The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Bastian Baasch on February 02, 2019, 04:36:53 PM
-
This is one question I've never seen flat earthers answer: How do you explain the Skylab missions?
Now, I won't attempt to do better what someone on this forum has done before, so instead I'll just show it. CriticalThinker started a very well informed, evidence based post asking the same question, sadly his thread was proliferated by offtopic posts. So here's his great post again.
I realize that not every member of the FE community believes that NASA is part of a great conspiracy, but I see a general consensus that the majority of the FE community believs that real people haven't been in space to see the curvature of the earth.
So I am interested in their take on certain aspects of this video taken in SkyLab in 1974 and released to the public in 1974.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjvmXLyrtjM
Specific points of interest as follows.
@ 1:03 the man is able to accelerate his rotation too quickly to be an underwater environment.
@1:18-1:43 The three men execute intersecting 3d pathways that would make wire harnesses tangled, the video segment is too long to be explained by parabolic flight as it exceeds 20 seconds in duration and the SkyLab is too large of an internal volume to fit inside the largest aircraft available at that time.
Photo real CGI in 1974 was not available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5seU-5U0ms
This video provides a time period correct comparison as this was made in 1972.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lxUIM6bYQo
This is the same effects in 2013. During the commentary they stated that they had to digitally erase the entire body and create a CGI one. When you look at the movie footage, the CGI bodies just aren't quite right. Even with today's technology they look off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0Pf-sevOc0
Notice how the actors on the wire harnesses don't intertwine the way the 3 men from the first video do. That's because they can't. Only distant background characters are on intersecting courses and they are fully CGI. They clearly don't look like actual people.
Based on all of this, how did NASA fake the video from skylab in 1974 using 1974 technology?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Thank you CriticalThinker! Now, in addition to the points he's raised. What about this footage? This is a video demonstrating fluid experiments on the Skylab missions. How do you do this before or in the very early stages of CGI? The first CGI water was in 1995 with the movie The Abyss (https://www.filmsite.org/visualeffects14.html (https://www.filmsite.org/visualeffects14.html)), and that doesn't look very real. According to wikipedia, the first realistic CGI was in 1995 with the movie Waterworld, so that certainly doesn't help FE'rs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television)) How would NASA have that level of CGI more than 20 years before? I believe it was stack in a prior post who pointed out the difficulties of CGI water and how you would need server farms and such to pull it off, but he was referring to ISS footage, the same question still applies, how would NASA more than 20 years before that footage, pull off the same feat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhtH9peQaPI
Edit: For all those who say the fluid stuff could be from parabolic flight, it can't be, 5:41 to 6:27 is longer than the 20 seconds of parabolic flight.
I'm very interested in an answer from Bishop and co., especially considering there is no mention in the TFES wiki of Skylab. And given the amount of offtopic posts in CriticalThinker's original thread and how whenever AATW mentions it in any of his posts, it's ignored, it's almost like FE'rs ignore the very existence of Skylab.
-
You cannot use SkyLab: it was a fake mission.
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/audioletters/audioletters_48.htm
How do you do this before or in the very early stages of CGI?
They had CGI (and the hardware to go along with it) back in 1968.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos
A brief excerpt.
How did they fake so many trips to Venus and Saturn, Mars, etc.?
Well, one day around 1978 I was also wondering the same thing myself. I had seen the pictures of Saturn and it's rings and moons and I was also wondering, wow, 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos were being transmitted from, what was it, Voyager?. I kept wondering, How? Of course, they could just be models and photos were taken. But, then, one day, just after Star Wars II came out and Star Trek the movie (# 1) came out I had got hold of a movie industry magazine that was called Business Pictures. In it were ads from special effects companies who work for Hollywood. This was the dawn of computer graphics being used in motion pictures. Star Wars I was made using mostly models, but, after Star Wars I, George Lucas used some of the profits to set up a new lab called Pixar, which strove to push the technology and create stunning effects using state of the art Computer Workstations. CG, or Computer Graphics. I was looking at some of the ads and articles in the magazine and I found a peculiar one. Unfortunately I do not recall the name of the company running the ad. But, they were selling computer graphics "programming", not a finished program, but the algorythms and 'basic mathematical building blocks' used to create a program. What they claimed to be was a company that does contract work for JPL, NASA and the military. What they were selling were the software foundations and routines that did texture mapping and perspective, surface reflection, shadow mapping, etc. Then, what really caught my eye and peaked my interest was that the ad stated that the information they were selling had been developed over 10 years prior by NASA and the US military and had, up until now, been considered highly classified and secret information. With this technology and the use of super computers they claimed it was possible to create virtually any special effects scene. The reason given that the information was now being declassified and being offered for sale was that the movie industry (specifically the work done by Lucas's Pixar team - which became the foundation for Industrial Light and Magic, the premiere computer graphics company of the entire industry), had begun to catch up with the secret technology and it was decided there was no longer any reason to keep the information classified.
Wow. The same technology that helped to produce the visual effects of space, planets, and space crafts used for Star Wars II and Star Trek I had been developed and used by NASA and JPL for over 10 years earlier. That would mean that NASA and JPL had the ability to create virtual reality graphics effects as early as the late 1960's. Texture mapping, shadow mapping, light reflection, etc. Then I instantly realized how JPL was turning out 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos of Saturn and space. They had CG technology for a long time before Hollywood finally caught up and learned how to do it. The 'fly-by' probes that mapped Venus and Saturn, etc. all sent back to earth electronic data and photos. It was feasible to generate all of this on computer. JPL had at it's disposal the fastest and most powerful super-computers of the day, like the Cray. All they had to do was bounce signals off a distant satellite so that the ground crews would receive real signals that they thought were coming from deep space.
-
You cannot use SkyLab: it was a fake mission.
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/audioletters/audioletters_48.htm
How do you do this before or in the very early stages of CGI?
They had CGI (and the hardware to go along with it) back in 1968.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos
A brief excerpt.
How did they fake so many trips to Venus and Saturn, Mars, etc.?
Well, one day around 1978 I was also wondering the same thing myself. I had seen the pictures of Saturn and it's rings and moons and I was also wondering, wow, 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos were being transmitted from, what was it, Voyager?. I kept wondering, How? Of course, they could just be models and photos were taken. But, then, one day, just after Star Wars II came out and Star Trek the movie (# 1) came out I had got hold of a movie industry magazine that was called Business Pictures. In it were ads from special effects companies who work for Hollywood. This was the dawn of computer graphics being used in motion pictures. Star Wars I was made using mostly models, but, after Star Wars I, George Lucas used some of the profits to set up a new lab called Pixar, which strove to push the technology and create stunning effects using state of the art Computer Workstations. CG, or Computer Graphics. I was looking at some of the ads and articles in the magazine and I found a peculiar one. Unfortunately I do not recall the name of the company running the ad. But, they were selling computer graphics "programming", not a finished program, but the algorythms and 'basic mathematical building blocks' used to create a program. What they claimed to be was a company that does contract work for JPL, NASA and the military. What they were selling were the software foundations and routines that did texture mapping and perspective, surface reflection, shadow mapping, etc. Then, what really caught my eye and peaked my interest was that the ad stated that the information they were selling had been developed over 10 years prior by NASA and the US military and had, up until now, been considered highly classified and secret information. With this technology and the use of super computers they claimed it was possible to create virtually any special effects scene. The reason given that the information was now being declassified and being offered for sale was that the movie industry (specifically the work done by Lucas's Pixar team - which became the foundation for Industrial Light and Magic, the premiere computer graphics company of the entire industry), had begun to catch up with the secret technology and it was decided there was no longer any reason to keep the information classified.
Wow. The same technology that helped to produce the visual effects of space, planets, and space crafts used for Star Wars II and Star Trek I had been developed and used by NASA and JPL for over 10 years earlier. That would mean that NASA and JPL had the ability to create virtual reality graphics effects as early as the late 1960's. Texture mapping, shadow mapping, light reflection, etc. Then I instantly realized how JPL was turning out 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos of Saturn and space. They had CG technology for a long time before Hollywood finally caught up and learned how to do it. The 'fly-by' probes that mapped Venus and Saturn, etc. all sent back to earth electronic data and photos. It was feasible to generate all of this on computer. JPL had at it's disposal the fastest and most powerful super-computers of the day, like the Cray. All they had to do was bounce signals off a distant satellite so that the ground crews would receive real signals that they thought were coming from deep space.
