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 ... 33  Next >
1

For fascinating read fantastic . WTF is an earth SOI .  I'll assume that means "sphere of influence " .

So you can google, good boy.

Quote
Escape velocity according to Newtons laws is 11km/s . Anything less and your pulled back to earth . Anything more and your free of earth and off to wander in "space" .

Wrong,   leaving Earth's SOI just keeps you in a solar orbit, not wandering around.  Not reaching escape velocity does not assume you will fall back to earth unless you are on an extreme parabolic trajectory.  In the case of a spacecraft, they are put into an Earth orbit and then the apogee is pushed out beyond the SOI.

Quote
Schoolboy stuff . Velocity is a vector quantity - magnitude and direction . Angular velocity requires a constant force . Feel free to direct me to an explanation of all said vectors contributing to orbital mechanics . The n-body scenario is a problem that requires all variables ( vectors ) of all bodies within that system to be known exactly at the instant when the orbit of moving bodies is calculated . Space flight does not work as we all are told . Science cannot find any rotation of earth , nasa uses geostationary flat earth co ordinate system for launches and flights - because it works . Because the earth is stationary .

No one is going to use a so-called flat-earth coordinate system since one does not exist.   The Earth is far from stationary as it is orbiting the sun which orbits the galactic center which is moving away from the origin point.   Prove it's not and we can continue.

Quote
So how , when the satellite escapes SOI does it then accelerate to 66,600mph ( about 30km/s ) to catch earth if it has escaped from SOI , in a vacuum?

Already covered in as you say, basic schoolboy science that you still have wrong.  Why would one need to accelerate to escape velocity if it already escaped?  It would already be moving at that velocity relative to the sun.  It is matching the orbital speed of the earth that is moving around the sun.  Simple stuff really.

2

I do wonder how that works and am happy to see you do too .

These type of orbits have a typical period longer than that of earth , Kepler was 370 days I believe . I don't understand how that works too since we cannot accelerate anything to 66,000mph within the boundaries of known mechanics or keep it there - it would require constant acceleration . How is the solving of the n-body problem carried out , which would have to include a moving earth , sun , moon , asteroids -always narrowly missing earth aren't they .


The vehicle already had the velocity just like you, me, this desk, the server this site is hosted on etc.  You yourself have the same orbital velocity that the earth does around the sun.  The vessel was not accelerated to 66k mph.  It had to go fast enough to escape earth's SOI and then a correction burn or burns to set the solar orbit.  Spaceflight does not work like you seem to think it does.  It's mainly just adjusting orbits.  Read up on orbital mechanics, it's fascinating.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« on: October 02, 2019, 03:06:25 PM »

Guilty as charged ,I cherry pick all the real scientific experiment , done without bias - not much of that done these days .

So in your mind, there was no bias when everyone thought the world was flat?


No bias , just day to day observation and easy to test without bias .

We have day to day observations now.  Just this morning I had a meeting and used GPS to get there. Unless you are going to tell me GPS uses balloons or towers?

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« on: October 01, 2019, 08:52:45 PM »

Guilty as charged ,I cherry pick all the real scientific experiment , done without bias - not much of that done these days .

So in your mind, there was no bias when everyone thought the world was flat? 

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: October 01, 2019, 07:18:19 PM »
Hey Guys,
I'd like to ask You how gravity is supposed to work in FE model? And by gravity I mean the fact that all objects fall 'down' with a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 (if we don't take friction into account that is) and that independently of their mass.
I tried looking around for answers but all of them are either unclear, false or contradict each other or even themselves...
Could You help?

Try the wiki

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Ehh, What's the point of replying if You don't answer the question?
That's why I asked for someone to explain it to me. As I said previously, I looked up the wiki and I found the explanation lacking if not to say completely wrong. They butchered Lorenz's equations and seem to not take into account that in order to accelerate constantly in a direction we would need not only a constant energy source but an INCREASING energy source as required energy in order to keep accelerating would eventually tend towards infinity. They don't even mention why this 'dark energy' would be increasing the first place.
The other model, that Davis thingy is even worse!! The resulting gravitation would be directed vertically only directly over the center of mass of the disk which is only one point. Everywhere else we would have gravity coming from the side which would result in a world in which the farther you are away from the centre, more the gravity is directed horizontally...
Thank You anyway...
Can anyone else help?
I didn't say I believed it, the exact opposite is true. 

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: October 01, 2019, 06:49:59 PM »
Hey Guys,
I'd like to ask You how gravity is supposed to work in FE model? And by gravity I mean the fact that all objects fall 'down' with a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 (if we don't take friction into account that is) and that independently of their mass.
I tried looking around for answers but all of them are either unclear, false or contradict each other or even themselves...
Could You help?

Try the wiki

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration


7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Intrigued College Student
« on: September 20, 2019, 03:03:17 PM »
Out of curiousity, what subjects did this scientist major in?

Astronomy would be my guess.

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about a specific FE model.
« on: September 19, 2019, 07:26:35 PM »
The quoted link doesn't include the word Antartica
This appears to be entirely irrelevant to the OP's question. If you want to suggest a correction to the Wiki, you know where to do that.

