The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: tovogaj on March 29, 2021, 10:38:38 PM

Title: About the conspiracy
Post by: tovogaj on March 29, 2021, 10:38:38 PM
Hi
I've been reading about Flat Earth Theory since a long time now and something always baffled me: how such a big scale conspiracy can exist.
According to what I read, the conspiracy exist in order to get some funding tunneled through NASA, to fund who-knows-what projects.
Another thing I found was to keep secret continents outside the "Ice Wall", to exploit their resources.
Whatever the reason, it raises some questions.
Bear with me, it'll be a bit long.

In order to enforce such a conspiracy, you'll need to involve all the astronomers in the world, or, at least, the vast majority of them.
There are approximately 10000 astronomers (https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/6328/how-many-astronomers-are-there-in-the-world-today), so that's already a big number.
But wait, if you want to make everybody believe in a round Earth, you'll need more, like cartographers. I don't know how many there are, but a few thousands is a good guess.
Also, in our modern days, we have planes, so if we don't want the pilots to find out that the maps are cheated, we need to trick the instruments. So, we need the aerospace engineers involved too: +90000 (https://studentscholarships.org/professions/527/employed/aerospace_engineers.php).
So, let's round the total to 100000 people. That's one level.

Because now, we have to involve some politicians too. And all the people to manage the logistics of collecting/transferring the money. Although you can have a large amount of them outside of the conspiracy, that adds some level of complexity which will increase the risk of leaks.

And that's not finished. Until recently, everything related to space was in the hands of a very few agencies: NASA (USA), Roscosmos (Russia), ESA (EU).
But in the past 20 years, new ones were created: JAXA (Japan), CNSA (China), ISRO (India), UAESA (United Arab Emirates)...
And more and more private space companies were created too. In US (SpaceX, Blue Origin...), China (i-Space), even New-Zealand (Rocket Lab).
It add a few thousands more people.

Those national agencies and private companies are launching satellites, so they need their theory correct.
Those satellites provide services, so there has to be a device somewhere. According to some Flat-Earther, satellites don't exist, but they are actually high-altitude balloons. So, it would involve all the people building those balloons too.

If we consider the "continents-beyond-the-Ice-Wall" thing, we have to add all the people transferring whatever comes and go there.

I could continue, but you should see my point, now.
We are speaking of hundred of thousands of people involved to have that conspiracy stay secret, without any leak. For several decades or even centuries, it bring that number to millions, potentially.

You can look at the study in that article to convince yourself how unlikely it would be:
https://www.popsci.com/how-many-minions-can-you-have-before-your-conspiracy-fails/

I find it very hard to believe that, since the Flat Earth Theory exists, nobody could find 1 whistle-blower to expose the Round Earth conspiracy, with some evidences.

I'm not stating that the Flat Earth Hypothesis is false, just that the arguments presented for a Round Earth Conspiracy are, at best, weak.

I'd like to listen to your arguments in favor or against that conspiracy.
Have a good day.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: jack44556677 on March 30, 2021, 05:45:55 PM
Hi
I've been reading about Flat Earth Theory since a long time now

You seem to have missed the wiki here!

It does a good job of helping to clear up some of your, common, misconceptions.

The shape of the world has no dependency on "conspiracy" nor does determining the shape of it with certainty.

No conspiracy is required for humanity to be stupid and wrong as it historically always is!  We require no assistance!
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: stack on March 30, 2021, 06:17:45 PM
Hi
I've been reading about Flat Earth Theory since a long time now

You seem to have missed the wiki here!

It does a good job of helping to clear up some of your, common, misconceptions.

The shape of the world has no dependency on "conspiracy" nor does determining the shape of it with certainty.

No conspiracy is required for humanity to be stupid and wrong as it historically always is!  We require no assistance!

The wiki calls it a "Space Travel Conspiracy". Specifically: The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space.

I don't think you'd get much of an argument that NASA was born out of the militaristic need for ICBM's, perhaps militaristic Space dominance, etc. But the issue with conspiracy is this: If NASA is faking space travel for whatever reason, that, in turn, knocks out any evidence, e.g., imagery, of a globe earth. So as a byproduct of a Space Conspiracy, regardless of motive or intent, the conspiracy renders all evidence from space of a globe earth as false. Which is rather convenient for FE. Because if the Space Conspiracy is not true, the evidence is overwhelming regarding the true shape of the earth.

So, in short, FE has to have the "conspiracy". FE relies tremendously on a "conspiracy" regardless of whether said "conspiracy" is to hide the true shape of the earth or not. So yes, FE is massively dependent on the "conspiracy". Without the "conspiracy" there is definitively no flat earth. But a Globe.

Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 30, 2021, 06:52:21 PM
On the Assorted Quotations page there is a former Congressman who says that we should distrust the government by default.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Assorted_Quotations

“ I tell people that they shouldn't believe what the government tells them. Just start with the assumption that it isn't right, it isn't true, and that they are lying to us. ”
                  —Ron Paul, Former American Congressman (Source 1 (https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/videos/firstassume-the-government-is-lying/204536687602569/) 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDBi1_zE6N4&t=844s))

I don't see how you can convince us that you know any better, and that the government should be trusted by default.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: stack on March 30, 2021, 07:06:08 PM
On the Assorted Quotations page there is a former Congressman who says that we should distrust the government by default.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Assorted_Quotations

“ I tell people that they shouldn't believe what the government tells them. Just start with the assumption that it isn't right, it isn't true, and that they are lying to us. ”
                  —Ron Paul, Former American Congressman (Source 1 (https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/videos/firstassume-the-government-is-lying/204536687602569/) 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDBi1_zE6N4&t=844s))

I don't see how you can convince us that you know any better, and that the government should be trusted by default.

Where did I say the government is to be trusted? I didn't.

Just simply put, FE is massively dependent on a Space Conspiracy. Because if the is no Space Conspiracy, everything we get from space agencies/companies around the world definitively shows the true shape of the earth as a Globe. With a Space Conspiracy, all Globe evidence from space agencies/companies around the world can be dismissed. Simple as that. No where did I say the conspiracy is true or not or one should trust the government or not.

Why you're bringing up a Ron Paul quote about distrusting the Government is a complete non sequitur. It's neither here nor there to what I wrote.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 30, 2021, 07:20:49 PM
That quote has everything to do with it. Since you can't prove that NASA is exploring the solar system it's basically a trust issue.

Ron Paul's point is that the government is already a disreputable conspiracy which lies through its teeth. We could characterize RE space travel as a claim based on the words of liars who work against the people's interests. RE is massively dependent on accepting the words of known liars as fact.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: stack on March 30, 2021, 07:34:18 PM
That quote has everything to do with it. Since you can't prove that NASA is exploring the solar system it's basically a trust issue.

Ron Paul's argument is that the government is already a disreputable conspiracy which lies through its teeth. We could characterize RE space travel as a claim based on the words of liars who work against the people's interests. RE is massively based on accepting the words of known liars as fact and accepting authority.

That's great and all, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that FE is heavily dependent on a Space Conspiracy. FE, conspiracy exists = Dismiss all evidence from space travel/exploration. FE, if conspiracy does not exist, all evidence from space travel/exploration definitively shows a Globe earth.

No where have I said the space conspiracy exists or not. Bottomline, you, FE, absolutely can't trust NASA or any of the space agencies/companies around the world right out of the gate. And absolutely have to have the Space Conspiracy. I don't know how many other ways of stating it.

I guess a question would be, contrary to my thinking, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 30, 2021, 07:40:06 PM
That quote has everything to do with it. Since you can't prove that NASA is exploring the solar system it's basically a trust issue.

Ron Paul's argument is that the government is already a disreputable conspiracy which lies through its teeth. We could characterize RE space travel as a claim based on the words of liars who work against the people's interests. RE is massively based on accepting the words of known liars as fact and accepting authority.

That's great and all, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that FE is heavily dependent on a Space Conspiracy. FE, conspiracy exists = Dismiss all evidence from space travel/exploration. FE, if conspiracy does not exist, all evidence from space travel/exploration definitively shows a Globe earth.

No where have I said the space conspiracy exists or not. Bottomline, you, FE, absolutely can't trust NASA or any of the space agencies/companies around the world right out of the gate. And absolutely have to have the Space Conspiracy. I don't know how many other ways of stating it.

I guess a question would be, contrary to my thinking, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

It's a terminology and perception issue. What you call a conspiracy belief I call skepticism of the words of liars. A belief in a "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theorist" somewhat implies that the government is otherwise good and honest, except for a wayward theory that they are lying about something.

If the government is a group of liars who are prolifically dishonest, then the matter more of basic skepticism against those who lie to us. We don't call the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany "conspiracy theorists" and "conspiracy believers" because we know that Nazi Germany lied a lot and did a lot of bad things against their people's interests.

So, you are stuck with showing that the government is good and should be trusted by default if you want to prove your perception of the matter.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: stack on March 30, 2021, 07:57:59 PM
That quote has everything to do with it. Since you can't prove that NASA is exploring the solar system it's basically a trust issue.

Ron Paul's argument is that the government is already a disreputable conspiracy which lies through its teeth. We could characterize RE space travel as a claim based on the words of liars who work against the people's interests. RE is massively based on accepting the words of known liars as fact and accepting authority.

That's great and all, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that FE is heavily dependent on a Space Conspiracy. FE, conspiracy exists = Dismiss all evidence from space travel/exploration. FE, if conspiracy does not exist, all evidence from space travel/exploration definitively shows a Globe earth.

No where have I said the space conspiracy exists or not. Bottomline, you, FE, absolutely can't trust NASA or any of the space agencies/companies around the world right out of the gate. And absolutely have to have the Space Conspiracy. I don't know how many other ways of stating it.

I guess a question would be, contrary to my thinking, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

Nope. It's a terminology issue. What you call belief in a conspiracy I call a skepticism of the words of liars.

A belief in a "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theorist" implies that the government is otherwise good and honest, except for a wayward theory that they are lying about something.

If the government is a group of liars who are prolifically dishonest, then the matter more of basic skepticism against those who lie to us. We don't call the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany "conspiracy theorists" because we know that Nazi Germany lied a lot and did a lot of bad things against their people's interests.

Who calls the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany conspiracy theorists? No one.

So, you are stuck with proving that the government should be trusted by default if you want to prove your perception of the matter.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess maybe you should change the wiki from "There is a Space Travel Conspiracy" to something like, There is Space Travel skepticism if you're hung up on me using the terminology that you yourself use.

I'm not even remotely arguing whether there is a space conspiracy or not. I'm simply asking you the question, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 30, 2021, 08:04:32 PM
The Jews who were skeptical of the Nazi actions and activities building up to the holocaust fled the country are celebrated. Although Nazi Germany was a massive conspiracy of propaganda, the Jews who fled are not called conspiracy theorists.

We now describe Nazi Germany as a conspiracy without describing the Jews as "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy believers".

The usage of conspiracy as a descriptive matter for Nazi Germany is appropriate, and is how it is used in the Wiki for the conspiracy. The labeling of of a "conspiracy believer" or a "conspiracy theorist" or "FE'ers are conspiracy believers" is mostly something that the RE are trying to tar things with on this subject, since the people who visit the forum have come here to troll.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: stack on March 30, 2021, 08:12:20 PM
The Jews who were skeptical of the Nazi actions and activities building up to the holocaust fled the country are celebrated. Although Nazi Germany was a massive conspiracy of propaganda, the Jews who fled are not called conspiracy theorists.

We can describe Nazi Germany as a conspiracy without describing the Jews as "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy believers". That is just something that you guys are trying to tar things with on this subject, since you guys tend to be dishonest RE trolls.

Wow, are you even reading what I wrote? Your own wiki says there is a "Space Travel Conspiracy". Which, I don't know, call me crazy, but tends to lead one to think that FEr's are believers, for lack of a better term, in a "Space Travel Conspiracy" considering your FE wiki says there is a "Space Travel Conspiracy".

So I'm simply asking you the question, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy, Space skepticism, whatever you want to call it?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 30, 2021, 08:16:42 PM
Your own wiki says there is a "Space Travel Conspiracy"

Yes, it does. And Nazi Germany was a massive conspiracy of propaganda. That is descriptive against the entity. But people who were skeptical of Nazi Germany are not called "Conspiracy believers" or "conspiracy theorists", and nor would anyone say "the Jews believed in a government conspiracy". That is labeling and insulting. You absolutely know what you are doing, and I think that you are a poor person for it.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Elyn95 on March 30, 2021, 08:17:58 PM
That quote has everything to do with it. Since you can't prove that NASA is exploring the solar system it's basically a trust issue.

Ron Paul's argument is that the government is already a disreputable conspiracy which lies through its teeth. We could characterize RE space travel as a claim based on the words of liars who work against the people's interests. RE is massively based on accepting the words of known liars as fact and accepting authority.

That's great and all, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that FE is heavily dependent on a Space Conspiracy. FE, conspiracy exists = Dismiss all evidence from space travel/exploration. FE, if conspiracy does not exist, all evidence from space travel/exploration definitively shows a Globe earth.

