New in cosmology and fundamental physics
Sort:
hold on
Jan 31, 2023
0
#162
noodles2112 wrote:
NASA and all aeronautical organizations know the earth is flat. For it is in All their official documents, which plainly state that ALL aeronautical navigations/calculations MUST be based upon a Nonrotating, Stationary Flat Earth. Because that is indeed, Reality.
Link?
Jan 31, 2023
0
#163
noodles2112 wrote:
blueemu - how does a balloon remain neutrally buoyant. Where is gravity?
I'll save him the bother: the AVERAGE DENSITY of a neutrally bouyant object is the same as that of the medium in which it floats. For example a helium balloon contains a gas that is less dense than air, but of course the much denser rubber increases its average density. With the right amount of helium, they can leave the average density the same as air.
Elroch - Proving NASA never went to the moon is child's play yet you refuse to see it. Why?
Are you not aware there are false proofs of all sorts of things by incompetent people?
Remember you yourself are not competent enough to do even elementary high school physics like working out the trajectory of a shot putt.
Ironically, the only example of quantitative competence I can recall by you is using a (correct) formula to calculate the distance to the horizon from a given height above a surface like a calm sea.
Jan 31, 2023
0
#164
15 NASA Research Papers That Admit Flat & Nonrotating!
https://www.galileolied.com/post/15-nasa-research-papers-admit-flat-nonrotating
Link to all docs as attachments:
https://cloud.degoo.com/share/YTqf5mZRHVN-UMhjw8uZ8Q
Updated: Jun 23, 2019
1. NASA's Reference Publication #1207 entitled Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model assumes the Earth is flat and not rotating. Produced in August 1988, the publication details obscure concepts such as "Rotational Acceleration" and "Earth-Relative Velocity. " Or to a layman, how planes lift off, fly over, and land upon the Earth. Immediately following the cover page and index on the very first line under Summary we see this: "This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat, nonrotating Earth." The very same line appears again in the Introduction (2nd paragraph), and again under Concluding Remarks (Page 30), and finally, on the Report Document Page (Page 102, Section 16). Here is the link to entire report: https://nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf
And below are 14 more Aeronautic Papers and Technical Memorandums that say the same:
2. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; General Equations of Motion for a Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft (Page 2, Section II) ... “In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth are developed…” https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070030307.pdf
3. NASA Technical Memorandum 104330; Predicted Performance of a Thrust-Enhanced SR-71 Aircraft with an External Payload (Page 8 - Digital Performance Simulation Description) "The DPS equations of motion use four assumptions ... a nonrotating Earth."
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88507main_H-2179.pdf
4. NASA Technical Note: A Method for Reducing The Sensitivity of Optimal Nonlinear Systems to Parameter Uncertainty (Page 12 Problem Statement) ... "(2) A flat, nonrotating Earth"
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710018599.pdf
5. NASA Technical Note; Calculation of Wind Compensation for Launching of Unguided Rockets (Page 8 Trajectory Simulation, 2nd Paragraph) ..."this simulation assumes ... the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating Earth"
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040008097.pdf
6. NASA Technical Paper 2768; User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models (Page 12, Program Overview) ... “Within the program, the nonlinear equations of motion include 12 states representing a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth” https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88072main_H-1259.pdf
7. NASA Technical Paper 2835; "User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models" (Page 1, Summary) AND (Page 126 , Report Documentation Page, Section 16) "The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with stationary atmosphere and flat, nonrotating earth assumptions."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890007066.pdf
8. NASA Technical Memorandum; Determination of Angles of Attack and Sideslip from Radar Data and a Roll Stabilized Platform (Page 2, Section 16.) “The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth may be assumed.”
9. NASA Contractor Report 186019; An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge (Page 11, Equation of Motion and Atmospheric Model) ... “The nonlinear equations of motion used in this model are general six-degree-of-freedom equations representing the flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth.”