Where would the distant satellite be and how would the correct position be maintained?
-
All satellites use the Biefeld-Brown effect and orbit at a much lower altitude than thought. However, you should be concerned about the fact that the GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect at all.
-
Unfortunately, these are just internet ramblings with no actual evidence.
-
No problem.
Then, please explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
You want to use gravitons?
How do two gravitons attract each other?
Can you explain the attractive mechanism?
You have to, if you expect your readers to believe you that satellites orbit the earth according to an attractive law of gravity.
-
All satellites use the Biefeld-Brown effect and orbit at a much lower altitude than thought. However, you should be concerned about the fact that the GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect at all.
The location of a satellite is clearly known, we know where to point our dishes.
-
You cannot use SkyLab: it was a fake mission.
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/audioletters/audioletters_48.htm
Fake mission? From the source you provided, it admitted Skylab was real but the US government covered up how it was destroyed. Maybe think about oh I don't know, reading your sources before posting them. Also, he never provided any evidence, the page is basically a dude talking about his conspiracy theories without any evidence substantiating his claims (like seriously, this dude believes the Soviet Union basically made real life Terminators, just utter bs).
Just asking, how reliable do you think the above source you used is? The guy literally believes that President Carter was replaced by a robot, I don't think you do. Sounds like your source just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and you're just looking for what you think works for you (it says nowhere in the source Skylab was fake, only it's alleged deorbiting or whatever was faked), maybe check out this site https://www.rif.org , you could certainly make use of it's resources, instead of just copy pasting whatever link came up first in your google search for "Fake skylab", actually read the shit you're posting, and stop cherry picking, if you really believe Carter was a robot, then you've got bigger problems.
Now onto the rest of your wall of text.
How do you do this before or in the very early stages of CGI?
They had CGI (and the hardware to go along with it) back in 1968.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos
A brief excerpt.
How did they fake so many trips to Venus and Saturn, Mars, etc.?
Well, one day around 1978 I was also wondering the same thing myself. I had seen the pictures of Saturn and it's rings and moons and I was also wondering, wow, 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos were being transmitted from, what was it, Voyager?. I kept wondering, How? Of course, they could just be models and photos were taken. But, then, one day, just after Star Wars II came out and Star Trek the movie (# 1) came out I had got hold of a movie industry magazine that was called Business Pictures. In it were ads from special effects companies who work for Hollywood. This was the dawn of computer graphics being used in motion pictures. Star Wars I was made using mostly models, but, after Star Wars I, George Lucas used some of the profits to set up a new lab called Pixar, which strove to push the technology and create stunning effects using state of the art Computer Workstations. CG, or Computer Graphics. I was looking at some of the ads and articles in the magazine and I found a peculiar one. Unfortunately I do not recall the name of the company running the ad. But, they were selling computer graphics "programming", not a finished program, but the algorythms and 'basic mathematical building blocks' used to create a program. What they claimed to be was a company that does contract work for JPL, NASA and the military. What they were selling were the software foundations and routines that did texture mapping and perspective, surface reflection, shadow mapping, etc. Then, what really caught my eye and peaked my interest was that the ad stated that the information they were selling had been developed over 10 years prior by NASA and the US military and had, up until now, been considered highly classified and secret information. With this technology and the use of super computers they claimed it was possible to create virtually any special effects scene. The reason given that the information was now being declassified and being offered for sale was that the movie industry (specifically the work done by Lucas's Pixar team - which became the foundation for Industrial Light and Magic, the premiere computer graphics company of the entire industry), had begun to catch up with the secret technology and it was decided there was no longer any reason to keep the information classified.
Wow. The same technology that helped to produce the visual effects of space, planets, and space crafts used for Star Wars II and Star Trek I had been developed and used by NASA and JPL for over 10 years earlier. That would mean that NASA and JPL had the ability to create virtual reality graphics effects as early as the late 1960's. Texture mapping, shadow mapping, light reflection, etc. Then I instantly realized how JPL was turning out 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos of Saturn and space. They had CG technology for a long time before Hollywood finally caught up and learned how to do it. The 'fly-by' probes that mapped Venus and Saturn, etc. all sent back to earth electronic data and photos. It was feasible to generate all of this on computer. JPL had at it's disposal the fastest and most powerful super-computers of the day, like the Cray. All they had to do was bounce signals off a distant satellite so that the ground crews would receive real signals that they thought were coming from deep space.
Interesting. So is there any actual evidence for any of this? You basically just gave us a blog post with nothing substantiating it. Can you show us the ad in question supposedly affirming this? Can you give us actual evidence the US government had invented CGI before academia? Because it seems a lot of the early development of CG happened in universities and research institutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_animation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_animation)). Yes, JPL did hire some CG people (https://web.archive.org/web/20150724105628/http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/tree/jpl.html (https://web.archive.org/web/20150724105628/http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/tree/jpl.html)), but that was for simulations.
Also, your source is talking about NASA making CGI planets for fake photographs, what does this have to do with CGI water (which is way more difficult)? What hard evidence do you have that NASA had CG tech before industry and academia? Your source is basically one guy's speculation from an ad.
-
Then, please explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
Easy - its called gravity. However your understanding of gravity and mine are clearly different.
Also I cannot find any information about how the Biefield-Brown effect relates to satellites so perhaps you could point me in the right direction.
-
Gravity
What hard evidence do you have
Sure.
Can you explain to your readers the attractive mechanism? The hard evidence you have for your hypothesis that any satellite orbits above the earth using an attractive gravitational force?
Let me explain to you the enormity of your claim.
Can you explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other? What is the mechanism of attraction?
You cannot, therefore those trillions of billions of liters of water are glued to an outer surface by pure magic.
Even pure magic cannot explain this horrendous hypothesis.
You cannot resort to general relativity: I can immediately point out how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 crucial solar eclipses data, show you the original Maxwell equations which are superluminal.
You claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive, yet you cannot explain the mechanism.
It is even worse than pure magic.
Please explain the physics to your readers.
What you are telling your readers is even worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).
The attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale, it is even beyond the powers of pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
It is though the exemplification of a fanatical and dogmatic agenda which goes even beyond what organized religion has to offer.
Do you want to use gravitons?
So, how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?
Let us examine the graviton problem. There are only two possible choices: either these gravitons were a one-time emission five billion years ago, or they are being emitted continuously by the iron/nickel core. In both cases the graviton must either consist of two kinds of particles, one which has an emissive vortex, the other one which has a receptive vortex, or a single particle with two ends consisting of an emissive vortex, while the other end has a receptive vortex.
In both cases we are dealing immediately with the defiance of the law of conservation of energy: how in the world can these vortices function after five billion years with no loss of energy?
Moreover, you have another huge problem: each object on the surface of the earth must connect to the gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core through strings of gravitons which fit neatly and totally to each and every graviton released by the object itself. How then can that object move freely on the surface of the sphere? Obviously the strings of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core are not intelligent enough to know the random direction of movement of the object. Are you telling your readers that the strings of the object can slide freely from a static string of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core, to another with no loss of energy, not to mention the very mechanism itself?
The gases in the atmosphere do not obey any kind of an attractive law of gravity.
The gravitons cannot be used to explain attractive gravity.
There is no such thing as general relativity, or spacetime continuum.
Please explain to your readers how attractive gravitation functions. If you cannot, then what you are telling yourself and to your readers is that gravity on a spherical earth is governed by pure magic.
Take a look at how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 data for general relativity:
The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:
http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)
Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.
Moreover, Einstein made a terrible blunder.
Einstein, 1905:
"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”
We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.
"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.
If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could
have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double
Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make
this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the
electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."
Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erroneous claim regarding the speed of light:
(http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/annotations/annot1420a.gif)
Here is the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations, which prove that the speed of light is variable and not constant:
(https://image.ibb.co/f1Coyy/88.jpg)
There is no such thing as general relativity.
-
That is all fascinating stuff. Really it is. Whether it is true or not I couldn't possibly say but if it is then I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject.