No where have I said the space conspiracy exists or not. Bottomline, you, FE, absolutely can't trust NASA or any of the space agencies/companies around the world right out of the gate. And absolutely have to have the Space Conspiracy. I don't know how many other ways of stating it.

I guess a question would be, contrary to my thinking, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

Nope. It's a terminology issue. What you call belief in a conspiracy I call a skepticism of the words of liars.

A belief in a "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theorist" implies that the government is otherwise good and honest, except for a wayward theory that they are lying about something.

If the government is a group of liars who are prolifically dishonest, then the matter more of basic skepticism against those who lie to us. We don't call the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany "conspiracy theorists" because we know that Nazi Germany lied a lot and did a lot of bad things against their people's interests.

Who calls the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany conspiracy theorists? No one.

So, you are stuck with proving that the government should be trusted by default if you want to prove your perception of the matter.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess maybe you should change the wiki from "There is a Space Travel Conspiracy" to something like, There is Space Travel skepticism if you're hung up on me using the terminology that you yourself use.

I'm not even remotely arguing whether there is a space conspiracy or not. I'm simply asking you the question, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

I think there's another aspect to this that you're missing. A global conspiracy does not require a vast number of willing participants, only a select number need know the full extent, and feed snippets of information to those who work beneath them. For example: within Nasa even, it is perfectly possible to emply hundreds of technicians who simply operate within the mathematical parameters handed down to them and never see the active results of their work with their own eyes. Consider a multinational company like Amazon: do you think the employees have the faintest idea of what Jeff Bezos is planning, just because they work at Amazon? Do we look at the amazon delivery driver and berate them for being part of an abusive multinational? No, we strive to improve their working conditions and to empower them. In the same way, we should try to empower all those who think that they are working for an honest employer but who are really working for a corrupt one. Like Nasa.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: stack on March 30, 2021, 08:36:31 PM
That quote has everything to do with it. Since you can't prove that NASA is exploring the solar system it's basically a trust issue.

Ron Paul's argument is that the government is already a disreputable conspiracy which lies through its teeth. We could characterize RE space travel as a claim based on the words of liars who work against the people's interests. RE is massively based on accepting the words of known liars as fact and accepting authority.

That's great and all, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that FE is heavily dependent on a Space Conspiracy. FE, conspiracy exists = Dismiss all evidence from space travel/exploration. FE, if conspiracy does not exist, all evidence from space travel/exploration definitively shows a Globe earth.

No where have I said the space conspiracy exists or not. Bottomline, you, FE, absolutely can't trust NASA or any of the space agencies/companies around the world right out of the gate. And absolutely have to have the Space Conspiracy. I don't know how many other ways of stating it.

I guess a question would be, contrary to my thinking, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

Nope. It's a terminology issue. What you call belief in a conspiracy I call a skepticism of the words of liars.

A belief in a "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theorist" implies that the government is otherwise good and honest, except for a wayward theory that they are lying about something.

If the government is a group of liars who are prolifically dishonest, then the matter more of basic skepticism against those who lie to us. We don't call the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany "conspiracy theorists" because we know that Nazi Germany lied a lot and did a lot of bad things against their people's interests.

Who calls the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany conspiracy theorists? No one.

So, you are stuck with proving that the government should be trusted by default if you want to prove your perception of the matter.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess maybe you should change the wiki from "There is a Space Travel Conspiracy" to something like, There is Space Travel skepticism if you're hung up on me using the terminology that you yourself use.

I'm not even remotely arguing whether there is a space conspiracy or not. I'm simply asking you the question, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?

I think there's another aspect to this that you're missing. A global conspiracy does not require a vast number of willing participants, only a select number need know the full extent, and feed snippets of information to those who work beneath them. For example: within Nasa even, it is perfectly possible to emply hundreds of technicians who simply operate within the mathematical parameters handed down to them and never see the active results of their work with their own eyes. Consider a multinational company like Amazon: do you think the employees have the faintest idea of what Jeff Bezos is planning, just because they work at Amazon? Do we look at the amazon delivery driver and berate them for being part of an abusive multinational? No, we strive to improve their working conditions and to empower them. In the same way, we should try to empower all those who think that they are working for an honest employer but who are really working for a corrupt one. Like Nasa.

That's all fine and good and a common argument. And if that's what you want to believe across all the space agencies/companies/contract companies of the world and perhaps that they all fall under the umbrella, guise, and dominion of NASA and only a few would have to be "in on it", and the other 10's of thousands of engineers, scientists and such are just handed the tasks and math they need and don't question it, fine.

But my question is can an FE proponent not believe in the "Space Travel Conspiracy" as defined in the wiki?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 30, 2021, 09:10:14 PM
A few points of order:

But my question is can an FE proponent not believe in the "Space Travel Conspiracy" as defined in the wiki?
Of course. Many FE'ers accept that the space travel folk may simply be mistaken.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 30, 2021, 09:20:18 PM
But my question is can an FE proponent not believe in the "Space Travel Conspiracy" as defined in the wiki?
Of course. Many FE'ers accept that the space travel folk may simply be mistaken.
Do what? So the astronauts and space tourists who have been to the ISS just think they're orbiting a globe earth when they aren't really?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 30, 2021, 09:26:50 PM
Do what? So the astronauts and space tourists who have been to the ISS just think they're orbiting a globe earth when they aren't really?
Something along those lines, yes.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: stack on March 30, 2021, 09:37:20 PM
A few points of order:
  • You really, really, really don't need to include the entire thread's history in your quotes. Please don't. A cursory look at your own post should do it. Does what you posted look much smaller than what you've quoted? If so, fix your post. If you can't stop yourself, just don't use the quote function.
  • Avoiding derogatory terms should be a common sense request, and doesn't warrant a massive off-topic debate. Stack, I understand that you don't find the term derogatory. Your conversation partner informed you that he does. Exercise common sense.

Which term is derogatory? "Conspiracy"? It's used in the wiki associated with Space Travel. I'm not following.

But my question is can an FE proponent not believe in the "Space Travel Conspiracy" as defined in the wiki?
Of course. Many FE'ers accept that the space travel folk may simply be mistaken.

It never occurred to me that anyone thought NASA and everyone else could just be "mistaken". If they are "mistaken" NASA and other agencies/companies are willfully altering their math and imagery to that of the incorrect shape, a Globe. If so, they would be conspiring to hide the fact that they are mistaken as all that is presented must be doctored in some way. No?

So I guess in rephrasing the question, can an FE proponent not believe that NASA, et al, is mistaken or conspiring?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on March 30, 2021, 09:44:59 PM
Do what? So the astronauts and space tourists who have been to the ISS just think they're orbiting a globe earth when they aren't really?
Something along those lines, yes.

Can you expand on that Pete? That's a massive, massive statement. Roughly 550 people are recorded as having been into space. So you're saying that, aside from those participating in the conspiracy, a large chunk of them were somehow duped? How on earth could you simulate space? The life-changing enormity of the view...the endless 0g conditions with all the effects on the human body etc? Even today, in 2021 we don't have the tech to do that, let alone 1960 or 1980 or whenever.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 30, 2021, 10:22:10 PM
Which term is derogatory? [...] I'm not following.
Tom explained it in quite some detail, and you will not continue derailing this thread with your trolling.

So you're saying that, aside from those participating in the conspiracy, a large chunk of them were somehow duped?
I'm not saying anything of the sort. I simply pointed out that people with this viewpoint exist.

So I guess in rephrasing the question, can an FE proponent not believe that NASA, et al, is mistaken or conspiring?
Probably. Who are you (or I, for that matter) to prohibit it?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on March 30, 2021, 10:38:12 PM
Do what? So the astronauts and space tourists who have been to the ISS just think they're orbiting a globe earth when they aren't really?
Something along those lines, yes.


Now we're getting somewhere. 

So the (lets say) Space Shuttle crew ascend in the lift to board the Shuttle, which they have just seen from the launch pad.  They are familiar with the look, sound and smell of the craft from their many training sessions, and they've probably personalised it for the flight (packet of mints in the seat pocket, that kind of thing) so they've not been somehow diverted into some kind of simulator.  They can see the ground and the sky through the windshield and windows.  It launches, they feel the acceleration.  As it climbs, it pitches over onto its back and they can see the ground and ocean falling away.  The flight crew are test pilots, so they correlate the flight instrument displays with what their senses are telling them about acceleration, speed, altitude and attitude; they will smell a rat if things don't correlate.  The sky darkens, ground based features and clouds grow smaller.  Engines stop and they experience weightlessness; for several days.  As they orbit, the planet rotates beneath them, and within a few orbits they have observed the entirety of Earth from pole to pole.  At the end of the mission they decelerate, re-enter, transition to airborne flight and land. 

At exactly what point, and how, dose the deception occur?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 30, 2021, 10:40:50 PM
Now we're getting somewhere. 
No, we're getting farther and farther away from somewhere. The question was whether these FE'ers exist. They do. This does not mean that I'm any more keen to defend them than I am to defend RE'ers.

This is ignoring the fact that you took a hypothetical scenario in which the element of deception is explicitly absent and... asked where the deception is.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on March 31, 2021, 08:03:28 AM
So the Shuttle used to orbit the planet, and there was no deception?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on March 31, 2021, 08:42:02 AM
I'm not saying anything of the sort. I simply pointed out that people with this viewpoint exist.

Right...ok then. So some FEers think there is a space travel conspiracy, and some think that there isn't, but rather the people involved have been duped somehow. Aside from the absurdity of trying to fool somebody that they've been into space (there was a reality TV show that did this once and, even though they chose people precisely because they had zero tech knowledge and were extremely gullible, they still didn't buy it), it's difficult to see how it would be possible to do the fooling without there being a conspiracy.

More interestingly though - what do you think, Pete? Have the 500+ people who claim to have been into space actually been into space? Or are they lying, and part of the space travel conspiracy, or were they duped?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 31, 2021, 09:58:11 AM
there was a reality TV show that did this once and, even though they chose people precisely because they had zero tech knowledge and were extremely gullible, they still didn't buy it
Ha. I'd completely forgotten about that show! I did watch at the time, and tbf they did fool a few people:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4537748.stm
But they picked people who they assessed as suggestible and who had little of no knowledge of space.
They told people it wouldn't be a vertical take off and that they wouldn't be weightless. Obviously actual astronauts are weightless so if it is all fake and they're being fooled then God alone knows how you'd simulate that.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 31, 2021, 10:13:03 AM
Right...ok then. So some FEers think there is a space travel conspiracy, and some think that there isn't, but rather the people involved have been duped somehow.
Sigh. I really don't want to come across as more patronising than usual (and I know I inevitably will), but I just don't know how to spell this out any more clearly, and apparently people chose to ignore my answers in favour of discussing something that they made up on the spot and found amusing.

The variant of FET which doesn't involve a conspiracy does not involve a conspiracy. As a consequence, no, it does not surmise that anyone has been "duped" - it presumes the exact opposite of that.

Again, because this question has now been asked multiple times in a row: no deception means no deception. Replacing the word "conspiracy" with "being duped" or "deception" doesn't change the implication.

More interestingly though - what do you think, Pete? Have the 500+ people who claim to have been into space actually been into space? Or are they lying, and part of the space travel conspiracy, or were they duped?
I'm famously undecided, and personally suspect that none of the current explanations have it quite right:
The issue here is that the RE brigade are trying to flip the question on its head. The Earth's flatness is experimentally verifiable, and the holes in RET are plentiful and easy to spot. We can't dismiss that conclusion on the say-so of a few hundred rich elites. FET may yet not be the correct conclusion, but the fact that it has unknowns which RET answers (in a lackluster way) is not a strong argument for or against either model.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 31, 2021, 10:20:12 AM
The Earth's flatness is experimentally verifiable
If this were true then why would FET not be the prevailing view?
In fact things like EA are attempts at explaining why experiments do not produce the results you'd expect on a flat earth.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on March 31, 2021, 12:25:33 PM
Sigh. I really don't want to come across as more patronising than usual (and I know I inevitably will), but I just don't know how to spell this out any more clearly, and apparently people chose to ignore my answers in favour of discussing something that they made up on the spot and found amusing.

The variant of FET which doesn't involve a conspiracy does not involve a conspiracy. As a consequence, no, it does not surmise that anyone has been "duped" - it presumes the exact opposite of that.

Again, because this question has now been asked multiple times in a row: no deception means no deception. Replacing the word "conspiracy" with "being duped" or "deception" doesn't change the implication.


