21

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: August 06, 2018, 08:15:48 PM »

here is another one, straight from airbus...they even call the plane a damn satellite!  the Zephyr, capable of flying for months at a time:  https://www.airbus.com/defence/uav/zephyr.html

first line on the website:  "Zephyr is a High Altitude Pseudo-Satellite (HAPS) that fills a capability gap between satellites and UAVs"  LOL.

this plane flys in the stratosphere, yeah.  Above the weather (their words).

from that website, geez, sounds like a satelitte to me:

Uniquely designed for both military and commercial purposes, Zephyr can deliver numerous payload capabilities across two platforms.  Zephyr S with its ability to carry payloads, offering voice, data communications both line of sight and beyond the line of sight, and line of sight high resolution optical imagery.   Zephyr T carrying larger payloads offers the ability to bring more active payloads to the fore; for example, widespread, persistent internet coverage to remote areas of the globe, and active RADAR.  Together they enable real-time mapping, internet and a number of surveillance opportunities to meet a broad range of requirements.

22

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: August 06, 2018, 08:07:20 PM »

in 1998 (same year as ISS launch BTW), they talk about the Pathfinder Plus solar plane that tested and reached an elevation of 80,000 feet.

later the Centurion/Helios prototype hit 100,000 feet.   check out the photos.  MANY similarities to the ISS images you see. 

Oh wait there is more!  the ERAST project which says 100,000 feet elevations and would be able to fly continously for weeks or MONTHs at a time with the assistance of a fuel cell.  Wow.  kind of what i have been saying.  crazy.  and all this straight from NASA.

now do you think there is a small chance that NASA doesnt disclose all there technology and what they really have is far more advanced?  thats not some wacky conspiracy theory....that would be a classified government program, like all these other ones we found out about well after the fact.

Way to go make my point for me.  You've found the best of the best when it comes to solar powered craft, armed with a dismal airspeed of around 20mph and inability to sustain flight for extended periods (though the altitude numbers are impressive).  Absolutely incapable of following the predictable flight path of the ISS.

referring to the published info from over 20 years ago?  no technological advancement in that time , well outside of the limits of reason?  you asked for example and i provided solid information, and from nasa at that.

how about the mount on that 16" dob?  which one are you using again?  you havent responded on that. 

Or would you like to disclose that you did not in fact track the ISS with a 16" dobsonian?  its hard enough to hold on a planet that appears motionless in the sky by naked eye without it going out of the eyepiece's view for more than 15 seconds or so, but you are able to maneuver a very large telescope and keep it on a object travelling across the sky at that rate of angular speed.

23

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: August 06, 2018, 06:22:32 PM »

On the contrary, I'm providing evidence of the best use of solar energy that has ever been seen.  They didn't fail, they did a phenomenal job. Fell way short of sustainable flight though.

Seems to me that Round Eyes is claiming the existence of perpetual solar powered aircraft without any evidence that such things can realistically exist.  I can provide a known example of my claim that solar isn't technically able to sustain long term flight...Can you provide a documented example of yours?

that was over 3 years ago and did almost 5 days.  that was a relatively low altitude plane as well.  interesting that the pictures look kind of like a type of ISS.   solar power in general on the private sector has made leaps in the past 5 years alone...and the government's solar capabilities are unknown but i can guarantee light years ahead of commercial applications.  They also have access to lighter/stronger materials than was used on the plane that did 5 days.

Let's say all that is true, its irrelevant. You are still unable to provide any evidence of your claim. 

And,  the ISS was in orbit years before the Impulse flight project.  The technological breakthroughs in solar over the past 5 years are also irrelevant.

you also missed my question on what mount you had on your telescope.

this might be interesting to you....right from NASA themselves:  https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-034-DFRC.html

they discuss solar powered planes dating back to 1995...interesting coincidence that was 3 years before the ISS "launched"

They also disclose they were working on CLASSIFIED government program in the early 1980s to develop a "high altitude, long endurance aircraft"

in 1998 (same year as ISS launch BTW), they talk about the Pathfinder Plus solar plane that tested and reached an elevation of 80,000 feet.

later the Centurion/Helios prototype hit 100,000 feet.   check out the photos.  MANY similarities to the ISS images you see. 