I meanwhile will content myself to knowing that the... what was it... oh yes trillions of billions of litres (we over here put the r before the e) of water are kept anchored to the Earth by what I understand to be the Earths gravitational pull.
No I cannot explain how two gravitons attract each other. As far as I know no one can as the graviton is still a hypothetical particle.
-
pull
Did you mention the word "pull"?
By all means please explain how two objects are pulled to each other.
Let's see what Newton has to say on the subject.
http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm (I. Newton letter to R. Boyle)
4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.
5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.
Two bodies are pulled to each other by an external pressure.
-
Ok lets use the word attractive rather than pull then if it suits you better. I don't think gravity has ever been observed or measured to be anything other than an attractive force has it? Gravity therefore acts as an attractive force between any two particles with a measurable mass.
Since the Earth has a mass of some 6 million, million, million, million kgs, it has a slightly stronger gravitational field than your average water molecule. Hence the net force between the two is towards the Earth rather than away from it.
-
I don't think gravity has ever been observed or measured to be anything other than an attractive force has it?
The thing is that it has never been proven to be attractive.
No I cannot explain how two gravitons attract each other. As far as I know no one can as the graviton is still a hypothetical particle.
Then, you have no attractive gravity at all.
You must, then, accept Newton's beautiful analysis:
5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.
Here is another expert opinion: the best mathematician of the 18th century, one of the best physicists of all time.
“Now, in whatever way we imagine the cause of gravity, as it is the effect of the pressure of a fluid, the force with which each molecule is pushed will always be proportional to the extension or the volume of that molecule. Indeed it is a general rule of hydrostatics that fluids act according to the volumes: a body immersed in water is always pushed by a force equal to the weight of an equal volume of water, but in an opposite direction.”
“the matter which constitutes the subtle fluid, cause of the gravity, is of an utterly different nature from the matter, of which all sensible bodies are composed. There will hence be two kinds of matter, one which provides the stuff to all sensible bodies, and of which all particles have the same [high] density [...]; the other kind of matter will be that of which the subtle fluid, which causes gravity, and which we name ether, is composed of. It is probable that this matter has always the same degree of density, but that this degree is incomparably smaller than that of the first kind.”
L. Euler, “Recherches physiques sur la nature des moindres parties de la matiere,” in Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia, Series Tertia, Pars Prima (B. G. Teubner, Leipzig and Bern 1911), pp. 3–15
“Those who attribute gravity to an attractive force of the Earth base their opinion mainly on the fact that otherwise no origin could be displayed for this force. But since we proved that all bodies are surrounded with ether and are pressed by the elastic force of the latter, we do not need to search elsewhere the origin of gravity. Only if the pressure of the ether would be everywhere the same, which assignment is indistinguishable from that of its equilibrium, would the bodies be equally pressed from every side, and thus would not be induced in any motion. But if we assume that the ether around the Earth is not in equilibrium, and that instead its pressure becomes smaller as one comes closer to the Earth, then any given body must experience a stronger pressure downwards on its superior surface that it does upwards on its inferior surface; it follows that the downwards pressure will have the advantage and hence that the body will really be pushed downwards, which effect we call gravity, and the downwards-pushing force the weight of the body.”
L. Euler, “Von der Schwere und den Kraften so auf die himmlischen Korper wirken,” in Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia, Series Tertia, Pars Prima (B. G. Teubner, Leipzig and Bern 1911), pp. 149–156
(translation by Dr. M. Arminjon)
-
Several references to the aether in your description. When was that proven to exist?
-
Here are the Galaev experiments, the most thorough ever undertaken:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791
A direct proof of the existence of aether.
Here is the mathematical proof of the existence of longitudinal waves:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059
A vector field is the outward manifestation of the potential, the ether, longitudinal scalar waves.
Martin Ruderfer published one of the most sensational experiments of the 20th century and beyond.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721
Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192
Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361
in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.
This is the reason why Einstein's relativity is being thrown aside, and mainstream physicists are embracing MLET (a local aether model).
Mainstream physicists such as C.C. Su, Ruyong Wang, Ron Hatch, Tom van Flandern, S.L. Gift are publishing their local-aether in the best scientific journals, including IOP articles.
The fact that the orbital Sagnac is not being registered by GPS satellites has changed everything.
The local-aether model can no longer be denied or ignored.
Here is the most mainstream proof of them all: the AHARONOV-BOHM EFFECT, which has been documented again and again for the past 50 years.
The seminal Aharonov-Bohm paper:
https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.115.485
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4323049/
The Aharonov-Bohm effect and its applications to electron phase microscopy, A. Tonomura (state of the art proofs of the Aharonov-Bohm effect)
(https://image.ibb.co/c0CeLd/ton1.jpg)
-
This is one question I've never seen flat earthers answer: How do you explain the SkyLab missions?
I guess they don't: they just send someone in to derail the thread with gish gallop, hope gravity gets a mention, and then sit back satisfied that a question buried is kind of the same as a question answered.
SkyLab is a great topic to address: there are so many good videos of the astronauts doing acrobatics up there in those pre-CGI days, with far longer shots than would be possible in a zero-G plane, as well as in a much larger area.
Also interesting to note how much more spacious and comfortable SkyLab was compared to the ISS. Space deniers bemoan the NASA budget, but back then they had some serious dollar to spend, and it showed. Such a shame those space stations have such a limited lifespan.
Here's a SkyLab clip I really like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU-IF8KnhlY
Thanks for posting the vids above. Great resource. :)
-
sandokan copypasta™
more offtopic shit
another wall of text
damn, maybe you should work for the US government, Trump doesn't need money for a border wall, he just needs you to type it, how can illegals wade through your offtopic bs?
Sandokhan, I'm going to say this as nicely as I can, but can you please stay on topic? This thread was supposed to be a discussion of Skylab, and instead you're flooding it with your obfuscations. And manicminer, like come on man, you just keep on feeding him, just stop, the both of you. You both should know better. You want to talk gravity and aether, make your own thread.
This is one question I've never seen flat earthers answer: How do you explain the SkyLab missions?
I guess they don't: they just send someone in to derail the thread with gish gallop, hope gravity gets a mention, and then sit back satisfied that a question buried is kind of the same as a question answered.
SkyLab is a great topic to address: there are so many good videos of the astronauts doing acrobatics up there in those pre-CGI days, with far longer shots than would be possible in a zero-G plane, as well as in much larger area.
Also interesting to note how much more spacious and comfortable SkyLab was compared to the ISS. Space deniers bemoan the NASA budget now, but back then they had some serious dollar to spend, and it showed. Such a shame those space stations have such a limited lifespan.
Here's a SkyLab clip I really like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU-IF8KnhlY
Thanks for posting the vids above. Great resource. :)
Thank you Max, I really appreciate your post. That was basically why I made a new thread on Skylab, because it is such a good topic and there's a lot of footage out there to analyze and explain.
Seeing that the only ontopic FE response in this thread was based on the ramblings of a fringe conspiracy theorist and someone's blog post, the last Skylab thread was mostly offtopic ,and there is no mention whatsoever of Skylab in the wiki, I'm just gonna come out with the truth.
FE'ers can't explain Skylab so they either don't repsond, or hide behind offtopic posts. Like seriously, 162 views on this topic, and only one ontopic FE response? Well, I guess ignorance is bliss.
-
Can you explain the attractive mechanism?
You have to, if you expect your readers to believe you that satellites orbit the earth according to an attractive law of gravity.
Actually, no I don't. All I have to do is observe that objects are attracted to one another which we can do by observing moons orbiting other planets and we can measure the level of attraction with things like the Cavendish experiment.
I don't need to understand the mechanism behind an effect to observe the effect exists.
Did rainbows only start existing once we understood the way light reflects and refracts through water droplets to cause the effect?
-
I just learned of websites where amateurs post photos they've taken of satellites and spacecraft from Earth. Here's one:
https://www.space.com/40-spotting-spaceships-earth.html
-
Edit: For all those who say the fluid stuff could be from parabolic flight, it can't be, 5:41 to 6:27 is longer than the 20 seconds of parabolic flight.
.