Not patronising - really useful actually, thank you. I think the reason that you're being asked the question a lot is because it is not intuitively obvious how there couldn't be some deception, somewhere. I'm unclear, as I suspect many others are, as to how somebody could simply mistake a sequence of monumental events in their life for space travel when, in fact, they weren't in space and, critically, how that chain of misunderstanding could occur without a massive degree of deception occurring. So if somebody, for example, is on a long-duration mission to the ISS (or thinks they are), then for there to not be a conspiracy, everybody involved has to genuinely believe that they are going to the ISS. So the people designing the equipment, fuelling the rocket, the people strapping them in, the people tracking it on radar, talking on radio, the caterers(!), the people rescuing them after re-entry several months later...they all have to genuinely believe it happened. So where exactly do these mistaken astronauts go for several months at zero g, if not into orbit? Can you describe a credible scenario whereby they don't go into orbit, but nobody deceives anybody?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: RazaTD on March 31, 2021, 12:42:26 PM
Sigh. I really don't want to come across as more patronising than usual (and I know I inevitably will), but I just don't know how to spell this out any more clearly, and apparently people chose to ignore my answers in favour of discussing something that they made up on the spot and found amusing.

The variant of FET which doesn't involve a conspiracy does not involve a conspiracy. As a consequence, no, it does not surmise that anyone has been "duped" - it presumes the exact opposite of that.

Again, because this question has now been asked multiple times in a row: no deception means no deception. Replacing the word "conspiracy" with "being duped" or "deception" doesn't change the implication.


Not patronising - really useful actually, thank you. I think the reason that you're being asked the question a lot is because it is not intuitively obvious how there couldn't be some deception, somewhere. I'm unclear, as I suspect many others are, as to how somebody could simply mistake a sequence of monumental events in their life for space travel when, in fact, they weren't in space and, critically, how that chain of misunderstanding could occur without a massive degree of deception occurring. So if somebody, for example, is on a long-duration mission to the ISS (or thinks they are), then for there to not be a conspiracy, everybody involved has to genuinely believe that they are going to the ISS. So the people designing the equipment, fuelling the rocket, the people strapping them in, the people tracking it on radar, talking on radio, the caterers(!), the people rescuing them after re-entry several months later...they all have to genuinely believe it happened. So where exactly do these mistaken astronauts go for several months at zero g, if not into orbit? Can you describe a credible scenario whereby they don't go into orbit, but nobody deceives anybody?

You also have to consider that ISS is literally out there. It is easily observable and it is literally streaming the shape of the Earth. The denial is so strong with this one.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 31, 2021, 01:08:16 PM
If this were true then why would FET not be the prevailing view?
Change takes time, and we do have a schooling system that (in our case) is tailored towards raising good Tory voters, and not people who think critically.

You also have to consider that ISS is literally out there. It is easily observable and it is literally streaming the shape of the Earth.
And?

I am going to ask one last time that you stop wasting our time. Figure out what you're arguing against before you post again.

I think the reason that you're being asked the question a lot is because it is not intuitively obvious how there couldn't be some deception, somewhere. [...] Can you describe a credible scenario whereby they don't go into orbit, but nobody deceives anybody?
I don't know about "credible" - it's not a position I hold, and arguing for things I don't believe doesn't come easily to me. As far as I understand, the argument comes down to the fact that most of the "obvious" differences between FE and RE cosmology are actually not obvious at all, and most would be nigh-indistinguishable. Weightlessness under UA would be identical to weightlessness under the mainstream RET+Gravitation model (as opposed to other RET models, which I hope we can agree are false), and as a consequence of EA, the Earth could very well appear vaguely spherical if viewed from sufficiently far away.

In essence, to my best understanding of these proponents' beliefs, astronauts would go into "orbit" just fine - they would simply misinterpret their surroundings as congruent with RET, because RET is a good attempt at simulating reality.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on March 31, 2021, 01:36:39 PM
Weightlessness under UA would be identical to weightlessness under the mainstream RET+Gravitation model (as opposed to other RET models, which I hope we can agree are false),

If you're in an ISS-type vehicle above a flat earth, how can you be 'weightless' (ie 0g) and maintain your distance from the surface? If the earth is accelerating, then you're either colliding with it because you're in freefall, or you're accelerating as well, in which case you aren't at 0g.

Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: existoid on March 31, 2021, 01:39:07 PM
If this were true then why would FET not be the prevailing view?
Change takes time, and we do have a schooling system that (in our case) is tailored towards raising good Tory voters, and not people who think critically.


The tall order for FETers to change the prevailing view goes much further than just for folks in the UK.

The prevailing RET view is also true in China, India, Japan, S. Korea, N. Korea(!), Iran, Egypt, Brazil, Norway, Iceland, Singapore, Belorussia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Israel, Thailand, Austria, The Czech Republic, Russia, Portugal, Ethiopia, the UAE...(well, one could list every political entity because in my understanding none exist in which FET is currently the prevailing view, and indeed, it's a phenomenon that only exists in a handful of countries at the moment right now anyway, even in small numbers).

My substantive point here isn't just that it goes well beyond 'fixing' the school system to stop raising "good" Tories in Britain. All of these places have quite diverse schooling systems, and yet all of them produce citizens who generally believe in RET, not FET.

Change is indeed hard if you're going against literally the whole world...









Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 31, 2021, 01:51:13 PM
The tall order for FETers to change the prevailing view goes much further than just for folks in the UK.
Yes, I provided a British person with a British example. I don't think that's particularly controversial, and I don't think you're making any breakthroughs by pointing out that there are other countries than the UK. Perhaps we could not distract ourselves with pointless drivel?

My substantive point here isn't just that it goes well beyond 'fixing' the school system to stop raising "good" Tories in Britain. All of these places have quite diverse schooling systems, and yet all of them produce citizens who generally believe in RET, not FET.
Your "substantive point" is that I used one country as an example, rather than discussing each of them individually. Great. Now let's get back on topic.

and indeed, it's a phenomenon that only exists in a handful of countries at the moment right now anyway, even in small numbers
This statement is fundamentally false, we've argued it too many times to care to recall. If you want to read the papers, you will. If you don't, I won't force you. That said, ignoring the changes that surround you might not be a good idea, especially when that ignorance forms the backbone of your worldview.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Iceman on March 31, 2021, 01:56:47 PM
Pete, are there any diagrams to demonstrate how EA would cause the earth to appear spherical to astronauts?

The diagrams on the wiki do a good job demonstrating the concepts for observers on the ground, I'm just struggling to picture how it would work from the ISS ~250 km above earth, or from the vantage of Apollo astronauts.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 31, 2021, 02:04:19 PM
Pete, are there any diagrams to demonstrate how EA would cause the earth to appear spherical to astronauts?
Not that I'm aware of. Might be a question for other FE groups.

Not that I think the concept would be particularly different. In short, a curved Earth with straight light rays is visually identical to a flat Earth with curved light rays. This concept does not change with the observer's position.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Iceman on March 31, 2021, 02:17:18 PM
Pete, are there any diagrams to demonstrate how EA would cause the earth to appear spherical to astronauts?
Not that I'm aware of. Might be a question for other FE groups.

Not that I think the concept would be particularly different. In short, a curved Earth with straight light rays is visually identical to a flat Earth with curved light rays. This concept does not change with the observer's position.

Yea, not a big deal. I have a much easier time picturing things in the 2D, cross-sectional view. I agree that the same principles would work to create a potential equivalence...just having a hard time developing the picture in my head as an observer looking down onto things in a more 3D scenario.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: RazaTD on March 31, 2021, 03:09:53 PM
If this were true then why would FET not be the prevailing view?
Change takes time, and we do have a schooling system that (in our case) is tailored towards raising good Tory voters, and not people who think critically.

You also have to consider that ISS is literally out there. It is easily observable and it is literally streaming the shape of the Earth.
And?

I am going to ask one last time that you stop wasting our time. Figure out what you're arguing against before you post again.

I think the reason that you're being asked the question a lot is because it is not intuitively obvious how there couldn't be some deception, somewhere. [...] Can you describe a credible scenario whereby they don't go into orbit, but nobody deceives anybody?
I don't know about "credible" - it's not a position I hold, and arguing for things I don't believe doesn't come easily to me. As far as I understand, the argument comes down to the fact that most of the "obvious" differences between FE and RE cosmology are actually not obvious at all, and most would be nigh-indistinguishable. Weightlessness under UA would be identical to weightlessness under the mainstream RET+Gravitation model (as opposed to other RET models, which I hope we can agree are false), and as a consequence of EA, the Earth could very well appear vaguely spherical if viewed from sufficiently far away.

In essence, to my best understanding of these proponents' beliefs, astronauts would go into "orbit" just fine - they would simply misinterpret their surroundings as congruent with RET, because RET is a good attempt at simulating reality.

I find it hard to believe you can't understand the significance of being able to observe ISS and its streams as a problem for the FE. Some people even flashed a light towards ISS which appeared on its stream: https://www.universetoday.com/93987/amateur-astronomers-flash-the-space-station/

There really is no excuse to say it is fake anymore.

If on the off chance you aren't being disingenuous and literally can't understand the significance of this: The ISS stream very clearly shows a Round Earth.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 31, 2021, 03:11:47 PM
There really is no excuse to say it is fake anymore.

If on the off chance you aren't being disingenuous and literally can't understand the significance of this: The ISS stream very clearly shows a Round Earth.
Right. I've asked enough times. Take a short break to see if it helps you.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on March 31, 2021, 03:15:40 PM
Pete, are there any diagrams to demonstrate how EA would cause the earth to appear spherical to astronauts?
Not that I'm aware of. Might be a question for other FE groups.

Not that I think the concept would be particularly different. In short, a curved Earth with straight light rays is visually identical to a flat Earth with curved light rays. This concept does not change with the observer's position.

Yea, not a big deal. I have a much easier time picturing things in the 2D, cross-sectional view. I agree that the same principles would work to create a potential equivalence...just having a hard time developing the picture in my head as an observer looking down onto things in a more 3D scenario.

In a static sense, the EA vs. round view is an interesting scenario.  However, space travel is not static.  We aren't talking about folks who fly to a stationary object and then sit there viewing the earth.  We're talking about folks who've traveled over the surface and view how it's changed beneath them.  EA can't account for how craft circles the globe.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Action80 on March 31, 2021, 03:32:06 PM
If this were true then why would FET not be the prevailing view?
Change takes time, and we do have a schooling system that (in our case) is tailored towards raising good Tory voters, and not people who think critically.

You also have to consider that ISS is literally out there. It is easily observable and it is literally streaming the shape of the Earth.
And?

I am going to ask one last time that you stop wasting our time. Figure out what you're arguing against before you post again.

I think the reason that you're being asked the question a lot is because it is not intuitively obvious how there couldn't be some deception, somewhere. [...] Can you describe a credible scenario whereby they don't go into orbit, but nobody deceives anybody?
I don't know about "credible" - it's not a position I hold, and arguing for things I don't believe doesn't come easily to me. As far as I understand, the argument comes down to the fact that most of the "obvious" differences between FE and RE cosmology are actually not obvious at all, and most would be nigh-indistinguishable. Weightlessness under UA would be identical to weightlessness under the mainstream RET+Gravitation model (as opposed to other RET models, which I hope we can agree are false), and as a consequence of EA, the Earth could very well appear vaguely spherical if viewed from sufficiently far away.

In essence, to my best understanding of these proponents' beliefs, astronauts would go into "orbit" just fine - they would simply misinterpret their surroundings as congruent with RET, because RET is a good attempt at simulating reality.

I find it hard to believe you can't understand the significance of being able to observe ISS and its streams as a problem for the FE. Some people even flashed a light towards ISS which appeared on its stream: https://www.universetoday.com/93987/amateur-astronomers-flash-the-space-station/

There really is no excuse to say it is fake anymore.

If on the off chance you aren't being disingenuous and literally can't understand the significance of this: The ISS stream very clearly shows a Round Earth.
The ISS stream does not show a globe earth. It may show round, but no globe.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Action80 on March 31, 2021, 03:36:36 PM
Pete, are there any diagrams to demonstrate how EA would cause the earth to appear spherical to astronauts?

The diagrams on the wiki do a good job demonstrating the concepts for observers on the ground, I'm just struggling to picture how it would work from the ISS ~250 km above earth, or from the vantage of Apollo astronauts.
You have only anecdotal evidence the earth appeared spherical to the astronauts.

The reason you struggle with gaining a picture in your mind is because the picture will never be a possibility for you.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on March 31, 2021, 03:40:34 PM

You have only anecdotal evidence the earth appeared spherical to the astronauts.

The reason you struggle with gaining a picture in your mind is because the picture will never be a possibility for you.

For the sake of argument, let's accept/park the point about appearance. I'm curious to understand how you think astronauts could perceive weightlessness if they were above a flat earth - see my question to Pete earlier.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2021, 11:07:10 AM

You have only anecdotal evidence the earth appeared spherical to the astronauts.

The reason you struggle with gaining a picture in your mind is because the picture will never be a possibility for you.

For the sake of argument, let's accept/park the point about appearance. I'm curious to understand how you think astronauts could perceive weightlessness if they were above a flat earth - see my question to Pete earlier.
The same way anyone else perceives weightlessness, even when they are not truly in space.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 01, 2021, 11:11:52 AM
The same way anyone else perceives weightlessness, even when they are not truly in space.

But why would they feel weightless? If they're moving around above a flat earth at a constant velocity why would they feel weightless when, for example, passengers in an airliner don't? What has changed about the physics of the situation? If you're in orbit around a round planet, then you aren't at a constant velocity - you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2021, 11:23:04 AM
You have only anecdotal evidence the earth appeared spherical to the astronauts.

