761

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 17, 2022, 05:51:31 AM »

Straight is only defined the way you think it is in an orthonormal basis.

Straight is the shortest distance between two points, regardless of the coordinate system.  Straight is a curve on a sphere.  What would be the shortest distance between NY and Moscow on your model?

If I understand the model, and Troolon, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it's pretty simple. It's a great circle, identical in both the RE and Troolon models. Same route, same distance. Just depicted, portrayed, visually different. Just like how the route would show as curved on a Mercator projection though it appears "straight" on a globe.

762

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 14, 2022, 08:57:35 PM »

Bendy light matches observation.
Shine a laser beam over a lake. You measure curvature. This curvature can be either explained by the earth bending or light bending. Impossible to tell.
There is no test to differentiate the shapes.

What if you don't use a light/laser to survey? Like maybe a Theodolite.

I'm no expert on theodolites, but i believe they're still sight based.
But even in general, it's mathematically impossible to find a difference as flat and globe are the same model.

You might find this interesting regarding lasers over distance. Specifically how the 4KM long arms of the two LIGO sites were measured and constructed creating a straight light path in relation to Earth's curvature. There are some transformations they did as well which might be of note.

Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS

LIGO, however, posed several unique challenges. The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth11. The curvature of the Earth will cause the Earth's surface to deviate from the straight line propagated by light in vacuum by 1.25 meters over a 4 km path if the line starts out level with the surface...

The fundamental coordinate system for the alignment was the Earth ellipsoidal model WGS-8414,15. All raw GPS data were referred to this system using geodetic coordinates {height above ellipsoid [h], latitude [f], longitude [l]}. Geodetic coordinates were transformed to the standard earth-fixed Cartesian system {XE, YE, ZE}, where zˆ E is aligned along the earth’s polar axis and xˆ E penetrates the ellipsoid at the intersection of the Greenwich Meridian with the Equator. yˆ E is perpendicular to both axes (refer to APPENDIX A)...

Using global coordinates, the beam tube centerlines were marked along the foundation slab at points spaced uniformly at ~20 m intervals (the unit length of beam tube sections that were welded together in the field) along both arms.

763

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 12, 2022, 03:14:34 AM »

Bendy light matches observation.
Shine a laser beam over a lake. You measure curvature. This curvature can be either explained by the earth bending or light bending. Impossible to tell.
There is no test to differentiate the shapes.

What if you don't use a light/laser to survey? Like maybe a Theodolite.

764

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonbounce propagation time and the distance of the Moon from Earth

« on: February 10, 2022, 07:10:45 PM »

Good point. Here's a link to the code:

WSTJX Source Code

765

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: February 10, 2022, 08:40:26 AM »

Apparently, giants on the moon. If you do an image search using the image posted, you get all sorts of, shall we say, artistic renderings. Probably one of the more famous "Earthrise" images is the one from the wiki page cited:



Taken by Apollo 8 crewmember Bill Anders on December 24, 1968, at mission time 075:49:07 [8] (16:40 UTC), while in orbit around the Moon, showing the Earth rising for the third time above the lunar horizon. The lunar horizon is approximately 780 kilometers from the spacecraft. Width of the photographed area at the lunar horizon is about 175 kilometers. [9] The land mass visible just above the terminator line is west Africa.

766

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: February 10, 2022, 03:16:21 AM »

As you can see, the earth is much smaller compared to the moon as opposed to the very large earth compared to the moon in the new DSCVR shot. 

Stack, using your image (which is great btw) it looks like if somebody was standing on the moon, they would be dwarfed by a very large earth which you don't see in the "Earth Rise" picture above.

Astro it's definitely possible that the whole thing could be photoshopped to some level.

Dunkin, I think you have the most reasonable counterargument...   Using a long focal length lens or something similar you can produce an image like this based on research.

Regarding the 1 million Mile Mark, I am more interested in showing you the relative distance Dscvr is from the earth and moon - like Stack's image illustrates.

Any of the above theories have some elements of truth but none can be ruled out I feel.

I'm not sure I follow. The Moon is allegedly approx. 1/4 the size of Earth. The Moon is allegedly approx. 240,000 miles from Earth, give or take.

Now standing on the Moon, start walking another 760,000 miles away from the Earth. Turn around and look back at the Moon in front of the Earth. What would you expect to see?

767

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: February 09, 2022, 09:01:59 PM »

This satellite orbits more than a million miles above earth's surface and this is there first public photo.  What's strikes me most is the apparent size of the Moon and Earth.  Most photos from the moon show the earth as a small dot.  Obviously, within this photo the moon looks smaller and nearer to earth. I think this fits well within the Flat Earth notion of the cosmos.

