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 - TomInAustin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: August 21, 2019, 03:22:06 PM »
It was incredibly easy to get men to the moon and even easier to bring them back . Did nasa ever do a trial run - launching a rocket from the moon to rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft ? Nah -no need .

AllAround answered some of this but there is more.   You say it was easy?   Did you know the computers ran programs that were hard-wired.   The wire would pass through a gate to be a One and out of the gate to be a zero.  Does that sound easy?


Quote
You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum .

This is the crux of the problem with many Flearthers.  A fundamental lack of science comprehension.  How old were you when you first heard that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?



Quote
So why is it so hard to put man above earth orbit now ?

Orbit is not hard, it's expensive.  The STS shuttle system was a huge mistake and set NASA back decades and 100's of billions.   The US Airforce demanded specifications and features that made the system cost so much more.   Cost overruns and delays that made the system complex and the reusability was too expensive.  Now with private industry that has money to burn we are seeing huge strides in launch vehicles.  Reusable components are a big part of making orbit cost-effective.  There's an old saying "if you get to orbit you are halfway to anywhere". 

The physics behind space flight are pretty simple. 



2
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: August 21, 2019, 03:00:49 PM »
The masses have been conditioned , from childhood , to accept the globe earth model without question . We are not presented with any alternative . Truth isn't determined through democracy .

50 years ago it was easy to get to the moon - now we can't get out of low earth orbit . Alarm bells should be ringing .

Tell that to the folks that deploy geostationary satellites.  Getting to the moon this time will be so much easier than it was in the 60's.   We don't have to invent every single thing this time. 

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 16, 2019, 04:46:26 PM »
Look at the video recordings.

Those things are not traveling anywhere near the speeds reported.
Can you give an example? The rocket/shuttle launch videos I've seen generally focus on the rocket/shuttle and obviously zoom in as they get further away.
As they get high the background is just sky, I've no idea how you think you can assess how fast they've travelling without context.

My guess is he thinks a huge multi-ton launch vehicle should leave the pad like an Estes rocket.   Or how an air to air missile leaves a fighter jet.   

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 16, 2019, 02:53:04 PM »

Rockets exist.

They can reach great heights.

They demonstrably do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so.

Please go ahead and demonstrate how they "do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so".
Look at the video recordings.

Those things are not traveling anywhere near the speeds reported.

I have seen tests of both the F-15 and F-18 at PAX, witnessing missile launches from both.

I have witnessed model rocket launches in the desert.

None of these reported space rockets are traveling at near the rate of speed of the things I have personally witnessed.

A model rockets thrust to weight ratio is off the charts compared to a full-size orbital launch vehicle.  The g force experienced by a model rocket would kill a human and destroy large structures.  There is also the problem of aerodynamic forces while a vehicle is deep in the atmosphere.  They wait to attain speeds until they are high enough to be in thinner air and thus less drag.   Its a delicate balance between drag, mass, and thrust to achieve the velocity needed to reach orbit.

As for missiles launched off of aircraft, they are designed to reach maximum velocity in as short a time as possible.  You are not comparing apples to apples.

Let's use your F-15 and F-18 example.  While both are capable of supersonic flight, look at the take-off roll.  They don't go from zero to mach 1 instantly.  In fact, many fast cars can out-accelerate them for the first few hundred feet.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Dome model and thermodynamics
« on: August 16, 2019, 02:40:05 PM »
Hello, I am not sure what the FES thinks about the dome model. Iv'e searched the wiki and FAQ, and I can't find any mention of it. Either way, I seem to have found an error. The sun, regardless of what model you accept, is the largest supplier of heat to the Earth and the hottest object in the system. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created, so the sun must have a source of energy. Now this is not a problem for the round Earth model, which states that the sun's source of energy is fusion but I don't know how proponents of the dome model feel about that.
The first law of thermodynamics also states that energy cannot be destroyed. Where does the energy emitted by the sun go? Does it just stay here on Earth? If the system is isolated, then according to the second law of thermodynamics, the Earth and everything else in the system will increase in temperature until they are in thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun. The sun should be cooling and the Earth should be heating until they are the same temperature.

