As per the title, I'm an engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA, where I work on the Mars 2020 rover. I'm required to add that anything I say does not necessarily reflect the views of NASA or JPL, and are fully my own.

That said, I'm not a believer in flat earth, but I'm trying to understand what your arguments are. As my expertise is in space systems, I'll be able to expound on any physics or astronomy-based arguments for a flat earth. Would anyone here be willing to share some of their explanations or theories regarding a flat earth? Also, as per the title, feel free to ask me anything.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 01:01:04 AM by discombobulate »

Groit

Can space exploration work on a flat Earth that accelerates upwards at 9.81 m s-2 ?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5686
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Why do we get false color images of Mars from rovers and such and not like real color images from a color camera?


*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Hi! How are you?
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11731
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Is it possible for you to prove your claim without violating your privacy and/or any contractual obligations? I mean no offence, but if I had a dollar for every person who came here and claimed to be an astronaut/NASA employee/sailor/Vladimir Putin, I'd be able to at least afford a large pizza, maybe even two.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Can space exploration work on a flat Earth that accelerates upwards at 9.81 m s-2 ?

That depends, I suppose, on whether the flat earth is still in the solar system. If not, the current methods we have for using gravity assists to get places wouldn't work. If it still rotates around the sun, supposing it had the same mass and gravity, it potentially could.

Why do we get false color images of Mars from rovers and such and not like real color images from a color camera?

You can get the real color images directly from NASA as they are released here: https://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/volumes/msl.html

HAZCAM and NAVCAM provide black-and-white images, but MAHLI, MASTCAM, and MARDI do provide true color images. As these images are in the data format stored on the rover, you'll need to convert it with our IMG2PNG tool here: http://bjj.mmedia.is/utils/img2png/

Is it possible for you to prove your claim without violating your privacy and/or any contractual obligations? I mean no offence, but if I had a dollar for every person who came here and claimed to be an astronaut/NASA employee/sailor/Vladimir Putin, I'd be able to at least afford a large pizza, maybe even two.

This is my HSPD-12 card with all identifying information removed, along with my username. Is this enough proof?

Hi! How are you?

Hello! I'm doing fine, but it's pretty busy lately since we're so close to launching Mars 2020! How are you?

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Hi! How are you?

Hello! I'm doing fine, but it's pretty busy lately since we're so close to launching Mars 2020! How are you?

Glad to hear that and good luck with the Mars mission! I'm fine, just a bt nervous since my final exams start tomorrow  :)
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

Groit

Can space exploration work on a flat Earth that accelerates upwards at 9.81 m s-2 ?

That depends, I suppose, on whether the flat earth is still in the solar system. If not, the current methods we have for using gravity assists to get places wouldn't work. If it still rotates around the sun, supposing it had the same mass and gravity, it potentially could.

Thanks for the reply

The thing is, in flat Earth theory, the Earth is at the centre of everything and all the planets, comets, asteroids etc in the solar system rotate around the Earth, so do the stars, once per day. And at the same time they also accelerate with the Earth due to universal acceleration, all celestial bodies in the universe accelerate upwards with the Earth, so You will feel the same force (weight) if you were standing on Mars than you would on Earth.

The good news is in flat Earth theory the observable universe is very small compared to RE, in fact the stars are at a distance of just a few thousand km, which means the planets will be even less, so a mission to Mars should only take hours instead of months.

Does this make thing any better in terms of space exploration like a missions to Mars?


Can space exploration work on a flat Earth that accelerates upwards at 9.81 m s-2 ?

That depends, I suppose, on whether the flat earth is still in the solar system. If not, the current methods we have for using gravity assists to get places wouldn't work. If it still rotates around the sun, supposing it had the same mass and gravity, it potentially could.

Thanks for the reply

The thing is, in flat Earth theory, the Earth is at the centre of everything and all the planets, comets, asteroids etc in the solar system rotate around the Earth, so do the stars, once per day. And at the same time they also accelerate with the Earth due to universal acceleration, all celestial bodies in the universe accelerate upwards with the Earth, so You will feel the same force (weight) if you were standing on Mars than you would on Earth.

The good news is in flat Earth theory the observable universe is very small compared to RE, in fact the stars are at a distance of just a few thousand km, which means the planets will be even less, so a mission to Mars should only take hours instead of months.

Does this make thing any better in terms of space exploration like a missions to Mars?

How does your model explain, however, the three minute delay in data transmission from Earth to the rover and vice versa? Also, how could we orbit other celestial bodies without expending energy to maintain that orbit?

We've actually had to create an entire software suite to calculate the correct angles for the Deep Space Network to send data to Mars: https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/spiceconcept.html.  Are you telling me that all the data in the kernels and the calculations in there are incorrect?

Groit

How does your model explain, however, the three minute delay in data transmission from Earth to the rover and vice versa? Also, how could we orbit other celestial bodies without expending energy to maintain that orbit?

