The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on May 12, 2018, 11:54:48 PM

Title: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 12, 2018, 11:54:48 PM
In 2016 the Flat Earther Dave Murphy, who is a notable figure in the greater Flat Earth community, had a few questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson. Tyson has still not responded, although he has most assuredly seen it. There are a few good points to think about in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMJjpjwix5I
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil Degrasse-Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: TID on May 13, 2018, 01:01:47 AM
this is an awesome video.

this one will also make you think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil Degrasse-Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: garygreen on May 13, 2018, 01:42:03 AM
tbh i'm not sure why this video would merit a response.  the author mostly just displays a lack of understanding of the model he's polemicizing.  points 1 and 4 are especially bad.

as a wise man once said: "Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites."
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2018, 01:57:46 AM
this is an awesome video.

this one will also make you think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)

Thank you. You are right, that is an interesting video. It really makes one think.

tbh i'm not sure why this video would merit a response.  the author mostly just displays a lack of understanding of the model he's polemicizing.  points 1 and 4 are especially bad.

as a wise man once said: "Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites."

Go ahead, then. Quote or reference the literature where his questions are explained.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil Degrasse-Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: TID on May 13, 2018, 02:08:17 AM
tbh I'm not sure why this video would merit a response.  the author mostly just displays a lack of understanding of the model he's polemicizing.  points 1 and 4 are especially bad.

as a wise man once said: "Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites."

You can't deny something without giving a reason why you think this, that's stealing.

Give your points, it's ok no one will ridicule you, this is a healthy discussion.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: garygreen on May 13, 2018, 02:38:46 AM
Go ahead, then. Quote or reference the literature where his questions are explained.

i mean tbh the onus is on the author to demonstrate that he understands the position he's criticizing.  it's no different than the noobs who demonstrate that they haven't read eang.  how seriously do you take their arguments?

but okay.  to point #1, the author has apparently never heard of plate tectonics.  the basic story goes like this: first a rocky crust formed; next, we got oceans; finally, continents formed because mantle convection and plate tectonics and such.  the continents have moved around since then.  there's nothing in modern physics that says continents can't form at, or migrate to, the equator.

to point #4, this is basic physics of motion stuff.  the atoms simply don't have enough velocity to escape.  i can't throw a baseball fast enough to escape the earth, but i can still throw it in the air.  i can still accelerate the baseball in any direction.  it just won't ever escape the earth's potential well.

also fwiw i actually totally sympathize with you about ndgt.  i genuinely can't stand him.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2018, 03:41:34 AM
Quote
but okay.  to point #1, the author has apparently never heard of plate tectonics.  the basic story goes like this: first a rocky crust formed; next, we got oceans; finally, continents formed because mantle convection and plate tectonics and such.  the continents have moved around since then.  there's nothing in modern physics that says continents can't form at, or migrate to, the equator.

I believe his argument is that if there is a bulge to the earth, because of centripetal acceleration, then naturally the water should have gone to the equator since that is easier to move than the land. There should be a very high bulge of water there; so how does it make sense that there is land sticking out of the water? In RET the difference between the earth's diameter between the pole and the equator is 42 kilometers.

Quote
to point #4, this is basic physics of motion stuff.  the atoms simply don't have enough velocity to escape.  i can't throw a baseball fast enough to escape the earth, but i can still throw it in the air.  i can still accelerate the baseball in any direction.  it just won't ever escape the earth's potential well.

Murphy's response to this rebuttal is that it is already accepted that the atmosphere does leak out into space.

https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html

Quote
Every day, around 90 tonnes of material escapes from our planet's upper atmosphere and streams out into space

If some atmosphere can leak out, why doesn't it all leak out?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: garygreen on May 13, 2018, 04:45:01 AM
There should be a very high bulge of water there; so how does it make sense that there is land sticking out of the water?

there is a bulge of water at the equator.  so what?  continents build up from the seafloor.  there's no reason they can't build up higher than sea level at the equator.

If some atmosphere can leak out, why doesn't it all leak out?

because not very many atoms in the atmosphere are ever accelerated enough to escape.  it's possible to hit a baseball hard enough for it to escape the earth, but that's no reason to assume we should be running out of baseballs.

also your article says that the cause is acceleration by magnetic fields at the poles.  it makes clear that the loss is minuscule.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2018, 07:09:15 AM
There should be a very high bulge of water there; so how does it make sense that there is land sticking out of the water?

there is a bulge of water at the equator.  so what?  continents build up from the seafloor.  there's no reason they can't build up higher than sea level at the equator.

It certainly does seem very odd that the lands at the equator can build up so high in comparison to the other continents.

We should expect, then, that the deepest parts of the ocean to be at the equator. But the average depth of the Pacific is only 2.65 miles and the deepest part of the ocean in the Pacific at Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench is only about 7 miles. It appears that you have a lot of explaining to do.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: AATW on May 13, 2018, 07:29:07 AM
I believe his argument is that if there is a bulge to the earth, because of centripetal acceleration, then naturally the water should have gone to the equator since that is easier to move than the land.
There's a bulge because as the earth cooled it was spinning, the centripetal force made the earth bulge slightly.
But at that stage of the earth's history there was no water, the crust was just cooling molten rock.
I haven't watched the rest of the video but the first point is pretty silly and shows no understanding of the theories about the history of the earth's formation.
He seems to imagine an earth as it is now bulging because of the centripetal force, that isn't what happened.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2018, 07:49:14 AM
I believe his argument is that if there is a bulge to the earth, because of centripetal acceleration, then naturally the water should have gone to the equator since that is easier to move than the land.
There's a bulge because as the earth cooled it was spinning, the centripetal force made the earth bulge slightly.
But at that stage of the earth's history there was no water, the crust was just cooling molten rock.
I haven't watched the rest of the video but the first point is pretty silly and shows no understanding of the theories about the history of the earth's formation.
He seems to imagine an earth as it is now bulging because of the centripetal force, that isn't what happened.

The centripetal force of the earth would cause the deepest parts of the ocean to be at the equator. This should happen regardless if the land was slightly bulging in the middle. The water would bulge and collect on top of it.

In an ocean depth map we should see that the oceans at the equator is deeper than at higher latitudes. This is not the case. As far as I can see the equator holds no special significance to the oceans of the world.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: AATW on May 13, 2018, 07:51:59 AM
Again, the bulge of the earth was caused because the earth was spinning at the time it was hot and malleable and the force could cause it to change shape.
Since then the oceans formed and there's been billions of years of tectonic page moving.

EDIT: By the way. You really really should go on a simple science course. It may not change any of your views but it would help you debate stuff armed with a bit of knowledge about what our current scientific models say. You repeatedly show on here you don't know much about that. And there is nothing wrong with that in itself, not everyone can know everything, but arguing in such a condescending way from a place of such ignorance does you no favours.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2018, 08:07:58 AM
Again, the bulge of the earth was caused because the earth was spinning at the time it was hot and malleable and the force could cause it to change shape.
Since then the oceans formed and there's been billions of years of tectonic page moving.

It doesn't matter. The water still needs to collect and bulge at the equator due to centripetal acceleration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge

Quote
Similarly, there is a bulge in the water envelope of the oceans surrounding Earth; this bulge is created by the greater centrifugal force at the equator and is independent of tides.

Are you saying that the ocean maintains its average depth between the poles and the equator and there is no bulge detected, in contradiction to the above quote and what we should expect from calculations?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: AATW on May 13, 2018, 08:14:06 AM
I'm saying I don't know if any scientific reason there can't be land at the equator.
But I'll admit there are some scientific areas here I'm not an expert on, but neither are you.
I suggest you take my advice about a science class
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2018, 08:34:48 AM
Take a look at this website: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/

This website calculates that the water bulge at the equator. Do a find for "water" on that page to find the sections where it is computing what the bulge of the water should be. The calculations assume an earth with rock mass that bulges outwards. The conclusions are that the water should bulge out as well.

From the link:

Quote
This gives us a surplus energy of ½ mR² w ² , or ½mv²  for the drop of water, which is enough to carry the drop of water to a height of 11.035 km against the force of gravity at the equator, the same value we calculated earlier.

That's 6.85 miles. Basically the depth of Challenger Deep.

Why isn't it shown that the deepest parts of the ocean are at the equator?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: isaacN on May 13, 2018, 08:46:53 AM
In 2016 the Flat Earther Dave Murphy, who is a notable figure in the greater Flat Earth community, had a few questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson. Tyson has still not responded, although he has most assuredly seen it. There are a few good points to think about in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMJjpjwix5I

I think Mr. Sargent should first get some basic facts right. In his first question he stated the curve of the earth over the length of Lake Baikal of, just under 400miles to be 20 miles. I think his calculation of the curve needs to be checked, what do you think Mr. Bishop? Do you agree? Second point, he states he can see a distance of 5 miles in any direction over a flat surface. For this to be the case he would need to be 18ft tall! Do you think Mr. Sargent is 18ft tall?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 13, 2018, 03:11:40 PM
In 2016 the Flat Earther Dave Murphy, who is a notable figure in the greater Flat Earth community, had a few questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson. Tyson has still not responded, although he has most assuredly seen it. There are a few good points to think about in this video.
I wish such notable figures would participate in forums like this. I'm not Neil, but I'll try to answer Dave's questions. I'll send him an email, pointing him to this thread. Maybe he'll join us and respond?



1. Why is there land at the equator?
Water does contribute to the bulge of earth's oblate shape, but rock is subject to the centripetal force of earth's spin too; and the effects of that centripetal force are smaller than other tectonic forces that cause rock to rise above the bulge of water. The "oblateness" is very small relative to the size of the earth. Forces causing movement of land masses are greater than the 1/3G force of centripetal spin.

And the condition is not constant. Changes occur over long periods of time. Sometimes the land does bulge less and water, if melted, moves due to the spinning force and covers more land. It's dynamic.


2. Am I able to see the curvature or not?
Curve in the lateral frame? (Across the horizon left to right or right to left?) No. You cannot see that curve. That curve would be the circumference of a spherical cap of the earth, which is too gradual at low elevations to detect.

Curve in the transverse frame? (Toward and away from the horizon?) You can "see," but only by inference. You can't see curve away from you directly. You see along a line tangent to the surface. But you can deduce that there is curve away from your vantage point.

3. Why haven't we ever seen curved water?

By "see" I assume you mean "detect." The curve is too gradual to see. But it can be detected, and has been.

4. How are we breathing?
Gravity.
Air, whether warm or cold, has mass. Some actually does "leak" away into space, but not due to the vacuum of space. The gas in a bottle analogy is not a correct model for the atmosphere of earth. In the bottle example, gravity exists both inside and outside of the bottle, so locally, the gas will seek equilibrium and the "vacuum" effect will occur. But the earth's atmosphere is not contained by boundary between vacuum and non-vacuum. Gravity creates a virtual boundary of sorts that causes the non-vacuum state of air to even exist. If gravitational force suddenly disappeared, the atmosphere would get "vacuumed" away. But were it not for gravity, there'd be no atmosphere at all for there to be vacuum and non-vacuum.