Why wouldn't it look like that from 1 million miles out?

768

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 08, 2022, 11:27:17 PM »

Troolon, you might find this site interesting. It allows you to custom generate a couple of dozen different map projections. I'm not sure what transformations it uses, but it may be the same as yours.

WORLDMAP­GENERATOR

769

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonbounce propagation time and the distance of the Moon from Earth

« on: February 08, 2022, 04:06:43 AM »

In any case, why don't you show us where Dr. Taylor worked with NASA.

References aren't too hard to find. Here is Joseph Hooden Taylor listed on this NASA profile page under "Associates and Members"

https://history.aip.org/phn/21612004.html



...



...



Then on his profile page:

https://history.aip.org/phn/11610005.html

That seems logical to you?

It seems logical that you do what your corrupt government tells you to do, or implement the programming package or library of whatever organization they tell you to implement, Nobel Prize or not.

It seems you need to provide some evidence that your corrupt government implemented a software program in 2001 via Dr Taylor that fakes the time delay HAM radio amateurs capture when performing an EME moon bounce. What's your evidence?

In the absence of the required evidence, the world record moon bounce video clearly shows the 2.6 second EME time delay which matches the average EME propagation of 2.56 seconds.

770

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonbounce propagation time and the distance of the Moon from Earth

« on: February 08, 2022, 03:09:47 AM »

NRAO is a government funded organization which tracks NASA spaceships and was started around the same time as NASA.

You want to use a piece of software from someone who worked with the NRAO to prove something about the Moon.

No surprise that you can't see the fallacy there.

- 1969-1980: Following his Ph.D., he worked at Harvard University for some time in the capacity of a researcher. In 1969, he joined the University of Massachusetts and during his 12 year stint there, he became Professor of Astronomy and Associate Director Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory.
- 1980:"He moved to Princeton University, where he was the James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor in Physics, having also served for six years as Dean of Faculty. He retired in 2006."
- 1993: He co-won The Nobel Prize in Physics
- 2001: "He is actively developing several computer programs and communications protocols, including WSJT ("Weak Signal/Joe Taylor"), a software package and protocol suite that utilizes computer-generated messages in conjunction with radio transceivers to communicate over long distances with other amateur radio operators."

I don't know what NRAO or NASA has to do with anything.  Even your source says, "occasionally partner with NASA". Which I don't personally see a problem with, but I'm sure you do. In any case, why don't you show us where Dr. Taylor worked with NASA.

And more in any case, you're still not addressing why the world record holder EME moonbounce guys got a time delay of 2.6 seconds, right near the expected and documented propagation average of 2.56 seconds.

Your argument is:

- That amateurs can't use software made by professionals and if they do, they are no longer amateurs?
- That the professional who wrote the software decades after using some equipment from a science agency that "occasionally" partnered with NASA, though a Nobel Prize winning physicist and lifetime Professor at the likes of Princeton, wrote the software and makes it so it's a fake time delay for any user to fake the actual distance to to the Moon?

That seems logical to you?

771

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonbounce propagation time and the distance of the Moon from Earth

« on: February 08, 2022, 12:55:43 AM »

From your last link:





https://public.nrao.edu/event/virtual-vla-tour-partnerships-with-nasa/

NRAO operates some of the most scientifically productive telescopes on Earth, but did you know that we occasionally partner with NASA to better understand our Solar System? The Very Large Array (VLA) has provided vital instrumentation from receiving the radio signal from NASA’s Voyager 2 spacecraft as it performed its Neptune flyby in 1989 to radar mapping the surface of Mercury in 1991 by detecting the reflected radio signal sent from NASA’s Goldstone antenna, a part of the Deep Space Network (DSN).

Yeah, he's not an amateur. This isn't amateur-derived software.

It says to do the EME with his software you have to install the software and use one of the supported and specially designed "modes" -

https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html

WSJT-X implements communication protocols or "modes" called FST4, FST4W, FT4, FT8, JT4, JT9, JT65, Q65, MSK144, and WSPR, as well as one called Echo for detecting and measuring your own radio signals reflected from the Moon.  These modes were designed for making reliable, confirmed QSOs under extreme weak-signal conditions.

I'm not following your logic. Do amateurs build any of the equipment they use? I'm an amateur photographer. If I use software like photoshop, designed and coded by experts/professionals, to crop an image, am I now a "professional"?

How about actually addressing the crux of the matter:

Actually, no, no one mentioned it in the sources you provided, and you had to present content from a different website which wasn't linked at all.

It was stated that anyone could do for their own selves. Did they program their own moonbounce software?

