1

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Ghost

« on: March 11, 2025, 02:29:30 AM »

The link you posted. I receive a tab labeled "about:blank#blocked".

I don't know what to tell you.  If you want info on the CLPS program, just go the SAM.gov and in the "Opportunites" link just search for CLPS.  When you get  "no result, do you want to include inactive opportunities?", click yes.  I explained that before.  A direct link won't work.

If you're looking for info on the Triad contract at LANL, just google it.  If you are using a VPN or something like that, it might be blocking you.

2

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Ghost

« on: March 11, 2025, 02:22:32 AM »

How have you concluded that the author was referring to this phenomenon as their evidence?

The phenonemn happens whether someone uses it as evidence or not.  Anyone who accepts that the ice caps are melting and tha the sea levels are rising and ocean temps are dropping accepts that there are changes to the earth's gravitational field whether they realize it or not.  They track how much the ice caps are melting and the effect it has on the ocean levels by monitoring changes in the gravitational field.

3

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Ghost

« on: March 09, 2025, 07:09:22 AM »

What link doesn't work?

4

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Ghost

« on: March 09, 2025, 01:16:44 AM »

Since it's such a good example, could you recall a few of the statements this society made about climate change, and explain why they led you to this conclusion?

What the Zetetic considers "overwhelming evidence" is pretty selective.  My point isn't about what they believe or don't believe, its about consistency, also known as having intellecutal honesty.  Part of the overwhelming evidence for global warming is that the gravitational field of the earth shifts as the ice caps are melting.

5

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Ghost

« on: March 08, 2025, 06:40:59 AM »

My point was it's another set of people who have to be "in on it", people who don't work for the government, even if they're working on government contracts. My old company used to work on government contracts so I'd be doing work on those. That doesn't mean I was in any way working for the government, they just happened to be awarding some of our contracts.

Exactly, And that doesn’t even include subcontractors.

Secondly, this whole Zetetic thing. Jeran went to Antarctica for TFE and both literally and metaphorically saw the light. He observed the 24 hour sun and has stepped away from FE as a result

Have to give credit where credit is due.  It’s the intellectual dishonesty that bothers me.  The Zeteticism seems to be selective.  Global warming is a perfect example.  I wonder how many flat earthers that accept it, have done any investigating themselves or have an in depth understanding of the science?   Would they still accept it if they knew that a lot of the data comes from tracking changes in the earth gravitational field to measure how much icecaps are melting?

For me that's by assessing how plausible and well evidenced claims are

That requires a level of reasoning skills I’m not sure some “Zetetics” have.  Never accepting evidence that you haven’t personally verified is the only thing worse than accepting any and all claims without question.  Both extremes are, at best ,lazy, and at worst reflect a lack of critical thinking.

No-one comments directly on the video I posted.

Sometimes you can tell how valid claims are more by what isn’t stated than what is and what questions are ansered and which aren't.  The wiki is a perfect example of that.  Its a lot of selective, cherry picked info.  I mean you’d think that a theory based on special relativity and constant acceleration in flat space would go into more detail than just explaining why it doesn’t mean the speed of light is exceeded.  That’s true, as far as it goes.  But you can’t stop there,   There’s much more to SR that contradicts UA, but none of that is addressed in the wiki and shut down or ignored if brought up in a the forums.  Whether that’s from ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead, I don’t know.  I do know that it is hypocritical to disparage people for blindly accepting evidence while also ignoring any evidence that contradicts what you believe.

Firstly, it's just bizarre that Tom thinks it's in some way fishy that NASA would award contracts to 3rd parties and then want some oversight or governance on what they're doing. Does he think they just go "here's 200 million dollars, tell us when it's on the moon!

On the other hand, I bet he’s the type to micromanage the guy he hires to cut the grass.

6

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Ghost

« on: March 07, 2025, 02:57:39 AM »

I've wondered about this.  Did every person who claim to be a Zetetist personally test the COVID vaccine before they got it?  Have they performed all the research and experiments for Global Warming before they accepted it as true? 