5. Is the Earth small or the Sun near?
I've never heard anyone give the "official explanation" being refraction for the phenomenon of crepuscular rays. The "official explanation" is they are nearly parallel and only appear to radiate due to perspective.

Since the suns rays are not divergent as they appear, but are parallel, the apparent disjunction re. Eratosthenes' shadow observation that you raised should be resolved.

6. How does a convex lens make light diverge?
It doesn't. You're right.  A convex lens doesn't make light diverge. The refractive index of earth's atmosphere causes light to bend (to about half a degree at most) toward the more dense medium. Explaining crepuscular rays as light bending toward area of less density would be in error and thus an incorrect explanation. (Who told you this "official explanation?")

7. Why doesn't the artificial horizon roll backwards during straight and level flight?
What manufacturer of attitude indicators did you talk to? There is no reason why they shouldn't have explained that the instrument is self-leveling, relative to the axis of gravity's force. They aren't merely a gyroscope with a fixed orientation in space. They do adjust, by design, for the change in axis due to gravity. (Speaking as a former aviator, I'm surprised the pilots didn't explain this to you also.)

8. Why is the Coriolis effect so selective?
Bullets are ballistic. Airplanes are not. The Coriolis effect is greatest in north/south movement and lessens as the east/west component of path increases. The effect is slight, but for gunnery over distance, accuracy requires accounting for the effect.

Planes moving over the surface of the earth will be affected by the earth's rotation under it, though it is slight and other influences (like wind) are much more impactful. Even at its greatest -- in an aircraft flying due north or due south -- the effect is not like having to crab into the wind as your video shows by false analogy. Planes (and bullets) retain the rotational momentum of the earth after taking off (or leaving the barrel). Planes, however, are guided. Bullets (mostly) are not. Either way, it's a misunderstanding to believe that the Corolis effect is selective.

9. What is the ISS flying over?
The view from low earth orbit is steeper than the view from an airplane cockpit near the earth's surface. It's the like how cruise at high altitude in a commercial airliner doesn't have the same "land rush" as flying low level like in a crop duster or strike fighter.

10. How can micro gravity be selective?
Gravity isn't selective. I can't offer a definitive explanation for that ketchup bottle. Looks to me like it's magnetized, but that's just my guess. Whatever the explanation, evidence of a hoax would be low on my list of possible solutions. For example, I might not rule out the explanation that a ghost is responsible for a sound heard coming from my attic, but I'm inclined to inspect and rule out other explanations first.

11. Why are there craters on the Moon?
The moon has no atmosphere and other eroding factors, so old crators remain in evidence. Earth's gravity does "protect" the moon to a degree, just as the larger outer planets and sun protect the earth from experiencing more impacts. But it isn't a shield. Some impacts will still occur on a satellite of a larger body. 

And as for the tidal lock, the moon wasn't always oriented to earth the way it is now. It takes time for that to occur. (The 'far side' of the moon does look more crator-impacted to me than the 'near side,' though I don't know if that's actually true.)

12.  Why don't we see permanent hills and valleys in the ocean?
I didn't understand what this question was asking until I saw the graphic of sea surfaces comforming to undersea terrain.

All things with mass are affected by gravitational force. But collectively, the force vectors combine to direct toward center mass. Terrain undulations have negligable effect compared to the earth on whole. The gravitational effects of localized masses like mountain ranges or deep sea rifts (lack of mass) are vastly overwhelmed by the aggregate gravitation of the rest of earth.



I welcome any response or rebuttals from Allegedly Dave (or Mark Sargent, who posted that video).
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: isaacN on May 13, 2018, 03:18:09 PM
Why would he bother answering these questions when the first couple are so ridiculus and clear examples of how ill informed and flexible wirh his facts Mr. Sargent is. If Mr. Bishop thinks they are good questions, perhaps he should take a second look. Its good and very healthy to question things but not in this ill informed embarrasing way.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 13, 2018, 03:35:40 PM
Why would he bother answering these questions when the first couple are so ridiculus and clear examples of how ill informed and flexible wirh his facts Mr. Sargent is. If Mr. Bishop thinks they are good questions, perhaps he should take a second look. Its good and very healthy to question things but not in this ill informed embarrasing way.
Just a point of order:

Those are questions posed by "Allegedly" Dave Murphy. Mark Sargent is the video publisher.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: AATW on May 13, 2018, 05:12:07 PM
I actually do agree with the first couple of minutes of the video.
As ridiculous as FE is, Neil deGrasse Tyson's response is not helpful and saying that we shouldn't challenge an idea because the answer has been established for hundreds of years is not helpful, I agree with the video that by that rationale Einstein would have been told to stop being ridiculous as Newton had already sorted it all out.
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on May 13, 2018, 05:42:59 PM
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.

70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?

And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on May 17, 2018, 12:51:20 AM
I believe his argument is that if there is a bulge to the earth, because of centripetal acceleration, then naturally the water should have gone to the equator since that is easier to move than the land.
There's a bulge because as the earth cooled it was spinning, the centripetal force made the earth bulge slightly.
But at that stage of the earth's history there was no water, the crust was just cooling molten rock.
I haven't watched the rest of the video but the first point is pretty silly and shows no understanding of the theories about the history of the earth's formation.
He seems to imagine an earth as it is now bulging because of the centripetal force, that isn't what happened.
Your just repeating stuff you were told. In the video he's showing you what is proven. Prove that the molting ball cooled, etc etc. Hear say does not apply in court and should not apply in science.
  FEers talk about what you yourself can prove while globe believers talk about things that we can't prove then have the nerve to say we got no proof. Crazy
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on May 17, 2018, 12:57:15 AM
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.

70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?

And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.



Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: jcks on May 17, 2018, 03:28:43 AM
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.

70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?

And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.



Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

Where have they been debunked?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on May 17, 2018, 08:26:20 AM
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.

70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?

And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.



Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

No. There's plenty of proof of orbital flight which does not rely on pictures.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on May 17, 2018, 11:01:22 PM
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

As we all know, there are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.

But let's come at it from another angle: when we look in the sky at where we are told the ISS will appear, there is something there. Those with high-powered zoom lenses can make out a shape matching what we're told the ISS looks like - but for the rest of us, all we see is a dot.

Still, that's probably enough.

Question is, even if we don't believe in the ISS, there is something there, seemingly orbiting at 250 miles above the surface of the earth.

So, dear flat earther, what is it?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on May 18, 2018, 03:41:19 PM
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.

70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?

And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.



Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

Where have they been debunked?




Internet is full of NASA pictures shown to be fake. YouTube is littered with it. SEX was written is the clouds in one. Straight off NASA site. NASA took it down afterwards. And another showed same clouds copied and placed throughout the globe picture.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on May 18, 2018, 03:52:07 PM
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

As we all know, there are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.

But let's come at it from another angle: when we look in the sky at where we are told the ISS will appear, there is something there. Those with high-powered zoom lenses can make out a shape matching what we're told the ISS looks like - but for the rest of us, all we see is a dot.

Still, that's probably enough.

Question is, even if we don't believe in the ISS, there is something there, seemingly orbiting at 250 miles above the surface of the earth.

So, dear flat earther, what is it?




You thinking the pictures of earth are not CGI doesn't mean they aren't. Its logical to think that if some have been proven frauds then the others MIGHT be as well.
   I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it. You don't know how many miles it is up there. Only what you've been told. One satellite crashed in Brazil I think it was. The local didn't know what it was. Pictures are on line. Satellite drone. There's a number on it to call and NASA has a team that goes and gets them. There's a balloon attach to it.
   It might catch and follow the wind channel and it would carry it all over is my guess but not sure.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on May 18, 2018, 03:57:27 PM
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.

70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?

And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.



Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

No. There's plenty of proof of orbital flight which does not rely on pictures.


Thanks for your reply. Please tell me of proof of orbital flight. Please don't repeat hearsay that can't be proven. Thanks
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on May 18, 2018, 04:01:30 PM
I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. You don't know how many miles it is up there. Only what you've been told.

But, being a smart person, you do understand how easy it would be to measure it for yourself, right?

You look at it and you measure the angle to it. Your friend a decent distance away does the same at the same time. And, for good measure, one more friend a decent distance from both of you does so too.

It is then a matter of ease to triangulate its position.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on May 18, 2018, 04:09:42 PM
I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. You don't know how many miles it is up there. Only what you've been told.


But, being a smart person, you do understand how easy it would be to measure it for yourself, right?

You look at it and you measure the angle to it. Your friend a decent distance away does the same at the same time. And, for good measure, one more friend a decent distance from both of you does so too.

It is then a matter of ease to triangulate its position.


It would not tell you how many miles or exactly how far. You can't tell how far a plane is in the air only the position of where it's at. Not how far. I believe it's a satellite drone. Check out the picture of the one at day and the Brazilian one. Pretty cool stuff.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 18, 2018, 04:19:10 PM
You thinking the pictures of earth are not CGI doesn't mean they aren't. Its logical to think that if some have been proven frauds then the others MIGHT be as well.
Really? Even the pictures of Earth that predated CGI?
Quote
The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it.
Funny thing, the blue sky is actually in front of it. How blue was the ISS in the picture?
Quote
One satellite crashed in Brazil I think it was. The local didn't know what it was. Pictures are on line. Satellite drone. There's a number on it to call and NASA has a team that goes and gets them. There's a balloon attach to it.
Sounds like it was never in space, was never intended to get to space, and NASA won't tell you that it was in space.

It would not tell you how many miles or exactly how far. You can't tell how far a plane is in the air only the position of where it's at. Not how far. I believe it's a satellite drone. Check out the picture of the one at day and the Brazilian one. Pretty cool stuff.
https://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/math/geometry/triangles/congruent_asa_aas
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on May 18, 2018, 04:30:10 PM
It would not tell you how many miles or exactly how far. You can't tell how far a plane is in the air only the position of where it's at, not how far.

You can absolutely tell the altitude of a plane, if you triangulate its position, and know how far away you are from your friends.

Maybe this link will help you: www.metabunk.org/triangulating-the-position-and-height-of-the-international-space-station-iss.t7994 (http://www.metabunk.org/triangulating-the-position-and-height-of-the-international-space-station-iss.t7994)

I believe it's a satellite drone.