Is there any reason this evidence should be rejected?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: fisherman on April 01, 2021, 12:21:52 PM
Quote
The same way anyone else perceives weightlessness, even when they are not truly in space.

That would violate the equivalence principle.  According to it, if you are accelerating upwards at a rate equal to gravity, away from any gravitational force, then it would feel like you are under the influence of gravity.

Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2021, 12:47:04 PM
The same way anyone else perceives weightlessness, even when they are not truly in space.

But why would they feel weightless? If they're moving around above a flat earth at a constant velocity why would they feel weightless when, for example, passengers in an airliner don't? What has changed about the physics of the situation? If you're in orbit around a round planet, then you aren't at a constant velocity - you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.
Evidently you have not been in a zero g environment while flying.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2021, 12:48:46 PM
You have only anecdotal evidence the earth appeared spherical to the astronauts.

Is there any reason this evidence should be rejected?
Of course there is.

Governments and their acting agents have been proven to be liars concerning multiple subjects throughout history.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2021, 12:58:35 PM
Governments and their acting agents have been proven to be liars concerning multiple subjects throughout history.

Plenty of Govts and their agents tell nothing but the truth, though.

Why not associate the astronauts with them, rather than any (alleged) liars?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 01, 2021, 01:27:58 PM
Plenty of Govts and their agents tell nothing but the truth, though.
Could you provide a confirmed, verifiable example of a government that tells nothing but the truth?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2021, 01:32:55 PM
Plenty of Govts and their agents tell nothing but the truth, though.
Could you provide a confirmed, verifiable example of a government that tells nothing but the truth?
I phrased that badly;

"Plenty of Govts and their agents tell nothing but the truth on many topics, though."

Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 01, 2021, 02:10:06 PM
you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

This is false.  Standing completely still, you feel weight.  You feel weightless because there is nothing to create the sensation of the force acting upon your body.  People orbiting the earth are in a free fall.  They simply have the correct tangential velocity that they are constantly falling past the edge of the globe.  Get the tangential velocity correct and your constant free fall is a circular path.  In space, all your surroundings are traveling in the exact same manner so they exert no force on you.  You feel weight in a plane because the floor of the plane stops you from falling to the ground.  The body of the plane is resisting the force of gravity that the passenger feels.  Nosedive the plane to the same rate as freefall and, viola, the person experiences weightlessness as there's nothing to create the sensation of force upon them.

Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 01, 2021, 02:20:52 PM
Quote
The same way anyone else perceives weightlessness, even when they are not truly in space.

That would violate the equivalence principle.  According to it, if you are accelerating upwards at a rate equal to gravity, away from any gravitational force, then it would feel like you are under the influence of gravity.

This is a quite interesting concept.  With regards to folks in orbit I believe this would be correct. Folks in orbit are maintaining the same elevation.  As I mentioned, they are actually falling but their tangential velocity causes them fall past the earth in the RE model.  In the FE model, in order for their elevation to remain constant, there would have to be some force being exerted on them which is holding them up.  Basically, identical to being in an airplane only the force is not a physical barrier.  Still, that force would certainly be felt.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2021, 02:27:50 PM
Governments and their acting agents have been proven to be liars concerning multiple subjects throughout history.

Plenty of Govts and their agents tell nothing but the truth, though.

Why not associate the astronauts with them, rather than any (alleged) liars?
Such as?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 01, 2021, 02:39:14 PM
"Plenty of Govts and their agents tell nothing but the truth on many topics, though."
The question stands
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 01, 2021, 03:02:15 PM
you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

This is false.

No, it's bang on, although I think we're actually in broad agreement. You are correct about being effectively in freefall when in orbit - but that is an acceleration, as your velocity is changing, even if your speed isn't - remember velocity is a vector, meaning the magnitude is important. We have to use words like 'freefall' carefully - a parachutist, when jumping out of a plane, will initially accelerate - during which time they will initially feel 'weightless' - but this will reduce as they eventually stabilise at a steady speed. At this point, they won't feel weightless any more - they weigh precisely the same as they do on the ground, or indeed sat on an airliner in level, unaccellerating flight.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 01, 2021, 03:08:48 PM
Evidently you have not been in a zero g environment while flying.

As a matter of fact, I have. 0gz is achieved in any vertical flight - although we don't really feel weightless in this case as we have simply rotated the weight vector - or in a 'bunt' manoeuvre, much like the 'vomit comet' that astronauts use for training. The point to take away though is that  0gz cannot be sustained. Leaving aside engine oil and fuel feed issues, there is simply no way of sustaining the weightless state for any prolonged period of time. Bunt manoeuvres have to end at some point, which is why the vomet comet runs only last 20-30 seconds or so.

Could you address the question at hand? How could an astronaut in something like the ISS experience sustained weightlessness lasting for months on end if they are flying over a flat earth?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 01, 2021, 03:29:26 PM
you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

This is false.

No, it's bang on, although I think we're actually in broad agreement. You are correct about being effectively in freefall when in orbit - but that is an acceleration, as your velocity is changing, even if your speed isn't - remember velocity is a vector, meaning the magnitude is important. We have to use words like 'freefall' carefully - a parachutist, when jumping out of a plane, will initially accelerate - during which time they will initially feel 'weightless' - but this will reduce as they eventually stabilise at a steady speed. At this point, they won't feel weightless any more - they weigh precisely the same as they do on the ground, or indeed sat on an airliner in level, unaccellerating flight.

By definition, weight is a measure of force (most commonly referenced to gravity) acting upon a body .  You don't have to have acceleration to have a force acting upon a body.  Do you feel weightless when you are standing still? No.  Weightlessness is simply a sensation.  Acceleration causes you to feel more weight not less.  That's why they call it "feeling G's" when you accelerate.  A parachutists feels weight at terminal velocity because of the wind resistance exerted on his body not because of the fact that his velocity has stabilised.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 01, 2021, 03:54:32 PM
At this point, they won't feel weightless any more - they weigh precisely the same as they do on the ground, or indeed sat on an airliner in level, unaccellerating flight.

This is also untrue.  Their mass will be the same but not their weight.  If a parachutist were to take a scale with them and put it under their feet while they are at terminal velocity the scale would not measure the same weight as it does on the ground.  It's no different than a scale in water.  Wind resistance acts the same way as water's buoyant force.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2021, 04:06:22 PM
"Plenty of Govts and their agents tell nothing but the truth on many topics, though."
The question stands

In all manner of mundane, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian ways, Govts tell the truth;

Environmental; reporting studies of bird and animal populations, analysis of flood plains, of coastal erosion, of landslip, of river flows, ship and boat registration, vehicle licencing, town planning and building, etc. etc.

Population; overall numbers, splits by county, city, town and village; splits by age, by sex, etc. etc.

Schooling; overall numbers, splits by private and state-owned, numbers of pupils, splits by sex, etc. etc.

In criminal law, the presumption is of innocence until proven guilty. Guilt by association with another (allegedly) guilty party does not make a valid case. Even if you prove Govt lies about something, somewhere (balance of payments, unemployment stats, number of COVID cases or vaccinations), that is not an automatic proof of lies with regard to space exploration, global mapping, or any of our hot topics here.

Mistakes and errors of incompetence do not equate to "lies". 

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: existoid on April 01, 2021, 04:44:14 PM
In all manner of mundane, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian ways, Govts tell the truth;

Environmental; reporting studies of bird and animal populations, analysis of flood plains, of coastal erosion, of landslip, of river flows, ship and boat registration, vehicle licencing, town planning and building, etc. etc.

Population; overall numbers, splits by county, city, town and village; splits by age, by sex, etc. etc.

Schooling; overall numbers, splits by private and state-owned, numbers of pupils, splits by sex, etc. etc.

In criminal law, the presumption is of innocence until proven guilty. Guilt by association with another (allegedly) guilty party does not make a valid case. Even if you prove Govt lies about something, somewhere (balance of payments, unemployment stats, number of COVID cases or vaccinations), that is not an automatic proof of lies with regard to space exploration, global mapping, or any of our hot topics here.

Mistakes and errors of incompetence do not equate to "lies". 

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?

I largely subscribe to the economics school of Public Choice Theory which essentially says that public officials - politicians/bureaucrats - face the same constraints and influences on behaviors as those in the market, meaning they'll have incentives for (among other things), lying, misrepresentation, and other strongly self-interested behavior. A key example of this is the strong proclivity for bureaucratic entities to experience mission creep wherein each official seeks to gain more power over more things by subtly expanding their areas of jurisdiction.

Needless to say, I do not take a government's word for something as a rule, particularly if the topic is highly political in nature (e.g., remember way back when Fauci first claimed masks didn't protect folks, then admitted he only said that so that nurses could get the available masks first? - I think it's possible this event unintentionally influenced those who don't believe masks are needed, had Fauci never misled on this point, perhaps we'd all be better off, who knows).

All of that said, at least in the US and other democracies with stable political institutions and parties, there are checks on the complete abuse of the truth by the government - namely other political parties and oppositional government agencies. You can see this played out pretty directly all over politics in the US. Trump says a half-truth and his critics jump on it. Biden says a half-truth and now his critics jump on it. If either says a full lie, they jump on it even more. And multiple agencies (at least in the US) vie for influence over the same or similar domains of power, incentivizing them to push back if one makes a false step.

Are there areas where both (or multiple) political parties have incentives to collude in their misrepresentations of the truth to the public? Absolutely. But is that the case for the most part? No.





Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2021, 05:13:37 PM
"Plenty of Govts and their agents tell nothing but the truth on many topics, though."
The question stands

In all manner of mundane, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian ways, Govts tell the truth;

Environmental; reporting studies of bird and animal populations, analysis of flood plains, of coastal erosion, of landslip, of river flows, ship and boat registration, vehicle licencing, town planning and building, etc. etc.

Population; overall numbers, splits by county, city, town and village; splits by age, by sex, etc. etc.

Schooling; overall numbers, splits by private and state-owned, numbers of pupils, splits by sex, etc. etc.

In criminal law, the presumption is of innocence until proven guilty. Guilt by association with another (allegedly) guilty party does not make a valid case. Even if you prove Govt lies about something, somewhere (balance of payments, unemployment stats, number of COVID cases or vaccinations), that is not an automatic proof of lies with regard to space exploration, global mapping, or any of our hot topics here.

Mistakes and errors of incompetence do not equate to "lies". 

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?
Why are you asking us if we presume the government innocent until proven guilty? A great many of your threads and posts you are well noted for making concern the most important arm of any government, that being law enforcement, for example.

In those posts your entire philosophical bent leans toward the idea that the government entity, law enforcement, is wrong, is lying, etc.

If I was you, I would just quit with the double speak. You are lost on this one. We are not talking about mistakes or errors.

The evidence (note I did not use the word proof) is firm in its entirety.

Governments lie and they will always lie, regardless of subject, because that is the nature of people.

Since insurance companies make their billions , acting on the principle, "The best evidence for future performance is past performance," I would state simply I will follow that principle instead of yours.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2021, 05:15:51 PM
In all manner of mundane, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian ways, Govts tell the truth;

Environmental; reporting studies of bird and animal populations, analysis of flood plains, of coastal erosion, of landslip, of river flows, ship and boat registration, vehicle licencing, town planning and building, etc. etc.

Population; overall numbers, splits by county, city, town and village; splits by age, by sex, etc. etc.

Schooling; overall numbers, splits by private and state-owned, numbers of pupils, splits by sex, etc. etc.

In criminal law, the presumption is of innocence until proven guilty. Guilt by association with another (allegedly) guilty party does not make a valid case. Even if you prove Govt lies about something, somewhere (balance of payments, unemployment stats, number of COVID cases or vaccinations), that is not an automatic proof of lies with regard to space exploration, global mapping, or any of our hot topics here.

Mistakes and errors of incompetence do not equate to "lies". 

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?

I largely subscribe to the economics school of Public Choice Theory which essentially says that public officials - politicians/bureaucrats - face the same constraints and influences on behaviors as those in the market, meaning they'll have incentives for (among other things), lying, misrepresentation, and other strongly self-interested behavior. A key example of this is the strong proclivity for bureaucratic entities to experience mission creep wherein each official seeks to gain more power over more things by subtly expanding their areas of jurisdiction.

Needless to say, I do not take a government's word for something as a rule, particularly if the topic is highly political in nature (e.g., remember way back when Fauci first claimed masks didn't protect folks, then admitted he only said that so that nurses could get the available masks first? - I think it's possible this event unintentionally influenced those who don't believe masks are needed, had Fauci never misled on this point, perhaps we'd all be better off, who knows).

All of that said, at least in the US and other democracies with stable political institutions and parties, there are checks on the complete abuse of the truth by the government - namely other political parties and oppositional government agencies. You can see this played out pretty directly all over politics in the US. Trump says a half-truth and his critics jump on it. Biden says a half-truth and now his critics jump on it. If either says a full lie, they jump on it even more. And multiple agencies (at least in the US) vie for influence over the same or similar domains of power, incentivizing them to push back if one makes a false step.

