141

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake

« on: April 23, 2020, 07:32:22 PM »

Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.

https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/

This is not an example of a photo of a flat earth being made to look like a globe and NASA aren't hiding anything here...

Uh..yes it is...it is exactly that...The guy admits he stitched flat data and applied it to a ball.

No he doesn’t say that. Please provide a quote from the article to support your claim.

Please provide an example of round data being emitted from any imaging device.

Sure! But you first, that’s only fair.

142

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake

« on: April 23, 2020, 03:19:43 PM »

Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.

https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/

This is not an example of a photo of a flat earth being made to look like a globe and NASA aren't hiding anything here...

Uh..yes it is...it is exactly that...The guy admits he stitched flat data and applied it to a ball.

No he doesn’t say that. Please provide a quote from the article to support your claim.

143

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: April 23, 2020, 03:17:49 PM »

Okay will do!

I’ll probably start with those same articles. They seem to know about it.

Unless you have some other sources about entropy that might help me learn about it in the way you do?

Simply put, entropy is a quantity representing the availability of the thermal energy in a system to be converted into work.

A rocket cannot possibly maintain constant entropy.

As stack writes falsely:

Rocket engines are considered Isentropic systems where entropy remains unchanged.

Isentropic nozzle flow
"Whenever a gas is forced through a tube, the gaseous molecules are deflected by the tube's walls. If the speed of the gas is much less than the speed of sound, the gas density will remain constant and the velocity of the flow will increase. However, as the speed of the flow approximates the speed of sound, compressibility effects on the gas are to be considered. The density of the gas becomes position dependent. While considering flow through a tube, if the flow is very gradually compressed (i.e. area decreases) and then gradually expanded (i.e. area increases), the flow conditions are restored (i.e. return to its initial position). So, such a process is a reversible process. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whenever there is a reversible and adiabatic flow, constant value of entropy is maintained. Engineers classify this type of flow as an isentropic flow of fluids.”

So you see, a Nonisentropic process, like Free Expansion, does not apply to an Isentropic system. Apples and oranges.

...it is obviously written by someone trying to engage in double speak...

And stack, while he talks of the rocket engine, does NOT want you to look behind the curtain containing the rocket exhaust, which is where the meat and potatoes is at.

A rocket has a fixed amount of fuel and a fixed amount of potential energy.

Rockets have a fixed rate of discharge at any particular point of time.

Sooner or later, there is no more more potential energy available.

Therefore, rockets cannot maintain unchanged entropy when in operation.

And that process is not "reversible," nor can it possibly be "adiabatic," as described in stacks' ridiculous post, once initiated. Rockets experience no reverse flow of fluids or exhaust. The exhaust is supposedly taking place in the vacuum of outer space...again, where all the fakers want you to believe that gas, just because it is coming from a rocket, can somehow, someway...be different...but it, of course...cannot.

Gas released into a vacuum...does no work.

Okay, so then why do the sources that I gave all say that it is isentropic? Are they all wrong?

144

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: April 23, 2020, 12:23:54 PM »

Correct, your central argument has been gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum based upon Joule's free expansion. But as has been shown, free expansion is a nonisentropic process.  Conversely, rocket thrust is an isentropic process. Thereby nullifying your use of free expansion and no work done when applied to rockets in a vacuum.

The change in entropy is determined by the beginning and final states of the system and the system of a rocket is irreversible.

A rocket cannot maintain a constant value of entropy.

Therefore, a rocket is nonisentropic...

I have no clue from where you pulled your BS reference, but it is so laughable...

Please find another!

I don’t really know what these things are, but a google search seems to provide quite a bit of evidence that disagrees with your claims. Some links are below. I don’t claim to understand what is talked about in them, they are simply sources that say rocket propulsion is isentropic. This took only a minute to find. So do you have sources that support your ideas?

http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm#expansion

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/isentrop.html

https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-11-01-07.pdf

https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2/nptel_data3/html/mhrd/ict/text/101104019/lec23.pdf

Yeah, the fact is if you know what the difference is between isentropic and nonisentropic tells you all you need to know.

Uhhh, so you say you know this difference, and that is all you need to know to make your claim true?

Lol, yeah I don’t believe you at all, that sounds like BS. You want me to ignore what appears to be the consensus on that his issue, and accept your alternative without any evidence?

I’m gonna pass. It really doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about here. Since I don’t know about isentropy, I’m going to believe what scientists say is true over what you claim is true. They have evidence, but it doesn’t look like you have any.

Have a great day with your beliefs.

Read up on entropy.

Okay will do!

I’ll probably start with those same articles. They seem to know about it.

Unless you have some other sources about entropy that might help me learn about it in the way you do?

