Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #100 on: June 27, 2018, 02:41:49 PM »
2001: A Space Odyssey specifically demonstrated how real any images from supposed outer space would appear and they could be definitively faked.

No, it did not.
You are being highly disingenuous and should be banned for trolling the upper fora.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)

"The film is noted for its scientifically accurate depiction of spaceflight, pioneering special effects, and ambiguous imagery..."
"Time provided at least seven different mini-reviews of the film in various issues in 1968, each one slightly more positive than the preceding one; in the final review dated December 27, 1968, the magazine called 2001 "an epic film about the history and future of mankind, brilliantly directed by Stanley Kubrick. The special effects are mindblowing."[146]"
"Stanley Kubrick made the ultimate science fiction movie, and it is going to be very hard for someone to come along and make a better movie, as far as I'm concerned. On a technical level, it can be compared, but personally I think that '2001' is far superior."—George Lucas, 1977[117]"
"The influence of 2001 on subsequent filmmakers is considerable. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and others, including many special effects technicians, discuss the impact the film has had on them in a featurette titled Standing on the Shoulders of Kubrick: The Legacy of 2001, included in the 2007 DVD release of the film. Spielberg calls it his film generation's "big bang", while Lucas says it was "hugely inspirational", labeling Kubrick as "the filmmaker's filmmaker". Sydney Pollack refers to it as "groundbreaking", and William Friedkin states 2001 is "the grandfather of all such films"."

As a matter of fact, one need only compare 2001: A Space Odyssey to 2010:The Year We Make Contact to fully realize the effects created were actually superior in 2001 even though 2010 utilized CGI.

So, your entire contribution and line of thought is devoid of any meaning and demonstrably proven to be just so much hot air.

You are behaving as a senseless troll.

Begone!
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 02:50:49 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5149
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #101 on: June 27, 2018, 02:59:15 PM »
Because a film inspired filmmakers or appeared realistic in the context of a film does not mean that it was realistic to a scientific eye.  Here is some errors that were spotted in the film:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html

You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #102 on: June 27, 2018, 04:10:30 PM »
Because a film inspired filmmakers or appeared realistic in the context of a film does not mean that it was realistic to a scientific eye.  Here is some errors that were spotted in the film:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html
Just as errors are spotted in footage depicting alleged "REAL" space flight...such as wire harnesses and green screen use clearly in play during shots supposedly coming from the ISS...

Even your own source states: "Still, Kubrick went to unprecedented lengths to achieve scientific and technological authenticity. How'd he do? Surprisingly well, is how."

Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 04:14:38 PM by totallackey »

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #103 on: June 27, 2018, 04:16:53 PM »
Because a film inspired filmmakers or appeared realistic in the context of a film does not mean that it was realistic to a scientific eye.  Here is some errors that were spotted in the film:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html
Just as errors are spotted in footage depicting alleged "REAL" space flight...

Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
I don't believe I've ever seen 'errors' posted about the videos outside of a conspiracy theory setting, and even those are often corrected in some manner, regardless of whether the original poster will acquiesce to the corrections. Do you have any legitimately unanswered/unanswerable 'errors' to present?

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #104 on: June 27, 2018, 04:26:34 PM »
Because a film inspired filmmakers or appeared realistic in the context of a film does not mean that it was realistic to a scientific eye.  Here is some errors that were spotted in the film:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html
Just as errors are spotted in footage depicting alleged "REAL" space flight...

Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
I don't believe I've ever seen 'errors' posted about the videos outside of a conspiracy theory setting, and even those are often corrected in some manner, regardless of whether the original poster will acquiesce to the corrections. Do you have any legitimately unanswered/unanswerable 'errors' to present?
I know squirrels like nuts but they should not behave as if they are actually nuts out in public on an open forum, yet...

That is exactly what you do when you post your question.

You assume the answers to all the questions about the clear errors noted in supposedly "REAL" schpayzze flight film and pictures are true, but the fact is there is no such thing as OUTER SCHPAYZZE, SCHPAYZZE FLIGHT, etc...

All of it is SCIENCE FICTION, with very little SCIENCE behind it...

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8375
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #105 on: June 27, 2018, 04:37:29 PM »
Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
I know squirrels like nuts but they should not behave as if they are actually nuts out in public on an open forum, yet...
Speaking of things you shouldn't do on a public forum: please keep personal attacks out of the upper fora. We are here to discuss ideas, not individuals.