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88248main_H-1777.pdf
10. NASA Contractor Report 3073; Investigation of Aircraft Landing in Variable Wind Fields (Page 6, Chapter II - Aircraft Landing Model) ... "The Aircraft trajectory model employed in this study was derived based on the following assumptions: a) The Earth is flat and non-rotating. "
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790005472.pdf
11. NASA Technical Memorandum 81238; A Mathematical Model of the CH-53 Helicopter (Page 17, Equations of Motion) .. "The helicopter equations of motion are given in body axes with respect to a flat, nonrotating Earth."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810003557.pdf
12. Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Prepared for NASA; Atmospheric Oscillations (Page 10) ... "A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth." ... (next paragraph) .. "The most one can profitably simplify the problem is to consider an isothermal atmosphere, plane level surface, and a nonrotating Earth."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650015408.pdf
13. NASA Tecnical Paper 2002-210718; Stability and Control Estimation Flight Test Results for the SR-71 Aircraft With Externally Mounted Experiments (Pages 10-11 Equations of Motion) ... "These equations assume a rigid vehicle and a flat, nonrotating Earth."
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88733main_H-2465.pdf
14. NASA Technical Memorandum 100996; Flight Testing a VSTOL Aircraft to Identify a Full-Envelope Aerodynamic Model (Pages 4-5, State Estimation) ... “For aircraft problems, the state and measurement models together represent the kinematics of a rigid body for describing motion over a flat, nonrotating Earth…”
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880014378.pdf
15. NASA Ames Research Center; Singular Arc Time-Optimal Climb Trajectory of Aircraft in a Two-Dimensional Wind Field (Page 2, Section II. Singular Arc Optimal Control) ... “In our minimum time-to-climb problem, the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat Earth."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060053337.pdf
Updated: Jun 23, 2019
1. NASA's Reference Publication #1207 entitled Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model assumes the Earth is flat and not rotating. Produced in August 1988, the publication details obscure concepts such as "Rotational Acceleration" and "Earth-Relative Velocity. " Or to a layman, how planes lift off, fly over, and land upon the Earth. Immediately following the cover page and index on the very first line under Summary we see this: "This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat, nonrotating Earth." The very same line appears again in the Introduction (2nd paragraph), and again under Concluding Remarks (Page 30), and finally, on the Report Document Page (Page 102, Section 16). Here is the link to entire report: https://nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf
And below are 14 more Aeronautic Papers and Technical Memorandums that say the same:
2. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; General Equations of Motion for a Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft (Page 2, Section II) ... “In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth are developed…” https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070030307.pdf
3. NASA Technical Memorandum 104330; Predicted Performance of a Thrust-Enhanced SR-71 Aircraft with an External Payload (Page 8 - Digital Performance Simulation Description) "The DPS equations of motion use four assumptions ... a nonrotating Earth."
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88507main_H-2179.pdf
4. NASA Technical Note: A Method for Reducing The Sensitivity of Optimal Nonlinear Systems to Parameter Uncertainty (Page 12 Problem Statement) ... "(2) A flat, nonrotating Earth"
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710018599.pdf
5. NASA Technical Note; Calculation of Wind Compensation for Launching of Unguided Rockets (Page 8 Trajectory Simulation, 2nd Paragraph) ..."this simulation assumes ... the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating Earth"
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040008097.pdf
6. NASA Technical Paper 2768; User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models (Page 12, Program Overview) ... “Within the program, the nonlinear equations of motion include 12 states representing a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth” https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88072main_H-1259.pdf
7. NASA Technical Paper 2835; "User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models" (Page 1, Summary) AND (Page 126 , Report Documentation Page, Section 16) "The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with stationary atmosphere and flat, nonrotating earth assumptions."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890007066.pdf
8. NASA Technical Memorandum; Determination of Angles of Attack and Sideslip from Radar Data and a Roll Stabilized Platform (Page 2, Section 16.) “The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth may be assumed.”
9. NASA Contractor Report 186019; An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge (Page 11, Equation of Motion and Atmospheric Model) ... “The nonlinear equations of motion used in this model are general six-degree-of-freedom equations representing the flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth.”
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88248main_H-1777.pdf
10. NASA Contractor Report 3073; Investigation of Aircraft Landing in Variable Wind Fields (Page 6, Chapter II - Aircraft Landing Model) ... "The Aircraft trajectory model employed in this study was derived based on the following assumptions: a) The Earth is flat and non-rotating. "
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790005472.pdf
11. NASA Technical Memorandum 81238; A Mathematical Model of the CH-53 Helicopter (Page 17, Equations of Motion) .. "The helicopter equations of motion are given in body axes with respect to a flat, nonrotating Earth."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810003557.pdf
12. Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Prepared for NASA; Atmospheric Oscillations (Page 10) ... "A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth." ... (next paragraph) .. "The most one can profitably simplify the problem is to consider an isothermal atmosphere, plane level surface, and a nonrotating Earth."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650015408.pdf
13. NASA Tecnical Paper 2002-210718; Stability and Control Estimation Flight Test Results for the SR-71 Aircraft With Externally Mounted Experiments (Pages 10-11 Equations of Motion) ... "These equations assume a rigid vehicle and a flat, nonrotating Earth."