145

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake

« on: April 23, 2020, 12:17:57 PM »

Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.

https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/

From reading the article, it doesn’t seem like this is an example of what I asked for.

“The problem, Simmon said, is all the NASA earth-observing satellites are in low-earth or geostationary orbit, meaning none of them are far enough away to see a full hemisphere. The most familiar pictures of the entire Earth are from the 1960s and 1970s Apollo missions to the moon.”

“As realistic as it looks, the image is a composite of four months of light data collected in 2,300 km (1,429 mi) wide bands as NASA’s Terra satellite orbited from pole to pole, and the earth rotated beneath it.

That data was then stitched together and applied to the surface of a digital ball, then modified in Photoshop.”

So the image is a composite image of multiple satellite images put together and made to look pretty for an iPhone background.

I’m okay with that, because you are claiming that Records exist which support your claim that round earth is faked. But this article supports the opposite.

I know you are okay with claiming you never asked for something you asked for.

But your quote is obvious to see...and you directly asked for what I provided.

This is what you asked for:
"Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering..."
Thank you for your continued disingenuous approach to the whole topic.

Have a great day and best of everything to you and yours!

Okay, you too!

146

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake

« on: April 23, 2020, 11:57:37 AM »

Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.

https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/

From reading the article, it doesn’t seem like this is an example of what I asked for.

“The problem, Simmon said, is all the NASA earth-observing satellites are in low-earth or geostationary orbit, meaning none of them are far enough away to see a full hemisphere. The most familiar pictures of the entire Earth are from the 1960s and 1970s Apollo missions to the moon.”

“As realistic as it looks, the image is a composite of four months of light data collected in 2,300 km (1,429 mi) wide bands as NASA’s Terra satellite orbited from pole to pole, and the earth rotated beneath it.

That data was then stitched together and applied to the surface of a digital ball, then modified in Photoshop.”

So the image is a composite image of multiple satellite images put together and made to look pretty for an iPhone background.

I’m okay with that, because you are claiming that Records exist which support your claim that round earth is faked. But this article supports the opposite.

147

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: April 23, 2020, 11:51:02 AM »

Correct, your central argument has been gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum based upon Joule's free expansion. But as has been shown, free expansion is a nonisentropic process.  Conversely, rocket thrust is an isentropic process. Thereby nullifying your use of free expansion and no work done when applied to rockets in a vacuum.

The change in entropy is determined by the beginning and final states of the system and the system of a rocket is irreversible.

A rocket cannot maintain a constant value of entropy.

Therefore, a rocket is nonisentropic...

I have no clue from where you pulled your BS reference, but it is so laughable...

Please find another!

I don’t really know what these things are, but a google search seems to provide quite a bit of evidence that disagrees with your claims. Some links are below. I don’t claim to understand what is talked about in them, they are simply sources that say rocket propulsion is isentropic. This took only a minute to find. So do you have sources that support your ideas?

http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm#expansion

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/isentrop.html

https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-11-01-07.pdf

https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2/nptel_data3/html/mhrd/ict/text/101104019/lec23.pdf

Yeah, the fact is if you know what the difference is between isentropic and nonisentropic tells you all you need to know.

Uhhh, so you say you know this difference, and that is all you need to know to make your claim true?

Lol, yeah I don’t believe you at all, that sounds like BS. You want me to ignore what appears to be the consensus on that his issue, and accept your alternative without any evidence?

I’m gonna pass. It really doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about here. Since I don’t know about isentropy, I’m going to believe what scientists say is true over what you claim is true. They have evidence, but it doesn’t look like you have any.

148

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: April 23, 2020, 11:36:10 AM »

Correct, your central argument has been gas does no work when expelled into a vacuum based upon Joule's free expansion. But as has been shown, free expansion is a nonisentropic process.  Conversely, rocket thrust is an isentropic process. Thereby nullifying your use of free expansion and no work done when applied to rockets in a vacuum.

The change in entropy is determined by the beginning and final states of the system and the system of a rocket is irreversible.

A rocket cannot maintain a constant value of entropy.

Therefore, a rocket is nonisentropic...

I have no clue from where you pulled your BS reference, but it is so laughable...

Please find another!

I don’t really know what these things are, but a google search seems to provide quite a bit of evidence that disagrees with your claims. Some links are below. I don’t claim to understand what is talked about in them, they are simply sources that say rocket propulsion is isentropic. This took only a minute to find. So do you have sources that support your ideas?

http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm#expansion

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/isentrop.html

https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-11-01-07.pdf

https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2/nptel_data3/html/mhrd/ict/text/101104019/lec23.pdf

149

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake

« on: April 23, 2020, 11:27:06 AM »

Again, you already have NASA personnel on record as having altered numerous images.

and this doesn't mean anything, it's a pretty crazy leap going from some photos were 'touched up' to 'the globe is a lie and the world is flat'. I would stop using the altered photos argument you keep trying to push, it's really dumb. It's no secret photos can be and are altered, it's not evidence of a flat earth. It's the equivalent of seeing someones wedding photos of which I did not attend, finding out the photographer upped the contrast differently in some of the photos then claiming the wedding never happened based on that.