I've come to realize that Zeteticism means that information that I already believe is true, or that I want to believe is true, is true.  If I don't believe it, then there's no reason to investigate further.  The mere fact that I don't believe something is evidence that it is not true.  It isn't a philosphy of believe what you see, it's a philosophy of see what you believe and ignore everything else. 

It's very child-like, almost magical thinking.

7

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Ghost

« on: March 07, 2025, 02:13:12 AM »

William69 did a whole lot of writing claiming the contract is public, but mysteriously failed to directly link said contract.

Second, for being such a smart guy, he should understand that if a cargo van had a 2-cylinder, water-cooled engine, it is possible for it to win such a race.

Third, everyone knows rockets do not go to the moon.

It's not about being smart. Its about having information.  There's nothing wrong with believing you are right based on the information you have.  But it is arrogant and lazy to assume that the information you have is all you need to know to be right.

8

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Ghost

« on: March 07, 2025, 01:45:47 AM »

You stated: "LANL, for example, is managed by a company called Triad" - Can Triad decide to expand their business to the pornographic film industry and get away with filming a pornographic movie on publicly funded Los Alamos National Laboratory facilities? Absolutely not. It is not their facility and they are likely operating with oversight. So I recommend that you just keep quiet about this.

Do you even know how contracts work?  They have a Scope of Work that contractors agree to and the buyer can't require anything beyond. Contractors aren't indentured servants who have to blindly follow orders when they agree to work for the government.  If you agree to build widgets they can't arbitrarily decide that should start makng gadgets instead. And of course there is oversight.  There should be, especially when tax dollars are involved.  It's strange that you think there is something fishy about the government making sure a contractor is doing what they are getting paid to do.

Triad can "get away" with doing anything that is included in the SOW of their contract and the government can't "get away" with requiring them to do anything that isn't in the SOW, which you can find here https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/contract-no-89233218cna000001_Redacted.pdf

The SOW for the contractors on the CLPS program is to " provide all activities necessary to safely integrate, accommodate, transport, and operate NASA payloads using contractor-provided assets, including launch vehicles, lunar lander, lunar surface systems, Earth re-entry vehicles, and associated resources.  That's straight from the on-ramping award notice, which you can find here https://sam.gov/opp/e0670ab07ac44fc5b8149fbe04201f64/view

You should really read the whole thing.  You might learn a few things.

Another interesting thing I found is that part of the on-ramp solicitation was a sample project that required the offerors to produce a User's Manual, which would be made publically available.  It's really odd that NASA is not only allowing, but requiring these companies to make this super secret  technology that could be used by our enemies to make ICBMS public.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/11/29/nasa-picks-nine-companies-to-compete-for-commercial-lunar-lander-missions/

https://docslib.org/doc/8544219/new-glenn-payload-users-guide

9

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Ghost

« on: March 06, 2025, 05:51:04 AM »

Also, even if you believe in the RE Theory narrative you have to be a retart to think that a company could send a lander to the moon after a few years of research without serious government help and oversight.

Try doing some basic research. The CEO was previously the CEO of Millennium Space Systems, was in senior management at Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. and in the U.S. Air Force.  His CV is right there on the website.  He’s hardly a graduate student. Also take a look at the rest  of the leadership.  This isn’t a bunch of guys working out of their parents’ basement.

For Firefly, a big hint is that they list several government bases on their "locations" page

 

Blue Ghost doesn't have any private facilities where they developed this supposed moon lander

 Their production and test facilities aren’t anywhere near government facilities.  It’s right there on the website.  It isn’t unreasonable that they use government launch facilities.  If your are in the business of building airplanes and want to fly it...you take it to an airport.  You don’t build your own.