And what is the altitude of this "satellite drone"? And what path does it follow above us?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on May 18, 2018, 06:25:04 PM
You thinking the pictures of earth are not CGI doesn't mean they aren't. Its logical to think that if some have been proven frauds then the others MIGHT be as well.
Really? Even the pictures of Earth that predated CGI?
Quote
The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it.
Funny thing, the blue sky is actually in front of it. How blue was the ISS in the picture?
Quote
One satellite crashed in Brazil I think it was. The local didn't know what it was. Pictures are on line. Satellite drone. There's a number on it to call and NASA has a team that goes and gets them. There's a balloon attach to it.
Sounds like it was never in space, was never intended to get to space, and NASA won't tell you that it was in space.

It would not tell you how many miles or exactly how far. You can't tell how far a plane is in the air only the position of where it's at. Not how far. I believe it's a satellite drone. Check out the picture of the one at day and the Brazilian one. Pretty cool stuff.
https://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/math/geometry/triangles/congruent_asa_aas


Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned.  Always a step a head.
  The blue sky was behind it too.
  I don't believe it was ever in space or meant to be. (Brazil one or both rather)
   Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't  know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim.  Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.
 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on May 18, 2018, 06:34:04 PM
Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't  know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim.

Wrong.

Imagine something closer. Imagine a pole in a field. You are in one corner of the field and your friend is in another, 100 metres away. You have a straight line marked on the ground between you. You measure pole at a bearing of 60 degrees from you (relative to the line between you and your friend), and your friend measures 55 degrees. You don't know the size or width of the pole.

And yet, you can calculate the distance to the pole from either of you - or, indeed, from any point on the line - with ease.

Agree or disagree?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 18, 2018, 06:42:48 PM
Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned. Always a step ahead.
This isn't about Photoshop. It's about CGI. CGI wasn't even remotely a thing until the 80's.
Quote
The blue sky was behind it too.
Are you sure? I told you otherwise, and posed a question directly related to that conclusion that you didn't answer.
Quote
Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim. Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.
First, the idea is to get a friend to take a second reading.
Second, the width of the ISS is well-established.
Third, have you any understanding of units at all? If you have the altitude in feet, then you can get it in miles simply by dividing by 5,280.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on May 18, 2018, 10:09:47 PM
Please tell me of proof of orbital flight. Please don't repeat hearsay that can't be proven. Thanks

Personal observation. Seeing the ISS twice in one evening, exactly at the times predicted, with the time between the two sightings (wherein it crossed the sky in the same direction each time) exactly as per the published orbit time.

It crossed my sky from SW to SE both times. How would it get from the SE of my sky that it left on the first pass, to get back to the SW, without changing direction, and having me or someone else seeing it going the 'wrong' way, other than by going around a globe?

Folks with better cameras than I have imaged the ISS in transit across the sun and moon.

Even from the first orbital craft, Sputnik, amateur and professional alike were monitoring its path and finding that it could only be an orbital craft. It passes over, disappears out of range, then appears from the opposite horizon after an hour or two.


Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: jcks on May 18, 2018, 10:50:37 PM
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.

70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?

And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.



Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

Where have they been debunked?




Internet is full of NASA pictures shown to be fake. YouTube is littered with it. SEX was written is the clouds in one. Straight off NASA site. NASA took it down afterwards. And another showed same clouds copied and placed throughout the globe picture.

Ok let me be more specific.

Which photos have been debunked and where. Please provide specific sources for your claim.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2018, 12:07:26 AM
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.

70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?

And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.



Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

Where have they been debunked?




Internet is full of NASA pictures shown to be fake. YouTube is littered with it. SEX was written is the clouds in one. Straight off NASA site. NASA took it down afterwards. And another showed same clouds copied and placed throughout the globe picture.

Ok let me be more specific.

Which photos have been debunked and where. Please provide specific sources for your claim.

YouTube it. Google it. There are a whole world of websites dedicated to that purpose. We have several such examples in The Conspiracy section of our Wiki.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: jcks on May 19, 2018, 12:51:43 AM
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.

70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?

And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.



Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

Where have they been debunked?




Internet is full of NASA pictures shown to be fake. YouTube is littered with it. SEX was written is the clouds in one. Straight off NASA site. NASA took it down afterwards. And another showed same clouds copied and placed throughout the globe picture.

Ok let me be more specific.

Which photos have been debunked and where. Please provide specific sources for your claim.

YouTube it. Google it. There are a whole world of websites dedicated to that purpose. We have several such examples in The Conspiracy section of our Wiki.

That kind of evidence doesn't fly here remember?

We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2018, 01:00:54 AM
We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.

That sounds like great idea. Lets do it. Are you going to fund me for the next few months to spend my time collecting all of the evidence on the internet, examine original evidence, and provide assessments and sources and references on all of that for our Wiki?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on May 19, 2018, 01:52:34 AM
Those who say all images of Earth from space are CGI fakes or composites ("b-b-because they have to be") have to be some of the laziest people on the planet.

(No, I'm not including our dear Tom in that.)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tontogary on May 19, 2018, 02:10:51 AM

Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned.  Always a step a head.
  The blue sky was behind it too.
  I don't believe it was ever in space or meant to be. (Brazil one or both rather)
   Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't  know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim.  Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.

Are you sure you cannot compute the distance? Rowbotham did exactly this in EnaG to establish the distance of the sun, but he only used 2 observations, and claimed it was good.
Are you suggesting he was wrong and didnt know what he was doing?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on May 19, 2018, 02:50:49 AM
What on Earth are 'bronies'?

Is it like a cross between a bro and a pony?

How would that work?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: jcks on May 19, 2018, 04:30:20 AM
We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.

That sounds like great idea. Lets do it. Are you going to fund me for the next few months to spend my time collecting all of the evidence on the internet, examine original evidence, and provide assessments and sources and references on all of that for our Wiki?

Nope it was your side's claim. I don't have to pay a dime, you need to provide evidence for your claim.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: rabinoz on May 19, 2018, 05:28:19 AM
Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned.  Always a step a head.
  The blue sky was behind it too.
  I don't believe it was ever in space or meant to be. (Brazil one or both rather)
   Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't  know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim.  Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.

Are you sure you cannot compute the distance? Rowbotham did exactly this in EnaG to establish the distance of the sun, but he only used 2 observations, and claimed it was good.
Are you suggesting he was wrong and didnt know what he was doing?
In the case of the ISS or another satellite, a good estimate of distance can be made by measuring the elevation from two well separated locations.
Which is more or less what Rowbotham attempted.

Alternatively the size of the ISS is known (if that size is accepted), so if a photo with a "long lens" can be taken the distance can be estimated from the angular size.

But Rowbotham got it wrong and claimed that "under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth"! Nowhere near 3000 miles.
He used a valid method (for a flat earth), but he did not make his angle measurements accurately enough.

Rowbotham described how he made the measurement in Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' p. 99, CHAPTER V., THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm)
In this he claims
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.
So we have 700 miles (a bit over 1,100 km).

I have a lot more to say on this in So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high? « on: August 24, 2016, 02:22:33 PM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67783.msg1812804#msg1812804)

Rowbotham simply states, "On a given day, at 12 o'clock, the altitude of the sun, from near the water at London Bridge, was found to be 61 degrees of an arc; and at the same moment of time the altitude from the sea-coast at Brighton was observed to be 64 degrees of an arc", but not how he did it.
We have noted previously how, in Tangential Horizon, he disliked telescopes on theodolites.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tontogary on May 19, 2018, 06:47:35 AM
What on Earth are 'bronies'?

Is it like a cross between a bro and a pony?

How would that work?

That is a brilliant question!

Apparently ( according to Pete ) the knowledge of the existence of Bronies is a direct measure of your knowledge of the world around you!
He recons that not knowing what one is, shows you dont know what is going on in the world!

It was in the thread about the flat Earth convention in the UK!

However it is a bit off topic, so best leave it there.

Rabinoz, I agree with you, Rowbotham screwed it up, made rubbish measurements and made a fool of himself when he tried to use the method to calculate the distance of the sun.

He also used a wrong distance for the baseline, and I showed on another thread, his altitude measurements for the sun at Brighton was massively in error. He reckoned there was something like 3 degrees difference between the 2 measurements, when his measurement of the altitude of the sun at Brighton would have been 2 1/2 degrees in error, taking the declination of the sun, and known latitude of Brighton, it is easy to work backwards to determine the correct apparent altitude of the sun.


Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on May 19, 2018, 07:23:21 AM
I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it.

Where are these 'day pictures'
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: rabinoz on May 19, 2018, 09:40:30 AM
You thinking the pictures of earth are not CGI doesn't mean they aren't.
And just because you think the pictures of earth are CGI doesn't mean they are either.

Quote from: werytraveler
Its logical to think that if some have been proven frauds then the others MIGHT be as well.
Please show these "pictures of earth" that "have been proven frauds".
NASA has stated that at least one "Blue Marble" was generated from data collected over months by LEO satellites, that does not make it a fraud.

Quote from: werytraveler
I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it. You don't know how many miles it is up there. Only what you've been told.
Here is one video in broad daylight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgoVGWazev8
STS-135 (Atlantis) and ISS in broad daylight - 7/17/11, Astronomy Live
Why do you claim that, "The blue sky is still behind it"? Do you know why the sky is blue and why it is a darker shade of blue overhead?

Quote from: werytraveler
One satellite crashed in Brazil I think it was. The local didn't know what it was. Pictures are on line. Satellite drone. There's a number on it to call and NASA has a team that goes and gets them. There's a balloon attach to it.
It might catch and follow the wind channel and it would carry it all over is my guess but not sure.
Yes,  believe it or not the image showing on the opening scene is a satellite, Echo 2, see Project Echo (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo) but the video is not about a "balloon satellite", but a "Google Loon", see Project Loon' internet balloon lands in the Amazon forest (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4276360/Google-internet-beaming-balloon-lands-Amazon.html#ixzz5FwDMENsF).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jC0UX3o8-k
Helium Balloon and Satellite Crash To Earth in Brazil - NASA? Shaking My Head Productions
So, no it was not a "Satellite Crash To Earth in Brazil".

But here are some pieces of the early US Skylab that crashed into the southern part of Western Australia between Esperance and Balladonia.
(https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/sam.gibbs%40fairfaxmedia.com.au/b7d14825-2dc7-4068-8e25-ed5b4b67f127.jpg/r0_0_11067_6468_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
Part of oxygen tank from Skylab space station that crashed near
Esperance, Western Australia in the early hours of July 12, 1979, WA time
        (https://maas.museum/app/uploads/sites/7/2009/09/00549776-450x403.jpg)
A bit more of Skylab in the Power House Museum, Sydney, Australia.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2018, 02:02:32 PM
We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.

That sounds like great idea. Lets do it. Are you going to fund me for the next few months to spend my time collecting all of the evidence on the internet, examine original evidence, and provide assessments and sources and references on all of that for our Wiki?

Nope it was your side's claim. I don't have to pay a dime, you need to provide evidence for your claim.

