Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 441
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #60 on: August 15, 2019, 01:26:38 PM »
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?
Yes I have presented evidence.

There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.

That is called evidence.

If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.
IMO there's no distinguishable difference between you and non-human text. I guess this means you don't exist. Solid evidence right?

Anyway there is a difference, you can look up the actors names from the big bang theory show. Astronauts aren't publicly listed or acknowledged as actors, instead it's a career they've years trained for.

There's a sure way to find out the truth... Become an astronaut. Do something instead of crying fake at everything you can't see 10 feet in front of you. I mean heck I've never been to Japan but I know the place exists. I've never met a Samurai and never will but I know they were a thing. I can't gain access to military bases but I know they have military staff inside. I've never been to space but I know astronauts have. I've not been on the ISS but I know it exists.

But hey, how could you possibly know if you haven't been there or seen it with your own eyes right? Oh yea photos and real people accounts of it... Just like everything else you haven't seen for yourself.

I think people being on the ISS is more plausible than billions of people being tricked into thinking the earth is a completely different shape and that space travel doesn't exist. And if the earth somehow isn't spheroid, it doesn't default to being a flat disk, what stops it from being every other shape? Why should the earth be flat? I mean if you can take a close up of a basketball and see a lumpy but overall flat surface, does a basketball default to a flat disk for an ant?
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #61 on: August 15, 2019, 02:56:25 PM »
There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.
That is called evidence.

I'd dispute they're indistinguishable but I'd admit I'm not an expert in this area. But OK, let's agree that CGI is very good these days and can pretty much be used to fake anything.
But that is NOT evidence of fakery, it's just stating that it would be possible to fake it. That's very different to presenting evidence that footage from space is being faked.
Evidence would be some detailed analysis of the footage indicating it's CGI from some expert in the field.
Or a whistleblower from the team who do the CGI or the "actors/astronauts", or the camera men, costume department, set builders etc.
Or finding some evidence that the space shuttle really secretly landed somewhere while it was supposed to be in space and then took off from that place to arrive on cue at the time and place it was supposed to return from space (if that's what you believe the Shuttle did)
Given the number of people of people who have been to space (over 550 from over 35 countries so far, 7 of whom were space tourists) and the number of people who would have had to be in on it, it's weird we've have no whistle blowers so far.

Quote
If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.

What makes it hard for you to believe it isn't what NASA and the Russians claim it is?
If your line of reasoning is "I believe the earth to be flat, therefore the ISS can't be what they claim it to be"
Then I would suggest that is faulty logic. The ISS a chance for you to examine your FE beliefs - if it is what they claim then the earth cannot be flat. So isn't it worth investigating the matter rather than just dismissing it as fake because if it isn't then it would change your world view? Every space mission, ever rocket launch is another chance for you to examine your beliefs.
As I said, rocket technology has been available since the 1940s, why is it such a reach to believe that missions to space, whether manned or not, are possible?
The technology which makes this possible is not new and you surely don't dispute rockets exist? I've said on here before, I saw a Shuttle launch myself.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #62 on: August 15, 2019, 03:35:23 PM »
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?
Yes I have presented evidence.

There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.

That is called evidence.

If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.
IMO there's no distinguishable difference between you and non-human text. I guess this means you don't exist. Solid evidence right?

Anyway there is a difference, you can look up the actors names from the big bang theory show. Astronauts aren't publicly listed or acknowledged as actors, instead it's a career they've years trained for.
Are you stating that actors do not train or that being an astronaut and an actor somehow results in different abilities to portray supposed weightless characteristics on screen?

In regard to your writing analogy, how does that relate to a moving picture on screen?
There's a sure way to find out the truth... Become an astronaut. Do something instead of crying fake at everything you can't see 10 feet in front of you. I mean heck I've never been to Japan but I know the place exists. I've never met a Samurai and never will but I know they were a thing. I can't gain access to military bases but I know they have military staff inside. I've never been to space but I know astronauts have. I've not been on the ISS but I know it exists.
I don't cry fake fake at everything I can see 10 feet in front of me.