Cedar Park, TX Headquarters and Spacecraft Facility Firefly’s north Austin headquarters and spacecraft production facility includes open engineering environments to rapidly innovate, two Mission Control Centers, and an ISO-8 cleanroom that accommodates multiple spacecraft.
Briggs, TX Launch Vehicle Production and Test Facilities Just 30 minutes north of headquarters, Firefly’s 200-acre Texas Rocket Ranch enables launch vehicle production, integration, and testing all in one convenient location. Here Firefly operates six test stands, automated fiber placement machinery, a 7-axis robotic powermill, and state-of-the-art engine production technology.

advanced rockets aren't actually public products and require extreme secrecy since they could be used for ICMBs

First,  A moon launch vehicle and an ICBM have completely different design specs.and capabilities.  It like saying you could use a cargo van to win a Formula 500 race.

Second, read the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)

Third, there’s nothing secret about how rockets work. There are at least 14 different companies that have the capability of launching a rocket and landing on the moon.  How do I know this?  Because they all have contracts to do it.  Another one of them is doing it later today and there is nearly a dozen more missions scheduled this year.

10

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Ghost

« on: March 06, 2025, 03:43:26 AM »

AATW needs to learn more and actually take a job with a government contractor. For the most part the contractors act as temp agencies who hire people out to work for government managers at government facilities. This is also how it works in the private industry for the contractors that Disney, IBM, Kraft, and other big companies use. Some types of contractors are actually independent, such as waste management services, but the main ones doing the work act as temps.

I've worked for a government contractor for 20 years with a engineering and construction firm and you don't know what you are talking about.

It is true that some facilities like LANL, Argonne, and Lawrence Livermore  contract out the management of  facilities, they are primarily DOE facilites that focus on laboratory research, national security and nuclear programs and are a very small percentage of the total work  done under federal contracts.  They are contracted out because the work is highly specialized, technical and usually more academic in nature.

LANL, for example, is managed by a company called Triad which is composed of Battelle Memorial, a non-profit research compay, Texas A&M University and the University of California.  It's hardly a "temp agency".  Lawrence Livermore is managed by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS), which is a partnership between the University of California, Bechtel National, BWX Technologies, and AECOM (one of the largest engineering firms in the country).  Again, hardly a temp agency.  Lockheed Martin holds the largest $ of federal contracts.  They are hardly a temp agency.

GSA contracts out building and facility management services, not the managment of the actual facilities, under GSA schedules.  Like every other federal contracting opportunity, there is a vetting process called a responsibility determination and every government contractor has to be registered.  To maintain active registration you have to update and certify certain information on a yearly basis.  Financial records (including how much senior management makes in compensation, if you meet certain criteria), ownership changes, potential conflicts of interest , that you comply with certain federal regulations regarding what type of IT equipment you use and that it meets certain security requirements, socioeconomic regulations, hiring practices,  import/export regulations, that you're properly registered with and filing compliance reports the SBA, VETS, EEOC and any number of other agencies that track compliance. If you are a prime contractor, you have to report and meet certain goals for subcontracting  in about 9-10 different types of business entities. For certain types and dollar value contracts, you have to literally open your books up to be audited by the federal government and file yearly reports on all your accounting practices and report any changes.  Get new accounting software?  That's about a 10 page document that has to completed and submitted.

And all that can be before you even win any work. There's little to no negotiating room in contract terms because 95% of it is governed by federal law.  The Federal Acquistion Regulation.  Look it up. The amount of oversight during performance is best described as micromanagement.

Get the picture?  You make it sound like government contractors aren't much better than used car salesmen. Nothing could be further from the truth.  Alot of government work is highly specialized both in terms of the work and how it must be executed.  All of the largest, most respected engineering, construction and STEM firms (including mine) in the world have dedicated divisions doing only US government work because despite all the hoops you have to jump through, it is low risk, provided  you know the rules, it pays well and on time and is recession proof.  Companies looking to make a quick, easy buck need not apply, though.  If they manage to get through the vetting process, they won't last long before getting debarred.  Screw around enough and go to jail.