*finds out a photo of my cousin at the beach was photoshopped to remove the clouds in the sky*

"Wait a minute, this is completely misrepresented! It's all a lie! There is no longer proof you even went to the beach!"

Again, stop with the strawman...

What does a freaking wedding have to do with NASA?

Where did I claim altered pictures are evidence of a flat earth.

I said they are evidence of a lie.

It's not a strawman, it's an example of why your point is silly.

No...it is a strawman...erecting a totally false equivalency then to tear it down...that = a strawman..

Do happen to believe people are on the ISS in orbit around the earth?

I believe people have been in the ISS, yes.

They take pictures of the earth all the time, not misrepresented.

You do not know that.

Even if those photos are misrepresented then you'd be also accusing them of lying because they can see the globe themselves.

You do not know that.

Do the math and prove it.

Your claim is this isn't proof of anything because 'images were altered'... replace space with a wedding, replace astronauts with the bride and groom. it's the exact same thing.

No, earth bound objects are not the same as objects above us in the least...

You're just pointing out the obvious thing that photos and videos can be edited but not putting forward any evidence of lying or misrepresenting a flat earth as a globe. videos are all still evidence, the moon landings were during a time where videos couldn't simply be altered.

Now you are either being flat out dishonest or ignorant , especially with the statement videos could not be altered at the time of the supposed moon landing...

Instead of shouting fake or altered maybe back up your claims with something. There are plenty of photos and videos out there that clearly show a globe earth that NASA and other space agencies have said are real. Your claim is they're lying about that. Prove it or stop claiming it.

There are NASA personnel on record stating many images have been altered.

Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.

150

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake

« on: April 22, 2020, 07:51:03 PM »

Whoa, take it easy. I’m not your enemy.

I was only trying to offer some additional information to help the conversation.

The article discusses some of the neuroscience behind imagination and thoughts, which infers that the subject is more complicated than what you said. That’s all.

The article discusses issues of imagination as it relates to non-concrete ideals and economy.

That is certainly a science in and of itself, however, it is not even tangentially connected to the topics here.

I never stated you were my enemy.

Oh whatever, the article discusses the interplay between imagination informing thought processes, and it is not worth arguing with you over semantics.

This contrarian attitude isn’t useful. You seem to only want to combat even the most basic offers - so I think you are not interested in figuring these things out, just arguing for its own sake.

Well I am not.

You win. I lose. See ya.

151

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake

« on: April 22, 2020, 02:39:36 PM »

It's quite amazing that Totallackey couldn't even think of some kind of experiment that would prove the earth a globe without calling his own thoughts fake.

Thoughts and imagination, in case you don't really know, can be separate and distinct, and usually are.

Hmmm, that doesn’t see me to fit the neuroscience very well. Here is an article discusses these very things: https://www.fastcompany.com/3026510/the-neuroscience-of-imagination

That depths and lengths you will go to throw mud on the windshield of cars traveling down the road is quite evident with your posts today.

You believe the article you offer somehow invalidates my statement?

That is rich.

Whoa, take it easy. I’m not your enemy.

I was only trying to offer some additional information to help the conversation.

The article discusses some of the neuroscience behind imagination and thoughts, which infers that the subject is more complicated than what you said. That’s all.

152

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake

« on: April 22, 2020, 12:17:25 PM »

It's quite amazing that Totallackey couldn't even think of some kind of experiment that would prove the earth a globe without calling his own thoughts fake.

Thoughts and imagination, in case you don't really know, can be separate and distinct, and usually are.

Hmmm, that doesn’t see me to fit the neuroscience very well. Here is an article discusses these very things: https://www.fastcompany.com/3026510/the-neuroscience-of-imagination

153

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?

« on: April 21, 2020, 03:58:41 AM »

Why are you only narrowly focused on Christianity? What about the other religions of the world?

I'm not focused on Christianity. In the FE discussions we are usually talking about the Abrahamic religions in general. Many religions accept the Old Testament. The Old Testament includes the creation of the world through Noah.

Other religions who do not specifically associate with the Old Testament have oddly similar stories to the Old Testament stories, such as the Flood story, immoral serpents, and depict the Earth as flat. There is possibly some common genesis.

