9801

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

« on: November 30, 2014, 03:24:26 PM »

The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.

Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.

Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.

Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20^o N and 50^o S please. Why don't you get the same value?

What is the angle of the sun at on those latitudes?

9802

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

« on: November 30, 2014, 06:34:52 AM »

The deep space data is fake, but the distance of celestial bodies is competed via trigonometry, using 19th century methods which assume a round earth and big solar system. We get different values if the triangles in the parallax calculations use a flat surface.

Okay, so then you should be able  to show that the 19th century methods assume a round earth and get a "big" solar system, say the earth orbits the sun at about a radius of 93 million miles, but these process in EnaG should be more accurate and produce much smaller distances.

Please show us the correct way to measure the distance between the earth and the sun. Remember we've already reviewed EnaG and found Rowbotham totally wrong when we critiqued EnaG.

The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.

9803

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

« on: November 30, 2014, 05:25:59 AM »

The deep space data is fake, but the distance of celestial bodies is competed via trigonometry, using 19th century methods which assume a round earth and big solar system. We get different values if the triangles in the parallax calculations use a flat surface.

9804

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

« on: November 29, 2014, 11:30:50 PM »

So your answer was wrong., There is a conspiracy that hides the shape of the earth, though its original purpose was to fake a space program. Now then would you answer the OP: How many people are in on the conspiracy?

As I said, there is no conspiracy to hide the flat earth. As per the earth's shape they are merely mistaken.

Also LBJ was not president in 1958.

LBJ was a senator at the time, but President is a title which is for life. Clinton and Bush Sr. are still greeted as "Mr. President". It is also not incorrect to state "This is a picture President Obama drew at 8 years old".

9805

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

« on: November 29, 2014, 10:43:02 PM »

There is no one in on a conspiracy to hide the flat earth. They are merely mistaken.

How does one merely mistake the photos they believe Neil took on the Apollo 11 mission? How did Neil merely mistake taking the photos?

From http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.

See this quote from president Lyndon Johnson:

"Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth's weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the ultimate weapon. And that's the ultimate position. The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space." —President Lyndon Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation's Defense and Race for Space, January 7, 1958

One month later, Lyndon Johnson and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army's Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NASA's early rocket research is well documented to have been a complete failure, plagued by one disaster after another. At some point, perhaps after the Apollo 1 disaster, it was decided to fake the space program outright and use rockets which only needed to fly into the air until they disappeared from sight. NASA went from nearly every launch being a failure to a near flawless track record, able to land man on the moon multiple times without error, and with only two public spectacles of failure in 45 years.

The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because NASA thinks it's round. They are not running a real space program, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes. At the time of NASA's creation the general population already believed that the earth was round, based on the handed down teachings of the Ancient Greeks, which is why it was depicted in that manner. As with everyone else in the country, the people at NASA were taught the fiction of a globe earth from the cradle, so there was no doubt in their mind as how to display it.

9806

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

« on: November 29, 2014, 06:54:38 PM »

There is no one in on a conspiracy to hide the flat earth. They are merely mistaken.

9807

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the notion of FES reunification

« on: November 29, 2014, 06:46:49 PM »

I say we have two logos, just as NASA has two logos. There's the "meatball" logo which is more for public display and consumer use, and then there's a more formal logo for VIP events, award presentations, and press conferences.

9808

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Request for Interview

« on: November 29, 2014, 06:32:55 PM »

Bad idea Tom.  If he posts the questions here, he's going to get a debate, not an interview.

Posting questions gets answers. Pushing agendas get debates.

9809

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Request for Interview

« on: November 29, 2014, 05:48:13 AM »

Post your questions here and we will answer.

9810

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 09, 2014, 04:00:00 PM »

...The ability for a single rocket to reach escape velocity and get to the moon all in a single craft would be an economic impossibility: "That would require, according to von Braun, a rocket taller than the Empire State Building—and ten times the weight of the Queen Mary!"...

