|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 6, 2015 9:12:57 GMT
The GoFast 2014 rocket launched by the CSXT team/group officially set a new world record on July 14, 2014 as the highest and fastest amateur rocket ever launched into space.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 12:07:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Flat earth on May 6, 2015 15:00:36 GMT
Acenci you are really round earther,don't you see it wide angle camera ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 15:03:52 GMT
Tell me more about it, after I wrote an essay analyzing that event... please write a few more lines clearing the doubts that naturally arise in flat earthers when they see this evidence.
Also, please, don't imply that I might be dishonest ("you are really a round earther"), because I can't interact for too many posts with people who disrespect me. I will let you know when I will assess round earth as more probable than flat earth. Until I let you know that, you can assume that I assess flat earth as more than 50% probable, or at least the most probable (because there's also the other hypotheses, such as concave earth and geocentrism). I consider it OK to change my mind, so I won't have a problem telling you that I changed my mind.
At the same time, being a flat earther doesn't mean that I will ignore the evidence to the contrary. In fact, the better a flat earther I am, the more I should be analyzing evidence to the contrary. I already know the abundant evidence in favor.
I interpret being a "flat earther" as "here's the evidence I have gathered that makes me consider flat earth more likely than round earth" rather than "the earth is flat, and if you say the opposite, you're not reasoning or you are in bad faith".
I don't agree with people who have that intolerant and/or disrepectful attitude, whether they're flat earthers or round-earthers.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 6, 2015 15:23:47 GMT
“The official altitude of 72 miles was derived from a high precision 3-axis accelerometer (Crossbow, CXL25LP3) and 3-axis magnetometer (Crossbow, CXM113). Two back-up accelerometers provided additional sources confirming the vehicle exceeded 62 miles. ”
Accelerometers are unsuitable to determine high altitudes…
wiki: “An accelerometer alone is unsuitable to determine changes in altitude over distances where the vertical decrease of gravity is significant, such as for aircraft and rockets. In the presence of a gravitational gradient, the calibration and data reduction process is numerically unstable.”
Magnetometers are only useful in determining the magnetic field based on a set standard of magnetization already achieved at that supposed altitude. Who determined the magnetic field at “72” miles? My guess is NASA.
wiki: “Magnetometers are measurement instruments used for two general purposes: to measure the magnetization of a magnetic material like a ferromagnet, or to measure the strength and, in some cases, the direction of the magnetic field at a point in space”
Pretty sure there is a glass ceiling at 100km. But if not at that height then slightly higher.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 6, 2015 15:34:15 GMT
“The official altitude of 72 miles was derived from a high precision 3-axis accelerometer (Crossbow, CXL25LP3) and 3-axis magnetometer (Crossbow, CXM113). Two back-up accelerometers provided additional sources confirming the vehicle exceeded 62 miles. ” Accelerometers are unsuitable to determine high altitudes… wiki: “An accelerometer alone is unsuitable to determine changes in altitude over distances where the vertical decrease of gravity is significant, such as for aircraft and rockets. In the presence of a gravitational gradient, the calibration and data reduction process is numerically unstable.” Magnetometers are only useful in determining the magnetic field based on a set standard of magnetization already achieved at that supposed altitude. Who determined the magnetic field at “72” miles? My guess is NASA. wiki: “Magnetometers are measurement instruments used for two general purposes: to measure the magnetization of a magnetic material like a ferromagnet, or to measure the strength and, in some cases, the direction of the magnetic field at a point in space” Pretty sure there is a glass ceiling at 100km. But if not at that height then slightly higher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 15:35:19 GMT
Thanks for the detailed feedback. So, what do you think about the images, were they falsified?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 6, 2015 15:42:35 GMT
Thanks for the detailed feedback. So, what do you think about the images, were they falsified? just looks like wide angle barrel distortion. are you really considering the footage to justify a convex earth?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 6, 2015 15:45:19 GMT
Thanks for the detailed feedback. So, what do you think about the images, were they falsified?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 15:46:47 GMT
Well, if I see an image like that, questions and doubts arise, of course. They were not enough to make me change my mind, but certainly to ask more questions and keep an open mind.