Actually, not. You are the ones claiming that NASA has invented never before seen technologies, explores the solar system, has sent men to the moon and robots to mars. We didn't claim any of those things.

An expression of doubt, or an assessment which doubts, is not a positive claim. The positive claim is the explicit claim that NASA is doing all of these fantastic things. Since you are the one who came here claiming this, then you should are expected to demonstrate your claims.

If someone claimed that ghosts exist, the burden isn't on people expressing doubt or assessing that the stories could have been alleged. The burden is on the person or group explicitly claiming that ghosts exist. They are the claimants, just as you are the claimant. Why would it be the burden for anyone to prove that ghosts do not exist?

I'm willing to play along, if properly funded for this large and burdensome request you have demanded of us. But lets make this very clear: You are the person coming here with fantastic claims of super technologies.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 19, 2018, 02:25:19 PM
Point of rhetorical order:

Claiming a photograph or video is altered or fabricated is a positive claim.

That’s more than expression of doubt about another’s positive claim.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2018, 02:41:08 PM
Point of rhetorical order:

Claiming a photograph or video is altered or fabricated is a positive claim.

That’s more than expression of doubt about another’s positive claim.

That is exactly the same as claiming that a ghost story was fabricated, or speculating on what really happened in that ghost story. That position of skepticism is not the positive claim in ghost debates. The positive claimant is the ghost believer with his explicitly positive claims of the ghosts. The burden is on the positive claimant. It is not the burden of everyone to "prove him wrong".

Neither is it our burden to prove all of your fantastic claims wrong. You need to prove your own self right.

This is not to say that I am not willing to contribute anything at all to the discussion. But the fact that you are the claimant in such a discussion, and that it is not really our burden to prove fantastic claims wrong, should be abundantly clear.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 19, 2018, 02:44:59 PM
Tom: We have a ghost in our attic. We hear it and when we check, things are moved around.
Bob: I don't believe you. Ghosts don't exist
Tom: Oh, but they do. Here's a picture I took of our attic ghost.
Bob: That picture isn't real. You faked it.
Tom: I did not.
Bob: Sure you did. I know because ghosts aren't real.
Tom: But I have a picture of one.
Bob: But I just debunked it.
Tom: No you didn't. You just denied my evidence. Explain to me how I faked it.
Bob: I don't have to. Burden of proof is on you.
Tom: ?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2018, 02:54:15 PM
Tom: We have a ghost in our attic. We hear it and when we check, things are moved around.
Bob: I don't believe you. Ghosts don't exist
Tom: Oh, but they do. Here's a picture I took of our attic ghost.
Bob: That picture isn't real. You faked it.
Tom: I did not.
Bob: Sure you did. I know because ghosts aren't real.
Tom: But I have a picture of one.
Bob: But I just debunked it.
Tom: No you didn't. You just denied my evidence. Explain to me how I faked it.
Bob: I don't have to. Burden of proof is on you.
Tom: ?

That argument is conceptually fine. It is just an example of a poor rebuttal. Bob's lacking rebuttal doesn't suddenly make it Bob's job or burden to "prove that ghosts do not exist".

If Bob had pointed out areas which suggested that the picture was just an optical illusion, misinterpretation, or fabrication, then that is a somewhat better rebuttal; and this is exactly what those anti-NASA websites and YouTube videos on the internet are doing.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 19, 2018, 03:12:16 PM
And that's the point. The positive/negative claim isn't the original premise of whether or not ghosts exists. It's whether or not the evidence for them is valid.

Saying they are not valid is a positive claim. It takes on the responsibility of proof. Are the debunking videos proof? That's the issue. Not the ghosts.

Now, replace ghost with space travel. If you are denying the photographic evidence, you have a burden of proof to explain why. Are YouTube videos sufficient?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on May 19, 2018, 03:24:21 PM
You are the ones claiming that NASA has invented never before seen technologies, explores the solar system, has sent men to the moon and robots to mars. We didn't claim any of those things. An expression of doubt, or an assessment which doubts, is not a positive claim. The positive claim is the explicit claim that NASA is doing all of these fantastic things. Since you are the one who came here claiming this, then you should are expected to demonstrate your claims.

There's;

photographic evidence returned by humans and automated craft, there's
evidence in the form of data returned by humans and by automated craft, there's the
personal testimony and accounts from the participants, there's
independent observation and tracking by third parties, there's
independent observation by members of the public.

Pick which forms of evidence you will accept, if any are presented by REers from the categories above.

Merely asserting that any or all of the above "could be faked" is just a cop-out.





"never before seen technologies" - they advanced the principles used in the V2, during World War 2 (1939-45) to utilise them in a larger rocket, resulting in the Saturn V in the 1960s. That's hardly an incredible claim, given they had 20 or so years to do so.

To what other technologies do you refer? Computing? Materials?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2018, 03:38:34 PM
And that's the point. The positive/negative claim isn't the original premise of whether or not ghosts exists. It's whether or not the evidence for them is valid.

Saying they are not valid is a positive claim. It takes on the responsibility of proof. Are the debunking videos proof? That's the issue. Not the ghosts.

Now, replace ghost with space travel. If you are denying the photographic evidence, you have a burden of proof to explain why. Are YouTube videos sufficient?

Absolutely not.

Consider the following:

Bobby: I ate a ham sandwich for dinner last night. Here is a picture of me eating a ham sandwich. Prove me wrong.

Pete: I don't have to prove you wrong at all.

*Pete walks away.*

This is a completely valid response. Completely. The burden is not then on Pete to prove that Bobby did not eat a ham sandwich for dinner.  Pete does not have to rebut Bobby's evidence.

Bobby had the positive claim. The burden of proof is still on Bobby, even if Pete walks away. Pete is completely clean of the matter.

Bobby may start gathering different ways to show that he ate a ham sandwich for dinner, and some people may be swayed by that claim, but if some people choose to walk away or doubt the evidence, then that is completely fine. At no point does it shift the burden of proof to the naysayers.

Naysayers may attempt to gather evidence that Bobby is fabricating his evidence. But the strength of their argument, whether it is poor or strong, does not shift the burden onto them.

If the Naysayers pointed out a wrapper for sliced baloney in the background of some of his photographs, and suggest that Bobby was really eating baloney sandwiches and is trying to fool people for some purpose, is the burden of proof on the naysayers to explicitly prove that the baloney wrapper wasn't there for some other innocent reason or is it the burden of Bobby to respond to those accusations?

The explicit claim always came from Bobby and his proponents, so they need to respond. The naysayers don't need to prove that the baloney wrapper was innocently placed there.

The burden of proof is always on Bobby and his proponents. Never on the skeptics. Skeptics never need to prove that "ghosts do not exist".

The moral of the story: If you are making a claim, then the burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: jcks on May 19, 2018, 03:53:08 PM

Absolutely not.

Consider the following:

Bobby: I ate a ham sandwich for dinner last night. Here is a picture of me eating a ham sandwich. Prove me wrong.

Pete: I don't have to prove you wrong at all.

*Pete walks away.*

This is a completely valid response. Completely. The burden is not then on Pete to prove that Bobby did not eat a ham sandwich for dinner.  Pete does not have to rebut Bobby's evidence.

Except that's not the scenario at all.

Pete: ham sandwiches don't exists
Bob: yes they do here a photo of me eating one last night
Pete: That photo is fake <-- positive claim
Bob: how?
Pete: your photo, you need to prove it's not fake
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2018, 03:55:40 PM
Except that's not the scenario at all.

Pete: ham sandwiches don't exists
Bob: yes they do here a photo of me eating one last night
Pete: That photo is fake <-- positive claim
Bob: how?
Pete: your photo, you need to prove it's not fake

Actually the statement "That photo is fake" is a negative claim. Pete is claiming that something didn't happen.

Pete is also expressing his opinion that cause is fraud in that response, but Pete's basic claim is still that it didn't happen. Negative claim. When you claim that something didn't happen then you are making a negative claim, no matter if you provide additional opinions in that negative response.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: jcks on May 19, 2018, 04:02:26 PM
Except that's not the scenario at all.

Pete: ham sandwiches don't exists
Bob: yes they do here a photo of me eating one last night
Pete: That photo is fake <-- positive claim
Bob: how?
Pete: your photo, you need to prove it's not fake

Actually that's a negative claim. Pete is claiming that something didn't happen.

He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.

You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2018, 04:27:40 PM
He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.

You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.

Yes, actually you can express a negative claim and leave it at that. "fake," "untrue," "misconception," "error," are all negative claims. It is the positive claim that needs to be demonstrated; not any negative expression.

The negative claim holds a special place that is superior to all else, and does not require demonstration.

I myself have been involved in debates where I have cited evidence for a claim and there has been blanket refusal to accept that evidence. That is a perfectly fine response. It is just a poor one. The burden is not on my opponents to prove my claim or evidence wrong. If I make a claim, it is my burden to show how that claim is demonstrated. Some may be swayed, others may not be, but that is just the way things are.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tontogary on May 19, 2018, 04:39:36 PM
He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.

You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.

Yes, actually you can express a negative claim and leave it at that. "fake," "untrue," "misconception," "error," are all negative claims. It is the positive claim that needs to be demonstrated; not any negative expression.

The negative claim holds a special place that is superior to all else, and does not require demonstration.

I myself have been involved in debates where I have cited evidence for a claim and there has been blanket refusal to accept that evidence, but that is a perfectly fine response. It is just a poor one. The burden is not on my opponents to prove my claim or evidence wrong. If I make a claim, it is my burden to show how that claim is demonstrated. Some may be swayed, others may not be, but that is just the way things are.

So by that rationale, Rowbothams work was all fake, made up and not true. His observations never took place and his experiments were not true.
Then i dont have to show why, how, or pesent any proof. You need to prove it was?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on May 19, 2018, 04:40:46 PM
The positive claim (of the existence of space and space travel) has been demonstrated, to all but the most deluded denialists.

I'd like to see where Tom has "cited evidence for a claim" that was "blanket refused" without good reason.

That, I find hard to believe (no pun intended).
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2018, 04:48:06 PM
He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.

You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.

Yes, actually you can express a negative claim and leave it at that. "fake," "untrue," "misconception," "error," are all negative claims. It is the positive claim that needs to be demonstrated; not any negative expression.

The negative claim holds a special place that is superior to all else, and does not require demonstration.

I myself have been involved in debates where I have cited evidence for a claim and there has been blanket refusal to accept that evidence, but that is a perfectly fine response. It is just a poor one. The burden is not on my opponents to prove my claim or evidence wrong. If I make a claim, it is my burden to show how that claim is demonstrated. Some may be swayed, others may not be, but that is just the way things are.

So by that rationale, Rowbothams work was all fake, made up and not true. His observations never took place and his experiments were not true.
Then i dont have to show why, how, or pesent any proof. You need to prove it was?

You are free to express that idea. It is a poor one. But sure. People have said that.