Also, you may want to read the page instead of searching for keywords.

Indeed, I missed the whole south pole reference.

9
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about a specific FE model.
« on: September 19, 2019, 06:16:39 PM »
If there is no dome/firmament and the earth had an edge outside of the ice wall and the earth is accelerating upwards is there any documentation, ideas, or theories on what is preventing the air from just flowing off the edge?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer_Lip_Hypothesis

Here is an error in the page you linked

Quote
Take a look at what happens at Antarctica:

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=219

The quoted link doesn't include the word Antartica


10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bible Proof
« on: September 14, 2019, 02:53:49 PM »
Fair enough.. that is an aspect of religion that I cannot personally get on with but I respect Christians for their views.
And that's fine but it's in that verse I quoted, all Scripture is God-breathed.
Christians believe that Scripture is inspired - written by humans but inspired by God.
Tom believes that means that verses should be taken as literally true and descriptive of nature, any other interpretation makes God a liar.
But he's going to get into problems when he tries to understand "circle of the earth" and "four corners of the earth" both literally.
Is the earth a square or a circle?
My view is it's neither. I don't believe the Bible is trying to teach me about nature, it's trying to teach me about God's nature and early Genesis teaches me much deeper truths than the age of the universe.
It's perfectly possible to be a Christian and believe that science is our best way of understand nature. What science will never tell us though is why we are here. Is there a reason? Do we have a purpose? What happens after we die? These are the questions that philosophies and religions down the ages have tried to answer.
I see science and religion as complementary, not contradictory. They're asking different questions or when they ask the same questions they ask them in different ways.
Christianity's answer to how the universe started is "God did it", science's (current) answer is the Big Bang. I don't see those answers as contradictory, science's answer is about physical processes, Christianity's answer hints at a purpose behind it.

All Around, gets it all WRONG. He or she never mentions what WIND is? Why? Well, because wind is Gods Spirit.

I'm sure proving that would be easy.   

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.


11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: September 12, 2019, 05:43:57 PM »
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.

Exactly.  The standard around here is this

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: September 12, 2019, 03:30:50 PM »
The video I watched from that dude was about satellite TV. He took some data from a site which helps you align dishes from different cities.
He then showed how if you use that data using a a flat earth map then the dishes point all over the place.
If you wrap the map into a globe though then they all point to a common point, the geostationary satellite.
The only possible FE explanations I see are that the FE map he's used is wrong - so if you move the cities to the "correct" places then maybe they do all point to the same place.
Or maybe there isn't just one satellite, maybe the dishes really are all pointing at different things. What those things are remains to be explained.

Very interesting, yet another way to draw a flat earth map.  Place the cities based on the satellite data.  This uses a known dataset that can be demonstrated.

13
The goal is to attach a small camera to the outside of a solid state fuel rocket 3 miles into the air that will allow me to see that the earth is indeed flat.

You can verify or deny this from the ground, from as little as 200m above sea level, by carrying out your own observational experiments. Shall I tell you how?

A trip to the top of pikes peak at 15k would do the same thing as his rocket.  It would prove nothing

14
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: September 09, 2019, 03:05:32 PM »
They reportedly tested all principles apart from the important principle of the return launch from the moon - I can see you admitting this now .

    It is not my argument that they just went there and hoped it would all work out - in this case that is is an unarguable fact since nasa admit they did not carry out this test , even with an unmanned simple rocket type vehicle . 
 
A test of a docking manoeuvre is a test of docking manoeuvre ,not a test of lunar launch. At no stage was this extremely important procedure ever tested .

My view is that there was no need because the landing would never happen .

Since the Apollo 10 LM slowed the descent to almost zero firing the ascent engine was a valid test.  You seem to forget that all of this was new and being invented as they did it.   The failure of the Indian mission over the last few days is a reminder of why they didn't land an unmanned craft to test the launch.  It's not easy with today's technology to do an automated landing. 

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: September 06, 2019, 04:24:37 PM »
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

Now thats funny Tom, I guess your spinner has some superpower bearings that have zero friction?

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 30, 2019, 03:33:40 PM »
What does that tell you?  Maybe a magic 8 ball would have worked better?

This is the reason why I never really supported the biblical FE models. If God is this all powerful force could you really understand how he set up the universe to work and function down to an atomic level by reading a 2000 year old book? If you think the answer is yes then that is like spitting in the face of God.

I always felt the bible was more about how to save your soul instead of how the universe works.

The Bible (and most other religious text) is all about primitive men trying to explain phenomenon that they didn't understand and using even older stories to do it.   People that take the bible literally are as ignorant of science as the authors were.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 29, 2019, 04:19:34 PM »

Well there have been many situations where I went to a bible study group and we disagreed on the verse or the accuracy of the different translations. We would all sit down and pray for God to show us the truth between all these different personal interpretations and translations and, after praying, still had our differences.


What does that tell you?  Maybe a magic 8 ball would have worked better?


18
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. 



19
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. 

20
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.   

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33  Next >