Another thing I was wondering about was where "space" begins (see my first post on this thread), at least according to their theory, and where whatever is sent into "space" stops falling back to earth (otherwise the concept of "reaching space" would not make sense (they say "Second amateur rocket in history to reach space").
Another question is this: if it "reached space" and it stayed there, presumably it was lost. So, how did they get these high-quality images? Transmitted while it was flying?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 6, 2015 15:52:45 GMT
Well, if I see an image like that, questions and doubts arise, of course. They were not enough to make me change my mind, but certainly to ask more questions and keep an open mind. Another thing I was wondering about was where "space" begins (see my first post on this thread), at least according to their theory, and where whatever is sent into "space" stops falling back to earth (otherwise the concept of "reaching space" would not make sense (they say "Second amateur rocket in history to reach space"). well it would be a shame if you are incorrigible and still stubbornly, petulantly adhering to flat earth impossibility. the horizon works like this..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 15:58:58 GMT
Thanks for the detailed feedback.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 6, 2015 17:02:45 GMT
Another thing I was wondering about was where "space" begins (see my first post on this thread), at least according to their theory, and where whatever is sent into "space" stops falling back to earth (otherwise the concept of "reaching space" would not make sense (they say "Second amateur rocket in history to reach space"). Another question is this: if it "reached space" and it stayed there, presumably it was lost. So, how did they get these high-quality images? Transmitted while it was flying? 1. If a rocket travels directly away from the earth then even when it is 100,000 miles up it will quite quickly fall back to the surface. To prevent the rocket falling back to the earth it has to be circling around the earth at enormous speeds The text you included a few posts back talks about this. So if a rocket goes straight up it will quickly fall back to the earth To achieve an orbit the rocket has to travel along the earths surface rather than simply go straight up. 2. I did not see anything in the video that shows the earth is definately round. These small cameras do not have sufficiently good optics to enable a single view to give the necessary information. Even the human eye can create distortions of the same kind as a small camera.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 17:06:32 GMT
Thanks for the detailed feedback.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 6, 2015 17:09:07 GMT
Thanks for the detailed feedback. Please indicate to me that you understand what i am saying or ask me questions rather than give such a response. Elsewhere on flat earth society you said that your response is now your standard for responding to a shill. Please be honest with me and other people. I have absolutely nothing to hide and i am just an ordinary person
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 17:13:18 GMT
I want to avoid further arguments (and read more insults from you). I really meant to thank you for your feedback.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 6, 2015 17:16:19 GMT
I want to avoid further arguments (and read more insults from you). I really meant to thank you for your feedback. It is better to avoid answering me than provide a response that you have indicated elsewhere is an insult.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 6, 2015 17:17:08 GMT
“The official altitude of 72 miles was derived from a high precision 3-axis accelerometer (Crossbow, CXL25LP3) and 3-axis magnetometer (Crossbow, CXM113). Two back-up accelerometers provided additional sources confirming the vehicle exceeded 62 miles. ” Accelerometers are unsuitable to determine high altitudes… That text is referring to the first rocket to reach 'space' in 2004 or 2005. The new record is a little higher. From what i can see the second stage did not work because the first stage is still seen just below the rocket near the end of the video
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 17:19:06 GMT
No, you're the expert on the insults. When I am polite, I am polite. I manage to be polite even with people who insult me, but cannot interact with them for too long. You, on the contrary, manage to disrespect pretty much everyone.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 6, 2015 17:19:50 GMT
No, you're the expert on the insults. When I am polite, I am polite. I manage to be polite even with people who insult me, but cannot interact with them for too long. You, on the contrary, manage to disrespect pretty much everyone. Are you denying you said that text was your method of answering a shill?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 17:25:16 GMT
Stop misrepresenting me. Go ahead and quote what I said with the link, so I can explain it better to you.