We've actually had to create an entire software suite to calculate the correct angles for the Deep Space Network to send data to Mars: https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/spiceconcept.html.  Are you telling me that all the data in the kernels and the calculations in there are incorrect?

Its not my model, I'm NOT a flat Earther  :) sorry if i came across that way, its just we have to be careful what we say on the forum otherwise we'll receive a warning and possible ban for mocking their theory.

I'm with you on this, Newtonian mechanics work for me  :)

I'll let a flat Earther answer your question.

   

How does your model explain, however, the three minute delay in data transmission from Earth to the rover and vice versa? Also, how could we orbit other celestial bodies without expending energy to maintain that orbit?

We've actually had to create an entire software suite to calculate the correct angles for the Deep Space Network to send data to Mars: https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/spiceconcept.html.  Are you telling me that all the data in the kernels and the calculations in there are incorrect?

Its not my model, I'm NOT a flat Earther  :) sorry if i came across that way, its just we have to be careful what we say on the forum otherwise we'll receive a warning and possible ban for mocking their theory.

I'm with you on this, Newtonian mechanics work for me  :)

I'll let a flat Earther answer your question.

 

Ah, I didn't mean to let it go across that way. I'm just trying to understand how flat earthers reconcile their theories with common observations.

Groit

How does your model explain, however, the three minute delay in data transmission from Earth to the rover and vice versa? Also, how could we orbit other celestial bodies without expending energy to maintain that orbit?

We've actually had to create an entire software suite to calculate the correct angles for the Deep Space Network to send data to Mars: https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/spiceconcept.html.  Are you telling me that all the data in the kernels and the calculations in there are incorrect?

Its not my model, I'm NOT a flat Earther  :) sorry if i came across that way, its just we have to be careful what we say on the forum otherwise we'll receive a warning and possible ban for mocking their theory.

I'm with you on this, Newtonian mechanics work for me  :)

I'll let a flat Earther answer your question.

 

Ah, I didn't mean to let it go across that way. I'm just trying to understand how flat earthers reconcile their theories with common observations.

No worries  :)

Hope you get a few questions fired your way.

As per the title, I'm an employee of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where I work on the Mars 2020 rover. I'm required to add that anything I say does not necessarily reflect the views of NASA or JPL, and are fully my own.

That said, I'm not a believer in flat earth, but I'm trying to understand what your arguments are. As my expertise is in space systems, I'll be able to expound on any physics or astronomy-based arguments for a flat earth. Would anyone here be willing to share some of their explanations or theories regarding a flat earth?


Hi. I am a Round Earther with some quick inquiries.

If you click on the "Wiki" link in this site, followed by the sub-link called "General Physics" and then finally the next sub-link towards the bottom called "Sunrise and Sunset", Flat Earth theory attempts to explain using a theory called EA (Electromagnetic Acceleration).

There has been a lot of spirated debate and push-back from Round Earthers (including myself) about the plausibility of EA and so would be interesting to get a Physicists / Astro-Physicists take on this overall theory, which talks about light bending.

I am a Mechanical Engineer by trade but not as astute on the finer points of Astro-Physics.

Thank you.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 12:02:14 AM by GoldCashew »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6536
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Does the n-body problem make an accurate simulation of the solar system impossible?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6536
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Also, what effect does the free expansion of gas in a vacuum have on rocket propulsion in space?

Does the n-body problem make an accurate simulation of the solar system impossible?

It depends on the time scales we're talking about, as well as the precision needed. For calculations that are accurate enough for space missions currently, NASA uses the SPICE toolkit I mentioned above. You can download a copy for yourself and examine the source code here: https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/toolkit.html.

Any perfectly accurate simulation is impossible, since any computer system needs to be as large as the system it's simulating in order to provide an accurate simulation. Though the n-body problem does not have an exact answer, we can use numerical integration to give us an answer to any arbitrary accuracy needed. This becomes more processor-heavy as time goes on, due to the time complexity of the calculation being in O(n2). That's why we use approximation methods, since we can significantly decrease our time complexity, up to O(n), in return for some accuracy.

Keep in mind that when we call it an approximation, it's an approximation within immensely tiny scales. SPICE gives us 20 digits of accuracy, and that's not even running on a supercomputer.

Also, what effect does the free expansion of gas in a vacuum have on rocket propulsion in space?

I'm not a rocket scientist, so I won't have a definite answer for this.

However, the net thrust generated by a rocket engine is governed by the following equation:

Fn = mve-opt + Ae(pe - pamb)

Where m is the mass flow of the exhaust, ve-opt is our effective jet velocity when atmospheric pressure is equal to the pressure at the nozzle's exit, Ae is the flow area at the nozzle exit, pe is the pressure at the nozzle's exit, and pamb is atmospheric pressure.

As pamb in a vaccum would be 0, while all other variables would stay constant at all times given a steady, constant stream of exhaust, a rocket in space would be more efficient than a rocket in the atmosphere.