The difference between what you think you know and what you actually know would be funny, if it didn't border on delusional.  I can't fault you for not knowing what you don't know, but I do fault you for thinking that there isn't anything that you don't know.

11

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Ghost

« on: March 06, 2025, 01:13:16 AM »

Your main counterpoint seems to be that they're given a task and expected outcome, rather than a step-by-step process to mindlessly execute, but that's not particularly different from any other process of delegation.

No, my main counterpoint is that the technology involved in getting to the moon and back is developed by, belongs to and is 100% controlled by the contractor, not the US government. 

This is from the SOW for the original RFP for the main IDIQ, where contractors basically compete for the right to compete on individual task orders

“The Contractor shall provide all resources and functions to perform the Commercial Lunar Payload Services identified within this Statement of Work for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Contractor shall select launch opportunities, determine the overall Mission Architecture, and provide the end-to-end service including operations associated with the Launch Vehicle, Launch Site, Spacecraft, Lander, Mission Design and Analysis, Ground Systems, and Payload Support. “

 Its a payload delivery contract, the space equivalent of Fedx.  The contractor determines and controls virtually everything about the mission, except the freight.

You’re free to look up the solicitation for yourself at sam.gov The solicitation # is 80HQTR18R0011R, just choose Contract Opportunities and make sure you include “inactive” in the search since its already been awarded.  Its all public knowledge.  Hundreds of thousands of people have probably looked at it.  NASA isn’t trying to hide it or keep anybody from bidding if they open up a new solicitation. 

Maybe willynilly isn’t the right phrase, but suggesting the mission was anything different from what is reported implies the contractor is participating in a conspiracy to fake a moon landing. If that is what is happening, then contracts would have to be awarded discreetly with zero oversight or transparency, which is far from reality.

but it's a new company, a new set of people who have to be "in on it",

It isn’t just one new company or set of people.  The program started out with, I think, 5 contract holders.  There’s 14 now and the option to add more.  One of the other contractors is scheduled to make another lunar landing tomorrow. 

NASA][url]NASA[/url]

12

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Does light naturally travel in curved paths?

« on: March 05, 2025, 05:03:19 AM »

Isn’t light bending down one of the pieces of evidence you use to support UA because that is what would happen in an upward accelerating elevator?

Gravity is often described as an attraction between masses. However, the Equivalence Principle demands that photons, despite being mass-less, will seem to fall to earth[ like other bodies; exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards.



If light curves up on a flat earth accelerating up, and down in  gravitation field, where is the equivalence?   The EP doesn’t just suggest that light could curve down, or allow it to curve down...it demands that it does according to the wiki.

13

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Ghost

« on: March 03, 2025, 08:15:47 PM »

I know you guys are in the UK, so you probably aren't very familar with how US government procurement process works. I've worked the legal and admin side of federal contracting for nearly 20 years.

Firefly isn't a "subcontractor" that just does what the government tells it to do. The work was competed under an IDIQ RFP, which was publically available. So the scope of work wasn't exactly top secret .


The IDIQ was competed under NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. 14 different companies hold prime contracts under the program all of whom are eligible to bid on individual task orders.   NASA issues an RFP with a scope of work and each company submits a proposal. Awards under this particular contract are performance based, which means NASA just tells the contractor what the ultimate outcome should be and leaves it up to the contractor to figure out how to do it.  The whole point of performance based contracting is allowing the contractor as much independence and flexibility in how the work is performed as possible. The whole reason NASA does it this way is to take advantage of research and technology that has already been commerically developed.  NASA itself, is doing very little of that  these days because it is cheaper to to "buy" the services.

The CLPS is also a commercial contract, which is defined by regulation as "services offered and sold competitively in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or market prices".  The whole point of commercial contracting within the fed gov't is to use technology that isn't unique to government services and has already been developed independently.

There's any number of databases and websites you can go on that post the government solicitations.  For work like this, they can often be simmarized as "this is what we want to do and we are looking for companies who can already do it".  In fact, past performance is always a big part of the selection process. During the proposal stage,there is an extensive Q&A period and every question from a contractor or clarification from the governmetn is publoically posted. Once a contract is awarded, all modifications and dollar amounts are also publically available. When the contract is finished, there is a performance review.