How deceptive of you. There's a cut at 5:14 minutes in to the video so it isn't 46 seconds of continuous footage as you try to imply but about 32-33 seconds. Google says the parabolic flights provide about 30 seconds of weightlessness. Also, the footage appears to be slightly slowed down. Furthermore ,hand-drawn cel animation definitely existed in 1974, and the footage is grainy enough that it could plausibly be the work of a skilled animator (but I lean towards parabolic flight).
-
Edit: For all those who say the fluid stuff could be from parabolic flight, it can't be, 5:41 to 6:27 is longer than the 20 seconds of parabolic flight.
.
How deceptive of you. There's a cut at 5:14 minutes in to the video so it isn't 46 seconds of continuous footage as you try to imply but about 32-33 seconds. Google says the parabolic flights provide about 30 seconds of weightlessness. Also, the footage appears to be slightly slowed down. Furthermore ,hand-drawn cel animation definitely existed in 1974, and the footage is grainy enough that it could plausibly be the work of a skilled animator (but I lean towards parabolic flight).
22 seconds seems to be the max with the Vomit Comet when it comes to 0g. The 30 seconds include includes the 4 seconds from g to 0 and 4 seconds back again.
I don't know about footage being slowed down, could be a framerate thing, 24 frames to 30 or something. But that doesn't change the 'floatiness' of it all.
I can't seem to find any hand-drawn cel animation that looks like this. Still can't find any CGI or parabolic flight where you can do this (If it is, it's level 9000 stuff):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFPvdNbftOY
-
Quotation from the first post: "@ 1:03 the man is able to accelerate his rotation too quickly to be an underwater environment."
Or the cameraman is able to slow down the frame rate such that it appears that he is rotating faster than he actually is.
Another quote from the first post: "@1:18-1:43 The three men execute intersecting 3d pathways that would make wire harnesses tangled, the video segment is too long to be explained by parabolic flight as it exceeds 20 seconds in duration and the SkyLab is too large of an internal volume to fit inside the largest aircraft available at that time."
Parabolic flights can create a zero-g environment for up to 40 seconds. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/
The notion that the entire volume of Skylab would need to be fitted into the parabolic aircraft in order to shoot the scene in question is obviously ridiculous. The circle that the "astronauts" are seen floating around in looks no larger than about 10-15 feet in diameter. It could also be a swimming pool, since the original claim that it could not have been shot in a swimming pool was refuted above. It looks to me like this scene was shot under water while the scene discussed above looks more like a vomit-comet scene (it isn't "either-or". Both could have been used, each for different effects). Either way, this stuff could easily have been faked.
-
22 seconds seems to be the max with the Vomit Comet when it comes to 0g. The 30 seconds include includes the 4 seconds from g to 0 and 4 seconds back again.
This article claims "Although space flight is the only way to provide long periods of true freefall, a much cheaper and more accessible method is available in an aircraft flying a parabolic trajectory. During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/
The mustache guy stuff is from the CGI era so it isn't at all pertinent to this discussion.
-
22 seconds seems to be the max with the Vomit Comet when it comes to 0g. The 30 seconds include includes the 4 seconds from g to 0 and 4 seconds back again.
This article claims "Although space flight is the only way to provide long periods of true freefall, a much cheaper and more accessible method is available in an aircraft flying a parabolic trajectory. During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/
The mustache guy stuff is from the CGI era so it isn't at all pertinent to this discussion.
From the same paper:
"Such a flight typically consists of 30 to 60 parabolas, each providing about 25 seconds of freefall. Between parabolas, the aircraft must climb to regain altitude, and during this 40 second interval when downward velocity is reduced and eventually becomes upward velocity, g levels reach 1.8 g. (Contrary to popular misconception, the 0 g freefall phase of flight begins as the aircraft climbs, and does not occur solely as the aircraft descends. Although the aircraft has upward velocity during the initial 0 g phase, its acceleration is downward: the upward velocity is decreasing.)"
Cool, so your point is?:
- Skylab bouncing around guys was just parabolic vomit comet stuff - No Skylab 'cut' under 25 seconds is worthy. There is one. (The 40 seconds of 'freefall' is the entire parabola, not the entirety of 0g.)
- Skylab water experiments were Disney-esque hand-drawn cel stuff
- Anything ISS is in-pertinent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sa-_Knre68
Some from MIR (Same era - Seems decidedly ghetto in comparison to Skylab, let alone ISS - I'm in your camp on this one, who in their right mind would go up into a Soviet era space station?):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJE9PNRoBwk
-
Either way, this stuff could easily have been faked.
I'd dispute the "easily", but let's say that it's possible it could have been faked.
Do you have any evidence that it was?
Just saying it's possible is a cop out, that could apply to pretty much anything. Where's the evidence that it was?
And I'm looking for better than vague assertions, what actual analysis has been done on the footage by a professional in this area which has shown evidence of fakery?
-
From the same paper:
"Such a flight typically consists of 30 to 60 parabolas, each providing about 25 seconds of freefall. Between parabolas, the aircraft must climb to regain altitude, and during this 40 second interval when downward velocity is reduced and eventually becomes upward velocity, g levels reach 1.8 g. (Contrary to popular misconception, the 0 g freefall phase of flight begins as the aircraft climbs, and does not occur solely as the aircraft descends. Although the aircraft has upward velocity during the initial 0 g phase, its acceleration is downward: the upward velocity is decreasing.)"
The 25 seconds of free fall refers to a "typical" flight. Elsewhere it is claimed that the maximum (as opposed to the typical) amount of free fall time is 40 seconds: "During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds. Later on: "Between 1955 and 1958, a refined approach in the F-94 fighter allowed a variety of medical experiments to be performed during 30 to 40 seconds of freefall." The 40 seconds of "increased force" during the typical parabolic flight has nothing to do with the maximum claimed 40 seconds (or 30-40 seconds) of free-fall, they just happen to be the same.
Cool, so your point is?:
- Skylab bouncing around guys was just parabolic vomit comet stuff - No Skylab 'cut' under 25 seconds is worthy. There is one. (The 40 seconds of 'freefall' is the entire parabola, not the entirety of 0g.)
Dealt with above. You also have to account for the possibility that the film was overcranked (slowed down.) For instance if the 32 seconds of uninterrupted floating water sequence was shot at a higher frame-rate than it was played back at, if it were slowed down by 25 percent that would mean that the sequence actually took up 24 seconds of real time.
- Skylab water experiments were Disney-esque hand-drawn cel stuff
I don't think that was used in this particular case but it is possible that NASA used hand-drawn animation in the pre CGI era. The video quality is usually so grainy (deliberately so) that if the effect was well animated enough it wouldn't be easy to see that the texture of the animated feature looked "off."
- Anything ISS is in-pertinent
This is a Skylab thread. The ISS monstrosities are dealt with in other threads.
-
From the same paper:
"Such a flight typically consists of 30 to 60 parabolas, each providing about 25 seconds of freefall. Between parabolas, the aircraft must climb to regain altitude, and during this 40 second interval when downward velocity is reduced and eventually becomes upward velocity, g levels reach 1.8 g. (Contrary to popular misconception, the 0 g freefall phase of flight begins as the aircraft climbs, and does not occur solely as the aircraft descends. Although the aircraft has upward velocity during the initial 0 g phase, its acceleration is downward: the upward velocity is decreasing.)"
The 25 seconds of free fall refers to a "typical" flight. Elsewhere it is claimed that the maximum (as opposed to the typical) amount of free fall time is 40 seconds: "During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds. Later on: "Between 1955 and 1958, a refined approach in the F-94 fighter allowed a variety of medical experiments to be performed during 30 to 40 seconds of freefall." The 40 seconds of "increased force" during the typical parabolic flight has nothing to do with the maximum claimed 40 seconds (or 30-40 seconds) of free-fall, they just happen to be the same.
For your $5000, Zero G Corporation gives you 22 seconds of weightlessness each of the 15 parabolic maneuvers. (Pricey).
It would be kinda tough to fit skylab into an F-94 fighter. The largest US plane in 1973 was the C5 Super Galaxy Transport. Skylab at it's largest diameter of 22' I'm not sure would fit into it. But if you could, then you'd have to get the C5 to perform parabolas like a fighter jet to get to that extended 30-40 seconds.