Oh wait there is more!  the ERAST project which says 100,000 feet elevations and would be able to fly continously for weeks or MONTHs at a time with the assistance of a fuel cell.  Wow.  kind of what i have been saying.  crazy.  and all this straight from NASA.

now do you think there is a small chance that NASA doesnt disclose all there technology and what they really have is far more advanced?  thats not some wacky conspiracy theory....that would be a classified government program, like all these other ones we found out about well after the fact.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity through reason

« on: August 06, 2018, 05:01:04 PM »

admitting that the sentence 'the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2' is wrong and should be 'the Earth is travelling upwards at 9.8 m/s'. It's still wrong but it at least makes sense.

might want to check to see if you make any sense before posting in the upper.  you are completely wrong here, and every flat and round earther will agree.  learn some science

25

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why does it matter?

« on: August 06, 2018, 04:18:19 PM »

If the Earth was flat, why would that matter? What would that change? If tomorrow, the government comes out and says that the Earth is flat, we lied.

Now what? What would change? Why would it matter?

I'm just questioning, not here to debate or get your theories on me. 

how on earth would it not matter???  you dont think that if the governments (all of them) were caught lying about such a fundamental thing as the shape of the earth wouldnt be catastrophic??!  i would argue it could lead to a world wide meltdown

26

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: August 06, 2018, 04:16:56 PM »

On the contrary, I'm providing evidence of the best use of solar energy that has ever been seen.  They didn't fail, they did a phenomenal job. Fell way short of sustainable flight though.

Seems to me that Round Eyes is claiming the existence of perpetual solar powered aircraft without any evidence that such things can realistically exist.  I can provide a known example of my claim that solar isn't technically able to sustain long term flight...Can you provide a documented example of yours?

that was over 3 years ago and did almost 5 days.  that was a relatively low altitude plane as well.  interesting that the pictures look kind of like a type of ISS.   solar power in general on the private sector has made leaps in the past 5 years alone...and the government's solar capabilities are unknown but i can guarantee light years ahead of commercial applications.  They also have access to lighter/stronger materials than was used on the plane that did 5 days.

27

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: August 06, 2018, 03:36:13 PM »

D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine

Solar?  C'mon give me a break.  Solar doesn't have the capability to "work just fine".  The Impulse Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse was a wonderful and noble idea, but seriously that plane couldn't stay airborne for any real length of time.  Courses were meticulous planned, weather conditions had to be analyzed over and over.  That plane had to be grounded for weeks at a time, or months for repairs and recharging. And still it took over a year for that plane to circumnavigate the earth.

yeah, so those guys did a really bad job and failed.  so?  how many amateur's failed to make a rocket that could reach space?  years and years of failures to win the prize...yet government allegedly had rockets that could do that 50-60 years ago.   you are kind of proving my point it appears.

NOTE:  example above to prove a point, not saying i believe rockets were launched into space

28

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: August 06, 2018, 01:17:19 PM »

India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.

Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.

Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.

What does this have to do with the functionality of satellites on flat Earth? I'd still like to see how gps works on flat Earth. This argument seems like a rather pointless one, your literally arguing over who launched satellites, which apparently don't exist. The original question was on the functionality of satellites and is like to hear a flat Earth opinion on that.

if the GPS "satellites" are actually high altitude planes...how does it work any different than the RE explanation?

Hi Round eyes,

Before now, I've setup my telescope to track the ISS (and various satellites) and seen them with my own eyes. Because the ISS is so big (108m wide) compared to TV broadcasting satellites only a few metres, the details are easily visible (1). This video shows very nicely how I was able to see of the ISS as it passed over brightly, then faded and disappeared over NNE while still maybe 40->30degs above the horizon (moving into the penumbra and umbra respectively) as its orbital path would predict (even thought I had to move quite quickly as the telescope panned!!). In terms of the distance of this object from earth, not only is it possible to estimate this from the apparent size given the magnification, but far more accurately, readily available equipment can measure the distance to within cm by the use doppler from the observing point on earth (2).

My question is this: if I invited you over to view the ISS through my 16" Dobonian reflector and you saw the detail of the ISS like this video (my scope is even clearer), AND be able to demonstrably measure it's distance with doppler radio measured instantaneously from a Tx/Rx attached to the scope, would you

a) agree the ISS exists and appears to look like what we are told it looks like? If not, what would be your interpretation of what you see?
b) That, given the relative known positions of the sun and ISS, its fade and disappearance are consistent with the exact mathematical predictions of its orbit (moving from its day->night)?
c) Assuming a measured doppler distance of 900,000 feet (about 290 miles), that it is not an aircraft? (The lack of air pressure at that altitude would make the lift from an aerofoil almost zero)
d) That you therefore conclude the force trying to drag it back to earth must be being opposed in another way (i.e. not aerodynamic lift) in order for it to remain up there for any length of time?
e) Where is that force being generated from?