Are there areas where both (or multiple) political parties have incentives to collude in their misrepresentations of the truth to the public? Absolutely. But is that the case for the most part? No.
This is not about Fauci and masks, but it does support the overall point. I do not even believe Fauci when he offered up what was supposed to be some kind legitimate reason, as it obviously wasn't.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 01, 2021, 05:38:14 PM
In all manner of mundane, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian ways, Govts tell the truth
Please can you provide some evidence or approach through which this claim can be verified for an unequivocally truthful government of your choice? That is what I asked for, after all.

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?
I have not accused the government (or any government, to stay closer to my question) of having committed a crime. You are the one who made an affirmative statement here (the Government always tells the truth about everything some things). It is your burden to substantiate this claim.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on April 01, 2021, 05:47:14 PM
At this point, they won't feel weightless any more - they weigh precisely the same as they do on the ground, or indeed sat on an airliner in level, unaccellerating flight.

This is also untrue.  Their mass will be the same but not their weight.  If a parachutist were to take a scale with them and put it under their feet while they are at terminal velocity the scale would not measure the same weight as it does on the ground.  It's no different than a scale in water.  Wind resistance acts the same way as water's buoyant force.


Sorry WTF, but Bob is spot on. 

Your analogy with floating in the water is different; you, and the water you displace, have identical mass so are accelerated by gravity at the same rate.  Neither can move vertically, of course, because the body of water is supported by the seabed, bottom of the pool, or whatever. 

When the parachutist leaves contact with the aircraft, he is instantaneously weightless, but immediately begins accelerating vertically.  As his vertical speed increases, he becomes subject to the upward force of aerodynamic drag, which is related to his size, his drag-coefficient (his shape), air density, and his velocity-squared.  He continues accelerating, and his weight continues increasing, until the aerodynamic drag equals the force of gravity; terminal velocity. 

Float in a pool and you perceive no force acting on you.  Compare this with sticking your arm out the window of a moving car.  Feel the difference?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 01, 2021, 06:12:58 PM

Sorry WTF, but Bob is spot on. 

Your analogy with floating in the water is different; you, and the water you displace, have identical mass so are accelerated by gravity at the same rate.  Neither can move vertically, of course, because the body of water is supported by the seabed, bottom of the pool, or whatever. 

When the parachutist leaves contact with the aircraft, he is instantaneously weightless, but immediately begins accelerating vertically.  As his vertical speed increases, he becomes subject to the upward force of aerodynamic drag, which is related to his size, his drag-coefficient (his shape), air density, and his velocity-squared.  He continues accelerating, and his weight continues increasing, until the aerodynamic drag equals the force of gravity; terminal velocity. 

Float in a pool and you perceive no force acting on you.  Compare this with sticking your arm out the window of a moving car.  Feel the difference?

Didn't realize this was such a difficult concept.  Here:

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/free-falling-the-science-of-weightlessness/#:~:text=Astronauts%20feel%20weightless%20when%20there%20is%20nothing%20opposing%20the%20force%20of%20gravity.&text=(B)%20An%20astronaut%20orbiting%20the,Thus%2C%20the%20astronaut%20is%20falling.

The feeling of weightlessness has nothing to do with acceleration.  Weightlessness is the lack of feeling a normal force against your body.  You actually stated the concept while refuting the concept.  Well done.

If you could eliminate the tactile sensations of water, you would feel no difference in weightlessness floating perfectly still in water, with zero acceleration, as you do in space.  Motion in water ruins the effect because water has density unlike space.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: existoid on April 01, 2021, 06:15:50 PM

Do you presume the Govt innocent until proven guilty?
I have not accused the government (or any government, to stay closer to my question) of having committed a crime. You are the one who made an affirmative statement here (the Government always tells the truth about everything some things). It is your burden to substantiate this claim.

Clarifying question about this -

Is a government agency "telling the truth" if it believes it is doing so, even if what is says is later discovered to be mistaken or incorrect? 

Or is it only "telling the truth" if what it says is 100% accurate and correct with no mistakes?

The distinction seems small, but it's not. "Telling the truth" can be defined as an absence of deception, or as an absence of error (or both).

I would think it's possible to provide examples wherein the govt. always tells the truth because it isn't employing deception, but could involve errors (e.g., the population numbers of Rockwall county, TX, as provided by official county statistics - no one's ever claimed those statistics were deceptively provided to the public).

But it's likely virtually impossible to find examples in which the govt. always tells the truth about something because it is never incorrect about it. The government is full of fallible humans, so it's bound to be incorrect about everything at one time or another.

If we define telling the truth is merely an absence of deception, I'd say Tumeni already provided sufficient examples, and I offered a narrower one from his own list - the specific population of Rockwall county, TX.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 01, 2021, 06:54:26 PM
Clarifying question about this -

Is a government agency "telling the truth" if it believes it is doing so, even if what is says is later discovered to be mistaken or incorrect?
For the sake of the discussion, let's go for the "if it believes it's telling the truth, it's telling the truth - even if it later turns out they were mistaken" approach.

If we define telling the truth is merely an absence of deception, I'd say Tumeni already provided sufficient examples, and I offered a narrower one from his own list - the specific population of Rockwall county, TX.
You both provided examples to the effect of a government being capable of telling the truth on specific matters - not that it always does so as an unbreakable rule. The distinction is crucial and inescapable, since Tumeni is attempting a proof by induction.

Of course, the eagle-eyed among beings who cannot to cease to be will have already noticed that his proof is impossible - but I am still curious to see him either reach that conclusion himself or deny it.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 01, 2021, 07:03:40 PM
At this point, they won't feel weightless any more - they weigh precisely the same as they do on the ground, or indeed sat on an airliner in level, unaccellerating flight.

This is also untrue.  Their mass will be the same but not their weight.  If a parachutist were to take a scale with them and put it under their feet while they are at terminal velocity the scale would not measure the same weight as it does on the ground.  It's no different than a scale in water.  Wind resistance acts the same way as water's buoyant force.

Again, I think we’re actually not far off being in violent agreement here. Apologies if I’m not making myself clear - I’ll try again.

I’m not saying you need to be accelerating to feel weightless - if you were floating around in deep space, far from any planet’s gravitational field, you would field weightless too.

Part of the issue here is the term itself - feeling ‘weightless’ doesn’t mean you don’t weigh anything. You’re weight is, as you rightly say, the force acting on your mass due to gravity. You feel your weight when there is a reaction force acting on some part of your body - your feet when you are standing up, for example. Your entire body perceives the weight because all of your connecting tissues have to transmit the reaction force in order for every part of your body to have a net zero vertical force.

A parachutist in freefall, before they get fast enough for drag to become significant, feels weightless because there is no reaction force. But when they are at terminal velocity, weight equals drag and the feeling, aside from the obvious blast of the wind, is similar to that of lying down. Of course, scales on their feet would read zero - that’s why in aviation we are always careful to indicate which axis of acceleration we are talking about - but if they were lying on a giant set of scales which provided all of the drag force, they would indicate the same as they do when stationary on the ground.

People get slightly confused by orbit. The reason for feeling weightless has nothing to do with space per se, but rather everything to do with speed. If you could fly a hypersonic aircraft at orbital speed in the atmosphere, you would find you needed to perpetually ‘bunt’ at 0g simply to maintain constant altitude above the earths surface - a kind of eternal vomet comet run. Of course we can’t do this, as we don’t have the tech to go that fast. At the speeds most aircraft fly the effect is barely measurable - even supersonic aircraft don’t fly fast enough for the reduction from 1g at ‘level’ flight to be noticeable.

All of which is why I’m asking the (as yet unanswered) question of Pete and Action80 - why would astronauts aboard the ISS feel weightless if the earth was flat? If they are flying around in some kind of gentle circle over a flat earth, how would that differ in terms of forces to those experienced by passengers on an airliner?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 01, 2021, 07:22:51 PM
If you'd said this:

I’m not saying you need to be accelerating to feel weightless

rather than this:

you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

We likely could have avoided, as delightful as it was, this whole discussion.


But then you had to throw this in...
The reason for feeling weightless has nothing to do with space per se, but rather everything to do with speed.

The FEELING of weightlessness has nothing to do with either acceleration or velocity.  The feeling exists because the normal force against your body doesn't.  It's that simple no matter your velocity or acceleration.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 01, 2021, 07:51:26 PM
If you'd said this:

I’m not saying you need to be accelerating to feel weightless

rather than this:

you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

We likely could have avoided, as delightful as it was, this whole discussion.


Those two sentences aren’t actually mutually exclusive, if you think about it.


But then you had to throw this in...
The reason for feeling weightless has nothing to do with space per se, but rather everything to do with speed.

The FEELING of weightlessness has nothing to do with either acceleration or velocity.  The feeling exists because the normal force against your body doesn't.  It's that simple no matter your velocity or acceleration.

It has everything to do with speed (or rather velocity, to be pedantic) because at orbital velocity you can be at 0g forever. Faster than this, and 0g will take you away from the planet. Slower and, like the vomit comet, your flight path will very quickly see you meeting the surface of the planet. You can experience 0g in an aircraft/spacecraft flying at any speed, but the faster you are travelling, the longer you can do it for.

Again, I think we’re pretty much in agreement here. I was just trying to clarify orbital mechanics a bit - an orbit at constant speed is, confusingly, accelerated motion. Velocity changes, speed doesn’t.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tumeni on April 01, 2021, 08:51:26 PM
The distinction is crucial and inescapable, since Tumeni is attempting a proof by induction. Of course, the eagle-eyed among beings who cannot to cease to be will have already noticed that his proof is impossible - but I am still curious to see him either reach that conclusion himself or deny it.

The what ... ?

Here's the North East Coast Observatory report on coastal erosion between the Scottish Border and the Tyne River at Newcastle. I'm confident that this report is truthful in all matters, excluding error and omission.

http://www.northeastcoastalobservatory.org.uk/data/reports/

The type of day-to-day stuff that Govts do, without lying about it. Knock yourself out.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 01, 2021, 09:19:33 PM
And I thought we almost had it.

If you'd said this:

I’m not saying you need to be accelerating to feel weightless

rather than this:

you are constantly accelerating, which is why you feel weightless.

We likely could have avoided, as delightful as it was, this whole discussion.


Those two sentences aren’t actually mutually exclusive, if you think about it.

Wow.  Right back where we started.  Mutually exclusive, no.  Your second statement is abjectly false.  Acceleration has nothing to do with whether one feels weightlessness or not.  It's all right there in the vomit comet.  You have weightlessness during deceleration, 0 acceleration, and acceleration all in the same pass.

It has everything to do with speed (or rather velocity, to be pedantic) because at orbital velocity you can be at 0g forever. Faster than this, and 0g will take you away from the planet. Slower and, like the vomit comet, your flight path will very quickly see you meeting the surface of the planet. You can experience 0g in an aircraft/spacecraft flying at any speed, but the faster you are travelling, the longer you can do it for.
This is a beauty.  In the same paragraph you say it has everything to do with speed then give two different speeds in space as well as saying any speed in an aircraft.  What's the common denominator?  Zero normal force on the body during all three instances of differing speeds, accelerations, and directional vectors.  How long one can maintain weightlessness is an entirely separate subject.

I'm going to leave this now unless Pete wants to throw it all in CN then we can continue.  No need to clog the upper with more of this.

Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: fisherman on April 02, 2021, 01:24:53 AM
Quote
Wow.  Right back where we started.  Mutually exclusive, no.  Your second statement is abjectly false.  Acceleration has nothing to do with whether one feels weightlessness or not.  It's all right there in the vomit comet.  You have weightlessness during deceleration, 0 acceleration, and acceleration all in the same pass

I've lost track of who is arguing what, but I don't think you guys really disagree. You're both just being a bit sloppy with your terms, especially "acceleration" and "free fall"

Acceleration is a change in an objects speed and/or direction.  Weightlessness is the result of free fall.  An object is in free fall when the only force acting on it is gravity. (or no force at all in relativity, since gravity is not considered a force).  Although an object in orbit changes direction and technically could be considered "accelerating", that "acceleration" is due only to the force of gravity, therefore it is considered in free fall.

An object that is truly accelerating cannot be weightless because changes in direction and/or speed require  a force other than gravity be applied because Newton's First Law. An object subject only to gravity will move at a constant speed and in a straight line unless acted upon by another  force.

Anyway, back to the question that started the whole discussion.  A person in a spacecraft will not feel weightless unless the space craft is in freefall.  If the flat earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s, the space craft must somehow be  accelerating along with it in order to "keep up" and maintain visual contact with the earth.  Any person in the spacecraft would have to accelerating along with the spacecraft, will not be in free fall and therefore cannot experience weightlessness.

Really, that's just another way of explaining the equivalence principle...acceleration and gravity produce identical effects.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 02, 2021, 07:32:51 AM
It's all right there in the vomit comet.  You have weightlessness during deceleration, 0 acceleration, and acceleration all in the same pass.