If you really need to unload, do so in Angry Ranting. Alternatively, take a deep breath and focus on the merit of what you want to say, not whether or not you think the other person is stupid or insane. Warned.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #106 on: June 27, 2018, 04:54:05 PM »
Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
I know squirrels like nuts but they should not behave as if they are actually nuts out in public on an open forum, yet...
Speaking of things you shouldn't do on a public forum: please keep personal attacks out of the upper fora. We are here to discuss ideas, not individuals.

If you really need to unload, do so in Angry Ranting. Alternatively, take a deep breath and focus on the merit of what you want to say, not whether or not you think the other person is stupid or insane. Warned.
Stating someone is behaving a certain way does not imply or mean they actually are that certain way; simply, it means they are currently exhibiting such behavior.

Nor have you seen the words "stupid," or "insane," in any of my posts on this thread.

A person's behavior is certainly up to question regarding a viewpoint expressed on this forum.

Furthermore, you took the time to post the fact you warned me for my posts, yet did not (evidently) believe the exact same behavior (for which I was warned) on the part of another member here merited a warning or public message.

Making a warning public is much like public shaming and in itself is highly capricious and contradictory to your so-called "high standards."

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8375
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #107 on: June 27, 2018, 05:09:13 PM »
We always warn people publicly. It's a transparency thing. Take your complaints about moderation to S&C where they belong - you already started a thread there.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1063
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #108 on: June 27, 2018, 05:47:56 PM »
"The film is noted for its scientifically accurate depiction of spaceflight, pioneering special effects, and ambiguous imagery..."

No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?

"Time provided at least seven different mini-reviews of the film ... William Friedkin states 2001 is "the grandfather of all such films"."

A bunch of quotes from a bunch of film-makers does not scientific accuracy make, nor does it prove any fakery on the part of anything from any space agency.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 728
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #109 on: June 27, 2018, 07:46:07 PM »
Tom: We have a ghost in our attic. We hear it and when we check, things are moved around.
Bob: I don't believe you. Ghosts don't exist
Tom: Oh, but they do. Here's a picture I took of our attic ghost.
Bob: That picture isn't real. You faked it.
Tom: I did not.
Bob: Sure you did. I know because ghosts aren't real.
Tom: But I have a picture of one.
Bob: But I just debunked it.
Tom: No you didn't. You just denied my evidence. Explain to me how I faked it.
Bob: I don't have to. Burden of proof is on you.
Tom: ?

That argument is conceptually fine. It is just an example of a poor rebuttal. Bob's lacking rebuttal doesn't suddenly make it Bob's job or burden to "prove that ghosts do not exist".

If Bob had pointed out areas which suggested that the picture was just an optical illusion, misinterpretation, or fabrication, then that is a somewhat better rebuttal; and this is exactly what those anti-NASA websites and YouTube videos on the internet are doing.

There are also websites devoted to proving that Obama is a shape-shifting alien lizard as well as lots of YouTubers on the same subject.  Does that make it real?  Just about any wacky idea has a following. 
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

For 698 posts I nothinged you. Now, you have made a very powerful enemy.  >:(

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #110 on: June 28, 2018, 12:40:05 PM »
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?
It matters not who uttered the quote.

There are no substantial objections or other such information indicating there is anything within the movie depicting inaccurate information.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people, including schpayzze expurtts, who laud the realism Kubrick generated.
A bunch of quotes from a bunch of film-makers does not scientific accuracy make, nor does it prove any fakery on the part of anything from any space agency.
If the material generated by shpayzze agencies differs very little from what is generated by Hollywood (and it does not), there is no worthwhile argument on your part.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5149
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #111 on: June 28, 2018, 01:32:33 PM »
No one is disputing that 2001 isn’t accurate, what is being disputed is your claim that it was possible to fake activity on the moon in 1972. If you looked at the link I posted, it discusses some inaccuracies and they turn out to be crucial because some of them have to do with the low-gravity environment of the moon. Turns out Kubrick couldn’t recreate that faithfully because how do you make sand fly higher and fall slower with out it being completely CG rendered? Seems like it was impossible at the time making your claim false. I have seen analyses of the sand scatter on the Apollo mission that show it to be consistent and accurate to what you would expect to see on the Moon.

You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1063
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #112 on: June 28, 2018, 03:01:37 PM »
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?
It matters not who uttered the quote.

Yes, it does. You could be making it up. No source, no citation, no indication of who said it. How do we know it didn't come from your keyboard?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #113 on: July 02, 2018, 10:11:45 AM »
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?
It matters not who uttered the quote.

Yes, it does. You could be making it up. No source, no citation, no indication of who said it. How do we know it didn't come from your keyboard?
I gave the source of the quote.

