Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - George Jetson

Pages: < Back  1 ... 3 4 [5]
81
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns
« on: November 24, 2018, 03:14:31 PM »
Peterson was not misquoted. From Newton's Clock:



do you really not understand what quote mining is?  it's dishonest to selectively quote a text to make it seem as if the author is making a different point than he or she is actually making.  yes, the author makes that remark about laskar's work in 1983.  but then immediately after that he explains that other simulations absolutely did model the solar system directly and confirmed laskar's results.  he describes the nature and results of some of those simulations.

the source that you presented as a credible authority explicitly disagrees with everything you are claiming, and he says so directly.  read the quotes i posted.  he's quite clear.

Lets see the three body simulations of three bodies with unequal masses.

i already provided you with a nine-body simulation.  this is literally a simulation of the solar system carried out by directly calculating newton's laws and letting the system evolve. 
A three million year integration of the earth's orbit


From the abstract of that Harvard paper:  " The initial conditions are taken from the JPL DE 102 ephemeris." 

Wikipedia says about the JPL DE 102 ephemeris:  "Each ephemeris was produced by numerical integration of the equations of motion, starting from a set of initial conditions. Due to the precision of modern observational data, the analytical method of general perturbations could no longer be applied to a high enough accuracy to adequately reproduce the observations. The method of special perturbations was applied, using numerical integration to solve the n-body problem, in effect putting the entire Solar System into motion in the computer's memory, accounting for all relevant physical laws. "

Tom's point stands.

82
Flat Earth Community / Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« on: November 11, 2018, 11:44:30 PM »
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing.  As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.

Well, it's video. We could go all day back and forth as to what perhaps you want to see versus what I want to see. As for the helmet, I suppose up to interpretation. But it states that the torso engagement contains a 'rotating' bearing that lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease". Seems clear to me. And even if there is some perceived ambiguity, it seems disingenuous for the video author to state that it definitely doesn't swivel as a main contention.

My larger point is that we see what we want to see. FE sees fake, I don't. Both biased. But when I saw this, I tried to park my bias aside. As yeah, it looked like a gumby video and if the Gemini helmets don't swivel as the video author claimed, then yeah, that's pretty fake. So I looked for original footage which I find to be different. And then found the docs pertaining to the Gemini suit and in there, it states that the helmet does, in fact, rotate.

Point being, before slapping images/videos up, remove your bias to the best of your ability and do some research first, even from the opposite point of view. It just seems like the right thing to do.
I'm not a Flat Earther, I have no position except that it is good to question everything, including the received wisdom of the experts.  I provisionally believe in the RE based worldview because of maps and astronomical observation but I'm open to changing my position.  The claim that I my criticism of NASA footage is based in confirmation bias is utterly false.  NASA's older (pre-1990s) film footage simply looks completely phony to me.  More modern footage looks better but there are still problems.

No disrespect intended. Just that a lot of stuff is posted, by both sides, saying, "See, look, this definitely means 'X'!" And often times without a pre-dive into some level of research.
It's true that there is definitely an element of subjectivity in the question of whether or not something "looks fake" or "looks real."  Some of the NASA critics have criticisms that, I think, comeclose to  objectively falsify some of NASA's footage.

83
Flat Earth Community / Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« on: November 11, 2018, 08:49:21 PM »
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing.  As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.

Well, it's video. We could go all day back and forth as to what perhaps you want to see versus what I want to see. As for the helmet, I suppose up to interpretation. But it states that the torso engagement contains a 'rotating' bearing that lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease". Seems clear to me. And even if there is some perceived ambiguity, it seems disingenuous for the video author to state that it definitely doesn't swivel as a main contention.

My larger point is that we see what we want to see. FE sees fake, I don't. Both biased. But when I saw this, I tried to park my bias aside. As yeah, it looked like a gumby video and if the Gemini helmets don't swivel as the video author claimed, then yeah, that's pretty fake. So I looked for original footage which I find to be different. And then found the docs pertaining to the Gemini suit and in there, it states that the helmet does, in fact, rotate.

Point being, before slapping images/videos up, remove your bias to the best of your ability and do some research first, even from the opposite point of view. It just seems like the right thing to do.
I'm not a Flat Earther, I have no position except that it is good to question everything, including the received wisdom of the experts.  I provisionally believe in the RE based worldview because of maps and astronomical observation but I'm open to changing my position.  The claim that I my criticism of NASA footage is based in confirmation bias is utterly false.  NASA's older (pre-1990s) film footage simply looks completely phony to me.  More modern footage looks better but there are still problems.  The helmet swivel issue may be a moot point (one would hope the NASA fakers would be able to keep their story straight on such basic things) but the overall phoniness is glaring.

84
Flat Earth Community / Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« on: November 11, 2018, 06:41:40 PM »
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing.  As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.

85
Flat Earth Community / Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« on: November 10, 2018, 04:43:53 PM »

NASA Bloopers, Blunders & Gaffes - Is Anyone Even In Space?