From what I can tell the Dome Model is not accepted by all Flearthers.   Try your thought experiment without the dome.   If the heat is radiating out there does not seem to be a problem.   

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 15, 2019, 05:59:03 PM »

Rockets exist.

They can reach great heights.

They demonstrably do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so.

Please go ahead and demonstrate how they "do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so".


7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter
« on: August 15, 2019, 03:47:00 PM »
Lies, lies and more lies... why are the FE movement so obsessed by people telling lies?..  what does Zonk or any member on here FE or not have to gain by lying about anything? That would not be constructive to any discussion.

I flew to NY and back from the UK in April and during both flights the information system on the back of the seat showed that we flew at a maximum altitude of 41,000 ft. Norwegian Airlines flights DI7015 and 7014 respectively.  I have no reason to doubt that. Nor did anyone else on the flight. Why should we?

I have over 900 skydives and I know what 15,000 AGL looks like.     I assure you when I am flying commercial I can tell we are way higher than 15k feet.  Of course, I could be lying? 

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter
« on: August 13, 2019, 05:44:01 PM »

You haven't done your homework on commercial/military flights. None fly above some 9 km; commercial flights only reach 6-8 km in altitude.



How did I miss this?  Oh right, I don't look at your links normally, but this gem, as proof of how high airliners fly from your link...

"real cruising altitude of aircrafts is around 7,500 ft; on board measurement using an altimeter"

An altimeter used in a pressurized aircraft to see how high it's flying.  Now that is funny.


9
There are a whole lot of absolutely terrible Flat Earth memes floating around on both sides of the debate. Let's try to have some fun with them and/or be horribly bitter about them!

This one is stupid on a few levels



This one could be argued to have 2 well-known flearthers in it!


10
Glad you brought up knives.

Handguns are the type of weapon preferred by murders by far...

Tell that to the families of the dead who died in the rash of knife attacks in the UK.

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: "Round earth" conspiracy
« on: August 06, 2019, 03:40:42 PM »
I believe some flat earths think that the vast majority of people who work in their fields as professionals aren't in on the conspiracy, for example all of the employees of space agencies who work as engineers, scientists and such are unaware they're being fooled. I personally think if a small group of people on the internet who aren't experts in those fields have 'figured it out', I'm surprised the actual professionals haven't yet. I wonder how highly educated rocket engineers and physicists haven't managed to uncover it yet?

What amazes me the most about the alleged conspiracy is how much "fake science" had to be created.  Take orbital mechanics as an example. Or Buzz Aldrin's thesis “Line-of-Sight Guidance Techniques for Manned Orbital Rendezvous.”   All of this just made up to further the vast conspiracy?  Please. 

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:49:33 PM »

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. 


13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 30, 2019, 04:03:52 PM »
Quote
If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?

Because my mind works different to yours Tom. I don't need absolute proof or demonstration from first principles of everything I believe or accept.
Nor does Tom. Rowbotham’s “experiments” are always accepted without question.
This is where I will never understand his mentality. The level of proof he requires or will accept depends entirely on whether the result backs up his world view.

Tom, what is your take to the OP questions?
I saw a shuttle launch back in the day. Where do you think it went if not space and what is your evidence for that?

How high do you believe the moon to be and what have you don’t to verify that?

If I recall correctly Tom has stated that the shuttle was just a prop and when Challenger blew up they had to fake 7 deaths.


14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 16, 2019, 02:37:08 PM »
@TomInAustin, @iamcpc

What you are saying is that none of the FEers care two hoots about reality. If they cannot build a flat map from the information which they claim is acceptable (flight times) then, in that case only, the data is wrong.

It's a game of half a dozen I lose, 6 you win. There is no fun left in  arguing in a case like that, so I'M OUTTA HERE.

How is the data wrong?   Many companies gamble with huge amounts of money based on distance data.  Shipping, Airlines, Cruise Lines etc

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 15, 2019, 02:36:57 PM »
In my question about airline flight times, I have suggested a very simple method to create a flat earth map, using flight times between cities. See this post:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15105.msg196360#msg196360

Can someone from the FE community do this and report back with the result?