Tom, why would we need either to limit ourselves to a single rocket (The first stage of the Saturn V had 4!) and to reach escape velocity (All moon shots are still within the gravity well of earth!)? (Total accuracy disclaimer: some stages of the Apollo missions are in earth-sun orbit.)

You seem to be arguing that it's impossible to get from NYC to LA by walking in less than a month, so it's impossible to get there faster by any other means.

They knew about multiple stages and adding multiple engines per stage to the rocket. That wasn't some later innovation. Look at the illustrations of the 1952 Collier craft.

9811

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 09, 2014, 03:45:54 PM »

Sigh. GM as in General Motors and combustion engine as in Internal Combustion Engines. GM can't expect to increase the performance of a car's engine by 200x because physics says that it can only be so efficient or powerful.

First of all, how are you defining performance?  Secondly, are you suggesting that a 1 HP moped engine and a 1000+ HP race car engine don't use pretty much the same basic technology?

In 1885 1000+ HP race car engines were theoretically possible according to the understandings of thermodynamics and combustion when automobiles were first invented. There was nothing saying that they couldn't exist.

However, these rockets NASA is claiming to have invented for go against all scientific understanding. Combustion, thermodynamics, and rocket physics was well understood in the early 1950's. The scientists of the time understood what could and could not be done.

Yes, because when scientists say that something can't be currently done, they are never proven wrong later on as technology improves. 

Technology can't overcome physics.

9812

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 09, 2014, 03:37:26 PM »

Right, and by 1958 all technical limitations were overcome, all rocketry limitations became a thing of the past, physics was blown wide open, and the US Government could begin sending things into earth orbit and beyond through the next decade with much smaller and cost effective rockets. Keep dreaming.

The Collier articles aren't describing a technical limitation in rocketry.  They're just Von Braun saying, "here are some rockets we could build using only 1952 technology."  He's not saying that those are the smallest rockets possible in 1952.  He's just saying that 1952 could build those huge rockets if it wanted to.

I don't get why you think that the rockets used to achieve orbit in 1958 break the laws of physics.  Can you be more specific?

The Collier articles are absolutely describing a technical limitation in rocketry. They need to build them big because they have to be big. As stated in the article, to carry 32 tons the rocket would need to be as big as a light naval cruiser, and goes on to explain how the things we ended up with, the shuttle and other heavy lift rockets with a capacity of around 32 tons, being much smaller.

Why would they build huge rockets because they wanted to? They had to build them that way because that's what the equations called for. Von Braun complains that to make a single rocket to get to the moon and back would be so big as to be an economic impossibility.

9813

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 03, 2014, 05:24:39 AM »

Physics are physics, markjo. GM can't improve a combustion engine by 200x beyond present technology, no matter how many billions they poured into it. Try not to play ignorant. It is obvious and transparent.

Who said that NASA claimed to improve the combustion engine by 200x

Sigh. GM as in General Motors and combustion engine as in Internal Combustion Engines. GM can't expect to increase the performance of a car's engine by 200x because physics says that it can only be so efficient or powerful.

Do you not understand the difference between making something bigger and making it more efficient? For example, the F1 engine is a very large rocket engine that burns a lot of fuel very quickly (several tons per second).  I don't recall anyone ever claiming that it was a phenomenally efficient design, just a phenomenally powerful one.

Von Braun was well aware of what happens to a rocket engine when you make it bigger or smaller.

I was, which was why I assumed you had some other source of information you were relying on. What you just described does not qualify as impossible. What is the maximum energy that can be derived from kerosene-oxygen combustion and hydrogen-oxygen combustion?

Sure it does. If scientists of the time say that it is not possible, and NASA does it, NASA has just done the impossible. It doesn't matter what the numbers are. The fact is that NASA is claiming to have done the impossible.

9814

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 03, 2014, 03:22:03 AM »

Can you please substantiate the claim that what NASA did was physically impossible?