From what I can tell, the argument from design has 3 things: irreducible complexity, arguments of fine tuning, arguments from beauty.

Since none of them can make a science claim, the design idea isn’t scientific.

What am I missing here?

Science claims that ID is not testable. Neither is any alternative claim. One cannot experiment on the past. One can only observe and interpret.

Take Max Plank's quote “Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination.”

If we stick to that as the absolute rule for science and knowledge, and avoid arguing by human 'logic', what do we really and truly know? Not much.

I’m no biologist, but haven’t they observed speciation in the laboratory? Can’t anyone show natural selection that makes preferred qualities in their own vegetable gardens? I think I’m just trying to understand your position.

Anyway, so what I’m hearing you say next is that sticking to a rule and avoiding logic means we don’t really know anything. So, does this include that we don’t know intelligent design or the shape of the Earth too?

I mean, isn’t every experiment thought of first with imagination? And even if plank is right, he didn’t actually say that experiments can only be done to test the present.

154

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?

« on: April 21, 2020, 02:22:16 AM »

Why are you only narrowly focused on Christianity? What about the other religions of the world?

I'm not focused on Christianity. In the FE discussions we are usually talking about the Abrahamic religions in general. Many religions accept the Old Testament. The Old Testament includes the creation of the world through Noah.

Other religions who do not specifically associate with the Old Testament have oddly similar stories to the Old Testament stories, such as the Flood story, immoral serpents, and depict the Earth as flat. There is possibly some common genesis.

From what I can tell, the argument from design has 3 things: irreducible complexity, arguments of fine tuning, arguments from beauty.

Since none of them can make a science claim, the design idea isn’t scientific.

What am I missing here?

155

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?

« on: April 20, 2020, 09:58:53 PM »

Scientists see stuff and make a model about it. They see new stuff and add that to the model. You seem to be angry and upset that scientists don't always throw everything out and come up with totally new models. What is the problem with taking something that works, and making it work better? What bothers you so much?

Because it puts that which came before up on a pedestal. It refines, it doesn't replace.
To take your Einstein example, what the logical approach should have been was to take that, and look back, to start from ground level with the knowledge that such phenomena are even possible, as opposed to building everything up assuming such things never happen. The knock on effects for a new discovery like that should be tremendous, instead they affect only Newton in certain circumstances and affect plenty of things looking forward, but don't alter anything looking back.
Taking something 'that works' is making far too much of an assumption, something isn't above question just because it works, more often than not it works because it was forced to work, it started life as a failure, then was tweaked and made vague enough that values could be assigned that gave it the appearance of working, with no guarantee that the underlying process is actually an accurate description of why what happens, well, happens. It's always easy to answer the what, the why is much harder to figure out, but the scientific community has taken the lazy route of equating the two.

The modern scientific community is far too concerned with building up higher and higher that it's not checking its foundations. What of alternatives? If something is wrong with our current understanding of the world, odds are it isn't going to be something small, it would be some oversight made when our technology and knowledge was far less than it is now and the issues would have gotten bigger and bigger as time went by and more was built upon that error, constantly tweaking and nipping and tucking until it gave the appearance of working, while being an unwieldy, flawed explanation that's only going to keep causing problems.
And what you call science is woefully unequipped to even acknowledge such a possibility, let alone address it.

I don’t know about this. It looks like they DO look back when something happens. From what I remember, the Newton stuff still is correct and the reason why is because the Einstein stuff is small at slow speeds.

So not only did they look back, but they re-described newton as approximate and only good to do under certain cases.

Do you have any examples of scientists ignoring scientific finding that disprove these pedestal items?

156

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: RE Lunar Phases With Extreme Perspective Changes

« on: April 17, 2020, 09:22:44 PM »

Is there an easier way to discuss this issue in a way everyone can understand? If there is anybody here who lives in the Southern hemisphere, we could just compare our own pictures of the moon. Wouldn't this help determine whether there is a perspective effect or not? Because if I get this flat earth idea, then we would see different pictures, from seeing different "sides" of the moon. In a round earth, we would see the same picture upside down.

The word perspective has a meaning and nothing to do with how Tom uses it.

I’m just trying to help move things in useful direction. After a while, it all starts to look like arguing over things most of us don’t know.

157

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: RE Lunar Phases With Extreme Perspective Changes

« on: April 17, 2020, 08:29:53 PM »

Is there an easier way to discuss this issue in a way everyone can understand? If there is anybody here who lives in the Southern hemisphere, we could just compare our own pictures of the moon. Wouldn't this help determine whether there is a perspective effect or not? Because if I get this flat earth idea, then we would see different pictures, from seeing different "sides" of the moon. In a round earth, we would see the same picture upside down.