Here's a 47 second clip from skylab:
https://youtu.be/RcpZ0KVRjbg
Cool, so your point is?:
- Skylab bouncing around guys was just parabolic vomit comet stuff - No Skylab 'cut' under 25 seconds is worthy. There is one. (The 40 seconds of 'freefall' is the entire parabola, not the entirety of 0g.)
Dealt with above. You also have to account for the possibility that the film was overcranked (slowed down.) For instance if the 32 seconds of uninterrupted floating water sequence was shot at a higher frame-rate than it was played back at, if it were slowed down by 25 percent that would mean that the sequence actually took up 24 seconds of real time.
Dealt with above.
- Skylab water experiments were Disney-esque hand-drawn cel stuff
I don't think that was used in this particular case but it is possible that NASA used hand-drawn animation in the pre CGI era. The video quality is usually so grainy (deliberately so) that if the effect was well animated enough it wouldn't be easy to see that the texture of the animated feature looked "off."
Still not buying hand-drawn cel animation as an explanation. Too weak and reaching.
-
Edit: For all those who say the fluid stuff could be from parabolic flight, it can't be, 5:41 to 6:27 is longer than the 20 seconds of parabolic flight.
.
How deceptive of you. There's a cut at 5:14 minutes in to the video so it isn't 46 seconds of continuous footage as you try to imply but about 32-33 seconds. Google says the parabolic flights provide about 30 seconds of weightlessness. Also, the footage appears to be slightly slowed down. Furthermore ,hand-drawn cel animation definitely existed in 1974, and the footage is grainy enough that it could plausibly be the work of a skilled animator (but I lean towards parabolic flight).
I'm guessing there's a typo and you meant 6:14, but why do you think the cut is deceptive in any way? It's obvious they just zoomed in on the water. Like, do you have any evidence the cut signifies a different rotating formation of water? The backgrounds match up pre cut and psot cut, the speeds match up, and since we know it went through all the time pre cut without splitting into two blobs of water,that that time was not long enough to do so pre cut. So if the speeds match up, then post cut is focused on the same splitting blob of water. If you're going to bring up cranking and frame rates, then provide some evidence for it, speculation means nothing. And besides, even if you still are convinced of whatever effect the cut has, 32 seconds is still longer than the max parabolic flight time.
Also, animation? Can you provide any evidence to support your claim?
Quotation from the first post: "@ 1:03 the man is able to accelerate his rotation too quickly to be an underwater environment."
Or the cameraman is able to slow down the frame rate such that it appears that he is rotating faster than he actually is.
Do you have any evidence for that, not just speculation?
Another quote from the first post: "@1:18-1:43 The three men execute intersecting 3d pathways that would make wire harnesses tangled, the video segment is too long to be explained by parabolic flight as it exceeds 20 seconds in duration and the SkyLab is too large of an internal volume to fit inside the largest aircraft available at that time."
Parabolic flights can create a zero-g environment for up to 40 seconds. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/
The notion that the entire volume of Skylab would need to be fitted into the parabolic aircraft in order to shoot the scene in question is obviously ridiculous. The circle that the "astronauts" are seen floating around in looks no larger than about 10-15 feet in diameter. It could also be a swimming pool, since the original claim that it could not have been shot in a swimming pool was refuted above. It looks to me like this scene was shot under water while the scene discussed above looks more like a vomit-comet scene (it isn't "either-or". Both could have been used, each for different effects). Either way, this stuff could easily have been faked.
Well, stack already handled the 40 second thing, but I'm not seeing how this swimming pool thing works. They're bouncing off the ring and doing flips and stuff. They're obviously exerting themselves quite a bit over the 25 second period and should be exhaling their breath to keep up that much exertion. You really think NASA can edit out the streams of bubbles?
https://www.usms.org/fitness-and-training/articles-and-videos/articles/exhalingthe-hidden-secret-to-swimming-farther-and-faster
Indeed, in light of stack's video of the skylab ring sequence of 47 seconds, that level of exertion underwater for 47 seconds would be nearly impossible without surfacing.
And now fast rotation guy could be a vomit comet. The problem with that is that the scene is still too big for a vomit comet. The rotation guy has stretched out his arms before and after the rotation, giving a rough estimate of the length of his route being at least two wingspans. Which is most likely larger than the space in a vomit comet. Indeed, when we pan to the other guy who rolls forward, it affirms the assumption that it's a ring the rotation guy was spinning next to, and we've already established that as too big to fit in a vomit comet, even if you don't think it's a ring, the arc is still too big for a vomit comet and then panning to the other guy shows we're not seeing an arc placed sideways in a vomit comet, it's clearly an internal circumference of what would be the vomit comet's fuselage.
From the same paper:
"Such a flight typically consists of 30 to 60 parabolas, each providing about 25 seconds of freefall. Between parabolas, the aircraft must climb to regain altitude, and during this 40 second interval when downward velocity is reduced and eventually becomes upward velocity, g levels reach 1.8 g. (Contrary to popular misconception, the 0 g freefall phase of flight begins as the aircraft climbs, and does not occur solely as the aircraft descends. Although the aircraft has upward velocity during the initial 0 g phase, its acceleration is downward: the upward velocity is decreasing.)"
The 25 seconds of free fall refers to a "typical" flight. Elsewhere it is claimed that the maximum (as opposed to the typical) amount of free fall time is 40 seconds: "During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds. Later on: "Between 1955 and 1958, a refined approach in the F-94 fighter allowed a variety of medical experiments to be performed during 30 to 40 seconds of freefall." The 40 seconds of "increased force" during the typical parabolic flight has nothing to do with the maximum claimed 40 seconds (or 30-40 seconds) of free-fall, they just happen to be the same.
Do you have any evidence that vomit comet flights, like the ones today even exceed 30 seconds? Also, lol, the F-94? You do realize that thing is a two seater, right? In fact, here's a picture! Please explain to us how you can film anything in that or how conventional vomit comet planes can fly like a fighter jet.
(https://cdn1.imggmi.com/uploads/2019/2/7/a7e77336a862cbee5bc1c1e6da46cb57-full.jpg)
- Skylab water experiments were Disney-esque hand-drawn cel stuff
I don't think that was used in this particular case but it is possible that NASA used hand-drawn animation in the pre CGI era. The video quality is usually so grainy (deliberately so) that if the effect was well animated enough it wouldn't be easy to see that the texture of the animated feature looked "off."
It's grainy yes, but do you have any evidence for these allegations? Can you show us any hand drawn animations that can pass of as real?
-
For your $5000, Zero G Corporation gives you 22 seconds of weightlessness each of the 15 parabolic maneuvers. (Pricey).
It would be kinda tough to fit skylab into an F-94 fighter. The largest US plane in 1973 was the C5 Super Galaxy Transport. Skylab at it's largest diameter of 22' I'm not sure would fit into it. But if you could, then you'd have to get the C5 to perform parabolas like a fighter jet to get to that extended 30-40 seconds.
Here's a 47 second clip from skylab:
That 47 second clip is obviously slowed down, look at all the interlaced frames. As far as fitting Skylab into the jet, that wouldn't be necessary it would only be necessary to create a set for the specific room that was used in the shot. There are also methods to make a room look larger than it actually is (forced perspective and traveling mattes come to mind.) The commercial Vomit Comets As for the Zero G Corporation, civilian planes are only permitted to fly so high, military planes would be allowed to reach a higher peak height than the commercial planes, the only trade off being much higher g-forces after the zero-g period, but the astronauts would be trained to handle that.
-
I'm guessing there's a typo and you meant 6:14, but why do you think the cut is deceptive in any way? It's obvious they just zoomed in on the water. Like, do you have any evidence the cut signifies a different rotating formation of water? The backgrounds match up pre cut and psot cut, the speeds match up, and since we know it went through all the time pre cut without splitting into two blobs of water,that that time was not long enough to do so pre cut. So if the speeds match up, then post cut is focused on the same splitting blob of water. If you're going to bring up cranking and frame rates, then provide some evidence for it, speculation means nothing. And besides, even if you still are convinced of whatever effect the cut has, 32 seconds is still longer than the max parabolic flight time.