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88733main_H-2465.pdf
14. NASA Technical Memorandum 100996; Flight Testing a VSTOL Aircraft to Identify a Full-Envelope Aerodynamic Model (Pages 4-5, State Estimation) ... “For aircraft problems, the state and measurement models together represent the kinematics of a rigid body for describing motion over a flat, nonrotating Earth…”
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880014378.pdf
15. NASA Ames Research Center; Singular Arc Time-Optimal Climb Trajectory of Aircraft in a Two-Dimensional Wind Field (Page 2, Section II. Singular Arc Optimal Control) ... “In our minimum time-to-climb problem, the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat Earth."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060053337.pdf
Jan 31, 2023
0
#165
Are you serious?
Those articles are about AIRCRAFT calculations.
Of course they use a rest-frame for calculations.
Let's try something similar... picture yourself on board a train. You decide to write down a note in your diary. As you move your pen across the paper, writing away, do you need to calculate the train's speed and direction and allow for that velocity as you move your pen? Or can you just pretend that the paper (and the room that you are sitting in) is stationary and simply write the note?
The reason that you DON'T need to make complex calculations as you write is that you, your pen and the piece of paper ALL share the same velocity (all moving together, on the train) so that COMMON velocity just drops out of the equations, and need not be considered at all.
The same applies to an airplane flying through the Earth's atmosphere. The atmosphere SHARES the Earth's movements, and so does the plane until it starts to take off. That common velocity has ZERO effect on the equations, so of course it's ignored.
Honestly, I have a hard time believing that you are serious. You seem to have memorized all the dumbest "something something Flat Earth durr durr" nonsense on the Internet.
bruv people proving the earth is round is based on common sense and real scientific research
people CLAIMING the earth is flat is based on lack of research, ignorance, and stupidity
people CLAIMING the earth is flat is based on lack of research, ignorance, and stupidity
Jan 31, 2023
0
#167
The mythical magical metaphysical spinning wobbling blasting into oblivion ball....for all those who refuse to use their own senses.
For it is necessary, indeed it is Mandatory, that one MUST ignore/deny their own senses in order to believe in the religion of heliocentrism.
If the earth was spinning 1000mph at the equator all the way down to zero mph at the axis points as well as wobbling this way and that, flight would be impossible. That is why all aeronautical navigations/calculations are based upon a nonrotating, stationary flat earth...because that is reality. The mythical spinning ball is pure fantasy very similar to Santa clause.
Prove me wrong by proving your religious belief in heliocentrism to be factual.
You must prove(via the scientific Method) the earth rotates 1047mph at the equator all the way down to zero mph at the axis points. You must prove the earth also wobbles on it's axis of 23.4/66.6 degrees. You must also prove it travels around the sun at 66,600mph. Also, that the solar system speeds around the galaxy at some 500,000mph as well as the galaxy itself cruising through the universe at some 1.3 million mph all the while blasting along side with the big bang at the speed of light.
Good Luck! 
Jan 31, 2023
0
#168
noodles2112 wrote:
The mythical magical metaphysical spinning wobbling blasting into oblivion ball....for all those who refuse to use their own senses.
For it is necessary, indeed it is Mandatory, that one MUST ignore/deny their own senses in order to believe in the religion of heliocentrism.
If the earth was spinning 1000mph at the equator all the way down to zero mph at the axis points as well as wobbling this way and that, flight would be impossible. That is why all aeronautical navigations/calculations are based upon a nonrotating, stationary flat earth...because that is reality. The mythical spinning ball is pure fantasy very similar to Santa clause.
Prove me wrong by proving your religious belief in heliocentrism to be factual.