Many people including myself have attempted to do exactly what you suggested.  In fact in this very thread.  The problem has been that the few FE'ers that respond derail the concept with claims of distances being unknown.  The infamous quote by Tom Bishop was that no one knows how far it is from New York to Paris.

I suggest you do what you are saying and lay out a map between major points and see what you come up with.  This will not produce accurate compass directions but will show the general layout.   Start with one point and draw a circle with the radius to the next point. Look for intersections of the circles as you add more points.

I have done it and it starts falling apart very quickly as distances increase.  The real breakdown comes with points in the southern hemisphere.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 11, 2019, 06:20:37 PM »

Can we move on to more pressing points like what the first step in creating a FE map would be?

There have already been suggestions.  Plotting out a map is quite simple using know distances between points. 

I know there have been arguments about distance but they do not hold water as so much commerce depends on them.   

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 10, 2019, 02:58:46 PM »
Here are a few shots of my attempt.
That's great work. What tool did you use? I used Paint.Net which is very fiddly for this sort of thing.
My aim in this was to show that the reason there is no flat earth map is that no flat earth map is possible
Given the known distances between places, they can't be plotted on a flat plane for the same reason that any map of earth requires projection.
Fundamentally it's impossible to perfectly represent a globe on a flat plane.
I chose 4 places in continental America to get away from arguments about measuring distances over oceans, but maybe that scale still isn't big enough to see the problem clearly.
The only counter argument I see is that the distances are wrong.

I use google Scetch Up.  It's free and works very well.  I have used it to generate plans for a deck build and a 3rd garage bay build out. 

https://www.sketchup.com/

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 09, 2019, 08:15:29 PM »
Those are not the only problems with your preferred map from an FE perspective: Your preferred map is a globe projection meaning all distances and continental/country layout are based upon a spherical earth.

1. That's not true. Tom has said many times that the map I prefer is not a globe projection.
2. By that logic any map that is presented can be claimed to be a globe projection. Why even bother talking about a FE map?
3. I've presented that map and gotten feedback from the FE community and not one single person said that they have a problem with my preferred map because it is a globe, sphere, or oblate spheroid projection.
4. It does not matter if people believe a globe projection, sphere projection, oblate spheroid projection, Cube projection, egg projection, flat disk projection, or any other projection. It depicts the earth as a flat 2d plane.

The point is that a flat map is not possible using long known and accurate distances between points.   It is not possible to lay it out.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 09, 2019, 03:57:14 PM »
I believe AATW had started to do this.
I had a go but I did make a mistake. A couple of mistakes actually.
One was I used the miles between places as the diameter of the circles I was drawing when I should have used that as the radius.
That mistake actually didn't matter though, it just meant the scale was half what I intended.
The second mistake was I used the wrong value for one of my circles. I'll be honest and admit that when I corrected that mistake the circles were closer to aligning at the 4th place although they didn't match perfectly. I could have another go with 4 other cities, maybe the fact I chose cities arranged roughly like a 5 of diamonds meant there was less difference between a globe and a flat plane.


Here are a few shots of my attempt.

The first one is in my backyard,  Austin, Houston, and Dallas.   It looks very similar to a triangle placed on Google Earth



The 2nd one starts to fail a bit, NYC, Mexico City, and Paris.  The lack of curvature flattens out the triangle.



3.  Rio, Moscow, and Sydney.  The angles are obviously wrong.



3a.  Add Johannesburg to the mix and the problems are even more obvious.



20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 09, 2019, 02:59:52 PM »
Mathematically, if one knows the distances between known locations, one can fit them to a surface and produce an accurate map.

But what will FE take as thise distances?

Can we use Google, mapquest, bing, etc?

If not, how can we determine those distances?

I need several landmarks spaced hundreds of miles apart and their distances. How to get?

For instance, Stockholm, Paris, Cairo, Moscow. What are the distances between these cities? Can I use the Google/bing/mapquest distances?

Of course, you can use these distances, people use Google maps every day to accurately travel.   I started a project just like this last year or so and plotted known distances using intersections of the circles to place points.   It works well in the northern hemisphere but as soon as you add southern points it breaks down.  I didn't take it any further than a few points due to lack of interest.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32  Next >