That is unsubstantiated.

I could now write you believe everything you hear, but that merely casts a worthless stone your way.

I only wrote it to demonstrate exactly the falsehood of what you wrote.
But hey, how could you possibly know if you haven't been there or seen it with your own eyes right? Oh yea photos and real people accounts of it... Just like everything else you haven't seen for yourself.
I know The Big Bang Theoryis a television show.

I know the actors Jim Parsons, Johnny Galecki, Kaley Cuoco, Simon Helberg, and Kunal Nayyar, appear on the show. Real people, real accounts of their being a television show and there was a series of video episodes accounting for time that the real person, Simon Helberg , portraying Howard Wolowitz, spent in space aboard the ISS.

A real person portraying a fictional character spending fictional time in fictional space aboard the fictional ISS, all captured on video.

That admitted fiction looks NO DIFFERENT than the SUPPOSED NON-FICTIONAL VIDEO of real people on what is supposed to be the real ISS.
I think people being on the ISS is more plausible than billions of people being tricked into thinking the earth is a completely different shape and that space travel doesn't exist. And if the earth somehow isn't spheroid, it doesn't default to being a flat disk, what stops it from being every other shape? Why should the earth be flat? I mean if you can take a close up of a basketball and see a lumpy but overall flat surface, does a basketball default to a flat disk for an ant?
Well, there isn't any ancient culture claiming the earth to be a square or a rectangle, for one.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #63 on: August 15, 2019, 03:45:41 PM »
There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.
That is called evidence.

I'd dispute they're indistinguishable but I'd admit I'm not an expert in this area. But OK, let's agree that CGI is very good these days and can pretty much be used to fake anything.
But that is NOT evidence of fakery, it's just stating that it would be possible to fake it. That's very different to presenting evidence that footage from space is being faked.
Actually, what I presented is Occam's Razor.

You know, accepting the plausible explanation.
Evidence would be some detailed analysis of the footage indicating it's CGI from some expert in the field.
Or a whistleblower from the team who do the CGI or the "actors/astronauts", or the camera men, costume department, set builders etc.
There are more instances of cases involving the use of wires and green screen.
Or finding some evidence that the space shuttle really secretly landed somewhere while it was supposed to be in space and then took off from that place to arrive on cue at the time and place it was supposed to return from space (if that's what you believe the Shuttle did).
There is video evidence of the shuttle using regular jet engines.
Given the number of people of people who have been to space (over 550 from over 35 countries so far, 7 of whom were space tourists) and the number of people who would have had to be in on it, it's weird we've have no whistle blowers so far.
Yeah, weird but not beyond plausibility.
Quote
If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.
What makes it hard for you to believe it isn't what NASA and the Russians claim it is?
I generally don't trust government on the whole.
If your line of reasoning is "I believe the earth to be flat, therefore the ISS can't be what they claim it to be"
Then I would suggest that is faulty logic.
I would agree that is faulty logic.
The ISS a chance for you to examine your FE beliefs - if it is what they claim then the earth cannot be flat. So isn't it worth investigating the matter rather than just dismissing it as fake because if it isn't then it would change your world view? Every space mission, ever rocket launch is another chance for you to examine your beliefs.
I don't believe there is a vacuum sitting on top of a pressurized atmoplane.

Makes no sense.
As I said, rocket technology has been available since the 1940s, why is it such a reach to believe that missions to space, whether manned or not, are possible?
The technology which makes this possible is not new and you surely don't dispute rockets exist? I've said on here before, I saw a Shuttle launch myself.
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.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2019, 10:33:21 AM by totallackey »

newhorizons

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #64 on: August 15, 2019, 03:57:52 PM »
Quote
If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.

To repeat the question I posted earlier... have you personally ever observed the ISS through a telescope or even binoculars during a pass?  If you have then you will see something that looks remarkably like an artificial satellite. Definite structure and also some large solar panels. The solar panels are bronze coloured due to the material they are made from. Many people that I know don't even realise you can see the ISS with the naked eye. However it can now match the planet Venus in terms of brightness when it passes directly or near to directly overhead.