Are you really supposed to go through Rowbotham's work and prove that every single statement is true? Are you supposed to go back in time to ensure that the texts he quotes from were real, as it is possible they may be unavailable now? Are you really supposed to verify the news article at the end of his book which claims that he steamrolled academics in debates at institutions and universities?

No. You are not required to do any of that. That would be silly.

We are free to seek to corroborate that evidence, as Lady Blount did with her peer review journal The Earth Not a Globe Review, and the wider Flat Earth movement is doing on Youtube with laser experiments and such, in attempt to conduct a review or to provide additional evidence and sway opinion.

We are also free to point out basic things like "look out your window, the starting evidence is that its already flat" and you are still free to deny.

You can deny however much you want. You are not required to accept or disprove any evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Some may be swayed, others will not be. Your poor response will just be pointed out and you will leave the debate embarrassed on the matter. That is all.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 19, 2018, 04:58:01 PM
Absolutely not.

Consider the following:

Bobby: I ate a ham sandwich for dinner last night. Here is a picture of me eating a ham sandwich. Prove me wrong.

Pete: I don't have to prove you wrong at all.

*Pete walks away.*

This is a completely valid response. Completely. The burden is not then on Pete to prove that Bobby did not eat a ham sandwich for dinner.  Pete does not have to rebut Bobby's evidence.

Bobby had the positive claim. The burden of proof is still on Bobby, even if Pete walks away. Pete is completely clean of the matter.

Not if Pete is trying to tell others that I didn’t eat the sandwich.

If Pete just walked away, I could live with his “completely valid response” to not believe me. Heck, I wouldn’t even feel compelled to provide proof or demand he prove me wrong if he didn’t believe me. I don’t care.

But that’s not the analogy.

I ate a sandwich.
Pete doesn’t believe me. Fine.
But Pete’s not walking away. Pete’s calling me a liar.
So I show Pete the photo of me eating.
He says I faked it.
I’m still okay with that, as long as he keeps it to himself.
But he’s not. He’s telling anyone who will listen that I’m a liar.
And a faker.
Those are positive claims. (Positive in the sense of claims, not qualitative.)
I showed Pete the evidence, and if he intends on claiming the evidence is invalid, he is not inoculated from backing up that charge with but a handwave.

You’re free to be unconvinced for any whimsical reason whatsoever. But you can’t campaign in refutation without defending your refutation and then hide behind “burden of proof”. Calling evidence fake is a claim that demands proof, as much as the claim does for which the evidence is presented.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on May 19, 2018, 06:01:12 PM
Are you really supposed to go through Rowbotham's work and prove that every single statement is true? Are you supposed to go back in time to ensure that the texts he quotes from were real, as it is possible they may be unavailable now? Are you really supposed to verify the news article at the end of his book which claims that he steamrolled academics in debates at institutions and universities?

No. You are not required to do any of that. That would be silly.

WHY would it be 'silly'?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: inquisitive on May 19, 2018, 06:01:50 PM
He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.

You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.

Yes, actually you can express a negative claim and leave it at that. "fake," "untrue," "misconception," "error," are all negative claims. It is the positive claim that needs to be demonstrated; not any negative expression.

The negative claim holds a special place that is superior to all else, and does not require demonstration.

I myself have been involved in debates where I have cited evidence for a claim and there has been blanket refusal to accept that evidence, but that is a perfectly fine response. It is just a poor one. The burden is not on my opponents to prove my claim or evidence wrong. If I make a claim, it is my burden to show how that claim is demonstrated. Some may be swayed, others may not be, but that is just the way things are.

So by that rationale, Rowbothams work was all fake, made up and not true. His observations never took place and his experiments were not true.
Then i dont have to show why, how, or pesent any proof. You need to prove it was?

You are free to express that idea. It is a poor one. But sure. People have said that.

Are you really supposed to go through Rowbotham's work and prove that every single statement is true? Are you supposed to go back in time to ensure that the texts he quotes from were real, as it is possible they may be unavailable now? Are you really supposed to verify the news article at the end of his book which claims that he steamrolled academics in debates at institutions and universities?

No. You are not required to do any of that. That would be silly.

We are free to seek to corroborate that evidence, as Lady Blount did with her peer review journal The Earth Not a Globe Review, and the wider Flat Earth movement is doing on Youtube with laser experiments and such, in attempt to conduct a review or to provide additional evidence and sway opinion.

We are also free to point out basic things like "look out your window, the starting evidence is that its already flat" and you are still free to deny.

You can deny however much you want. You are not required to accept or disprove any evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Some may be swayed, others will not be. Your poor response will just be pointed out and you will leave the debate embarrassed on the matter. That is all.
If I look out of my window I can't see either way, but if I go to the coast I see ships go over the horizon and flight times to places show it must be round.  Plus looking at where satellite dishes point to.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on May 19, 2018, 06:06:19 PM
That's well put Bobby. Though I guess Tom will have a comeback.

By the way, Tom, the starting point isn't that it looks flat: unless, I suppose, you live in the middle of a salt flat and never go anywhere.

Actually, it looks exactly like a 3959-mile radius sphere. On an enormous cube. Or an infinite plane.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on June 08, 2018, 03:13:27 AM
Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't  know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim.






Wrong.

Imagine something closer. Imagine a pole in a field. You are in one corner of the field and your friend is in another, 100 metres away. You have a straight line marked on the ground between you. You measure pole at a bearing of 60 degrees from you (relative to the line between you and your friend), and your friend measures 55 degrees. You don't know the size or width of the pole.

And yet, you can calculate the distance to the pole from either of you - or, indeed, from any point on the line - with ease.

Agree or disagree?


I don't see how this would tell you the miles of a orbiting satellite. The location in the sky maybe but all you need is eyes for that. Maybe I'm just not getting it. I won't give to much of an opinion about it because I haven't tried it yet.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on June 08, 2018, 03:14:56 AM
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.

70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?

And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.



Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

Where have they been debunked?




Internet is full of NASA pictures shown to be fake. YouTube is littered with it. SEX was written is the clouds in one. Straight off NASA site. NASA took it down afterwards. And another showed same clouds copied and placed throughout the globe picture.

Ok let me be more specific.

Which photos have been debunked and where. Please provide specific sources for your claim.

YouTube it. Google it. There are a whole world of websites dedicated to that purpose. We have several such examples in The Conspiracy section of our Wiki.

That kind of evidence doesn't fly here remember?

We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.


The debunking is there you just can't get your head out of NASA's lap to see it.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on June 08, 2018, 03:19:48 AM
Please tell me of proof of orbital flight. Please don't repeat hearsay that can't be proven. Thanks

Personal observation. Seeing the ISS twice in one evening, exactly at the times predicted, with the time between the two sightings (wherein it crossed the sky in the same direction each time) exactly as per the published orbit time.

It crossed my sky from SW to SE both times. How would it get from the SE of my sky that it left on the first pass, to get back to the SW, without changing direction, and having me or someone else seeing it going the 'wrong' way, other than by going around a globe?

Folks with better cameras than I have imaged the ISS in transit across the sun and moon.

Even from the first orbital craft, Sputnik, amateur and professional alike were monitoring its path and finding that it could only be an orbital craft. It passes over, disappears out of range, then appears from the opposite horizon after an hour or two.


You are assuming it's the same satellite. I  see two in the sky at the same time every morning. And sometimes I look with binoculars and I truly thinks it's drones. Then there's the one in Brazil that crashed.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on June 08, 2018, 03:31:48 AM
Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned. Always a step ahead.
This isn't about Photoshop. It's about CGI. CGI wasn't even remotely a thing until the 80's.
Quote
The blue sky was behind it too.
Are you sure? I told you otherwise, and posed a question directly related to that conclusion that you didn't answer.
Quote
Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim. Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.
First, the idea is to get a friend to take a second reading.
Second, the width of the ISS is well-established.
Third, have you any understanding of units at all? If you have the altitude in feet, then you can get it in miles simply by dividing by 5,280.


Have you even seen the original photos? Photoshopped.
  What blue sky in front of ISS proof did you tell me about? What question are you referring to? Go fine the picture for yourself. I thought you'd seen it.
  The width of the ISS is well established to who? You? Lol. But you believe in anything. I'll wait for real proof if you don't mind.
    I've seen these "satellites" blow off their straight path then straighten back up. I've showed people this and they're like wtf.
  You stick to your indoctrination and I'll just stick to what I see. Doesn't really make a difference anyhow does it.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on June 08, 2018, 03:34:37 AM

Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned.  Always a step a head.
  The blue sky was behind it too.
  I don't believe it was ever in space or meant to be. (Brazil one or both rather)
   Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't  know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim.  Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.

Are you sure you cannot compute the distance? Rowbotham did exactly this in EnaG to establish the distance of the sun, but he only used 2 observations, and claimed it was good.
Are you suggesting he was wrong and didnt know what he was doing?

Yes I'm suggesting he was wrong. Why would you just believe someone without question? You're a human being. Your brain is your tool. You are the same as he.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on June 08, 2018, 03:38:07 AM
We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.

That sounds like great idea. Lets do it. Are you going to fund me for the next few months to spend my time collecting all of the evidence on the internet, examine original evidence, and provide assessments and sources and references on all of that for our Wiki?

Nope it was your side's claim. I don't have to pay a dime, you need to provide evidence for your claim.


By God does he need to hold your hand and read things to you as well? It's elementary dear Watson. He found out by searching. You can't do that simple thing? I guess repeating is your thing huh?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: werytraveler on June 08, 2018, 03:41:14 AM
You thinking the pictures of earth are not CGI doesn't mean they aren't.
And just because you think the pictures of earth are CGI doesn't mean they are either.

Quote from: werytraveler
Its logical to think that if some have been proven frauds then the others MIGHT be as well.
Please show these "pictures of earth" that "have been proven frauds".
NASA has stated that at least one "Blue Marble" was generated from data collected over months by LEO satellites, that does not make it a fraud.

Quote from: werytraveler
I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it. You don't know how many miles it is up there. Only what you've been told.
Here is one video in broad daylight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgoVGWazev8
STS-135 (Atlantis) and ISS in broad daylight - 7/17/11, Astronomy Live
Why do you claim that, "The blue sky is still behind it"? Do you know why the sky is blue and why it is a darker shade of blue overhead?

Quote from: werytraveler
One satellite crashed in Brazil I think it was. The local didn't know what it was. Pictures are on line. Satellite drone. There's a number on it to call and NASA has a team that goes and gets them. There's a balloon attach to it.
It might catch and follow the wind channel and it would carry it all over is my guess but not sure.
Yes,  believe it or not the image showing on the opening scene is a satellite, Echo 2, see Project Echo (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo) but the video is not about a "balloon satellite", but a "Google Loon", see Project Loon' internet balloon lands in the Amazon forest (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4276360/Google-internet-beaming-balloon-lands-Amazon.html#ixzz5FwDMENsF).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jC0UX3o8-k
Helium Balloon and Satellite Crash To Earth in Brazil - NASA? Shaking My Head Productions
So, no it was not a "Satellite Crash To Earth in Brazil".