Please follow along. Scientists of the time said that much bigger and economically unfeasible rockets would be required and then NASA had some kind of undisclosed breakthrough immediately after being founded which allowed them to push liquid kerosene/hydrogen/oxygen beyond physical ability.

9815

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 03, 2014, 02:37:04 AM »

NASA is doing the physically impossible and all I hear is willful denial and avoidance. Instead of beginning to seek out the truth for your own self, you comply to kneel down and bury your faces into the lap of an organization with the motive and the means. If the government says so it must be true. No question or doubt about it.

Physics are physics, markjo. GM can't improve a combustion engine by 200x beyond present technology, no matter how many billions they poured into it. Try not to play ignorant. It is obvious and transparent.

9816

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 03, 2014, 01:23:20 AM »

The things NASA is claiming are not improvements. The claims break physics themselves. It is absurd that anyone could sit and entertain the idea that one can make a M67 grenade, using the explosive material Composition B, explode with 200 times as much force as it already does. It's simply not going to happen, no matter how much money is thrown at it. Physics are physics.

9817

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 03, 2014, 01:02:35 AM »

The difference between physical propellant engineering improvements and the improvements in other technologies such as computer chips, is that with computer chips there was never a theoretical limit in the 1960's saying that a silicon chip could not compute cycles at 4 GHz. With rockets, there is a theoretical limit to how much they can lift and whether it could achieve escape velocity.

NASA is claiming something entirely contrary to rocket physics. The scientists of the time knew all about liquid oxygen and kerosene. They said it couldn't be done. But then comes US Government, in space heat, creating an organization which immediately invents this fantastic technology, using known fuels, using an engine which adopts the same basic operation of the V2 weapon.

Clearly questionable. The simplest explanation is that they did not do that.

9818

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 03, 2014, 12:34:20 AM »

Right, and by 1958 all technical limitations were overcome, all rocketry limitations became a thing of the past, physics was blown wide open, and the US Government could begin sending things into earth orbit and beyond through the next decade with much smaller and cost effective rockets. Keep dreaming.

You mean engineering was blown wide open. There was no meaningful advance in physics from the rocket engine. Your argument from personal credulity continues unabated. Can you propose a single engineering reason why there could not be a quick advance in technology over a relatively short timespan given sufficient logistical, intellectual and financial capabilities?

As I said, NASA is claiming to have created never before seen rocket technologies. It's a fantastic claim to have created something thought to be impossible. Despite that the Saturn V rocket engine is using the same basic operation as the V2 weapon from WWII, using fuels well studied for many years, we are expected to believe that they somehow broke the mold and achieved an improvement by a fold of 266 which allowed the US Government to gain moon victory.

It's simply an absurd claim. Anyone with a basic understanding of engineering knows that physical technologies don't improve like that. Shame on you for believing it.

9819

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 03, 2014, 12:00:16 AM »

Right, and by 1958 all technical limitations were overcome, all rocketry limitations became a thing of the past, physics was blown wide open, and the US Government could begin sending things into earth orbit and beyond through the next decade with much smaller and cost effective rockets. Keep dreaming.

9820

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the notion of NASA's "never before seen technologies"

« on: November 02, 2014, 11:44:26 PM »

I don't know why miniaturization strains your credulity. We went from having room sized computers in the 60s to the first desktops by the late 70s. MBs of memory in the 90s to GBs by the 2000s.

Your analogy is meaningless. Not everything advances at the rate of computer chips. The efficiency of the internal combustion engine has barely improved over the last 20 years. Spoons haven't improved over the last 20 years. Rockets have not been doubling in efficiency every year.

In fact, improvements in computer chips are increasingly no longer the case. Core clock speed has not improved by any significant margin for years. The clock speed of a core is still 3 to 4 Ghz and has been that way since 2004.

The improvements now come from combining multiple chips together into a multi-core chip. Now you can burn a dvd and play a video game at the same time. This is not an improvement in computer chips. I could have bought two computers in 2004. That's like saying that car technology is improved by a factor of 2x if you buy two ferraris.