You must prove(via the scientific Method) the earth rotates 1047mph at the equator all the way down to zero mph at the axis points. You must prove the earth also wobbles on it's axis of 23.4/66.6 degrees. You must also prove it travels around the sun at 66,600mph. Also, that the solar system speeds around the galaxy at some 500,000mph as well as the galaxy itself cruising through the universe at some 1.3 million mph all the while blasting along side with the big bang at the speed of light.
Good Luck!
One way to see the Earth rotates at a leisurely (for its size) 1047 mph at its equator is to measure the distance round the equator (cartographers have done this for a long time, although satellites do a slightly better job now) and divide this by the length of the sidereal day (the time it takes a star to return to the same place in the sky - just under 24 hours).
It's not difficult. A calculator will do the division for you.
"Elroch - Proving NASA never went to the moon is child's play yet you refuse to see it. Why"? I happen to know a little something about child's play and the numbers aren't with you. Since 1969, most children all over the world have been taught truthfully that mankind has been to the moon on several occasions. How many millions of people do you think that is?
Feb 1, 2023
0
#170
@noodles, thanks for posting the list of references to NASA and other documents.
FIrst note that when I have discussed the trajectory of a shot putt with you I have implicitly assumed a flat surface that is non-rotating and that the acceleration of gravity is constant, because this is a perfectly adequate approximation for the purpose. For clarity, I do not believe in a flat Earth. Therefore your guru's daffy reasoning is false in every one of the 15 examples.
Can I first say that I think you in all sincerity believe your guru's incompetent reasoning and the fairy story it supports. Unfortunately, extreme lack of scientific competence is a barrier to the understanding of your guru. You then parrot his incompetence.
A key element of understanding that he lacks is that scientific analysis uses the most appropriate approximation rather than the most complete and precise models available when the latter would give indistinguishable results. Eg NASA uses Newtonian calculations for navigating in the Solar System (with a finite speed of light!) rather than much more complex general relativity calculations that would give indistinguishable answers. Only an incompetent person could think this meant NASA did not believe in relativity. By contrast, GPS satellites fully allow for relativity because it is necessary to achieve the precise timing they rely on.
The first paper does indeed refer to a flat, non-rotating model. The word "model" is important. It is an abstract approximation of reality. The reason the approximation is ok is that the analysis in the paper does not depend significantly on the effect of rotation of the Earth (Coriolis force in a rotating frame) or the curvature of the Earth's surface on the time scale of interest. Likewise to very accurately calculate the path of a shot putt, you do not need to allow for the rotation of the Earth.
The consequence is that your first reference does not support your claim that NASA believes the Earth is flat and is involved in a grand conspiracy to fool people otherwise. Note in addition that if such a conspiracy existed NASA would not leave 15 papers on their website (today) that contradicted it, so there is not even an imaginary reality in which your guru's thinking makes sense!
[The second paper likewise deals with a topic which has no dependence on the curvature of the Earth or its rotation and likewise wisely uses a frame that ignores these irrelevancies. Likewise it provides no support for your claim. And so on, I am sure...]
If in light of the points above you think another one of your copied list of 15 references does support your claim, tell me which one and I will discuss the exact words used in the paper.
Feb 1, 2023
0
#172
Elroch - "One way to see the Earth rotates at a leisurely (for its size) 1047 mph at its equator is to measure the distance round the equator (cartographers have done this for a long time, although satellites do a slightly better job now) and divide this by the length of the sidereal day (the time it takes a star to return to the same place in the sky - just under 24 hours)."
So how do you know its the earth rotating and not the constellations circling around Polaris over the face of the earth? One can easily observe the sun/moon constellations traversing over them. One must assume its the earth that is moving.
Feb 1, 2023
0
#173
Elroch - When I say NASA knows the earth is flat and stationary I am referring to the upper echelons of NASA. Not the average employees. However, if the earth were truly wobbling and spinning aeronautical calculations/navigations would need to adjust for it. To simply believe there is no need to do that, that all flight traveling at different speeds taking off, flying and landing in all different directions on this spinning wobbling spherical earth is not science, it is simply a belief. Globe apologists always use the train, plane or automobile to prove their point. The problem with that assumption is they are only "calculating" one constant speed and one constant direction. Heliocentric theory assumes/postulates many, many varying speeds in many different directions. So to use the plane, train or automobile as proof the earth moves, is scientifically invalid.
DreamScapeHorizons - no flat earther believes in your little meme. Please do some research.