Bingo. There it is - I knew there was some issue with your understanding of this but it took a while to figure it out. That statement is fundamentally wrong. The vomit comet never changes its acceleration throughout the weightless phase - it is constant throughout.

Acceleration, in physics / maths, is the rate of change of a component of velocity, in this case the vertical velocity of the aircraft. So from the moment the pilot pushes forward on the controls to achieve 0g on the g-meter, the aircraft is accelerating at 9.81ms2 vertically down. It is ballistic, just like a ball thrown at 45 degrees up into the air. Yes, in the first half of the parabola you might call this deceleration if you want, as it slows the aircraft down, but mathematically it’s just one acceleration throughout. Importantly, at the top of the curve, the aircraft will have zero vertical velocity but will still be accelerating - it’s rate of change of velocity hasn’t changed sign or magnitude.

Quite happy if Pete wants to break this out into another thread, although I’m still waiting for an answer from him or Action80 on how our mistaken astronauts might feel weightless for several months aloft above a flat earth, if there’s no curvature to keep them in perpetual freefall.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 02, 2021, 03:08:22 PM
I've lost track of who is arguing what, but I don't think you guys really disagree.
Agreed!

you're both just being a bit sloppy with your terms, especially "acceleration" and "free fall"

Acceleration is a change in an objects speed and/or direction.

That, I'm afraid, is sloppy. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with respect to time. dv/dt, in calculus terms. Speed is not the same as velocity. Speed is not a vector term - it has magnitude, but no direction. If you drive a car in a circle, your speed can stay constant, but you are still accelerating - in this case, towards the centre of the circle - as your velocity components are continuously changing. 

Weightlessness is the result of free fall.  An object is in free fall when the only force acting on it is gravity. (or no force at all in relativity, since gravity is not considered a force).  Although an object in orbit changes direction and technically could be considered "accelerating", that "acceleration" is due only to the force of gravity, therefore it is considered in free fall.

An object in orbit is absolutely accelerating - at 9.81 metres per second, per second, towards the centre of the earth. Its speed remains content, but its velocity components are changing, hence the constant change in direction.

An object that is truly accelerating cannot be weightless because changes in direction and/or speed require  a force other than gravity be applied because Newton's First Law. An object subject only to gravity will move at a constant speed and in a straight line unless acted upon by another  force.

No. The text in bold is fundamentally wrong. An object subject only to gravity will accelerate at a constant rate. On or near our planet, any object will experience a force on it equal to its mass multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity, g. And because F=ma, if the only force on it is 'mg', then mg=ma, so a=g, meaning our object will accelerate at g, or 9.81ms-2. If it wasn't for air resistance, objects dropped from height would keep getting faster and faster. 

Anyway, back to the question that started the whole discussion.  A person in a spacecraft will not feel weightless unless the space craft is in freefall.  If the flat earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s, the space craft must somehow be  accelerating along with it in order to "keep up" and maintain visual contact with the earth.  Any person in the spacecraft would have to accelerating along with the spacecraft, will not be in free fall and therefore cannot experience weightlessness.

Agreed - hence my question to Pete and Action80. How could an astronaut feel weightless for months on end if they are constantly at the same altitude above the flat earth? Regardless of FE views on gravity, an object that maintains altitude above the flat earth would have to have some force keeping it there, just like lift in an aircraft, which means the astronauts wouldn't feel weightless.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 02, 2021, 03:25:10 PM
Bingo. There it is - I knew there was some issue with your understanding of this but it took a while to figure it out. That statement is fundamentally wrong. The vomit comet never changes its acceleration throughout the weightless phase - it is constant throughout.

Acceleration, in physics / maths, is the rate of change of a component of velocity, in this case the vertical velocity of the aircraft. So from the moment the pilot pushes forward on the controls to achieve 0g on the g-meter, the aircraft is accelerating at 9.81ms2 vertically down. It is ballistic, just like a ball thrown at 45 degrees up into the air. Yes, in the first half of the parabola you might call this deceleration if you want, as it slows the aircraft down, but mathematically it’s just one acceleration throughout. Importantly, at the top of the curve, the aircraft will have zero vertical velocity but will still be accelerating - it’s rate of change of velocity hasn’t changed sign or magnitude.


Thank you for that. I get what you're saying. It's still irrelevant.

The sensation of weightlessness is nothing more than the removal of the forces against the body which cause you to detect weight.  It's as simple as that.  If the conditions can be created, weightlessness can be felt at any acceleration, at zero acceleration under motion, or at zero motion entirely.  Hence, orbiting astronauts under acceleration, astronauts to the moon at zero acceleration immense speed and me floating in my sensory deprivation chamber (though admittedly not perfect) all sense weightlessness. A body's motion has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to feel weightless.  A parachutists feels weight.  An astronaut does not.  It's has zero to do with their motion. It's because one is travelling in air molecules. The other is not.  THAT is what causes the sensation of weightlessness.

Let's take one last look at the vomit comet.  The plane, just like the parachutist, feels weight. It takes addtional force to keep it falling faster than terminal velocity. The passenger does not.  Both under the exact same motion. 

Honestly, this is my last.  I really can't beat this dead horse any longer.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 02, 2021, 03:59:09 PM
The sensation of weightlessness is nothing more than the removal of the forces against the body which cause you to detect weight.  It's as simple as that. 

I can go with this! No worries.

So...back to Pete and Action80. Any response folks?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 02, 2021, 04:22:51 PM
The what ... ?
One day, you will learn to pay attention. Until then, you'll just have to glance past comments that weren't targeted at you.

The type of day-to-day stuff that Govts do, without lying about it. Knock yourself out.
You continue to miss the point - perhaps deliberately. I do not contest the notion that a government is capable of telling the truth. I contest the notion that a government will always tell the truth. That is the cornerstone of your argument, and your argument collapses without it. Note that what you are "confident" in is entirely irrelevant here.

Yes, this means your argument is indefensible; but perhaps you'd like to try again?

So...back to Pete and Action80. Any response folks?
Sorry, which part of you two disagreeing on what weightlessness is (lol) are you looking for a response to? I guess I can go on a rant about the shameful state of Western education, if you'd really like me to, but this is not the place for it.

Otherwise, the subject has been done to death, and doesn't have much to do with this thread at all.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 02, 2021, 05:55:07 PM
Sorry, which part of you two disagreeing on what weightlessness is (lol) are you looking for a response to? I guess I can go on a rant about the shameful state of Western education, if you'd really like me to, but this is not the place for it.

It was my earlier question to you Pete. You said you found the possibility of astronauts simply being mistaken to be plausible. My question was how they could feel weightless for prolonged periods of time without being in orbit around a round earth. If the earth is flat, and they’re moving around above it at a fixed altitude, then how are they feeling weightless?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tumeni on April 02, 2021, 05:56:52 PM
You continue to miss the point - perhaps deliberately. I do not contest the notion that a government is capable of telling the truth. I contest the notion that a government will always tell the truth. That is the cornerstone of your argument ...

No, it is not.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 02, 2021, 10:48:43 PM
My question was how they could feel weightless for prolonged periods of time without being in orbit around a round earth.
I answered this question before you asked it. For all intents and purposes, they would be "in orbit", and the weightlessness of UA must be identical to that perceived in the RET gravitational model (otherwise, the base principles under which RET operates break down, and you have a much bigger problem on your hands).

No, it is not.
Excellent! You've just lowered the quality of your argument to the point where we no longer have to pretend to consider it seriously. Let's summarise your self-debunk:

Since you have now denied the core premise of your argument, I will kindly ask that you stop trying to waste our time with arguments from personal credibility.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: fisherman on April 03, 2021, 02:04:52 AM
Quote
they would be "in orbit", and the weightlessness of UA must be identical to that perceived in the RET gravitational model (otherwise, the base principles under which RET operates break down, and you have a much bigger problem on your hands).

The problem is since the effects of UA are identical to gravity, how could weightlessness be achieved in a UA environment? 

There would have to be a way of neutralizing or cancelling out the effects of UA for the persons who are in orbit.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 03, 2021, 06:20:48 AM
I answered this question before you asked it. For all intents and purposes, they would be "in orbit", and the weightlessness of UA must be identical to that perceived in the RET gravitational model (otherwise, the base principles under which RET operates break down, and you have a much bigger problem on your hands).

That doesn’t answer the question. As fisherman says, if you’re saying that UA is the cause of everybody and everything on earth feeling 1g, how are our astronauts maintaining a constant distance from the earth’s surface without also accelerating at 1g in the same way? How is their motion different from, say, an airliner flying above the earth’s surface? Why would they feel weightless, when a passenger on the airliner doesn’t?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 03, 2021, 01:07:09 PM
if you’re saying that UA is the cause of everybody and everything on earth feeling 1g
This is the opposite of what's the case. In order to perceive 1g of acceleration, an observer reasonably close to the Earth must not be directly affected by UA. In other words, the relative acceleration between the observer and the medium they're in must be 1g. If both the Earth and the observer were affected by UA, their relative acceleration would be 0g (ignoring relativistic effects for simplicity).
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Iceman on April 03, 2021, 01:23:17 PM
Yep, that makes sense.

Where I get confused is where the boundary would be between observers close to earth (at least as high as highest air balloon, planes etc) and those who do not feel the effects of 'g' and are accelerating upward with the earth to feel weightless.

Are there available data that could be looked at to test or narrow down where that transition might lie? Flight logs/observed velocities of launching rockets maybe?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 03, 2021, 01:25:29 PM
if you’re saying that UA is the cause of everybody and everything on earth feeling 1g
This is the opposite of what's the case. In order to perceive 1g of acceleration, an observer reasonably close to the Earth must not be directly affected by UA. In other words, the relative acceleration between the observer and the medium they're in must be 1g. If both the Earth and the observer were affected by UA, their relative acceleration would be 0g (ignoring relativistic effects for simplicity).

Ok, I see what you mean. My point was what is different for the passengers on an airliner above a flat earth compared to an astronaut in a satellite above a flat earth? Why would one feel just the same as they do on the earths surface but the other feel weightless?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 03, 2021, 01:32:45 PM
Are there available data that could be looked at to test or narrow down where that transition might lie? Flight logs/observed velocities of launching rockets maybe?
Not currently, no.

My point was what is different for the passengers on an airliner above a flat earth compared to an astronaut in a satellite above a flat earth? Why would one feel just the same as they do on the earths surface but the other feel weightless?
There are multiple hypotheses, none properly substantiated as of yet. I believe the leading one among those who subscribe to this model is that the Earth's mass somehow shields nearby objects from the effects of UA, similarly to how a sufficiently large/heavy object would shield objects downstream from a water current. As far as I'm concerned, it's better to say that this is an unknown.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 03, 2021, 02:09:28 PM
There are multiple hypotheses, none properly substantiated as of yet. I believe the leading one among those who subscribe to this model is that the Earth's mass somehow shields nearby objects from the effects of UA, similarly to how a sufficiently large/heavy object would shield objects downstream from a water current. As far as I'm concerned, it's better to say that this is an unknown.

A straight answer to a straight question. Much appreciated.

That’s a massive ‘unknown’. Does the coherence of the well studied field of orbital mechanics, with all the nuances of things like Hohmann transfers, geo stationary orbits etc, not give you pause for contemplation?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 03, 2021, 02:15:13 PM
Does the coherence of the well studied field of orbital mechanics, with all the nuances of things like Hohmann transfers, geo stationary orbits etc, not give you pause for contemplation?
It certainly does. If I ever become a zealot for one side, a part of me will have died. I do strongly lean towards FET, but I do not consider it gospel by any stretch of the imagination. From where I'm sitting, it looks like both sides have their serious issues. I do my best* to acknowledge and improve on the issues with my own approach.

* - As with many things that involve fleshy human brains, your mileage may vary on this.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 11:08:30 AM
Does the coherence of the well studied field of orbital mechanics, with all the nuances of things like Hohmann transfers, geo stationary orbits etc, not give you pause for contemplation?

Considering that celestial mechanics doesn't work with more than two bodies, it doesn't sound too coherent to me.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 05, 2021, 11:17:31 AM

Considering that celestial mechanics doesn't work with more than two bodies, it doesn't sound too coherent to me.

And aerodynamics, by the same absurd measure, doesn’t work with compressible, turbulent airflow. Which means there’s no way engineers can design aircraft that fly.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 11:40:21 AM

Considering that celestial mechanics doesn't work with more than two bodies, it doesn't sound too coherent to me.

And aerodynamics, by the same absurd measure, doesn’t work with compressible, turbulent airflow. Which means there’s no way engineers can design aircraft that fly.

Considering that those comparisons have nothing to do with each other, I just see an invalid response.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 05, 2021, 11:48:35 AM
Considering that those comparisons have nothing to do with each other, I just see an invalid response.

You are asserting that the fact that the n-body problem can’t usually be solved algebraically for cases where n>2 means that it is somehow flawed. Aside from being an utterly ridiculous misunderstanding of maths and physics, this also misses the point that numerous equations that occur in physics, engineering and other fields also cannot be solved via anything other than numerical methods. Hence my point about aerodynamics - we can’t solve the navier-stokes equations for most real world cases. This doesn’t make them wrong, just hard to solve. So we use various techniques, usually numerical methods or practical experiments with wind tunnels, to get reasonable approximations to work with.