Why would you blatantly lie on this for...?

Oh, I know why... never mind.

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #114 on: July 03, 2018, 08:23:40 AM »
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?
It matters not who uttered the quote.

Yes, it does. You could be making it up. No source, no citation, no indication of who said it. How do we know it didn't come from your keyboard?

It's true, he did give the source of the quote. It's just from the opening paragraph of the wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1063
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #115 on: July 11, 2018, 08:07:02 AM »
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?
It matters not who uttered the quote.

Yes, it does. You could be making it up. No source, no citation, no indication of who said it. How do we know it didn't come from your keyboard?

It's true, he did give the source of the quote. It's just from the opening paragraph of the wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)

So it's a quote from the writings of whomever wrote that portion of the Wiki page, then?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 283
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #116 on: July 15, 2018, 06:34:50 PM »
Take a look at this website: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/

This website calculates that the water bulge at the equator. Do a find for "water" on that page to find the sections where it is computing what the bulge of the water should be. The calculations assume an earth with rock mass that bulges outwards. The conclusions are that the water should bulge out as well.

From the link:

Quote
This gives us a surplus energy of ½ mR² w ² , or ½mv²  for the drop of water, which is enough to carry the drop of water to a height of 11.035 km against the force of gravity at the equator, the same value we calculated earlier.

That's 6.85 miles. Basically the depth of Challenger Deep.

Why isn't it shown that the deepest parts of the ocean are at the equator?
You are misinterpreting what he is saying.  He is saying the the water would be 11km higher than spherical, or 10km less than the measured diameter at the equator  He is not saying that water should 11km higher than the actual land at the equator.  What he is doing is making his calculationc as though the water could stand in a column that extended from the surface to the center of the earth.  In essence, he is substituting a fluid (water) for a solid.  This is valid as when the earth formed it was mostly a fluid.  He also admits it's a value that comes from not taking everything into account.  Nowhere in this article is he talking about the existence of or the magnitude of 'bulge' in the sea.  He does go through all the calculations though, and eventually tells us how to come up with the correct value of bulge in the land.

However, exactly the same forces are acting on the ocean now as were acting on the molten planet when it was first formed.  Those forces are WRT the center of mass the earth, not the surface. So, yes, we should see a bulge in the sea WRT to center of mass of the earth, and it should be pretty much exactly the same as the bulge that formed in the land, and it is.  They are both about 21.36 km.  Why would you expect anything else?

Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Quote from: Tom Bishop - Zetetic Council Member
The moon's orbital path has a diameter of 768,000 km. That is almost one million miles.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 283
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #117 on: July 15, 2018, 07:22:58 PM »
7. Why doesn't the artificial horizon roll backwards during straight and level flight?
What manufacturer of attitude indicators did you talk to? There is no reason why they shouldn't have explained that the instrument is self-leveling, relative to the axis of gravity's force. They aren't merely a gyroscope with a fixed orientation in space. They do adjust, by design, for the change in axis due to gravity. (Speaking as a former aviator, I'm surprised the pilots didn't explain this to you also.)

Yeah, Dave Murphy drags this tidbit around with him like his favorite Teddy Bear.  There are a number of things wrong with it.

First, mechanical gyroscopic attitude indicators have not been used in commercial craft for some time.  How long ago did Murphy take this flight he was talking about?  They are barley used in experimental aircraft anymore and possibly some older GA craft.  That aside, you are absolutely correct, they do adjust to gravity.  This is known as the erecting mechanism which is implemented using pendulum operated vanes.  The same mechanism also corrects for friction induced precession.  You will find an detailed explanation of how this all works on pages 56 and 57 of  this FAA document: ama_Ch10.pdf

That FAA document also goes briefly into the more commonly used Ring Laser gyros and MEMS sensors.  Ring Laser gyros have gravitational correction in their software, and the MEMS devices used naturally align with the direction of gravity.

Page 19 of this catalogue gives the specifications of one of the few currently manufactured vacuum powered attitude indicators.  You can read they make specific mention of the erect time.  This is the time it takes the gyro to align with the direction of gravity after being activated: https://www.kellymfg.com/images/RC%20ALLEN%20Catalog.pdf.  Becuase of this mechanism the Gyro is continually correcting for the gravitational vector.


Someone should send Dave Murphy that FAA document and ask him to leave his favorite Teddy Bear at home from now on.

EDIT: Fixed FAA URL
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 07:49:02 PM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Quote from: Tom Bishop - Zetetic Council Member
The moon's orbital path has a diameter of 768,000 km. That is almost one million miles.