So using my own senses to form my interpretation of reality (as you like to do) then I would come to the conclusion that it is an artificial satellite. And a rather large one too!
« Last Edit: August 15, 2019, 04:04:21 PM by newhorizons »

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #65 on: August 15, 2019, 04:45:33 PM »
Quote
Actually, what I presented is Occam's Razor.

Actually, from what I've seen here, most FE arguments present the exact opposite of Occam's razor.  Occam's razor says that the millions of people who have been to space, have been to the South Pole,  have flown military or commercial aircraft above 35,000, and all the people who support those missions,  are telling the truth, or at least the overwhelming majority are.  FE argument depends on all of those people lying about and being part of the conspiracy to over up the truth.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 860
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #66 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".

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

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #67 on: August 15, 2019, 08:06:00 PM »
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".
Yes, I was interested in that comment. Care to elaborate, lackey?
Also, I'd like to respond to more of your post but you really do suck at using the quote feature, lackey. Can you edit your post and sort that out so I can see what I'm supposed to respond to.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

newhorizons

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #68 on: August 15, 2019, 10:04:28 PM »
According to my understanding of Occams Razor... it states

"You've probably heard it before: The simplest explanation is usually the right one."

In which case is it not true to say that the modern heliocentric model of the solar system for example is far more simple account for the planetary movement we observe than the ever elaborate versions of the Ptplemy geocentric model with all its epicycles?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #69 on: August 16, 2019, 12:57:02 AM »
I don't watch BBT, but looked up some clips yesterday of the Howard character in space. I didn't see anything like this:


Hasn't there been CGI rendered water before?

It seems this has been around a while.

https://www.autodesk.com/redshift/moana-animation/

Yep, water and hair are the holy grail of Movie FX (Oh yeah, and 'eyes'). Titanic made major breakthroughs with water. Monsters Inc made major breakthroughs with hair. Still, the level of artistry, manpower and computing power is staggering to make it look so real. But I'll get to that in a second.

Sit through the credits next time you watch a movie like The Martian or Gravity. There are a multitude of various FX houses involved each with paragraphs of names credited with working on the effects.
Yeah, there are...

Putting people to work because they are your friends is common practice.

Now you're just totally making stuff up. What do you mean "Putting people to work because they are your friends is common practice."? What do you know about whether or not all those names credited were actually contributors or not. Do you have evidence they weren't? Or are you just saying so?

From one of the FX houses that worked on 'Gravity':

"What resources did you need?

It was a large show for us. We worked on it for just over 3 years, and at least 400 people worked on it during that period."

As far as "amount of computing power," I guess I need to know what you mean.

We supposedly now have more computing power in our phone than the total amount used for Apollo, correct?

Are you therefore referring to the amount of gigawatts required?
It's all about rendering. The rotoscopers, shaders, colorists, background/foreground, motion capture, etc., on and on artists all do their part then a scene/clip needs to be rendered. So all of that is sent off to a server farm of racks of CPU's to do so. Like I wrote, that one 10 second scene in The Martian took 2 days to render out. Now extrapolate that out to a 2 hour movie. and for Gravity, there was so much CGI, that's why he said it would have taken 7000 years to render it all out on one computer.
If it was limited to one server farm, perhaps.

There are many server farms.

You know not of what you speak, you don't really get it and are just making up stuff. Again, from Martin Preston from Framestore (FX House) about the challenges they encountered with Gravity:

"In the render crunch we had about 15000 cores working on the show, and about 600 Terabytes of disk space serving all of that!"

From Pixar's Monsters University 2013:

"Inside the building is a data center full of humming servers — double the size that the company (Pixar) used in the past — that would be considered one of the top 25 supercomputers in the world. The 2,000 computers have more than 24,000 cores...Even with all of that computing might, it still takes 29 hours to render a single frame of Monsters University, according to supervising technical director Sanjay Bakshi...With all of those CPUs that Pixar did have, it took a couple of years to render."

It takes an army or artists and technology to render even a singe frame where there are usually 24 to 60 frames per second. It's truly a mind-boggling the effort.