As per my tags, I'm interested in the debate, and would be very interested in your interpretation of the these observations.

Thanks in advance for your reply. 

1)

2) http://www.zarya.info/Tracking/Doppler.php (an example of how readily available equipment can be used to track and measure the orbits and distances of satellites).

what mount/drive do you have on a 16" dob that can track the ISS?   i used to use a similar sized dob that required me to stand on a tall ladder to observe (longer f, i think a F8).  just keeping a planet in the field of view was difficult to do the magnification being used and the speed the planets moved.  tracking a satellite with significantly more speed would seem a bit tough. 

answering your quesitons:

A - not disagreeing that is what it looks like, but i see no reason that couldnt be a plane either.  of course it doesnt look like any plane you see at an airport, but somethign flying extremely high and most likely solar powered would look different.

B - why wouldnt a plane demonstrate the exact same thing?

C - have you ever done a measurement to verify the height?  coordinating with another person at a different location to measure the precise location in the sky and then do the geometry to verify?

D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine

E - see above

29

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: August 01, 2018, 05:35:50 PM »

India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.

Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.

Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.

What does this have to do with the functionality of satellites on flat Earth? I'd still like to see how gps works on flat Earth. This argument seems like a rather pointless one, your literally arguing over who launched satellites, which apparently don't exist. The original question was on the functionality of satellites and is like to hear a flat Earth opinion on that.

if the GPS "satellites" are actually high altitude planes...how does it work any different than the RE explanation?

30

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Water on Mars

« on: July 30, 2018, 08:34:00 PM »

They have already thrown out the idea of Terra firming mars to establish atmosphere and change the planet.  Yeah, what could go wrong there

It seems that any plans to terraform Mars are probably moot anyway seeing as there just isn't enough CO2 available to make much difference.

Sorry, Elon. There’s Not Enough CO2 To Terraform Mars

i think the fact it has even been discussed is a non-starter for me.

31

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Water on Mars

« on: July 29, 2018, 01:20:02 PM »

I think one of the major points is that this water would take a lot less energy to extract.

Also I'm not sure how you create H2O from CO2 being as you have a decided lack of hydrogen in CO2.

It could also be an indicator of the first extraterrestrial life ever found. Who knows? They live in a high radiation environment (thin atmosphere to protect them) so maybe they have anti-cancer adaptations ... which we could use back on earth.

I think the idea was bringing along hydrogen gas, and wouldn't need much since the hydrogen componet of water is like 10% of its weight, so a little goes a long way, and then you keep /recycle the water that is produced.

Cleaning mars water with all the components is going to take a lot of energy as well.

Regarding life, I've always took issue with the notion that water equals life.  Why on earth (pun intended) does life need to be carbon based elsewhere.  Just because it is here, doesn't matter.

32

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Water on Mars

« on: July 29, 2018, 01:00:22 PM »

Stop encouraging him.


Back to water on Mars ... and the ultimate question ... should we exploit that resource to inhabit the planet or should we preserve Mars as it is and only use it for scientific purposes ... like Antarctica.

From what I understand they already have the technology to create water from the CO2 in the atmosphere, so not sure why this discovery changes anything really.  The water they found is at the pole, way to far from where they have discussed settlements.  Extracting from a mile deep then transporting over that terrain over long distance isn't feasible.  They have already thrown out the idea of Terra firming mars to establish atmosphere and change the planet.  Yeah, what could go wrong there

The whole thing is a joke on many levels.

33

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Water on Mars

« on: July 29, 2018, 12:53:40 PM »

Ever consider I was always flat earth and that is just feeling out the site?  Called investigation

Given your early posts and the fact I remember you announcing that you were switching sides not because you’d changed your position but because you thought it would be more fun to debate from that side, not really.

I bet you're fun at parties.  Might want to learn some context on those earlier posts.

I think it makes you upset that I can argue my side and thoroughly defend my side, while you have all the science literature behind your side and struggle to even get your point across.  I think that makes you really upset.  Back to topic hopefully now?

34

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: July 28, 2018, 10:07:36 PM »

very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered). 

airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent.  remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy.  nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"

Do you have details of the design and operation?

