to the bending of space. The square root attraction in the QM theory precisely the same as what GR predicts.

Watching a ball drop does not tell us why or how it dropped. It is a big deal in physics that the phenomenon of gravity remains unexplained and mysterious.

I don't think you're paying attention. Please quote me where I made a conclusion in this matter. RET does not require that the two models are equivalent in this regard. Tom Bishop declared that only SR has been scientifically proven, without citation. I've challenged him to explain his point.

Frames of reference experiments have put moving frames under controlled conditions to conclude that time works differently within different frames. An experiment that can move is within our capability.

There is no experiment, however, which can test or detect the bending of space. The concept of bending space is untested and assumed.

9773

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 20, 2014, 06:46:20 PM »

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.

I eagerly await your debunking of every successful test of General Relativity. It should be simple enough for you.

The "tests" of GR do not demonstrate that space bends. Watching light bend around a star only tells us that light bends around a star. It could be due to graviton puller particles, a force, or perhaps subatomic pusher fairies. There is no direct test for the concept of bending space fabric.

9774

Flat Earth Community / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?

« on: December 20, 2014, 08:37:29 AM »

What if the original code wasn't tainted and did just what it claimed?

We've only seen that the government can produce RET results.

Tom, do you have any personal, hands on experience with the inner workings of the laser moon bounce process at any of the observatories that do these measurements, or are you deliberately misrepresenting the process in order to make it look suspicious?

There is an entire internet designed for universities to share resources like this called "Internet 2".

What about when the external auditor is an integral part of the scandal?

What are you talking about. It's a fact of life that audits by external sources are significantly more credible than audits by internal sources. External sources are not incorruptible, simply more creditable.

9775

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: December 20, 2014, 08:27:10 AM »

Tom, where can I get more information about these liquid fueled fireworks that you speak of?

Why, do liquid fueled rockets operate at a fundamentally different principal than solid fuel rockets? Is an engine that takes diesel fundamentally different than an engine that takes unleaded?

Yes, liquid fueled rockets allow variable thrust, solid fuel ones are 100% thrust the moment they light up.

Also you believe in nuclear bombs, but not ICBMs? Because ICBMs involve basically entering very low orbit, and if we can do that, then why cant we do a low orbit or more?

ICBMs do not exist. At best we have ballistic missiles.

9776

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: December 20, 2014, 08:25:49 AM »

Nah, if they were running a fake space program they wouldn't create a Saturn V with the official specs, with the ability to reach escape velocity at 4 miles a second, with a mass of over 6.5 million pounds, filled to the brim with dangerous rocket fuel. They would have created an inferior version that only needed to fly out of sight.

It was a rocket masquerading as it's bigger brother in a show: A firework.

Just how much smaller could such a "smaller brother" be and still fly out of sight of the international press? How why to you refer to "reach escape velocity"? We've repeatedly pointed out your ignorance on this point. Please stop referring to escape velocity as though a rocket must reach that velocity for whatever reason you erroneously invoke it.

The Saturn V is significantly bigger than, say, the V2 rocket technology the US stole from postwar germany. The V2 had no problem going up into the air until they got out of sight.

9777

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 20, 2014, 08:12:17 AM »

Then whats making them circle earth?

hmm... ok lets put it this way.

How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?

You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?

You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?

Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.

9778

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: December 16, 2014, 06:10:40 PM »

Nah, if they were running a fake space program they wouldn't create a Saturn V with the official specs, with the ability to reach escape velocity at 4 miles a second, with a mass of over 6.5 million pounds, filled to the brim with dangerous rocket fuel. They would have created an inferior version that only needed to fly out of sight.

It was a rocket masquerading as it's bigger brother in a show: A firework.

9779

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 16, 2014, 05:19:03 PM »

All they are doing is crossing that peninsula sticking off of the Antarctic coast and claiming that they trans-navigated Antactica.

Ok, so you have now dropped the bipolar flat model ?

My explanation applies to either model.

All they are doing is crossing that peninsula sticking off of the Antarctic coast and claiming that they trans-navigated Antactica.

So you think they had trouble with their compasses or that they had no concept of navigation? 

Actually, the compass doesn't work in the entire Antarctic circle... or the Arctic circle for that matter. The magnetic field lines become more and more vertical at those latitudes. Eventually you need a special swivel compass, but even that takes you so far. At the latitude of Seattle, Washington, a normal compass is already scraping against the floor of its enclosure. It is actually only a narrow strip of land where the magnetic compass works, where the majority of the population lives.

See: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/899130154.Es.r.html

Travel to Antarctica would have been done by another method, such as by the stars. But more than likely they are following the markers of early famous explorers from the early 1900's who claimed to have found the geographic south pole, whose structures still stand.

9780

Flat Earth Community / Re: When the space ships were supposedly in space where were they?

« on: December 16, 2014, 05:08:31 PM »

Tom, where can I get more information about these liquid fueled fireworks that you speak of?

Why, do liquid fueled rockets operate at a fundamentally different principal than solid fuel rockets?

No, but then I don't know of very many people who refer to rockets larger than the Statue of Liberty as "fireworks".

They are rockets whose purpose is to dazzle and delight and to put on a display of illusions. I call those fireworks.