Your whole thing is that convincing CGI can be done and it's super fast and easy to do so. It's not. As well, you're premise that it can be done is somehow evidence of fakery. Apply the same logic to war movies. All the battle scenes and such look pretty convincing. Does that mean battles in real life are faked? I really am not following your logic on any of this.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #70 on: August 16, 2019, 10:31:41 AM »
Quote
Actually, what I presented is Occam's Razor.

Actually, from what I've seen here, most FE arguments present the exact opposite of Occam's razor.  Occam's razor says that the millions of people who have been to space, have been to the South Pole,  have flown military or commercial aircraft above 35,000, and all the people who support those missions,  are telling the truth, or at least the overwhelming majority are.  FE argument depends on all of those people lying about and being part of the conspiracy to over up the truth.
536 people have reportedly been to space.

Not millions.

FE argument does not even rely on these issues.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #71 on: August 16, 2019, 10:35:42 AM »
Quote
If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.

To repeat the question I posted earlier... have you personally ever observed the ISS through a telescope or even binoculars during a pass?
No, I haven't. I have seen photos.
If you have then you will see something that looks remarkably like an artificial satellite. Definite structure and also some large solar panels. The solar panels are bronze coloured due to the material they are made from. Many people that I know don't even realise you can see the ISS with the naked eye. However it can now match the planet Venus in terms of brightness when it passes directly or near to directly overhead.
I agree there is something circling above us.

It comes into sight then disappears from sight, just like airplanes.
So using my own senses to form my interpretation of reality (as you like to do) then I would come to the conclusion that it is an artificial satellite. And a rather large one too!
We agree it is circling above us.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #72 on: August 16, 2019, 10:40:13 AM »

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.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #73 on: August 16, 2019, 10:42:27 AM »
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".
Yes, I was interested in that comment. Care to elaborate, lackey?
Also, I'd like to respond to more of your post but you really do suck at using the quote feature, lackey. Can you edit your post and sort that out so I can see what I'm supposed to respond to.
Yeah, I am not as good at the quote feature as you.

Sorry.

Thanks for letting me know.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #74 on: August 16, 2019, 10:45:05 AM »
According to my understanding of Occams Razor... it states

"You've probably heard it before: The simplest explanation is usually the right one."

In which case is it not true to say that the modern heliocentric model of the solar system for example is far more simple account for the planetary movement we observe than the ever elaborate versions of the Ptplemy geocentric model with all its epicycles?
You are correct.

The simplest explanation is usually the right one.

That means, given the simple effort it takes to make CGI, even for a weekly television program, that is the easiest one to accept.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 441
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #75 on: August 16, 2019, 11:21:23 AM »
According to my understanding of Occams Razor... it states

"You've probably heard it before: The simplest explanation is usually the right one."

In which case is it not true to say that the modern heliocentric model of the solar system for example is far more simple account for the planetary movement we observe than the ever elaborate versions of the Ptplemy geocentric model with all its epicycles?
You are correct.

The simplest explanation is usually the right one.

That means, given the simple effort it takes to make CGI, even for a weekly television program, that is the easiest one to accept.
It's not simple effort to make CGI and weekly tv shows aren't the same as live feeds. if your simplest explanations are full of holes it's probably not the simplest explanation. Yes, "CGI" is a simple explanation but it doesn't explain anything in actual detail and ignores the impracticality of creating CGI instead of just using real life.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 860
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #76 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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #77 on: August 16, 2019, 03:37:31 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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 860
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #78 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.   
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #79 on: August 16, 2019, 05:10:33 PM »
Interesting.
The space shuttle took 8 and a half minutes to reach about 8,000m/s. That’s a long time to accelerate, if the acceleration were constant it would be less than 2g. As it is, when the shuttle is on the pad, that’s when it’s mass is highest so the acceleration initially the lowest. There’s a table here which shows the speed and acceleration over time

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/466711main_AP_ST_ShuttleAscent.pdf

It never has to go over 3g to reach the speed needed for orbit simply because it accelerates over a fairly long time.

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