Your lack of understanding of the n-body problem, or of differential equations in general, does not invalidate the underlying theory.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 11:54:46 AM
Considering that those comparisons have nothing to do with each other, I just see an invalid response.

You are asserting that the fact that the n-body problem can’t usually be solved algebraically for cases where n>2 means that it is somehow flawed. Aside from being an utterly ridiculous misunderstanding of maths and physics, this also misses the point that numerous equations that occur in physics, engineering and other fields also cannot be solved via anything other than numerical methods. Hence my point about aerodynamics - we can’t solve the navier-stokes equations for most real world cases. This doesn’t make them wrong, just hard to solve. So we use various techniques, usually numerical methods or practical experiments with wind tunnels, to get reasonable approximations to work with.

Your lack of understanding of the n-body problem, or of differential equations in general, does not invalidate the underlying theory.

Are you saying that when an asteroid floats around the solar system in the presence of the Sun and Jupiter that it's going to use a numerical approximation that only uses two bodies at a time or smudges the underlying laws?

No. What you proposed is utterly incoherent. The ability to solve the problem of multiple bodies with approximation has no bearing on actually solving the issue to describe the solar system.

It simply can't be done.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Quote
From p.89 of Atmospheric and Space Flight Dynamics: Modeling and Simulation with MATLAB (Archive) by Professor Ashish Tewari (bio) we read:

  “ In the next section, it will be shown that two additional integrals can be obtained when N = 2 from the considerations of relative motion of the two bodies. Hence, a two-body problem is analytically solvable. However, with N > 2, the number of unknown motion variables exceeds the total number of integrals; thus, no analytical solution exists for the N-body problem when N > 2. Due to this reason, we cannot mathematically prove certain observed facts (such as the stability of the solar system) concerning N-body motion. The best we can do is to approximate the solution to the N-body problem either by a set of two-body solutions or by numerical solutions. ”

It doesn't work. And the planets aren't going to use the approximations that are necessary to get the N-Body problems to work in a real scenario.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 05, 2021, 12:09:47 PM

Are you saying that when an asteroid floats around the solar system in the presence of the Sun and Jupiter that it's going to use a numerical approximation that only uses two bodies at a time or smudges the underlying laws?


Of course not. It will move according to the forces acting on it, just like an air molecule flowing past the wing of an aircraft. Neither situation can be modelled algebraically, but they still happen. And they can be modelled very successfully with numerical methods.

Why are you treating the n-body problem differently to all the many other complex problems that require numerical method solutions? Or do you think that the navier stokes equations are wrong as well?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 12:16:15 PM
You haven't shown that the issue with three bodies is anything like those other situations. I don't see a valid comparison.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Quote
Martin Gutzwiller

The end section of a paper titled Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem (Archive) by physicist Martin C. Gutzwiller (bio) concludes that Newton's laws are not a sufficient explanation:

  “ The three-body problem teaches us a sobering lesson about our ability to comprehend the outside world in terms of a few basic mathematical relations. Many physicists, maybe early in their careers, had hopes of coordinating their field of interest, if not all of physics, into some overall rational scheme. The more complicated situations could then be reduced to some simpler models in which all phenomena would find their explanation. This ideal goal of the scientific enterprise has been promoted by many distinguished scientists [see Weinberg’s (1992) Dream of a Final Theory, with a chapter ‘‘Two Cheers for Reductionism’’]....Many physicists may be tempted to see in Newton’s equations of motion and his universal gravitation a sufficient explanation for the three-body problem, with the details to be worked out by the technicians. But even a close look at the differential equations (29) and (30) does not prepare us for the idiosyncracies of the lunar motion, nor does it help us to understand the orbits of asteroids in the combined gravitational field of the Sun and Jupiter.

The actual three body problem doesn't work to explain the orbits of asteroids under the combined gravitational field of the Sun and Jupiter.

Yet you continue to post that we can just approximate it, while also admitting that the real bodies in the solar system aren't going to use approximations. Absurd.

Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Mothra on April 05, 2021, 12:52:07 PM
Lack of a solution to a multi-body problem disproves round earth yet lack of a simple curve equation doesn't disprove EA.  Quite interesting logic.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 01:09:49 PM
The three body problem has no comparison with Parsifal's equation. The difference in effort and resources is substantial. The greatest mathematicians in history have been unable to get the RE astronomy system to work. It is quite an embarrassing failure.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Iceman on April 05, 2021, 01:26:46 PM
Branding math for orbital calculations as an embarrassing failure that doesn't "work" seems rather disingenuous given we've sent orbiters, landed probes and/or rovers on a large number of objects in the solar system, and have established continuous monitoring of solar activity by installing satellites at lagrange points.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 01:29:23 PM
Branding math for orbital calculations as an embarrassing failure that doesn't "work" seems rather disingenuous given we've sent orbiters, landed probes and/or rovers on a large number of objects in the solar system, and have established continuous monitoring of solar activity by installing satellites at lagrange points.

And now you are bringing in NASA to explain that they are sending space ships to explore a system that can't mathematically exist under the Newtonian laws used to get there. Right.  ::)
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Iceman on April 05, 2021, 01:36:12 PM
Yes, I suppose I am. Among other space agencies (and I realise you have previously suggested they're all in on things together, given their collaboration)

Given the terabytes and terabyte of data they've made publicly available over the last few decades, including live streams from the ISS, pictures from mars, pictures of earth, which can be correlated with observed atmospheric conditions from the ground, people bouncing signals of the moon.

I weigh that against "space bubbles", the #marsrat, green screen ISS acrobats and other recent anti-NASA explanations I've seen and I make up my own mind
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 05, 2021, 01:37:14 PM
You haven't shown that the issue with three bodies is anything like those other situations. I don't see a valid comparison.

Your inability to see doesn't change the facts. The full 3D N-S equations are unsolvable analytically without resorting to some degree of simplification (eg https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/32/049/32049286.pdf (https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/32/049/32049286.pdf)), which is why numerical methods dominate in practical fluid dynamics problems. Saying 'real bodies aren't going to use approximations' is just plain silly - air molecules flowing past a wing don't use approximations either, but we are equally unable to analytically solve their motion. If you don't doubt aerodynamics, why doubt orbital mechanics? What's the difference?

It's very telling that none of the papers you have cherry-pick quoted actually casts any doubt at all on the actual underlying theory of gravitational attraction, or indeed the orbital motion of planets and the shape of the earth. Martin Gutzwiller, in the quote below, is quite obviously talking about the beautiful challenge of apparently simple equations that contain enormous amounts of complexity and nuance when you start to unpick them, and how simplifications made to solve one detail of planetary motion don't necessarily translate to other areas - eg lunar motion versus asteroid. He would have roared with laughter to see you using a quote of his to suggest that the planet we live on is flat.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Quote
Martin Gutzwiller

The end section of a paper titled Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem (Archive) by physicist Martin C. Gutzwiller (bio) concludes that Newton's laws are not a sufficient explanation:

  “ The three-body problem teaches us a sobering lesson about our ability to comprehend the outside world in terms of a few basic mathematical relations. Many physicists, maybe early in their careers, had hopes of coordinating their field of interest, if not all of physics, into some overall rational scheme. The more complicated situations could then be reduced to some simpler models in which all phenomena would find their explanation. This ideal goal of the scientific enterprise has been promoted by many distinguished scientists [see Weinberg’s (1992) Dream of a Final Theory, with a chapter ‘‘Two Cheers for Reductionism’’]....Many physicists may be tempted to see in Newton’s equations of motion and his universal gravitation a sufficient explanation for the three-body problem, with the details to be worked out by the technicians. But even a close look at the differential equations (29) and (30) does not prepare us for the idiosyncracies of the lunar motion, nor does it help us to understand the orbits of asteroids in the combined gravitational field of the Sun and Jupiter.

The actual three body problem doesn't work to explain the orbits of asteroids under the combined gravitational field of the Sun and Jupiter.

Yet you continue to post that we can just approximate it, while also admitting that the real bodies in the solar system aren't going to use approximations. Absurd.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 05, 2021, 01:54:26 PM
The three body problem has no comparison with Parsifal's equation. The difference in effort and resources is substantial. The greatest mathematicians in history have been unable to get the RE astronomy system to work. It is quite an embarrassing failure.

From another thread. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17884.msg234879#msg234879

Quote
In the next section, it will be shown that two additional integrals can be obtained when N = 2 from the considerations of relative motion of the two bodies. Hence, a two-body problem is analytically solvable. However, with N > 2, the number of unknown motion variables exceeds the total number of integrals; thus, no analytical solution exists for the N-body problem when N > 2. Due to this reason, we cannot mathematically prove certain observed facts (such as the stability of the solar system) concerning N-body motion. The best we can do is to approximate the solution to the N-body problem either by a set of two-body solutions or by numerical solutions.


You do understand what "no analytical soultions exists" means, correct?  It means the math doesn't fit the problem.  It doesn't mean what your trying to analyze doesn't exist.  Your continued use of the n-body problem as some giant 'gotcha' is hysterical.  It means zero to the shape of the earth, but you go ahead.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 04:26:30 PM
You do understand what "no analytical soultions exists" means, correct?

I certainly understand the difference between an analytical and numerical solution. It is apparent that you may not, however.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions#General_Quotes

Quote
From a question posted on researchgate.net (Archive):

  “ Q. What kind of problem solutions do you rate higher: analytical or numerical? More problems can be solved numerically, using computers. But some of the same problems can be solved analytically. What would your preference be? ”

Mohammad Firoz Khan, Ph.D. (bio) responds:

  “ A researcher would like to solve it analytically so that it is clear what are premises, assumptions and mathematical rules behind the problem. As such problem is clearly understood. Numerical solution using computers give solution, not the understanding of the problem. It is quite blind. However, in emergency one may resort to this option. ”
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 05, 2021, 04:35:10 PM
a, b, c, d are real numbers

3a+     5c       =9
 a+2b+    12d =2
     7b+2c+3d=19

Tom:  It can't be solved.  a,b,c,and d don't exist.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 04:42:38 PM
The planets and asteroids aren't going to use fudges of the laws or approximations with two bodies at a time to move around in free space. If it can't be done based on a full simulation of gravity with the underlying laws then it can't be done.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 05, 2021, 04:58:13 PM
If it can't be done based on a full simulation of gravity with the underlying laws then it can't be done.

That would be correct.  You seem to remain confused by the fact that it's mathematically impossible to create the full simulation of gravity because, well, math.  You're welcome to keep presenting the n-body problem as if it means something, though.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 05, 2021, 05:07:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhTlBzSG3rk

Do these Eddy currents exist?  We certainly don't have the ability to mathematically model them.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 05, 2021, 05:18:44 PM
The planets and asteroids aren't going to use fudges of the laws or approximations with two bodies at a time to move around in free space. If it can't be done based on a full simulation of gravity with the underlying laws then it can't be done.

How's about:

The air molecules aren't going to use fudges of the laws or approximations to flow around a wing. If it can't be done based on a full simulation of airflow with the underlying laws then it can't be done.

Or perhaps:

The sub-atomic particles aren't going to use fudges of the laws or approximations to form atoms and molecules. If it can't be done based on a full simulation with the underlying laws then it can't be done.

Interesting that you chose to use the phrase 'full simulation'. Do you therefore assert that anything that doesn't use an analytical set of derived equations to simulate any system isn't really a 'full simulation'? So a 6DOF flight simulator, for example, isn't a full simulation because it uses approximations for the mechanics of the aircraft body and its associated aerodynamic coefficients?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 06:45:36 PM
The sub-atomic particles aren't going to use fudges of the laws or approximations to form atoms and molecules. If it can't be done based on a full simulation with the underlying laws then it can't be done.

That's right. Particle physics also has trouble simulating things with multi-body problems. You are arguing that because they can't simulate it that its theories must be nonetheless true. That does not follow at all. Since they can't simulate it or get it to work based on the underlying laws it means that the theories lean towards being false.

Classical particle physics is increasingly rebutted in many ways by other theories, such as theories in quantum mechanics, and it should not be surprising that classical particle physics is incorrect.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 05, 2021, 06:52:56 PM
The sub-atomic particles aren't going to use fudges of the laws or approximations to form atoms and molecules. If it can't be done based on a full simulation with the underlying laws then it can't be done.

That's right. Particle physics also has trouble simulating things with multi-body problems. You are arguing that because they can't simulate it that its the theories must be nonetheless true. That does not follow at all. Since they can't simulate it or get it to work based on the underlying laws it means that the theories lean towards being false.

Classical particle physics is increasingly rebutted in many ways by other theories, such as theories in quantum mechanics, and it should not be surprising that classical particle physics is incorrect.