The sequences from about 4:30 to 8:00 are so obviously cheesy 1960s era stop motion.  It looks like something out of Davey and Goliath.

86
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Test to debunk flat earth models
« on: November 10, 2018, 03:23:23 AM »
To clarify....
On a flat earth wherein the celestial objects rotate above the plane of the earth, your telescope's movement should reflect that. According to "perspective" the path your telescope (and celestial object) should take would be to go to the horizon, stay there (apparently), and travel in a straight line, as the object circles above the planet, back toward where the object reappears the next night.

This experiment FIRMLY debunks any such nonsense.
You'll have to elaborate.  All I see are nebulous claims with no logical or mathematical reasoning to back them up.  Why "should" the celestial bodies do what you say they should.  I'm not saying your wrong, just vague.

Nebulous claims? Vague? My argument is based on sound logic. I've invited you to get the EQ telescope mount and do it yourself. As I said, its cheap and easy to do. Educate yourself on how it works. Takes an hour. I can post literature on EQ mounts here if anyone would like.

With 100% accuracy, the properly set-up EQ mount will track the movement of a star, planet, etc. across the sky, from one horizon to the other. If you keep moving the mount full circle (dipping down pointing toward the earth's core) until its pointing at the opposite that the object sank below, it will reappear in that precise spot the next night, thus proving the telescope's accuracy and that the stars are traveling under the earth, not above it in a circle.

If you thought anything in my post was vague, idk what to tell you.
Okay, I get your point now.  For what it's worth, the FE Youtube group Globebusters addresses the equatorial mount argument here: 

87
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Test to debunk flat earth models
« on: November 10, 2018, 02:59:17 AM »
To clarify....
On a flat earth wherein the celestial objects rotate above the plane of the earth, your telescope's movement should reflect that. According to "perspective" the path your telescope (and celestial object) should take would be to go to the horizon, stay there (apparently), and travel in a straight line, as the object circles above the planet, back toward where the object reappears the next night.

This experiment FIRMLY debunks any such nonsense.
You'll have to elaborate.  All I see are nebulous claims with no logical or mathematical reasoning to back them up.  Why "should" the celestial bodies do what you say they should.  I'm not saying your wrong, just vague.

88
Flat Earth Community / Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« on: November 10, 2018, 12:18:07 AM »
Since there are already others commenting on the video, I will also take the liberties to do so, even though it should actually be done elsewhere.  This video actually is represented as 'fake', but just go to 9:21 on the video and you will see what the 'real' story is.  It looks to me like the original video was of a NASA rehearsal in a pool.  You can see the divers messing with something in the background for a couple of seconds, and then a little later for a couple of seconds more.  Then the background is altered and the divers are blocked out.  Do you really think that NASA was doing the alterations of the video and trying to pass it off as a procedure done in space?  You really think that they are that incompetent?  Any video can be altered by anyone to suit their agenda and then use it as evidence to support their point.  There is no real point in posting any videos under these circumstances.
This argument assumes that all of the footage in the debunking video was taken from the same source.  It seems, however, to be a compilation of footage from various sources.  The part at around 9:21 that you are referring to is presented by the narrator as being a demonstration as to how "easy it is to fake", meaning the maker of the video presumably understood that that particular footage was never presented as being authentic space footage or that it was otherwise modified (ie: the Youtuber swapped in the pool background to make his point.) I agree that the actual sources used should be cited in order to verify whether or not the footage in question was ever claimed to be real space footage by NASA or any other organization.

Edit:  At 9:21 the pool background was obviously edited in by the video maker not to deceive but to show how easy it is to fake.  Look at 9:34, there is a youtube video time bar that can only be seen in the background pool layer.  Your point is entirely moot.

89
Flat Earth Community / Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« on: November 09, 2018, 08:37:47 PM »
Thank you. The wire stuff seems pretty damning. Here are some more pure coincidences:

Astronauts on ISS Spacewalks Push Objects at a Distance

The following video shows astronauts on spacewalks pushing objects just before touching them, suggesting that the scenes are being filmed in an underwater set. See these two examples at the 5:20 mark:



Bodies are moving before being touched, which is difficult to explain. The entire video is worth watching as well.
The astronaut is warping the space time around that strap.

90
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« on: November 09, 2018, 08:29:32 PM »

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

91
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: November 08, 2018, 10:07:10 PM »


#6, by the way, is the key premise of this topic, started way back when. If there isn't agreement between flat and globe earth proponents on that, then much posted on this topic has been pointless. But if there is a mechanism that could explain the apparent dip in the horizon with increased elevation on a flat earth, I'd love to invite it.


To reiterate from my last post, the standard FE claim is that the higher you go the greater the distance the light must travel from the horizon line to your eye meaning the light has to travel through a greater volume of refraction-causing atmosphere to reach your eye the higher up you go.  It is this supposed effect that FEs claim causes the horizon drop.  It makes a certain amount of sense to me but I don't know if it actually fits the empirical data.