But here are some pieces of the early US Skylab that crashed into the southern part of Western Australia between Esperance and Balladonia.
(https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/sam.gibbs%40fairfaxmedia.com.au/b7d14825-2dc7-4068-8e25-ed5b4b67f127.jpg/r0_0_11067_6468_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
Part of oxygen tank from Skylab space station that crashed near
Esperance, Western Australia in the early hours of July 12, 1979, WA time
        (https://maas.museum/app/uploads/sites/7/2009/09/00549776-450x403.jpg)
A bit more of Skylab in the Power House Museum, Sydney, Australia.


Plenty of proof out there. Debunking NASA pictures right and left. I'm not your baby sitter. You look it up for yourself or don't.
  Your video clearly shows it in the sky. Jeez
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: douglips on June 08, 2018, 04:53:24 AM
I'd like to rewind this thread all the way to the beginning.


The centripetal force of the earth would cause the deepest parts of the ocean to be at the equator. This should happen regardless if the land was slightly bulging in the middle. The water would bulge and collect on top of it.

In an ocean depth map we should see that the oceans at the equator is deeper than at higher latitudes. This is not the case. As far as I can see the equator holds no special significance to the oceans of the world.

You have made two assertions without any evidence. Where is your evidence? Where are your calculations to show how much deeper the ocean should be?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2018, 05:36:23 AM
I'd like to rewind this thread all the way to the beginning.


The centripetal force of the earth would cause the deepest parts of the ocean to be at the equator. This should happen regardless if the land was slightly bulging in the middle. The water would bulge and collect on top of it.

In an ocean depth map we should see that the oceans at the equator is deeper than at higher latitudes. This is not the case. As far as I can see the equator holds no special significance to the oceans of the world.

You have made two assertions without any evidence. Where is your evidence? Where are your calculations to show how much deeper the ocean should be?

You apparently just skimmed the first page. I provided a link with the calculations here: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/

The models show that the earth mass should bulge out and the water should bulge out as well on top of that. It says that there should be a water bulge 11.035 km deep at the equator. Yet the ocean is nowhere near that deep on average. The average depth of the Pacific ocean is about 4.25 km.

If the earth is spinning, why aren't the deepest parts of the ocean at the equator?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: douglips on June 08, 2018, 07:04:42 AM

You apparently just skimmed the first page. I provided a link with the calculations here: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/

The models show that the earth mass should bulge out and the water should bulge out as well on top of that. It says that there should be a water bulge 11.035 km deep at the equator. Yet the ocean is nowhere near that deep on average. The average depth of the Pacific ocean is about 4.25 km.

If the earth is spinning, why aren't the deepest parts of the ocean at the equator?

The article calculates the earth's equatorial bulge, but even the author admits that the bulge should also apply to the solid parts of the earth, especially if they were once molten, and it doesn't appear the article has an answer to how much of the bulge should be solid vs water.

Quote from: William Newtspeare
What is relevant here, is the mass of the bulge relative to the mass of the earth. So if the earth was a solid spherical iron ball which did not distort, and it was covered in water, then the gravitational pull of the ocean bulge would increase the height of the bulge by less than 1 km. However the earth’s core is molten, so in general the rock of which the earth is made, has distorted by an appropriate amount. This means that to do the calculation, we will start by assuming that the density of the bulge is the same as the density of the rest of the earth. Incidentally, if the rock had not distorted to bulge by the appropriate amount, then the whole equator would be flooded; whilst if the rock had somehow frozen in an over-distorted shape then the whole equator would be a mountain range.
(emphasis mine.)
Where are the calculations for how much of the bulge should be rock vs. water?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on June 08, 2018, 07:50:29 AM
I've also read the article. And it certainly doesn't say "there should be a water bulge 11.035 km deep at the equator."
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on June 08, 2018, 08:00:34 AM
I don't see how this would tell you the miles of a orbiting satellite. The location in the sky maybe but all you need is eyes for that. Maybe I'm just not getting it. I won't give to much of an opinion about it because I haven't tried it yet.

That's OK. We have people like the Space Geodesy Facility for that.

http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/ (http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on June 08, 2018, 08:04:36 AM
You are assuming it's the same satellite.

No, I'm not.

I  see two in the sky at the same time every morning. And sometimes I look with binoculars and I truly thinks it's drones.

So?

Then there's the one in Brazil that crashed.

It wasn't a satellite. It had a piece of A4 paper in a plastic document wallet taped to the side. Satellites don't have that.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2018, 07:26:46 PM

You apparently just skimmed the first page. I provided a link with the calculations here: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/

The article calculates the earth's equatorial bulge, but even the author admits that the bulge should also apply to the solid parts of the earth, especially if they were once molten, and it doesn't appear the article has an answer to how much of the bulge should be solid vs water.

Quote from: William Newtspeare
What is relevant here, is the mass of the bulge relative to the mass of the earth. So if the earth was a solid spherical iron ball which did not distort, and it was covered in water, then the gravitational pull of the ocean bulge would increase the height of the bulge by less than 1 km. However the earth’s core is molten, so in general the rock of which the earth is made, has distorted by an appropriate amount. This means that to do the calculation, we will start by assuming that the density of the bulge is the same as the density of the rest of the earth. Incidentally, if the rock had not distorted to bulge by the appropriate amount, then the whole equator would be flooded; whilst if the rock had somehow frozen in an over-distorted shape then the whole equator would be a mountain range.
(emphasis mine.)
Where are the calculations for how much of the bulge should be rock vs. water?

The author does provide calculations for how much of the bulge should be rock vs water.

Under "Approximate calculation including gravitational effects" section he computes that the water height should be 12.3km above the bulging rock.

Quote
Approximate calculation including gravitational effects

The idea that an equatorial bulge, on an otherwise spherical earth, would pull water towards itself

...

To do the calculations effectively, we need to use the idea that water (or rock) will flow from the poles to the equator until there is exactly zero energy to be gained from making the trip; a theory known as equi-potententials. So rather than using gravitational forces, we need to use gravitational potentials.

...

If the particle drops down the polar tunnel, then when it reaches the centre it will be a distance R from every part of the ring. So the energy gained from the ring will be (1- 1/Ö2)R, or about 0.29R, times the mass of the ring, which is 2/300 the mass of the earth. Therefore the energy gained from the trip to the centre, is sufficient to increase the height of the water at the equator by 0.58/300 times the earth’s radius, which is about 12.3 km. If we add this to the 11.035 km bulge caused by the centrifugal force, we are already above our required value of 22 km.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: douglips on June 08, 2018, 07:47:49 PM
How closely did you read that quote?

Quote
To do the calculations effectively, we need to use the idea that water (or rock) will flow from the poles to the equator...

It's right in the part you quoted, which is just a few paragraphs below the part I quoted. It's clear that he's calculating what size the bulge should be, not whether it should be made up of rock or water.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2018, 08:17:06 PM
It's clear that he's calculating what size the bulge should be, not whether it should be made up of rock or water.

See the phrase "height of the water" in my above quote.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on June 08, 2018, 09:50:21 PM
It's more of a thought experiment, Tom. See the phrase "we need to use the idea." There isn't a polar tunnel that we can drop particles down either.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: douglips on June 08, 2018, 09:50:47 PM
This whole conversation is built on a hypothetical model that uses water, that's why he talks about water:
Quote
Newton imagined the existence of two tunnels, one from the North Pole to the centre of the earth, and the other from the equator to the centre. If these tunnels were joined at the centre, and filled with water, then as the earth began to spin, water would start to flow from the pole towards the equator.

If he had made the model use mercury instead would you think that the ocean is actually made of mercury? It's a hypothetical model under discussion.

He makes it clear that if the rock portion of the earth were to form higher or lower than the threshold, you might have a high-and-dry equator or a miles-deep-ocean equator.

Quote
...if the rock had not distorted to bulge by the appropriate amount, then the whole equator would be flooded; whilst if the rock had somehow frozen in an over-distorted shape then the whole equator would be a mountain range.

I read this article and it is clear that he's talking about the overall shape of the earth, and not whether the bulge is made of rock or water.

So if you want to assert that the ocean should be miles deep at the equator on the globe earth model, you need to find the portion of this article or another article that resolves that "If the rock had formed one way" question in the second quote in this post. You are the one making the affirmative claim that centrifugal force should make the ocean miles deep, and this article clearly states that it cannot distinguish between whether the equator should be high-and-dry or deep ocean.


Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2018, 10:55:25 PM
I read this article and it is clear that he's talking about the overall shape of the earth, and not whether the bulge is made of rock or water.

So if you want to assert that the ocean should be miles deep at the equator on the globe earth model, you need to find the portion of this article or another article that resolves that "If the rock had formed one way" question in the second quote in this post. You are the one making the affirmative claim that centrifugal force should make the ocean miles deep, and this article clearly states that it cannot distinguish between whether the equator should be high-and-dry or deep ocean.

Incorrect. It is talking about both the water and the land:

Quote
Therefore the energy gained from the trip to the centre, is sufficient to increase the height of the water at the equator by 0.58/300 times the earth’s radius, which is about 12.3 km. If we add this to the 11.035 km bulge caused by the centrifugal force, we are already above our required value of 22 km.

It is adding 12.3 km of water + 11.035 km of land to get 22+ km.

From the Equatorial Bulge article (https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Equatorial%20bulge) from Revolvy we read:

Quote
Sea level at the equator is 21.36 km higher than sea level at the poles, in terms of distance from the center of the planet.

This is where the ~22km figure comes from in the above article.

Think about that. How could sea level be 21.36km higher than sea level at the poles if the sea did not bulge, and it was only the land that bulged as you assert?

The wikipedia page for equatorial bulge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge) well admits that there would be a water bulge:

Quote
there is a bulge in the water envelope of the oceans surrounding Earth; this bulge is created by the greater centrifugal force at the equator and is independent of tides
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on June 08, 2018, 11:19:04 PM
Incorrect. It is talking about both the water and the land:

Quote
Therefore the energy gained from the trip to the centre, is sufficient to increase the height of the water at the equator by 0.58/300 times the earth’s radius, which is about 12.3 km. If we add this to the 11.035 km bulge caused by the centrifugal force, we are already above our required value of 22 km.

It is adding 12.3 km of water + 11.035 km of land to get 22+ km.

Incorrect. He says the distance from the surface of the water to the centre of the earth will increase by 12.3km. He doesn't say there will be 12.3km more water.