I already provided evidence that the parabolic flights can create 40 seconds of zero-g time.
Also, animation? Can you provide any evidence to support your claim?
Watch Fantasia.
Do you have any evidence for that, not just speculation?
The question is whether or not it is possible to fake the Skylab effects. The speed could have been faked using camera-effects, thus I fulfilled my burden of showing that it was possible to fake that aspect.
Well, stack already handled the 40 second thing, but I'm not seeing how this swimming pool thing works. They're bouncing off the ring and doing flips and stuff. They're obviously exerting themselves quite a bit over the 25 second period and should be exhaling their breath to keep up that much exertion. You really think NASA can edit out the streams of bubbles?
https://www.usms.org/fitness-and-training/articles-and-videos/articles/exhalingthe-hidden-secret-to-swimming-farther-and-faster
We found that zero-g planes can achieve free fall for 40 seconds.
Indeed, in light of stack's video of the skylab ring sequence of 47 seconds, that level of exertion underwater for 47 seconds would be nearly impossible without surfacing.
Clearly slowed frame rate. Look at all the interlaced frames. It looks more natural at double-speed
Do you have any evidence that vomit comet flights, like the ones today even exceed 30 seconds? Also, lol, the F-94? You do realize that thing is a two seater, right? In fact, here's a picture! Please explain to us how you can film anything in that or how conventional vomit comet planes can fly like a fighter jet.
(https://cdn1.imggmi.com/uploads/2019/2/7/a7e77336a862cbee5bc1c1e6da46cb57-full.jpg)
The evidence was already presented. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/
The length of zero-g times is dependent upon the maximum altitude. If the vomit comet's max altitude is greater than the typical 34,000 feet the amount of time in zero-g would be greater than the typical 25 seconds.
It's grainy yes, but do you have any evidence for these allegations? Can you show us any hand drawn animations that can pass of as real?
There's no allegation, it was only mentioned as a possibility.
-
And now fast rotation guy could be a vomit comet. The problem with that is that the scene is still too big for a vomit comet. The rotation guy has stretched out his arms before and after the rotation, giving a rough estimate of the length of his route being at least two wingspans. Which is most likely larger than the space in a vomit comet. Indeed, when we pan to the other guy who rolls forward, it affirms the assumption that it's a ring the rotation guy was spinning next to, and we've already established that as too big to fit in a vomit comet, even if you don't think it's a ring, the arc is still too big for a vomit comet and then panning to the other guy shows we're not seeing an arc placed sideways in a vomit comet, it's clearly an internal circumference of what would be the vomit comet's fuselage.
This is just a mass of evidence-free assertions and assumptions.
Well, stack already handled the 40 second thing, but I'm not seeing how this swimming pool thing works. They're bouncing off the ring and doing flips and stuff. They're obviously exerting themselves quite a bit over the 25 second period and should be exhaling their breath to keep up that much exertion. You really think NASA can edit out the streams of bubbles?
It's way too grainy to make out any bubbles. Plus, the film is clearly slowed-down so the real-time needed to film it would be significantly less than the time it takes to playback. Also, notice how the guys run around the circle in Stack's video. How is that possible? Where is the normal force coming from that keeps the astronauts feet attached to the surface? In zero-g, intertia would cause them to move in straight lines opposite the line of force caused by his feet pushing down. This proves the video is fake.
ADDENDUM: The claim that it couldn't be faked using wires because they would have gotten tangled is sensible, but using multiple exposures and/or rotoscoping they could have achieved the effect shooting each astronaut one at a time. If it was choreographed carefully enough the portions where the astronauts appear to come into contact could be made to look natural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping
-
The fact that this old footage is cutting it so close to the limit is evidence enough. It's not like 1970's video cameras could only record video for less than a minute.
-
Well, stack already handled the 40 second thing, but I'm not seeing how this swimming pool thing works. They're bouncing off the ring and doing flips and stuff. They're obviously exerting themselves quite a bit over the 25 second period and should be exhaling their breath to keep up that much exertion. You really think NASA can edit out the streams of bubbles?
It's way too grainy to make out any bubbles. Plus, the film is clearly slowed-down so the real-time needed to film it would be significantly less than the time it takes to playback. Also, notice how the guys run around the circle in Stack's video. How is that possible? Where is the normal force coming from that keeps the astronauts feet attached to the surface? In zero-g, intertia would cause them to move in straight lines opposite the line of force caused by his feet pushing down. This proves the video is fake.
ADDENDUM: The claim that it couldn't be faked using wires because they would have gotten tangled is sensible, but using multiple exposures they could have achieved the effect shooting each astronaut one at a time. If it was choreographed carefully enough the portions where the astronauts appear to come into contact could be made to look natural.
What's your evidence again that it's 'clearly slowed-down'? I don't see it personally, although more because there are bits that look odd at one speed but not the other, and vice versa. Interlaced frames =/= film speed difference. You'll need a better case than that.
As for running around in a circle, do you understand how moving in a circle works? You calling this impossible, imo, calls into question the rest of your concerns about this video. That's very simple physics going on right there. Go spin a bucket of water around on the end of a string. The force being applied is always towards the center, yet it doesn't ever end up there. Why? Same thing. (I'd also note your assertion that it's happening on a vomit comet would produce zero-g circumstances and render this a feat impossible there too, leaving you *required* to have wires which simply isn't the case)
The fact that this old footage is cutting it so close to the limit is evidence enough. It's not like 1970's video cameras could only record video for less than a minute.
Only if you're already inclined to think it's fake. Length of segments is not strong evidence in and of itself without entering with bias.
-
What's your evidence again that it's 'clearly slowed-down'? I don't see it personally, although more because there are bits that look odd at one speed but not the other, and vice versa. Interlaced frames =/= film speed difference. You'll need a better case than that.
The evidence is the copious frame interlacing and the fact that it looks unnatural. Anyway, all I need to do is show that it could be faked in order to refute the initial argument that Skylab proves space-flight is real.
As for running around in a circle, do you understand how moving in a circle works? You calling this impossible, imo, calls into question the rest of your concerns about this video. That's very simple physics going on right there. Go spin a bucket of water around on the end of a string. The force being applied is always towards the center, yet it doesn't ever end up there. Why? Same thing. (I'd also note your assertion that it's happening on a vomit comet would produce zero-g circumstances and render this a feat impossible there too, leaving you *required* to have wires which simply isn't the case)
Nonsense. The force in question here is the force of the astronauts feet upon the circle thing which produces a linear force perpendicular to the surface of contact. The point about the bucket is irrelevant: If what we are told about Skylab is correct there is no centrifugal force acting upon the astronauts except for the minute amount of centrifugal force upon the entire satellite due to orbiting around the Earth; whereas the water is contained by the bucket and moving in unison with it as it is being moved along the circle. Your argument requires Skylab to be spinning like a gravitron amusement park ride. As far as the "calling into question" stuff: ad hominem fallacy.
-
Do people here think Chris Angel is a wizard because he makes things disappear and levitate? Illusions and special-effects are a "thing." There are entire professions based around deceiving your sense of sight.
-
The fact that this old footage is cutting it so close to the limit is evidence enough. It's not like 1970's video cameras could only record video for less than a minute.
Are you sure that it was a video camera used to record that footage? Although there was a TV video camera on Skylab, they also used film movie cameras that did have limited recording capabilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab#Cameras_and_film
-
For your $5000, Zero G Corporation gives you 22 seconds of weightlessness each of the 15 parabolic maneuvers. (Pricey).
It would be kinda tough to fit skylab into an F-94 fighter. The largest US plane in 1973 was the C5 Super Galaxy Transport. Skylab at it's largest diameter of 22' I'm not sure would fit into it. But if you could, then you'd have to get the C5 to perform parabolas like a fighter jet to get to that extended 30-40 seconds.
Here's a 47 second clip from skylab:
That 47 second clip is obviously slowed down, look at all the interlaced frames. As far as fitting Skylab into the jet, that wouldn't be necessary it would only be necessary to create a set for the specific room that was used in the shot. There are also methods to make a room look larger than it actually is (forced perspective and traveling mattes come to mind.) The commercial Vomit Comets As for the Zero G Corporation, civilian planes are only permitted to fly so high, military planes would be allowed to reach a higher peak height than the commercial planes, the only trade off being much higher g-forces after the zero-g period, but the astronauts would be trained to handle that.