The whole process is very transparent, very competitive and highly regulated.  There's a whole set of very extensive regulations called the FAR that contracting offiers must abide by when competing and issuing work.  Each agency also has its own supplement, which usually adds even more stringent requirements.

The idea that federal contracts are being handed out willy nilly and nobody really knows what work is being performed is nonsense.  If for no other reason, industry wouldn't put up with it because there is too much competition for federal dollars.  If anything is even the slightest bit fishy, somebody is filing a protest.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A paradox in SR

« on: March 03, 2025, 05:55:18 AM »

If the rockets are accelerating, then what could it possibly mean to say "an inertial frame relative to the rockets"? An inertial frame cannot be an accelerating frame.

No it can't, but you can have an frame that is moving inertially with the same speed as the accelerating frame at any given moment. It's called a Momentarily Comoving Inertial Frame.  That is what is meant by a frame that is inertial relative to an accelerating frame.

If what you meant was that, technically, there is no such thing as an inertial frame relative to a frame with proper acceleration, you are correct. That would be because the "inertial" frame would have coordinate acceleration relative to the frame with proper acceleration.  Nevertheless, the MCIF is what is used when the coordinate acceleration of the "inertial" frame isn't relevant. 

You may be on the right track, though because the resolving the paradox is all about understanding the difference between proper and coordinate acceleration and recognizing that they aren't always equal. It's the answer to why the string breaks in the rockets' frame, even though there is no length contraction in those frames.

15

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Does light naturally travel in curved paths?

« on: February 26, 2025, 06:42:05 PM »

In flat spacetime, in a vacuum light, will always travel in a straight line.

Light doesn't accelerate, it travels at a constant velocity.  Constant velocity = straight line motion in flat spacetime.  Acceleration=curved line motion in flat spacetime.

Edit:
From the wiki:

The Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory calls for light to be "bent" upwards as it travels towards the earth. The path of light is a parabolic arc. It is commonly abbreviated to EA.

The only way light could be traveling in a "parabolic arc" is if it is traveling through a curved space. And if it is traveling through flat space and deflected by the motion of an object, it is deflected in the opposite direction of the motion.

In other words, if light, which is not accelerated and therefore, by definition, moves in a straight line in flat space time, is deflected by the upward acceleration of the earth, the path of the light wouild angle down, not up and would continue in a straight line, just at a different angle.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A paradox in SR

« on: February 25, 2025, 12:51:18 PM »

From a flat Earth perspective, some might argue against the validity of SR altogether. However, if we stick to the principles of SR, the string would indeed break due to length contraction. This paradox serves as an interesting thought experiment to understand the effects of relativistic physics.

Thank you, it is all about understanding the effects of relativistic physics.  John Bell even included in his book in a chapter called "How to teach Special Relativity".

The lack of understanding of some of the most basic concepts by people who believe they have a level of understanding good enough to develop a new theory that contradicts thousands of years of established science is kind of mind blowing. 

Stating that SR is a bunch of bunk made up to discredit flat earth while acknowledging that the two postulates of SR are valid is a perfedt example.  If you don't understand that every effect of SR flows from those two postulates, you don't understand anything about SR. 

The whole of UA is built on a misunderstanding of the equivalence principle.  It only applies locally, in the immediate vicinity of the observer and for short periods of time.  That makes all the difference. 

Assuming SR, then why does the string break in the frame attached to the accelerating rockets?  There is no length conractionm in that frame.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A paradox in SR

« on: February 25, 2025, 12:14:40 PM »

You are this meme

To be fair, I've come to realize that when someone's identity is so tied up with what they believe, pushback isn't surprising. When beliefs are challenged, a person can feel personally attacked, as if you are challenging not just what they belive, but who they are. 