Also, nobody's saying it's only the land that bulges. We're saying they both do.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: douglips on June 09, 2018, 01:18:33 AM

Think about that. How could sea level be 21.36km higher than sea level at the poles if the sea did not bulge, and it was only the land that bulged as you assert?


The point is not that it is ONLY the land that bulges, it is the land and sea bulging together. If the land bulged a little bit less, you'd have deeper oceans. If the land bulged more, you'd have a high and dry equator.

Again, from the squishtheory article:
Quote
However the earth’s core is molten, so in general the rock of which the earth is made, has distorted by an appropriate amount. This means that to do the calculation, we will start by assuming that the density of the bulge is the same as the density of the rest of the earth. Incidentally, if the rock had not distorted to bulge by the appropriate amount, then the whole equator would be flooded; whilst if the rock had somehow frozen in an over-distorted shape then the whole equator would be a mountain range.

Sea level doesn't mean only the sea is moving. Sea level is just where the level of the sea is. If the solid part of earth bulged more, the sea would flow away. If the solid part of earth bulged less, the sea would flow there to make a deep ocean.

[EDITED: Added "the solid part of" in the above sentence because it was ambiguous.]
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: douglips on June 09, 2018, 06:18:55 PM
Thank you, edited to clarify.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: totallackey on June 22, 2018, 01:07:19 PM
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

As we all know, there are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.
Provide just one.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on June 22, 2018, 01:25:10 PM
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

As we all know, there are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.
Provide just one.

A couple from this set, for a start; I'm satisfied that the packaging etc. predates any sort of digital photo technique or manipulation. The only way these could have been produced is by optical exposure and processing from a physical original.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/APOLLO-11-MOON-LANDING-SLIDE-69-vtg-NASA-5-Slides-Armstrong-Collins-Aldrin/312043126197?hash=item48a7383db5:g:EaEAAOSwa0VaTbH- (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/APOLLO-11-MOON-LANDING-SLIDE-69-vtg-NASA-5-Slides-Armstrong-Collins-Aldrin/312043126197?hash=item48a7383db5:g:EaEAAOSwa0VaTbH-) 

Same applies to;

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-NASA-Apollo-16-Space-Color-Slides-36-slides-total/332678960039?hash=item4d753613a7:g:sW0AAOSw8zNa8aux (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-NASA-Apollo-16-Space-Color-Slides-36-slides-total/332678960039?hash=item4d753613a7:g:sW0AAOSw8zNa8aux) 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/18-VINTAGE-PANA-VUE-35mm-SLIDES-A-STEP-INTO-THE-UNIVERSE-APOLLO-11-MOON-MISSION/142808824036?hash=item214011b8e4:g:DYcAAOSwhsVaogMp (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/18-VINTAGE-PANA-VUE-35mm-SLIDES-A-STEP-INTO-THE-UNIVERSE-APOLLO-11-MOON-MISSION/142808824036?hash=item214011b8e4:g:DYcAAOSwhsVaogMp) 

... and a host of others in similar auctions.

The originals have been scanned, and are easily found on Flickr and with a google for "Apollo nn image library", where nn = an integer between 11 and 17.

Example

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan5928-29.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on June 26, 2018, 05:20:07 AM
There are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.
Provide just one.

Take your pick:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timpeake/sets/72157660209464584/

And lots of other astronauts on the ISS have taken photos from space with their own personal cameras, which you can find very easily by simply googling.

I quite like this one:

(https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages/ESC/large/ISS044/ISS044-E-45553.JPG)

That was taken with a Nikon D4. Info about it is here:

https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/photo.pl?mission=ISS044&roll=E&frame=45553

Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: totallackey on June 26, 2018, 02:12:27 PM
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?

As we all know, there are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.
Provide just one.

A couple from this set, for a start; I'm satisfied that the packaging etc. predates any sort of digital photo technique or manipulation. The only way these could have been produced is by optical exposure and processing from a physical original.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/APOLLO-11-MOON-LANDING-SLIDE-69-vtg-NASA-5-Slides-Armstrong-Collins-Aldrin/312043126197?hash=item48a7383db5:g:EaEAAOSwa0VaTbH- (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/APOLLO-11-MOON-LANDING-SLIDE-69-vtg-NASA-5-Slides-Armstrong-Collins-Aldrin/312043126197?hash=item48a7383db5:g:EaEAAOSwa0VaTbH-) 

Same applies to;

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-NASA-Apollo-16-Space-Color-Slides-36-slides-total/332678960039?hash=item4d753613a7:g:sW0AAOSw8zNa8aux (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-NASA-Apollo-16-Space-Color-Slides-36-slides-total/332678960039?hash=item4d753613a7:g:sW0AAOSw8zNa8aux) 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/18-VINTAGE-PANA-VUE-35mm-SLIDES-A-STEP-INTO-THE-UNIVERSE-APOLLO-11-MOON-MISSION/142808824036?hash=item214011b8e4:g:DYcAAOSwhsVaogMp (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/18-VINTAGE-PANA-VUE-35mm-SLIDES-A-STEP-INTO-THE-UNIVERSE-APOLLO-11-MOON-MISSION/142808824036?hash=item214011b8e4:g:DYcAAOSwhsVaogMp) 

... and a host of others in similar auctions.

The originals have been scanned, and are easily found on Flickr and with a google for "Apollo nn image library", where nn = an integer between 11 and 17.

Example

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan5928-29.jpg)
There are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.
Provide just one.

Take your pick:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timpeake/sets/72157660209464584/

And lots of other astronauts on the ISS have taken photos from space with their own personal cameras, which you can find very easily by simply googling.

I quite like this one:

(https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages/ESC/large/ISS044/ISS044-E-45553.JPG)

That was taken with a Nikon D4. Info about it is here:

https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/photo.pl?mission=ISS044&roll=E&frame=45553
All of these images have been reprocessed and for both of you to deny that fact is highly disingenuous of you both.

Tumeni, for you especially with this statement: "A couple from this set, for a start; I'm satisfied that the packaging etc. predates any sort of digital photo technique or manipulation."

That is total BS and you know it. None of the Apollo landings took place prior to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

That was the advent of all manipulation.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Rama Set on June 26, 2018, 03:18:11 PM
Reprocessing does not mean the same thing as faked.  I sincerely hope this sinks in one day.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on June 26, 2018, 04:28:59 PM
What do you mean, specifically, by "reprocessed"?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on June 26, 2018, 04:45:22 PM
Tumeni, for you especially with this statement: "A couple from this set, for a start; I'm satisfied that the packaging etc. predates any sort of digital photo technique or manipulation."

That is total BS and you know it. None of the Apollo landings took place prior to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

That was the advent of all manipulation.

"the special effects in 2001 were all done without the benefits of computer technology. The effects were achieved with a mix of creative camerawork, dedication, experiments and hard work. "

http://www.leocosta.me/the-visual-effects-in-2001-a-space-odyssey/ (http://www.leocosta.me/the-visual-effects-in-2001-a-space-odyssey/)


"Year: 1973
Significance: Cinema's first 2D computer images

Yul Brynner plays a gunslinging android in Michael Crichton’s ‘70s sci-fi Western – think the terminator crossed with an evil Shane – a film notable too for being the first major motion picture to use CGI. "

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/history-cgi/ (https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/history-cgi/)


All of the Apollo landings were done by 1972....
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: totallackey on June 27, 2018, 11:31:10 AM
Reprocessing does not mean the same thing as faked.  I sincerely hope this sinks in one day.
It most certainly does.

I have no hope this will ever sink in for you.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: totallackey on June 27, 2018, 11:34:23 AM
Tumeni, for you especially with this statement: "A couple from this set, for a start; I'm satisfied that the packaging etc. predates any sort of digital photo technique or manipulation."

That is total BS and you know it. None of the Apollo landings took place prior to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

That was the advent of all manipulation.

"the special effects in 2001 were all done without the benefits of computer technology. The effects were achieved with a mix of creative camerawork, dedication, experiments and hard work. "

http://www.leocosta.me/the-visual-effects-in-2001-a-space-odyssey/ (http://www.leocosta.me/the-visual-effects-in-2001-a-space-odyssey/)


"Year: 1973
Significance: Cinema's first 2D computer images

Yul Brynner plays a gunslinging android in Michael Crichton’s ‘70s sci-fi Western – think the terminator crossed with an evil Shane – a film notable too for being the first major motion picture to use CGI. "

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/history-cgi/ (https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/history-cgi/)


All of the Apollo landings were done by 1972....
2001: A Space Odyssey specifically demonstrated how real any images from supposed outer space would appear and they could be definitively faked.

Whether or not it was CGI is moot.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on June 27, 2018, 02:26:12 PM
2001: A Space Odyssey specifically demonstrated how real any images from supposed outer space would appear and they could be definitively faked.

No, it did not.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: totallackey on June 27, 2018, 02:41:49 PM
2001: A Space Odyssey specifically demonstrated how real any images from supposed outer space would appear and they could be definitively faked.

No, it did not.
You are being highly disingenuous and should be banned for trolling the upper fora.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film))

"The film is noted for its scientifically accurate depiction of spaceflight, pioneering special effects, and ambiguous imagery..."
"Time provided at least seven different mini-reviews of the film in various issues in 1968, each one slightly more positive than the preceding one; in the final review dated December 27, 1968, the magazine called 2001 "an epic film about the history and future of mankind, brilliantly directed by Stanley Kubrick. The special effects are mindblowing."[146]"
"Stanley Kubrick made the ultimate science fiction movie, and it is going to be very hard for someone to come along and make a better movie, as far as I'm concerned. On a technical level, it can be compared, but personally I think that '2001' is far superior."—George Lucas, 1977[117]"
"The influence of 2001 on subsequent filmmakers is considerable. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and others, including many special effects technicians, discuss the impact the film has had on them in a featurette titled Standing on the Shoulders of Kubrick: The Legacy of 2001, included in the 2007 DVD release of the film. Spielberg calls it his film generation's "big bang", while Lucas says it was "hugely inspirational", labeling Kubrick as "the filmmaker's filmmaker". Sydney Pollack refers to it as "groundbreaking", and William Friedkin states 2001 is "the grandfather of all such films"."

As a matter of fact, one need only compare 2001: A Space Odyssey to 2010:The Year We Make Contact to fully realize the effects created were actually superior in 2001 even though 2010 utilized CGI.

So, your entire contribution and line of thought is devoid of any meaning and demonstrably proven to be just so much hot air.

You are behaving as a senseless troll.

Begone!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 02:59:15 PM
Because a film inspired filmmakers or appeared realistic in the context of a film does not mean that it was realistic to a scientific eye.  Here is some errors that were spotted in the film:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html

Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: totallackey on June 27, 2018, 04:10:30 PM
Because a film inspired filmmakers or appeared realistic in the context of a film does not mean that it was realistic to a scientific eye.  Here is some errors that were spotted in the film:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html
Just as errors are spotted in footage depicting alleged "REAL" space flight...such as wire harnesses and green screen use clearly in play during shots supposedly coming from the ISS...