From the info for the Video on YT under "Some technical information....":

"QRA64D, one of the WSJT-X modes specifically for EME"

From the WSJT-X 2.1 User Guide
Joseph H Taylor, Jr, K1JT
Version 2.1.0

DT, the signal’s time offset in seconds relative to your computer clock.



Looks like this from the video:



"Propagation time to the Moon and back ranges from 2.4 to 2.7 seconds, with an average of 2.56 seconds (the average distance from Earth to the Moon is 384,400 km)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Earth_communication

Wildly coincidental that the record holders in the video had a 2.6 DT and the average propagation time is 2.56 seconds. Pretty much spot-on, wouldn't you say?

772

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonbounce propagation time and the distance of the Moon from Earth

« on: February 08, 2022, 12:32:05 AM »

Actually, no, no one mentioned it in the sources you provided, and you had to present content from a different website which wasn't linked at all.

It was stated that anyone could do for their own selves. Did they program their own moonbounce software?

From the info for the Video on YT under "Some technical information....":

"QRA64D, one of the WSJT-X modes specifically for EME"

From the WSJT-X 2.1 User Guide
Joseph H Taylor, Jr, K1JT
Version 2.1.0

DT, the signal’s time offset in seconds relative to your computer clock.



Looks like this from the video:



"Propagation time to the Moon and back ranges from 2.4 to 2.7 seconds, with an average of 2.56 seconds (the average distance from Earth to the Moon is 384,400 km)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Earth_communication

Wildly coincidental that the record holders in the video had a 2.6 DT and the average propagation time is 2.56 seconds. Pretty much spot-on, wouldn't you say?

One of the links from the site you got your last cited text from has indications that custom software is being provided to amateurs for contests and events:

Nope, not contest specific. WSJT is just software written by a former Princeton physicist that lots of HAM radio aficionados use for weak-signal radio communication between amateur radio operators.

Joseph Hooton Taylor Jr. (born March 29, 1941) is an American astrophysicist and Nobel Prize laureate in Physics[1] for his discovery with Russell Alan Hulse of a "new type of pulsar, a discovery that has opened up new possibilities for the study of gravitation."
He is actively developing several computer programs and communications protocols, including WSJT ("Weak Signal/Joe Taylor"), a software package and protocol suite that utilizes computer-generated messages in conjunction with radio transceivers to communicate over long distances with other amateur radio operators.

WSJT is useful for passing short messages via non-traditional radio communications methods, such as moonbounce and meteor scatter and other low signal-to-noise ratio paths. It is also useful for extremely long-distance contacts using very low power transmissions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Hooton_Taylor_Jr.#Career

773

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonbounce propagation time and the distance of the Moon from Earth

« on: February 07, 2022, 10:56:22 PM »

None of the examples of the last two posts even mentions the propagation time.

Sure it does, at 6:22:



The column DT refers to:

The DT column in WSJT-X shows the time difference in seconds between your computer clock and each decoded station. It is common to see large deltas, sometimes exceeding a second or more.

Not to mention that they bounced off the Moon back and forth across almost 19,000 KM.

774

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonbounce propagation time and the distance of the Moon from Earth

« on: February 07, 2022, 09:46:59 PM »

Here’s a 2017 world record HAM EME moon bounce between Western Australia & Delaware USA. Around the 6:00 mark, 18,950 KM:

New 10-GHz Earth-Moon-Earth World Record Set

09/15/2017
A new 10-GHz Earth-Moon-Earth (EME or moon bounce) world record has been set. On September 9, Rex Moncur, VK7MO, and Jim Malone, WA3LBI, completed a 18,949.4-kilometer contact using QRA64D. This extends by approximately 600 kilometers the previous world record of 18,337 kilometers held by DL7FJ and ZL1GSG, who used CW.

The participants said the key was to find locations with nearly 0° take-off, which essentially means across water. VK7MO operated from OF76nk at Meelup in Western Australia; WA3LBI operated from FM28io in Delaware. Both stations operated portable.

775

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: February 07, 2022, 08:04:24 PM »

Really fucking stupid. 

Apparently, Kylie and Cass lived to tell their tale. And Cass had a great suggestion to go to a kids clinic to lower any needle anxiety. Seems like all is good. Thanks for sharing another vax success story.

776

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 06, 2022, 01:50:35 AM »

I'm guessing, since he and his team are extremely media savvy, that he'll wait until the last possible moment to announce as long as the coffers are full. Make a splash pseudo-surprise announcement, whilst during the run-up stirring up the 'will he or won't he' into a media frenzy. Let all the R contenders wrestle around in the mud for months then glide down the elevator once again, like he did on June 16, 2015, and step right over the unwashed pile of contenders and waltz into the nomination. Then ride the MAGA hysteria wave, the any publicity is good publicity axiom, right into the oval office.