Furthermore, As I posted earlier. The challenge for all heliocentric believers is to prove heliocentric theory via the scientific method. If it cannot be done, and on the other hand, be proven false via the scientific method then heliocentric theory is not scientifically sound and would be referred to as pseudoscience.
And as I have discovered through the years, many/most people cannot distinguish between the two.
Feb 1, 2023
0
#174
RonaldJosephCote - have you ever really looked closely at the lunar lander from Apollo 11?
It was constructed with roofing paper, curtain rods, aluminum foil and scotch tape etc.
Do you really believe something like that could land and take off from the moon?
Feb 1, 2023
0
#175
noodles2112 wrote:Yi
Elroch - When I say NASA knows the earth is flat and stationary I am referring to the upper echelons of NASA. Not the average employees.
This makes no sense. You think your guru's 15 selected technical papers were written by the "upper echelons"?
However, if the earth were truly wobbling and spinning aeronautical calculations/navigations would need to adjust for it. To simply believe there is no need to do that, that all flight traveling at different speeds taking off, flying and landing in all different directions on this spinning wobbling spherical earth is not science, it is simply a belief. Globe apologists always use the train, plane or automobile to prove their point. The problem with that assumption is they are only "calculating" one constant speed and one constant direction. Heliocentric theory assumes/postulates many, many varying speeds in many different directions. So to use the plane, train or automobile as proof the earth moves, is scientifically invalid.
Your thoughts are incompetent. Where these things have a significant effect, competent people take them into account. Where they are not, they ignore them (eg the linked papers).
DreamScapeHorizons - no flat earther believes in your little meme. Please do some research.
Flat Earthers can't stop the planets looking like they do in the meme when observed through a decent telescope - very cheaply available these days! Millions of people have them. The Earth, of course, looks ball-shaped from space as well, not the comedy version in the meme. This joke accurately represents your beliefs.
Furthermore, As I posted earlier. The challenge for all heliocentric believers is to prove heliocentric theory via the scientific method. If it cannot be done, and on the other hand, be proven false via the scientific method then heliocentric theory is not scientifically sound and would be referred to as pseudoscience.
The science was settled a few hundred years ago. Since then, trillions of pieces of confirming evidence all confirm it. This is why intelligent people don't doubt it. Only incompetent people like those you refer to do.
Feb 1, 2023
0
#176
Elroch - If the "science/pseudoscience" was settled, there would not be a single flat earther on the face of the earth. Much less countless millions worldwide.
One of the numerous reasons flat earth took off like a rocket was due to the technological advancements with telescopic cameras. Mainly the Nikon P900/1000. They were finally able to zoom in to the stars and could easily discern that they were NOT trillions of miles nor light years away etc.
Feb 1, 2023
0
#177
noodles2112 wrote:
So how do you know its the earth rotating and not the constellations circling around Polaris over the face of the earth?
Let's pretend for the moment that this "constellations circling around the Earth" lunacy makes just enough sense for us to examine the concept.
The formula for the circumference of a circle is Pi times twice the radius. No argument so far? That means that even if the outermost stars in the entire universe were circling around the stationary Earth, in one 24-hour day (one circle of the sky) they could not possibly travel further than 26 billion kilometers (since even if they could move AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT it will only carry them 25.9 billion km per day).
A circumference of 26 billion km means a maximum radius of 4.13 billion kilometers.
Congratulations. You have proven that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE OUT TO THE FURTHEST VISIBLE GALAXY is smaller than the orbit of Neptune right here in our own Solar System.
Care to explain how THAT works, in your quasi-religious cosmology?
Feb 1, 2023
0
#178
blueemu - you are still thinking inside the ball. Try thinking "outside-the-ball" ...it shall be difficult I assure you.
As far as religion goes, heliocentrism is an occult/pagan religion. Heck, all your mythical/mythological gods/goddesses are right there in front of your face.
Feb 1, 2023
0
#179
noodles2112 wrote:
blueemu - you are still thinking inside the ball. Try thinking "outside-the-ball" ...it shall be difficult I assure you.
THAT is your reply? "I know a secret that you don't so your're wrong"?
That would be a wonderful come-back if we were both four years old.
Unfortunately, I (at least) am an adult, so I'll have to insist that you address my POINTS, not just pretend to superior knowledge.
A tribal witch-doctor could PRETEND to have superior knowledge.