I'm not seeing the obviousness you are seeing.
I'm not sure the 22' diameter 'running' room in skylab would fit inside the largest military craft we had at the time. But maybe. And I'm not sure how a C5 Super Galaxy Transport would handle really severe parabolas as I am not an aerospace engineer.
I'm not buying the LotR's Gandolf/Hobbit forced perspective thing, reaching.
I'm not buying the Fantasia cel-animation thing, reaching.
So to recap, skylab fackery:
- 40 second parbolas (Longest we know of)
- Sections of skylab 'sets' built into our largest military plane of the day to perform parabolas
- Water experiments, unknown at the moment
- I suppose astronauts outside = water tanks
- Images of earth = mattes and such
Did I miss anything?
Here's a strange under-cranked video I found. If to be believed, erases the parabola explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Eao9vKcQ_c
-
As for running around in a circle, do you understand how moving in a circle works? You calling this impossible, imo, calls into question the rest of your concerns about this video. That's very simple physics going on right there. Go spin a bucket of water around on the end of a string. The force being applied is always towards the center, yet it doesn't ever end up there. Why? Same thing. (I'd also note your assertion that it's happening on a vomit comet would produce zero-g circumstances and render this a feat impossible there too, leaving you *required* to have wires which simply isn't the case)
Nonsense. The force in question here is the force of the astronauts feet upon the circle thing which produces a linear force perpendicular to the surface of contact. The point about the bucket is irrelevant: If what we are told about Skylab is correct there is no centrifugal force acting upon the astronauts except for the minute amount of centrifugal force upon the entire satellite due to orbiting around the Earth; whereas the water is contained by the bucket and moving in unison with it as it is being moved along the circle. Your argument requires Skylab to be spinning like a gravitron amusement park ride. As far as the "calling into question" stuff: ad hominem fallacy.
You're ignoring their initial momentum. Again. Also, not Ad Hominem, but a legitimate technique used in court. If a witnesses testimony is unreliable in one respect (in this case your declaration that running around this circle is impossible) how can the testimony be relied upon in another respect (your declaration it looks fake). I'll admit perhaps a bit of a stretch, but proclaiming it shows gaps in fundamental knowledge of physics. So how can I expect you to be a reliable witness/testimony regarding the physics of movement of them through the air that you claim clearly indicates slowed down footage, when you proclaim a far simpler feat impossible?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Eao9vKcQ_c
That is indeed a strange video. Preliminary observations: look at the two "water bubble scenes", the only scenes that couldn't be done with wires: both are less than 40 seconds when slowed down to 25%
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Eao9vKcQ_c
That is indeed a strange video. Preliminary observations: look at the two "water bubble scenes", the only scenes that couldn't be done with wires: both are less than 40 seconds when slowed down to 25%
I don't see any wires. Can you point them out?
-
The more I watch it, the more it looks like most of it was shot underwater, perhaps aided with very thin wires, in neutral buoyancy conditions. Nobody's head is seen for more than a few minutes at a time and there are a number of cuts so breath holding time isn't an issue. Everything looks suspended in water.
-
As for running around in a circle, do you understand how moving in a circle works? You calling this impossible, imo, calls into question the rest of your concerns about this video. That's very simple physics going on right there. Go spin a bucket of water around on the end of a string. The force being applied is always towards the center, yet it doesn't ever end up there. Why? Same thing. (I'd also note your assertion that it's happening on a vomit comet would produce zero-g circumstances and render this a feat impossible there too, leaving you *required* to have wires which simply isn't the case)
Nonsense. The force in question here is the force of the astronauts feet upon the circle thing which produces a linear force perpendicular to the surface of contact. The point about the bucket is irrelevant: If what we are told about Skylab is correct there is no centrifugal force acting upon the astronauts except for the minute amount of centrifugal force upon the entire satellite due to orbiting around the Earth; whereas the water is contained by the bucket and moving in unison with it as it is being moved along the circle. Your argument requires Skylab to be spinning like a gravitron amusement park ride. As far as the "calling into question" stuff: ad hominem fallacy.
You're ignoring their initial momentum.
What initial momentum? You'll have to elaborate
-
The more I watch it, the more it looks like most of it was shot underwater, perhaps aided with very thin wires, in neutral buoyancy conditions. Nobody's head is seen for more than a few minutes at a time and there are a number of cuts so breath holding time isn't an issue. Everything looks suspended in water.
Perhaps that's why they use neutral buoyancy tanks to train for weightlessness. I'm not seeing any bubbles, no hair-in-water/clothes-in-water typical movement, no wires, the way certain objects just seem to revolve/move unlike they would specifically underwater. That would be some seriously impressive breath holding considering some of the long takes and the fact that the film is sped way up.
All in all, literally anything can be faked. I'm not saying this is real, I just don't see what you see and any evidence that it is definitely fake.
So to recap, skylab fackery:
- 40 second parbolas (Longest we know of)
- Sections of skylab 'sets' built into our largest military plane of the day to perform parabolas
- Any footage longer than what a parabola could offer is underwater
- Water experiments, unknown at the moment
- I suppose astronauts outside = water tanks
- Images of earth = mattes and such
Did I miss anything?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Eao9vKcQ_c
That is indeed a strange video. Preliminary observations: look at the two "water bubble scenes", the only scenes that couldn't be done with wires: both are less than 40 seconds when slowed down to 25%
I don't see any wires. Can you point them out?
Can you point any out in this video (starting at 16:44)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Eao9vKcQ_c
That is indeed a strange video. Preliminary observations: look at the two "water bubble scenes", the only scenes that couldn't be done with wires: both are less than 40 seconds when slowed down to 25%
I don't see any wires. Can you point them out?
Can you point any out in this video (starting at 16:44)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY
See the wires? No. See the obvious jerky movement of objects suspended by wires? Yes.
-
The more I watch it, the more it looks like most of it was shot underwater, perhaps aided with very thin wires, in neutral buoyancy conditions. Nobody's head is seen for more than a few minutes at a time and there are a number of cuts so breath holding time isn't an issue. Everything looks suspended in water.
It looks nothing like it's under water, if it was you'd see the guy kicking his legs to move from one side to the other.
-
Although not SKylab, I see a wire in this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0ztr1EW--A
-
Although not SKylab, I see a wire in this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0ztr1EW--A
Here's what a Syncon satellite looks like, the one being launched in the video. Not a 100%, but the 'wire' looks like the antenna like thing on top:
(http://www.astronautix.com/nails/1/10062235.jpg)
-
There were two satellites on STS-51A. Syncom is not the satellite deployed in the clip above. Take a look at the full video at the 2:35 minute mark. Syncom is the second satellite deployed, as depicted and stated by narrator.
https://youtu.be/HTy0dQidPGM&t=2m35s
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-A
"The two communications satellites successfully deployed were Anik D2 (on the second day of the mission) and Syncom IV-1, also known as Leasat 1 (on the third day)."
-
I'm always bemused that people who believe NASA are faking everything simultaneously believe they are doing so well enough to fool most people on the planet but are also doing their "special FX" so poorly that films from the 60s have better done effects.
-
I'm always bemused that people who believe NASA are faking everything simultaneously believe they are doing so well enough to fool most people on the planet but are also doing their "special FX" so poorly that films from the 60s have better done effects.
Explain the wire seen in the above clip.
-
I'm always bemused that people who believe NASA are faking everything simultaneously believe they are doing so well enough to fool most people on the planet but are also doing their "special FX" so poorly that films from the 60s have better done effects.
Explain the wire seen in the above clip.
Talk about leading the witness..."Explain the wire..." presumes there is a wire. I'm not convinced. You're right, the night time launch of the satellite was for the Anik D2 which has an antenna but it pops up after deploy not during.
I went through the 27 or so frames in question that show the "wire" one by one. This one seemed to be the best:
(https://i.imgur.com/xei9jo6.png?1)
If you look at the 27 frames, one by one, but in succession, the "wire" changes shape and other stuff, like in the frame grab above, shows up like over in the lower right. All of which could be whatever light is reflecting off the top of the device.