777

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 05, 2022, 09:04:23 PM »

I'm not sure this is entirely relevant, but it kind of looks similar to the creation of the model. Troolon, you may (or may not) find this interesting:

Transforming from Geographic to Celestial Coordinates

The simplest astronomical observation of all is that the stars appear to move around the Earth (which, of course is the result of the Earth rotating with respect to the ‘fixed’1 stars). We therefore catalogue the position of astronomical bodies against a ‘Celestial’ coordinate system that is fixed with respect to the stars, but moves around with respect to Earth based coordinates.

The plan will involve four stages:
1. Convert to a cartesian (‘xyz’) coordinate system, with x pointing north, y pointing west, and z to the sky. (Y to the west gives us a right-handed coordinate system, which is the same as the celestial coordinate system.)
2. Rotate the axes of our coordinate system around the east-west direction so that the z axis is now parallel with the rotation axis of the Earth.
3. Rotate the axes around the new z direction (we will call this z 0) until the x axis points towards the vernal equinox, which is the point on the sky where in its annual progress around the ecliptic plane the Sun crosses the celestial equator moving northwards (usually about 20th of March).
4. Convert back from cartesian to polar coordinates to get the celestial values.

778

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: February 04, 2022, 04:03:47 AM »

I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.

You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.

I’ll let the first two paragraphs about chess speak for itself. Funny how that was your example.

But ok, if we’re now playing by your rules, it seems that voting for Joe Biden fends off obesity, unlike voting for other candidates. It also rids one of the unhealthy addiction to porn and televised football games.

Now provide some evidence that this is incorrect.

779

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: February 04, 2022, 02:57:40 AM »

We only heard about a minor claim of Chess helping people with addictions, which stack thinks, but completely fails to provide evidence for, is wrong. There is a lot more content there. Can you show us how this article is totally unreliable, how nothing in the article is correct, including the described rules of Chess, etc., possibly through use of honk's preferred method of not reading the article?

I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct. It was just highly amusing that the random example you gave, ‘chess’, opens up with those two paragraphs. Clearly showing quite a strange bend in reality. I mean it closes with, “Chess seems to fend off obesity, unlike unhealthy hobbies.”

And you’re expecting me to show that chess doesn’t fend off obesity? Is that how claims work theses days? Aside from that being the dumbest sentence ever, don’t you think a claim like that should have some sort of back up? Or have the rules changed?

Compare the first paragraph for ‘chess’ from conservapedia to Wikipedia’s:

“ Chess is a board game played between two players. It is sometimes called Western chess, or International chess to distinguish it from related games such as xiangqi and shogi. The current form of the game emerged in Southern Europe during the second half of the 15th century after evolving from a similar, much older game[a] of Indian origin. Today, chess is one of the world's most popular games, played by millions of people worldwide.”

No mention of addiction relief from porn and televised football, nor ‘chivalry’, nor anything about the games miraculous ability to fend off obesity unlike some other hobbies.

You’ve really got to be joking.

780

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: February 04, 2022, 12:22:06 AM »

Actually, you do. How is it possible to know that this Conservapedia article about the game of chess is going to be full of falsities without reading and assessing it?

On a whim I decided to take a look and make an assessment. Opening paragraphs from Conservapedia's 'Chess' entry:

Chess is an intellectually challenging game of chivalry between two players. Based purely on skill and merit without any element of chance, chess has long been one of the most popular games in the world, and today chess is played by upwards of 800 million people worldwide. Chess sharpens the mind, improves decision-making skills, helps overcome addiction and procrastination, drives out anxiety, and builds character. Promoters of chess include Benjamin Franklin,[1] Thomas Jefferson, actor Humphrey Bogart and movie producer Stanley Kubrick.[2]

Chess can be helpful in overcoming addictions exploiting images or patterns, including pornography, gambling, video games, and televised football. Chess fills the mind with a healthy activity while reinforcing the devastating consequences ("checkmate") of bad decisions.[3] Temerity is punished in chess, as is timorousness. Chess seems to fend off obesity, unlike unhealthy hobbies.

First off, a "challenging game of chivalry"? Huh? 'Chivalry'?

The bolded bit (mine) is pretty interesting. The [3] source referenced is to some guy's blog post about how chess helped him with his drug addiction. Literally 1 guy, a blog post. He referenced drugs. No mention of "pornography, gambling, video games, and televised football". Televised football? No mention of "reinforcing the devastating consequences ("checkmate") of bad decisions." No mention of "...fend off obesity"? Completely made up, manufactured.

Assessment: Even an entry about 'Chess' is very weirdly, for lack of a better term, biased. Maybe not even biased, just really weird, leaning into some kind of conservatism I can't even label. Televised football?