At the moment, however, I don't recognize the term "shill" anymore, ever since I was called a "shill" at IFERS. So, since I no longer call people "shills", whatever I said in the past, is no longer valid. People can change their minds.
"Thanks for the feedback" remains however a way to reply politely to people, as it has always been.
I don't have to give any further answers to someone like you, who has disrespected me so much until now. Don't be surprised if I don't choose to "display" your messages, which at the moment appear as "hidden", given that you're on my ignore list.
You're an extremely unpleasant, unfair, and disrespectful person, constantly looking for people to get into arguments with.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 6, 2015 17:32:38 GMT
Stop misrepresenting me. Go ahead and quote what I said with the link, so I can explain it better to you. At the moment, however, I don't recognize the term "shill" anymore, ever since I was called a "shill" at IFERS. So, since I no longer call people "shills", whatever I said in the past, is no longer valid. People can change their minds. "Thanks for the feedback" remains however a way to reply politely to people, as it has always been. I don't have to give any further answers to someone like you, who has disrespected me so much until now. Don't be surprised if I don't choose to "display" your messages, which at the moment appear as "hidden", given that you're on my ignore list. You're an extremely unpleasant, unfair, and disrespectful person, constantly looking for people to get into arguments with. Bullshit There is something about you that i object to. You invited me to this place and refuse to engage in an intelligent conversation with me
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 7, 2015 13:18:59 GMT
“The official altitude of 72 miles was derived from a high precision 3-axis accelerometer (Crossbow, CXL25LP3) and 3-axis magnetometer (Crossbow, CXM113). Two back-up accelerometers provided additional sources confirming the vehicle exceeded 62 miles. ” Accelerometers are unsuitable to determine high altitudes… That text is referring to the first rocket to reach 'space' in 2004 or 2005. The new record is a little higher. From what i can see the second stage did not work because the first stage is still seen just below the rocket near the end of the video yes i know that. my text was copied from a board in which i was responding to the first rocket. but the accelerometer unsuitabilites still apply.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 7, 2015 13:30:29 GMT
That text is referring to the first rocket to reach 'space' in 2004 or 2005. The new record is a little higher. From what i can see the second stage did not work because the first stage is still seen just below the rocket near the end of the video yes i know that. my text was copied from a board in which i was responding to the first rocket. but the accelerometer unsuitabilites still apply. There is almost no information about the second flight but they say military grade accelerometers were used. One of the most interesting things about the amateur rockets is their light weight and huge speed very early in the flight. This flight was claimed to have a 25G acceleration in the initial phase! Light speed based inertial guidance systems however, are sufficiently accurate to enable you to fly for an hour with only a tiny 0.01degree of error. Easily sufficient to prove the earth is round when flying level to the surface where 900kmh creates - 8.1degree of rotation per hour on a convex spherical earth and + 8.1 degrees of rotation on a concave spherical earth. A faster jet like concorde would have degrees of rotation approaching -20 degrees per hour. By the way can you create a video using that information i provided about NZ and the southwest setting midsummer sun? That is impossible on a flat earth. Nothing works for flat earth south of the equator.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 7, 2015 13:33:02 GMT
yes i know that. my text was copied from a board in which i was responding to the first rocket. but the accelerometer unsuitabilites still apply. There is almost no information about the second flight but they say military grade accelerometers were used. One of the most interesting things about the amateur rockets is their light weight and huge speed very early in the flight. This flight was claimed to have a 25G acceleration in the initial phase! Light speed based inertial guidance systems however, are sufficiently accurate to enable you to fly for an hour with only a tiny 0.01degree of error. Easily sufficient to prove the earth is round when flying level to the surface where 900kmh creates - 8.1degree of rotation per hour on a convex spherical earth and + 8.1 degrees of rotation on a concave spherical earth. Not much chance of them getting that confused. it aint convex, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 7, 2015 13:37:04 GMT