In other words, I don't see it anymore as a wire as I do a reflection created from all of the light dancing around the whole launch as it spins it's way up and out. I've been looking for raw source material, but haven't found any.
The most famous and impressive things about STS 51A was not the alleged "wire" launch of the Anik, but the retrieval of two other satellites which I don't think had been done before. As well there's some UFO captured during the retrieval that keeps popping up in my search.
-
Changing shape? Can you show us what you mean?
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-05-2019/Z-548e.gif)
-
That "wire" isn't even in the centre of the satellite. How is the satellite not at an angle or oscillating side to side if it's dangling on a wire and the wire isn't central to a spinning satellite?
Honestly, I don't know what that is. Could be an antenna, could be an "artifact", the video isn't great quality, there's a lot of ghosting. But I don't see how an object can spin like that and stay upright and not wobble if it's on a wire and the wire isn't at the axis of rotation which it doesn't look like it is from that animated gif.
-
Honestly, I don't know what that is. Could be an antenna, could be an "artifact", the video isn't great quality, there's a lot of ghosting. But I don't see how an object can spin like that and stay upright and not wobble if it's on a wire and the wire isn't at the axis of rotation which it doesn't look like it is from that animated gif.
I love how you are so quick to dismiss that it could be a wire. Is it that difficult to just admit that it might kinda sorta look like a wire maybe? It sure does to me.
In other words, I don't see it anymore as a wire as I do a reflection created from all of the light dancing around the whole launch as it spins it's way up and out.
When I look at the image I see the line. What is the line? I don't know. I agree that it could be the things that you have listed above but, I also believe, that it COULD be a wire. Again i'm shocked at peoples inability to acknowledge that it might be a wire.
-
Changing shape? Can you show us what you mean?
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-05-2019/Z-548e.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/C8HYv35.jpg?1)
-
Again i'm shocked at peoples inability to acknowledge that it might be a wire.
I do admit that "it might kinda sorta look like a wire maybe". But the key words there are "look like".
I explained why I don't see how it can be a wire. If an object is spinning then the wire has to be in the centre or it'll wobble or tilt. That "wire" clearly isn't in the centre. That would apply to an antenna as well. Honestly the video is such poor quality, there's so much ghosting that I'm leaning towards some "artifacts" on the video.
-
Honestly, I don't know what that is. Could be an antenna, could be an "artifact", the video isn't great quality, there's a lot of ghosting. But I don't see how an object can spin like that and stay upright and not wobble if it's on a wire and the wire isn't at the axis of rotation which it doesn't look like it is from that animated gif.
I love how you are so quick to dismiss that it could be a wire. Is it that difficult to just admit that it might kinda sorta look like a wire maybe? It sure does to me.
In other words, I don't see it anymore as a wire as I do a reflection created from all of the light dancing around the whole launch as it spins it's way up and out.
When I look at the image I see the line. What is the line? I don't know. I agree that it could be the things that you have listed above but, I also believe, that it COULD be a wire. Again i'm shocked at peoples inability to acknowledge that it might be a wire.
Hey, simmer down. Stop being all 'judgy' on what you think people are willing to dismiss or not. I originally posted that I thought it was a different satellite being deployed which had a definite antenna protrusion which could have accounted for the 'wire', but as I stated, I wasn't 100% sure. Tom did the due diligence and corrected me on which satellite it was, so I had to look deeper. It's compelling footage no matter which side of the fence you're on, so worth a look.
Upon review I looked at it again, and again, frame by frame. Coupled with looking up the specific satellite schematics and such. Tom comes at it from a "look at the wire" perspective, I come at it from a "what else could it be" perspective. Neither angle is right and neither is wrong. Maybe we meet in the middle.
My personal determination, 27 frames of a straight line protruding off-center from the spinning instrument, supposedly in space - a video medium I'm not too familiar with, none of us are - that kind of comes in and goes out presented at a post flight conference video with super poor resolution, 1984 NTSC reso with reflected light and blown out aspects of the image doesn't really land me, personally in the "that's a wire" camp.
The mantra of space debunkers has been, "If we can show one piece of evidence that NASA faked something, then the whole shooting match has been faked." So if you're going to go by that standard, this one fails. It's just not strong enough to take down the mantle of space travel.
But that's not to say the notion wasn't examined nor entertained. Better evidence is simply required.
So saddle off your high horse.
-
The mantra of space debunkers has been, "If we can show one piece of evidence that NASA faked something, then the whole shooting match has been faked."
That is logically fallacious anyway. Even if it was conclusively shown that NASA faked a certain mission then while that would raise questions or cast doubt on other missions that absolutely does not prove that every NASA mission is fake. And that's without the numerous space missions which are nothing to do with NASA, my TV points at satellites which were put up by the European space agency, for example.
This is where I struggle with the conspiracy theory mindset. There's a mountain of evidence that space travel is a thing. Satellite TV, GPS, weather satellites, the hundreds of people who have been to space including 7 space tourists, the number of other people who would have to be in on a conspiracy or actively working on it, the private companies now being paid to deploy satellites. And that's without all the photos and film from space. A bunch of countries now have the technology to send things into space, there are hundreds of satellites orbiting, the technologies they enable demonstrably work, rocket launches are public events which people witness, the ISS can be seen from earth.
So that's on one side of the evidence scales. On the other side you have some grainy footage in which you can see something which could possibly be a wire although it's far from clear and it's beyond me why you'd see a wire in NASA footage when you don't in films set in space which predate that footage by decades. I've explained above why a wire (or aerial) seems unlikely, it's off centre and it's spinning, a wire would have to be in the centre. That's why I suspect it's artefacts on the footage. So that's on the other side of the scales. To me it would have to take a pretty large slice of cognitive dissonance (to admit what NASA are really doing what they claim is to admit the earth can't be flat) and confirmation bias to come down on the side of "they must be faking it all".
-
When I look at the image I see the line. What is the line? I don't know. I agree that it could be the things that you have listed above but, I also believe, that it COULD be a wire. Again i'm shocked at peoples inability to acknowledge that it might be a wire.
I am shocked by peoples inability to acknowledge that it might be a satellite launch.
-
You can download satellite images now as they pass over with a $30 radio, and some imaging software,
or use them as repeaters to allow transmission further than a handheld transceiver can.
-
Here are the Galaev experiments, the most thorough ever undertaken:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791
A direct proof of the existence of aether.
Here is the mathematical proof of the existence of longitudinal waves:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059
A vector field is the outward manifestation of the potential, the ether, longitudinal scalar waves.
Martin Ruderfer published one of the most sensational experiments of the 20th century and beyond.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721
Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192
Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361
in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.
This is the reason why Einstein's relativity is being thrown aside, and mainstream physicists are embracing MLET (a local aether model).
Mainstream physicists such as C.C. Su, Ruyong Wang, Ron Hatch, Tom van Flandern, S.L. Gift are publishing their local-aether in the best scientific journals, including IOP articles.
The fact that the orbital Sagnac is not being registered by GPS satellites has changed everything.
The local-aether model can no longer be denied or ignored.
Here is the most mainstream proof of them all: the AHARONOV-BOHM EFFECT, which has been documented again and again for the past 50 years.
The seminal Aharonov-Bohm paper:
https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.115.485
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4323049/
The Aharonov-Bohm effect and its applications to electron phase microscopy, A. Tonomura (state of the art proofs of the Aharonov-Bohm effect)
(https://image.ibb.co/c0CeLd/ton1.jpg)
Do any of the scientists involved these experiments or who have "proven" ether believe in a flat earth?
-
Gravity
What hard evidence do you have
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is somehow up to RE to prove gravity. FE makes the claim that it doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on FE if they want to challenge accepted science.
Burden of Proof
A fallacy is when someone makes an argument based on unsound reasoning. Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side. For example, a person makes a claim. Another person refutes the claim, and the first person asks them to prove that the claim is not true. In a logical argument, if someone states a claim, it is up to that person to prove the truth of his or her claim.
http://softschools.com/examples/fallacies/burden_of_proof_examples/521/
Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
Of course this only applies to people who are actually interested in making logical arguments so I could see how you would think it doesn't apply to you.
.