A couple things about this.

On a flat earth, you'd have an atmolayer, not an atmosphere. That's not just semantics. In an atmolayer, air density doesn't curve away from the line of sight as it would with an atmosphere. Having to penetrate more atmo- (air) isn't what causes refractive "bending" of light. Extinction due to scattering and absorption yes, but not refraction. Not unless there are reasons for why the density gradient of the air is different at different distances through which that line of sight passes. But as a characteristic of an atmolayer, it's not "refraction-causing" in the way that an atmosphere would be. Standard atmoSPHERE will cause light to bend toward the curve of the underlying sphere. Standard atmoLAYER would not have that feature.

Secondly, claiming horizon dip on a flat earth is due to refraction of an atmolayer due to an angle of viewing from an elevation of rarer air to a lower elevation of denser air relies on a bending of light that is the opposite of how refraction works. If light from a dipped horizon is being refracted as it encounters the less dense air of the viewer, it will be refracted toward the denser medium, back to toward the surface of the earth. This has the visual effect of raising the apparent elevation of the sighted object not lowering it. In this case, the object is the horizon. For the horizon to appear to decline in angle, the light would have to bend UPWARD, away from the surface of the earth. Horizon dip could be explained by EAT because it's claimed mechanism has light bending upward, away from earth's surface. Refraction by the air could do that too, but it is far from typical. You need a density inversion of the atmolayer for refraction to cause upward-bending light and make the horizon appear to "dip."
Thanks for the optics lesson.  :)

92
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: November 08, 2018, 06:47:17 PM »


#6, by the way, is the key premise of this topic, started way back when. If there isn't agreement between flat and globe earth proponents on that, then much posted on this topic has been pointless. But if there is a mechanism that could explain the apparent dip in the horizon with increased elevation on a flat earth, I'd love to invite it.


To reiterate from my last post, the standard FE claim is that the higher you go the greater the distance the light must travel from the horizon line to your eye meaning the light has to travel through a greater volume of refraction-causing atmosphere to reach your eye the higher up you go.  It is this supposed effect that FEs claim causes the horizon drop.  It makes a certain amount of sense to me but I don't know if it actually fits the empirical data.

93
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: November 08, 2018, 06:11:04 PM »
Does anyone disagree with any of the following?

1. The horizon appears increasingly below eye level the higher we rise in elevation
2. This angle can be measured fairly easily with a variety of instruments
2. The amount the angle increases is consistent with being on a ball of around 7,900 miles in diameter
Where's the data?  Where are the calculations and what model ar they based on?
Quote
3. A horizon occurs as a result of curvature
4. There is no mechanism to cause a horizon on a flat plane
If the earth were an infinite plane the horizon would easily be explained because of the logical fact that if an observer were standing parallel to an infinite flat surface he would be able to see no higher than eye level. Ignoring refraction, if he could see higher than eye level while looking straight ahead that would imply that the ground was tilted upwards.  If looking straight ahead the ground appeared lower than eye level that would imply the ground was sloped down but according to the premises the earth and the observers eyes are parallel so by deduction, the observer would, looking straight ahead, only be able to see a horizon line at eye level, that horizon line being at some finite distance that is a function of the observer's height.
Quote
5. Even if there was, the actual measured dip of the horizon (or anything) isn't in line with what it should be on a flat plane
The horizon dip at higher altitudes is explained by flat earthers as being caused by refraction caused by the continual increase in intervening atmosphere between the observer and the horizon.  As far as I know nobody has actually calculated the predicted horizon drop caused by refraction vs. the horizon drop caused by curvature.
Quote
6. The measurable dip to the horizon (or another distant object) is an excellent proof of a spherical earth
It could be if the math fits the spherical model better than the flat model.  I used to lean RE but the fact that so many internet RErs use complete red-herring arguments to defend the globe is undeniable like the claim that a horizon is impossible on a flat earth.

94
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« on: November 07, 2018, 06:58:10 PM »
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.


What methodology was used to derive these error percentages?  How did you determine how much of a body "should" be visible on a globe earth vs. a flat earth as a function of observer elevation and observer distance from the body?

Go back through the thread I referenced. It’s all there in excruciating detail.
Okay, I'll read through that thread later.  The reason I ask is I don't see anything in that video that couldn't be explained by FE so I don't get where those large error percentages come from. If the ocean is essentially a very large flat plane as FE says the horizon should always be at eye level assuming the observer's eyes and the ground are parallel.  Once the distance between the observer and the observed body is such that the bottom of the observed body is at the same distance from the observer as the eye-level horizon is, the body will appear to be on top of the horizon, and as the distance is increased the body will seem to disappear bottom up at the same rate as the distance is increased.  That's what it looks like is happening in those photos.

95
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« on: November 07, 2018, 06:16:07 PM »
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.


What methodology was used to derive these error percentages?  How did you determine how much of a body "should" be visible on a globe earth vs. a flat earth as a function of observer elevation and observer distance from the body?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 3 4 [5]