Yes, of course, all design plans and calcs are readily available on the internet, you know how open source these guys are... Geez, come on.

Have you looked at gps.gov? Anything you have a problem with?  Calculations have to be open source for receiver designers.  There must be Chinese and Russian aircraft flying over the US if you are correct.

It was very obvious I was replying to the design of the aircraft, but the GPS system, but I think you know that.  I believe all agencies and countries are involved in this plot, same as all space travel, moon, Mars, etc

Why should GPS be a plot? Receivers give the location of the transmitters.

Do you understand satellite TV? Geosynchronous orbits.

As in my other posts elsewhere, I am not talking "stationary" satellites.  Im only referring to gps/iridium orbiting type satellites.

And please don't try and belittle people with stupid posts asking if I understand satellite TV.

35

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: July 28, 2018, 07:02:36 PM »

very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered). 

airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent.  remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy.  nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"

Do you have details of the design and operation?

Yes, of course, all design plans and calcs are readily available on the internet, you know how open source these guys are... Geez, come on.

Have you looked at gps.gov? Anything you have a problem with?  Calculations have to be open source for receiver designers.  There must be Chinese and Russian aircraft flying over the US if you are correct.

It was very obvious I was replying to the design of the aircraft, but the GPS system, but I think you know that.  I believe all agencies and countries are involved in this plot, same as all space travel, moon, Mars, etc

36

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: July 28, 2018, 07:00:27 PM »

very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered). 

airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent.  remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy.  nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"

I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you able to offer an answer to the questions of my OP?
Do you believe that the GPS system exists and works as we are told? And do you use it, say, in your car?

Of course it works, but I disagree on the source of the signal

37

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: July 28, 2018, 11:30:36 AM »

very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered). 

airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent.  remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy.  nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"

Do you have details of the design and operation?

Yes, of course, all design plans and calcs are readily available on the internet, you know how open source these guys are... Geez, come on.

38

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Water on Mars

« on: July 28, 2018, 11:23:15 AM »

Would hardly discount 1/3 gravity as not an issue.  Been proven to lead to massive muscle loss, bone density loss, etc... And it happens very quickly.  I would bet on horrible results if a woman was to carry full term on Mars.

Yes. it would lead to those things but if you're living in a lower gravity you don't need those things, those things ARE you adapting to the lower gravity.
The problem for people who spend a long time on the ISS is when they return to earth. It's the CHANGE in gravity which is the issue. But if people are living their whole lives on Mars then that wouldn't be a problem. No-one really knows what would happen if a woman went through a pregnancy in 0g or a reduced gravity and for pretty obvious reasons it would be unethical to test, although they could do so with other species I guess.
Gut feel is we'd adapt and it would be OK, but I'm pretty much guessing, as is anyone who says the reverse.

Pretending?  The earth is flat if you believe it or not

I'll just leave this here...

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9906.msg155633#msg155633

Ever consider I was always flat earth and that is just feeling out the site?  Called investigation

39

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Water on Mars

« on: July 28, 2018, 02:18:15 AM »

the difference is that we evolved on this planet and are uniquely suited to live here (food source, gravity, breathable air, water, temperatures, etc).  yes, i am sure they could possibly build something on Mars that could allow people to live there for a short time, but our bodies are not built for that environment.  how would humans be able to live long term in that much reduced gravity?  one step outside and they are dead.  its no different than the ability to build an underwater city, which would be more feasable and cheaper by the way.

That's a fair point. I don't think gravity would be an issue, Mars' gravity is about a third of earth's, if anything that would be quite nice and allow people to move more freely. But the rest, yes, there is a difference that while places on Earth can prove challenging for humans because of the climate the air is breathable, the fact it isn't on Mars presents a whole new level of challenges. But as a species our technology is evolving, we've solved the problem of surviving in space, I think in time we could solve the problems involved on living on Mars. Whether we should is another debate.

that said, this is all based on the non-sense that any of this is true.

Still pretending to be a Flat Earther, eh?

Would hardly discount 1/3 gravity as not an issue.  Been proven to lead to massive muscle loss, bone density loss, etc... And it happens very quickly.  I would bet on horrible results if a woman was to carry full term on Mars.

Pretending?  The earth is flat if you believe it or not

40

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: July 27, 2018, 06:47:03 PM »

very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered). 

airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent.  remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy.  nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"