Even your own source states: "Still, Kubrick went to unprecedented lengths to achieve scientific and technological authenticity. How'd he do? Surprisingly well, is how."

Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Curious Squirrel on June 27, 2018, 04:16:53 PM
Because a film inspired filmmakers or appeared realistic in the context of a film does not mean that it was realistic to a scientific eye.  Here is some errors that were spotted in the film:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html
Just as errors are spotted in footage depicting alleged "REAL" space flight...

Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
I don't believe I've ever seen 'errors' posted about the videos outside of a conspiracy theory setting, and even those are often corrected in some manner, regardless of whether the original poster will acquiesce to the corrections. Do you have any legitimately unanswered/unanswerable 'errors' to present?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: totallackey on June 27, 2018, 04:26:34 PM
Because a film inspired filmmakers or appeared realistic in the context of a film does not mean that it was realistic to a scientific eye.  Here is some errors that were spotted in the film:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html
Just as errors are spotted in footage depicting alleged "REAL" space flight...

Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
I don't believe I've ever seen 'errors' posted about the videos outside of a conspiracy theory setting, and even those are often corrected in some manner, regardless of whether the original poster will acquiesce to the corrections. Do you have any legitimately unanswered/unanswerable 'errors' to present?
I know squirrels like nuts but they should not behave as if they are actually nuts out in public on an open forum, yet...

That is exactly what you do when you post your question.

You assume the answers to all the questions about the clear errors noted in supposedly "REAL" schpayzze flight film and pictures are true, but the fact is there is no such thing as OUTER SCHPAYZZE, SCHPAYZZE FLIGHT, etc...

All of it is SCIENCE FICTION, with very little SCIENCE behind it...
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 27, 2018, 04:37:29 PM
Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
I know squirrels like nuts but they should not behave as if they are actually nuts out in public on an open forum, yet...
Speaking of things you shouldn't do on a public forum: please keep personal attacks out of the upper fora. We are here to discuss ideas, not individuals.

If you really need to unload, do so in Angry Ranting. Alternatively, take a deep breath and focus on the merit of what you want to say, not whether or not you think the other person is stupid or insane. Warned.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: totallackey on June 27, 2018, 04:54:05 PM
Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
I know squirrels like nuts but they should not behave as if they are actually nuts out in public on an open forum, yet...
Speaking of things you shouldn't do on a public forum: please keep personal attacks out of the upper fora. We are here to discuss ideas, not individuals.

If you really need to unload, do so in Angry Ranting. Alternatively, take a deep breath and focus on the merit of what you want to say, not whether or not you think the other person is stupid or insane. Warned.
Stating someone is behaving a certain way does not imply or mean they actually are that certain way; simply, it means they are currently exhibiting such behavior.

Nor have you seen the words "stupid," or "insane," in any of my posts on this thread.

A person's behavior is certainly up to question regarding a viewpoint expressed on this forum.

Furthermore, you took the time to post the fact you warned me for my posts, yet did not (evidently) believe the exact same behavior (for which I was warned) on the part of another member here merited a warning or public message.

Making a warning public is much like public shaming and in itself is highly capricious and contradictory to your so-called "high standards."
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 27, 2018, 05:09:13 PM
We always warn people publicly. It's a transparency thing. Take your complaints about moderation to S&C where they belong - you already started a thread there.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on June 27, 2018, 05:47:56 PM
"The film is noted for its scientifically accurate depiction of spaceflight, pioneering special effects, and ambiguous imagery..."

No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?

"Time provided at least seven different mini-reviews of the film ... William Friedkin states 2001 is "the grandfather of all such films"."

A bunch of quotes from a bunch of film-makers does not scientific accuracy make, nor does it prove any fakery on the part of anything from any space agency.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: TomInAustin on June 27, 2018, 07:46:07 PM
Tom: We have a ghost in our attic. We hear it and when we check, things are moved around.
Bob: I don't believe you. Ghosts don't exist
Tom: Oh, but they do. Here's a picture I took of our attic ghost.
Bob: That picture isn't real. You faked it.
Tom: I did not.
Bob: Sure you did. I know because ghosts aren't real.
Tom: But I have a picture of one.
Bob: But I just debunked it.
Tom: No you didn't. You just denied my evidence. Explain to me how I faked it.
Bob: I don't have to. Burden of proof is on you.
Tom: ?

That argument is conceptually fine. It is just an example of a poor rebuttal. Bob's lacking rebuttal doesn't suddenly make it Bob's job or burden to "prove that ghosts do not exist".

If Bob had pointed out areas which suggested that the picture was just an optical illusion, misinterpretation, or fabrication, then that is a somewhat better rebuttal; and this is exactly what those anti-NASA websites and YouTube videos on the internet are doing.

There are also websites devoted to proving that Obama is a shape-shifting alien lizard as well as lots of YouTubers on the same subject.  Does that make it real?  Just about any wacky idea has a following. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: totallackey on June 28, 2018, 12:40:05 PM
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?
It matters not who uttered the quote.

There are no substantial objections or other such information indicating there is anything within the movie depicting inaccurate information.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people, including schpayzze expurtts, who laud the realism Kubrick generated.
A bunch of quotes from a bunch of film-makers does not scientific accuracy make, nor does it prove any fakery on the part of anything from any space agency.
If the material generated by shpayzze agencies differs very little from what is generated by Hollywood (and it does not), there is no worthwhile argument on your part.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2018, 01:32:33 PM
No one is disputing that 2001 isn’t accurate, what is being disputed is your claim that it was possible to fake activity on the moon in 1972. If you looked at the link I posted, it discusses some inaccuracies and they turn out to be crucial because some of them have to do with the low-gravity environment of the moon. Turns out Kubrick couldn’t recreate that faithfully because how do you make sand fly higher and fall slower with out it being completely CG rendered? Seems like it was impossible at the time making your claim false. I have seen analyses of the sand scatter on the Apollo mission that show it to be consistent and accurate to what you would expect to see on the Moon.

Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on June 28, 2018, 03:01:37 PM
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?
It matters not who uttered the quote.

Yes, it does. You could be making it up. No source, no citation, no indication of who said it. How do we know it didn't come from your keyboard?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: totallackey on July 02, 2018, 10:11:45 AM
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?
It matters not who uttered the quote.

Yes, it does. You could be making it up. No source, no citation, no indication of who said it. How do we know it didn't come from your keyboard?
I gave the source of the quote.

Why would you blatantly lie on this for...?

Oh, I know why... never mind.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Max_Almond on July 03, 2018, 08:23:40 AM
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?
It matters not who uttered the quote.

Yes, it does. You could be making it up. No source, no citation, no indication of who said it. How do we know it didn't come from your keyboard?

It's true, he did give the source of the quote. It's just from the opening paragraph of the wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: Tumeni on July 11, 2018, 08:07:02 AM
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?
It matters not who uttered the quote.

Yes, it does. You could be making it up. No source, no citation, no indication of who said it. How do we know it didn't come from your keyboard?

It's true, he did give the source of the quote. It's just from the opening paragraph of the wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)

So it's a quote from the writings of whomever wrote that portion of the Wiki page, then?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: BillO on July 15, 2018, 06:34:50 PM
Take a look at this website: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/

This website calculates that the water bulge at the equator. Do a find for "water" on that page to find the sections where it is computing what the bulge of the water should be. The calculations assume an earth with rock mass that bulges outwards. The conclusions are that the water should bulge out as well.

From the link:

Quote
This gives us a surplus energy of ½ mR² w ² , or ½mv²  for the drop of water, which is enough to carry the drop of water to a height of 11.035 km against the force of gravity at the equator, the same value we calculated earlier.

That's 6.85 miles. Basically the depth of Challenger Deep.

Why isn't it shown that the deepest parts of the ocean are at the equator?
You are misinterpreting what he is saying.  He is saying the the water would be 11km higher than spherical, or 10km less than the measured diameter at the equator  He is not saying that water should 11km higher than the actual land at the equator.  What he is doing is making his calculationc as though the water could stand in a column that extended from the surface to the center of the earth.  In essence, he is substituting a fluid (water) for a solid.  This is valid as when the earth formed it was mostly a fluid.  He also admits it's a value that comes from not taking everything into account.  Nowhere in this article is he talking about the existence of or the magnitude of 'bulge' in the sea.  He does go through all the calculations though, and eventually tells us how to come up with the correct value of bulge in the land.

However, exactly the same forces are acting on the ocean now as were acting on the molten planet when it was first formed.  Those forces are WRT the center of mass the earth, not the surface. So, yes, we should see a bulge in the sea WRT to center of mass of the earth, and it should be pretty much exactly the same as the bulge that formed in the land, and it is.  They are both about 21.36 km.  Why would you expect anything else?

Title: Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
Post by: BillO on July 15, 2018, 07:22:58 PM
7. Why doesn't the artificial horizon roll backwards during straight and level flight?
What manufacturer of attitude indicators did you talk to? There is no reason why they shouldn't have explained that the instrument is self-leveling, relative to the axis of gravity's force. They aren't merely a gyroscope with a fixed orientation in space. They do adjust, by design, for the change in axis due to gravity. (Speaking as a former aviator, I'm surprised the pilots didn't explain this to you also.)

Yeah, Dave Murphy drags this tidbit around with him like his favorite Teddy Bear.  There are a number of things wrong with it.

First, mechanical gyroscopic attitude indicators have not been used in commercial craft for some time.  How long ago did Murphy take this flight he was talking about?  They are barley used in experimental aircraft anymore and possibly some older GA craft.  That aside, you are absolutely correct, they do adjust to gravity.  This is known as the erecting mechanism which is implemented using pendulum operated vanes.  The same mechanism also corrects for friction induced precession.  You will find an detailed explanation of how this all works on pages 56 and 57 of  this FAA document: ama_Ch10.pdf (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_Ch10.pdf)

That FAA document also goes briefly into the more commonly used Ring Laser gyros and MEMS sensors.  Ring Laser gyros have gravitational correction in their software, and the MEMS devices used naturally align with the direction of gravity.

Page 19 of this catalogue gives the specifications of one of the few currently manufactured vacuum powered attitude indicators.  You can read they make specific mention of the erect time.  This is the time it takes the gyro to align with the direction of gravity after being activated: https://www.kellymfg.com/images/RC%20ALLEN%20Catalog.pdf (https://www.kellymfg.com/images/RC%20ALLEN%20Catalog.pdf).  Becuase of this mechanism the Gyro is continually correcting for the gravitational vector.


Someone should send Dave Murphy that FAA document and ask him to leave his favorite Teddy Bear at home from now on.

EDIT: Fixed FAA URL