Whether it's religion, politics, flat earth, anti-vax, any number of things, I think we all have personal, deeply ingrained beliefs that have their roots in what we consider our core identity.  When you don't have a sense of self independent of what you believe, changing what you believe can be very scary. 

I'd like to believe I have the intellectual honesty, and frankly, maturity to know that accepting something that contradicts my "world view" doesn't invalidate me as a person.  But the truth is most of us have some hill we would die on to justify what we have chosen to invest in.

Most people just aren't that invested in what shape the Earth is, which is what makes the pushback seem so bizarre. 

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A paradox in SR

« on: February 24, 2025, 10:17:12 PM »

The idea of a speed of light limit is part of SR. However, this is a misconception of SR that things would suddenly stop accelerating. That section begins with "According to the Special theory of Relativity, the Earth can accelerate forever..." and does not discuss whether SR is actually valid. It is correcting the misconception of what SR claims.

The “neo-classic” model in the wiki includes both of the SR postulates.  Every other consequence of SR follows logically from from those two postulate. You can call it something else, but the “neo-classic” model will still have all the same effects as SR, including length contraction. It follows from the speed of light being c in all inertial frames.

The idea of a speed of light limit is part of SR

That’s not exactly true.  SR says that it’s impossible to reach the speed of light, relative to an inertial frame.  There’s nothing preventing exceeding c in an observer’s proper frame. (frame the observer is attached to).  When measured that way, its called rapidity.

And SR doesn’t say that everything suddenly stops accelerating. Mostly because you can’t ever reach c.  But if you could, SR says that time will stop.  Velocity thru time plus velocity through space always equals c.  That’s why the faster you go, the more time slows down, to keep the balance at c. if you’re moving through space at c, you would stop moving through time but theoretically continue to accelerate through space.  Light would never be able to catch up to you, though.

It could probably be argued that the string would not break because the distance between the rockets would contract along with the length.

In the inertial frame, the distance between the two rockets always stays the same because of their equal accelerations and velocity.  That’s part of the set up, in the inertial frame, the distance between the rockets never changes relative to an inertial frame. I probably could’ve been more precise in my wording, so I edited the original post.  Maybe that will give you a hint.

Flat Earthers on this site believe that space travel is an elaborate hoax and a scam put on by private companies like SpaceX and government agencies like NASA, and so one of the initial replies you'll likely get is that because space travel is fake, your rocket paradox can't be tested

.  

The paradox doesn’t really have anything to do with rockets or space travel specifically.  Its just an analogy to illustrate an idea.  Could be any two accelerating objects.  According to FE/UA even the earth and the moon, if they were connected by a string.

19

Flat Earth Theory / A paradox in SR

« on: February 24, 2025, 01:42:37 AM »

There's a well-known paradox in special relativity involving two rockets connected by a string, accelerating constantly with equal proper acceleration.* In an inertial frame relative to the rockets, they maintain a constant distance apart. The question is whether the string breaks. The most accepted answer is yes, due to length contraction.

I'm curious if the answer would be the same from a flat Earth perspective. If it differs, why? If it is the same, is length contraction also the reason? A couple of things to consider are that since this is special relativity, gravity isn't a factor, and whether the string breaks isn't relative. If it breaks or not in the inertial frame, the result must be the same in the accelerating frame.

*edited to clarify

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Relativity and frames question

« on: February 22, 2025, 05:58:28 AM »

The idea that the earth's surface is accelerating upwards is so prominent that the upwards acceleration of the earth's surface is the current theory of Gravity in Round Earth Theory, with some modifications to the nature of space to make it work.

See: General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards

An inertial object always moves in a straight line, but relative to an inertial observer an accelerated object moves on a curvature, even if an accelerated observer experiences the motion as a straight line.  In fact, if UA were really a thing, then relative to an inertial observer, the earth is moving hyperbolically even though we would experience the upward acceleration as a straight line.

Curved spacetime is how GR explains the difference.  How does UA/FE explain it?