There is almost no information about the second flight but they say military grade accelerometers were used. One of the most interesting things about the amateur rockets is their light weight and huge speed very early in the flight. This flight was claimed to have a 25G acceleration in the initial phase! Light speed based inertial guidance systems however, are sufficiently accurate to enable you to fly for an hour with only a tiny 0.01degree of error. Easily sufficient to prove the earth is round when flying level to the surface where 900kmh creates - 8.1degree of rotation per hour on a convex spherical earth and + 8.1 degrees of rotation on a concave spherical earth. Not much chance of them getting that confused. it aint convex, sorry. GPS also shows a round earth. You cannot calculate positions from 3D positions given to you that are 30,000km from the centre of a theoretical round earth where you have to work out the distance to the information transmitter to know your relative position, using speed of light calculations.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 7, 2015 13:41:27 GMT
GPS also shows a round earth. You cannot calculate positions from positions given to you that are 30,000km from the centre of a theoretical round earth. 30,000km? i'm not saying the earth is not round. the geodetic survey in the rectilineaotr show the concave roundness with a projected 25,000 mile circumference. until someone re-conducts that test, with the same amount of scrutiny, and comes up with a convex curvature to it, the assumed curvature remains concave.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 7, 2015 13:48:48 GMT
GPS also shows a round earth. You cannot calculate positions from positions given to you that are 30,000km from the centre of a theoretical round earth. 30,000km? i'm not saying the earth is not round. the geodetic survey in the rectilineaotr show the concave roundness with a projected 25,000 mile circumference. until someone re-conducts that test, with the same amount of scrutiny, and comes up with a convex curvature to it, the assumed curvature remains concave. My distance is a bit out. The 3d positions are given relative to the centre of the earth from an object claimed to be at least 20,000km above the surface. So the distance is I think at least 26,631km. The flat earthers who even consider the problem intelligently claim the receivers are black boxes that nobody can know the contents of If inertial guidance shows concorde was rotating at almost -20 degrees per hour nobody is going to attempt to look at the rectilineator again. Think about it. You will get a far greater following if you have a more understandable view of the world.........billions of people believe the world is round.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 7, 2015 13:55:18 GMT
30,000km? i'm not saying the earth is not round. the geodetic survey in the rectilineaotr show the concave roundness with a projected 25,000 mile circumference. until someone re-conducts that test, with the same amount of scrutiny, and comes up with a convex curvature to it, the assumed curvature remains concave. My distance is a bit out. The 3d positions are given relative to the centre of the earth from an object claimed to be at least 20,000km above the surface. So the distance is I think at least 26,631km. The flat earthers who even consider the problem intelligently claim the receivers are black boxes that nobody can know the contents of If inertial guidance shows concorde was rotating at almost -20 degrees per hour nobody is going to attempt to look at the rectilineator again. Think about it. You will get a far greater following if you have a more understandable view of the world.........billions of people believe the world is round. oh my understanding of the world is quite accurate, and I'm pretty sure my "following" will be the entire population of the earth. The earth shall be filled (as in a container) of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. I just wait for the proper time of my coronation.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 7, 2015 14:40:28 GMT
My distance is a bit out. The 3d positions are given relative to the centre of the earth from an object claimed to be at least 20,000km above the surface. So the distance is I think at least 26,631km. The flat earthers who even consider the problem intelligently claim the receivers are black boxes that nobody can know the contents of If inertial guidance shows concorde was rotating at almost -20 degrees per hour nobody is going to attempt to look at the rectilineator again. Think about it. You will get a far greater following if you have a more understandable view of the world.........billions of people believe the world is round. oh my understanding of the world is quite accurate, and I'm pretty sure my "following" will be the entire population of the earth. The earth shall be filled (as in a container) of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. I just wait for the proper time of my coronation. Oh i thought you just said the earth might be round?
|
|