*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #80 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.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #81 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.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 08:16:15 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #82 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #83 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.

Max_Almond

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #84 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.

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #85 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.



*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #86 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 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 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
« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 11:24:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

Max_Almond

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #87 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.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 11:40:05 PM by Max_Almond »

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #88 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.]
« Last Edit: June 09, 2018, 06:18:40 PM by douglips »

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #89 on: June 09, 2018, 06:18:55 PM »
Thank you, edited to clarify.

totallackey

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #90 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.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #91 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- 

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/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

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Max_Almond

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #92 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:



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

« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 05:34:38 AM by Max_Almond »

totallackey

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #93 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- 

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/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


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:



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.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 02:15:59 PM by totallackey »

Rama Set

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #94 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.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #95 on: June 26, 2018, 04:28:59 PM »
What do you mean, specifically, by "reprocessed"?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #96 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/


"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/


All of the Apollo landings were done by 1972....
« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 04:49:23 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #97 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.

totallackey

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #98 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/


"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/


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.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #99 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.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?