So do you accept computational fluid dynamics as valid, or are you rejecting that too?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: existoid on April 05, 2021, 07:03:42 PM

Of course, the eagle-eyed among beings who cannot to cease to be will have already noticed that his proof is impossible - but I am still curious to see him either reach that conclusion himself or deny it.

Got it - I am content now that I understand. 
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: fisherman on April 05, 2021, 07:33:28 PM
The sub-atomic particles aren't going to use fudges of the laws or approximations to form atoms and molecules. If it can't be done based on a full simulation with the underlying laws then it can't be done.

That's right. Particle physics also has trouble simulating things with multi-body problems. You are arguing that because they can't simulate it that its theories must be nonetheless true. That does not follow at all. Since they can't simulate it or get it to work based on the underlying laws it means that the theories lean towards being false.


Does that same logic apply to your inability to account for the "Bishop's Constant".  (I have a hard time even typing that with a straight face)  You can't get it to work...so it must be false. 

Or how about all of UA?  You can't explain it based on the current underlying laws of physics...so it must be false.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 07:36:01 PM
The sub-atomic particles aren't going to use fudges of the laws or approximations to form atoms and molecules. If it can't be done based on a full simulation with the underlying laws then it can't be done.

That's right. Particle physics also has trouble simulating things with multi-body problems. You are arguing that because they can't simulate it that its theories must be nonetheless true. That does not follow at all. Since they can't simulate it or get it to work based on the underlying laws it means that the theories lean towards being false.


Does that same logic apply to your inability to account for the "Bishop's Constant".  (I have a hard time even typing that with a straight face)  You can't get it to work...so it must be false. 

Or how about all of UA?  You can't explain it based on the current underlying laws of physics...so it must be false.

Regarding FE there are no underlying laws for its systems to falsify. If we did publish underlying laws, and you put it into a simulation that expressed those underlying laws, then you can go ahead and say that they are falsified.

Since RE has published underlying laws for its systems that don't work in a simulation, we can say that they are falsified. Pretty simple. Your problem is that Newton published laws that he himself discovered don't work with more than two bodies, and you just kept it around as cannon for your model.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2021, 07:56:27 PM
Regarding FE there are no underlying laws for its systems to falsify.
So you’re backing a model of reality which you have discovered no underlying laws for. ???
And have no working map. This is the horse you’re backing?

The closest you seem to have is an equation for EA which contains a constant you have no value for and which has no ability to predict anything. Compelling.

As for RE laws “not working”, you’ll have to tell that to GPS, the ISS and the rover sitting on Mars right now. Your only counter argument is to shout “FAKE!!” even though you use GPS and can see the ISS from earth if you care to look.

A model doesn’t have to be perfect to be useful. There are mathematical reasons why these models cannot make perfect predictions - it’s the same reason weather forecasts are imperfect. But they’re clearly good enough to be of use. And the practical applications of them prove that we live on a globe.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 05, 2021, 08:11:27 PM
You are arguing that because they can't simulate it that its theories must be nonetheless true.

Nope.  You're the only one saying that.  What YOU are actually saying is that because they can't simulate it, it must be false.  That's what you're saying.  No one has ever stated 'can't be simulated = true'.  What has been shown to you is that despite a perfect simulation being possible things are still true.  Big difference between those two that you'll continue to deflect from as it's the only way for you to make an argument here.

We can't model eddies yet they exist.
We can't precisely model air over a wing yet our underlying theoretical approximations allow planes to fly.
We can't precisely model the weather yet the weatherman told me a week ago it would sunny today and behold, it is.
We can't precisely model ocean currents yet they flow.

The inability of human math to model something has no bearing on it's existence.  You know this.

Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 08:12:58 PM
Regarding FE there are no underlying laws for its systems to falsify.
So you’re backing a model of reality which you have discovered no underlying laws for. ???

I would rather have no laws than adopting your lame tactic of holding up false ones and trying to justify its massive failures.

You are arguing that because they can't simulate it that its theories must be nonetheless true.

Nope.  You're the only one saying that.  What YOU are actually saying is that because they can't simulate it, it must be false.  That's what you're saying.  No one has ever stated 'can't be simulated = true'.  What has been shown to you is that despite a perfect simulation being possible things are still true.  Big difference between those two that you'll continue to deflect from as it's the only way for you to make an argument here.

We can't model eddies yet they exist.
We can't precisely model air over a wing yet our underlying theoretical approximations allow planes to fly.
We can't precisely model the weather yet the weatherman told me a week ago it would sunny today and behold, it is.
We can't precisely model ocean currents yet they flow.

The inability of human math to model something has no bearing on it's existence.  You know this.

Since you can't do much I would suggest that you spend less time posting and more time fixing your tarnished model.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 05, 2021, 08:13:31 PM
Your problem is that Newton published laws that he himself discovered don't work with more than two bodies, and you just kept it around as cannon for your model.
But by ‘don’t work’, you mean ‘can’t be solved analytically’ don’t you Tom?

Again, I ask you - are you suggesting that the science of aerodynamics is flawed, because its equations also can’t be solved analytically, and CFD has to rely on numerical methods?
[/quote]
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 05, 2021, 08:19:51 PM
Regarding FE there are no underlying laws for its systems to falsify.
So you’re backing a model of reality which you have discovered no underlying laws for. ???

I would rather have no laws than adopting your lame tactic of holding up false ones and trying to justifying its massive failures.

You are arguing that because they can't simulate it that its theories must be nonetheless true.

Nope.  You're the only one saying that.  What YOU are actually saying is that because they can't simulate it, it must be false.  That's what you're saying.  No one has ever stated 'can't be simulated = true'.  What has been shown to you is that despite a perfect simulation being possible things are still true.  Big difference between those two that you'll continue to deflect from as it's the only way for you to make an argument here.

We can't model eddies yet they exist.
We can't precisely model air over a wing yet our underlying theoretical approximations allow planes to fly.
We can't precisely model the weather yet the weatherman told me a week ago it would sunny today and behold, it is.
We can't precisely model ocean currents yet they flow.

The inability of human math to model something has no bearing on it's existence.  You know this.

Since you can't do much I would suggest that you spend less time posting and more time fixing your tarnished model.

Why?  The model works just fine.  In fact, I'm hopping on a flight in couple weeks for a little vacay.  Sure hope those numerical approximations of airflow hold up.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2021, 08:26:36 PM
I would rather have no laws than adopting your lame tactic of holding up false ones and trying to justifying its massive failures.
What massive failures? Does your GPS not work? Mine does. Do you not have satellite TV? Maybe cable is more of a thing over there, but I have it as do millions of people and I’ve observed the way the dishes are angled differently in countries near the equator, a lot steeper exactly as you’d expect when pointing at a geostationary satellite “above” the equator.

Have you investigated the ISS? You know you can see it from the ground exactly where and when expected?

I’d say those are some pretty massive successes. What can FE predict? Give me one thing.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 08:28:06 PM
Why?  The model works just fine.  In fact, I'm hopping on a flight in couple weeks for a little vacay.  Sure hope those numerical approximations of airflow hold up.

You are mistaking prediction for a simulation of the underlying laws. Numerical approximations are good for prediction, but don't fully simulate it based on the underlying laws.

I can predict that my town will be hot during the summer and cold during the winter, but that has nothing to do with the underlying model or laws that made that happen. Prediction has nothing to do with it.

The Ancient Babylonians could predict the position of the moon and planets based on patterns over the centuries, and had no geometrical scheme of planetary or lunar motion, but it would be foolish to mistake their ability to predict with their knowledge of the underlying laws.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 05, 2021, 08:32:24 PM
You are mistaking prediction for a simulation of the underlying laws. Numerical approximations are good for prediction, but don't fully simulate it based on the underlying laws.

Now you're truly grasping for a relevant argument.  Nice work.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2021, 08:36:17 PM
Numerical approximations are good for prediction, but don't fully simulate it based on the underlying laws.

Splitting the n body problem into multiple 2 body problems is clearly a solution “based on the underlying laws”.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 05, 2021, 08:42:00 PM
Why?  The model works just fine.  In fact, I'm hopping on a flight in couple weeks for a little vacay.  Sure hope those numerical approximations of airflow hold up.

You are mistaking prediction for a simulation of the underlying laws. Numerical approximations are good for prediction, but don't fully simulate it based on the underlying laws.

I can predict that my town will be hot during the summer and cold during the winter, but that has nothing to do with the underlying model or laws that made that happen. Prediction has nothing to do with it.

The Ancient Babylonians could predict the position of the moon and planets based on patterns over the centuries, and had no geometrical scheme of planetary or lunar motion, but it would be foolish to mistake their ability to predict with their knowledge of the underlying laws.

We’ve been round this buoy before Tom, and you completely ignored it and waited for the conversation to move on so you didn’t have to address it.

Numerical methods, as used in the various ephemeris models we discussed earlier, are absolutely based on the underlying theories. They are open source as well - you can go to GitHub and look at the code if you want to.

Here’s a snippet of my previous post that you totally ignored:

Quote
Here's the description of DE 102, one of the early and simpler models, taken from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-94-009-7214-8_6.pdf:
Quote
A. Initial Conditions
The starting epoch of the integration was June 28, 1969 (JD 2440400.5), the ephemeris being integrated both forward and backward from this date. The initial conditions were the best available at that time and represented a least squares adjustment to a variety of observational data types. These included: 1) Lunar-laser ranging; 2) Mariner 9 and Viking Orbiter spacecraft ranging; 3) radar-ranging to Mercury, Venus, and Mars; and 4) Meridian circle optical data. These are described in detail in the paper cited above.
B. Equations of Motion
The equations of motion used in the integration included: 1) the n- body forces of the sun, moon, and the nine major planets; 2) the lunar librations; 3) isotropic, PPN-relativistic formulation; and 4) the perturbations from five asteroids. Though a number of the inherent constants have subsequently been modified, it is of importance to mention that the form of the equations of motion in DEl02/LE5l has not been changed in any o·f the more recent ephemerides produced at JPL.
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 05, 2021, 08:42:57 PM
I would rather have no laws than adopting your lame tactic of holding up false ones and trying to justifying its massive failures.

Reminded me of a post from some time back.  Which model has the 'massive failures' in predicting the path of the ISS observable by anyone on the planet.

Just came across this video that shows the orbital path of the ISS in both sphere and flat earth models.

***recommend muting volume so you dont have to hear the ridiculous added sound effects***

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foQpkvW_N2U

It's a pretty cool animation no matter how you look at it!

The downside is that it doesnt show day/night cycles along with the orbital path.

Curious if anyone has tried to model/visualize ISS paths with sun and moon path throughout the seasons?
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 05, 2021, 08:44:49 PM
Numerical approximations are good for prediction, but don't fully simulate it based on the underlying laws.

Splitting the n body problem into multiple 2 body problems is clearly a solution “based on the underlying laws”.

Absolutely true. Also worth pointing out that this isn’t the only technique in use - many models employ time-stepped techniques that don’t rely on 2-body models. Pros and cons of all of them, of course.

Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: scomato on April 05, 2021, 08:58:38 PM
By Tom's logic, because we are currently unable to computationally and mathematically simulate the nature of human consciousness, consciousness is not real?

But, to determine that the Earth is a sphere, and to accurately compute the circumference of the earth, you need only simple tools and extremely simple math, to deduce a solution. So easy in fact that it was done over 2200 years ago. I would encourage Flat Earthers to conduct the same experiment Eratosthenes did in 200 BC.

(https://cdn.kastatic.org/ka-perseus-images/d8f9d45b5f19ca898b3bea1e58371dc6a4af0d4e.png)
Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: Tumeni on April 05, 2021, 09:34:58 PM
But, to determine that the Earth is a sphere, and to accurately compute the circumference of the earth, you need only simple tools and extremely simple math, to deduce a solution. So easy in fact that it was done over 2200 years ago.

Norwood and the French Geodesic Mission acheived the same, with differing methods, in the 1600s and 1700s respectively, arriving at, within reasonable margin of error for the methods, the same result as each other.

As a double-check, if you take the orbit of the ISS to be a perfect circle around a globe, use the published and observed orbital time, and published speed to calculate the circumference travelled by the craft, if you then subtract the stated orbital height above the surface, and recalculate the circumference of that surface, you end up with a figure broadly the same as those derived by the three methods outlined above.

Title: Re: About the conspiracy
Post by: SteelyBob on April 05, 2021, 10:30:51 PM

Norwood and the French Geodesic Mission acheived the same, with differing methods, in the 1600s and 1700s respectively, arriving at, within reasonable margin of error for the methods, the same result as each other.

As a double-check, if you take the orbit of the ISS to be a perfect circle around a globe, use the published and observed orbital time, and published speed to calculate the circumference travelled by the craft, if you then subtract the stated orbital height above the surface, and recalculate the circumference of that surface, you end up with a figure broadly the same as those derived by the three methods outlined above.

To add to the beauty of it, take the formula for centripetal acceleration (a=v2/r) and plug in the speed of the ISS (7700ms-1) and its distance from the centre of the earth (6800km) and you get 8.7ms-2, which is pretty much bang on what you’d expect g to be at the height of its orbit at around 400km from the earth’s surface. Neat.