Cosmology Debate Thread ("Space Is Fake")

MosesTheBlack said:
I’m scared.
Click to expand...
MosesTheBlack said:
Do we want to start playing the take random quotes from the Bible and make all Christian’s look like idiots game that atheists play?

Hold on, you don’t believe in space, you’re proving their points that we have complete imbeciles ‘on our side.’ No wonder why we keep on losing.
Click to expand...

What are you scared about? And what does it mean "to win"?

I wouldn't worry about the atheist's game at this point, all of modern atheism assumes "Christianity-light/aka secularism" and so now their frame of reference is falling apart on its own accord.
 
Northumber said:
What are you scared about? And what does it mean "to win"?

I wouldn't worry about the atheist's game at this point, all of modern atheism assumes "Christianity-light/aka secularism" and so now their frame of reference is falling apart on its own accord.
Click to expand...

I guess you can’t detect sarcasm.
 
Here is a valid question that requires answers: Why do government and scientific documents use the term "flat earth" and "flat non-rotating earth"? Below are 3 examples. There are dozens of others but let's concentrate on these three for now. Seriously, why are they using this terminology? Should we not take them literally and instead interpret them metaphorically even though they're used in modern scientific papers? Also @GodfatherPartTwo, they did not use the term "pancake".


Example 1:
Joseph R. Miletta. Adelphi, MD : U.S. Army Research Laboratory, [2001]
Propagation of Electromagnetic Fields Over Flat Earth

Conclusion
A suite of MATLAB m-files have been developed to calculate the electromagnetic fields produced by a vertical and a horizontal infinitesimal unit dipole over a homogeneous flat (ground) plane. Calculations for the fields above the ground plane have been made for various ground-plane conductivities and relative dielectric constants. The calculations bound the practical range of parameters representative of natural earth terrain.For a frequency of 1.3 GHz, where the dipole and the observer are close to the ground plane (<3 m), significant difference is seen in the magnitude oft he fields from either dipole orientation. The power density on target will be much larger for vertical dipole orientation. The effects of rough terrain, foliage, or scattering from manmade or natural objects in the path from the dipole to target may alter this conclusion. How these other scatterers might affect the field structure at a target at 1.3 GHz is not known at this time. If the effects are random in nature, the present conclusion is most likely still valid. From the simple, smooth, flat ground model, then, one must conclude that vertical polarization (antenna radiating a vertically polarized field) will deliver the most energy to the target. Unless the target’s preference for field orientation for maximum pickup is known, a vertically polarized antenna may in fact be the best choice for a ground weapon system.
Click to expand...


Example 2:
NASA Reference Publication 1207 [1988]
Eugene L. Duke, Robert F. Antoniewicz, and Keith D. Krambeer Ames Research CenterDryden Flight Research Facility Edwards, California
Derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model

From the Introduction on Page 7 of the PDF
This report details the development of the linear model of a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying over a flat, nonrotating earth. This model consists of a state equation and an observation (or measurement) equation. The system equations have been broadly formulated to accommodate a wide variety of applications. The linear state equation is derived from the nonlinear six-degree-of-freedom equations of motion. The linear observation equation is derived from a collection of nonlinear equations representing state variables, time derivatives of state variables, control inputs, and flight path, air data, and other parameters. The linear model is developed about a nominal trajectory that is general.
Click to expand...

Example 3:
Aerostudents.com, Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. Circa [2010]

1.1.2 Making assumptions. In this summary, we want to describe the flight dynamics with equations. This is, however, very difficult. To simplify it a bit, we have to make some simplifying assumptions. We assume that . . .
• There is a flat Earth. (The Earth’s curvature is zero.)
• There is a non-rotating Earth. (No Coriolis accelerations and such are present.)
• The aircraft has constant mass.
• The aircraft is a rigid body.
• The aircraft is symmetric.
• There are no rotating masses, like turbines. (Gyroscopic effects can be ignored.)
• There is constant wind. (So we ignore turbulence and gusts.)
Click to expand...

So are they just teaching with wrong information and wrong assumptions in their Flight Dynamics course but once in the real world, the students and pilots will somehow know to correct what they learned and function properly on a spherical rotating earth as opposed to a flat, non-rotating earth?


Concluding Question - Why is this terminology being used by highly intelligent people in very serious papers where calculations and mathematics are extremely important?
 
Last edited:
MosesTheBlack said:
I guess you can’t detect sarcasm.
Click to expand...

haha, no. That is an issue with this mode of communication.

Anyways, looking into flat earth questions doesn't really bother me. I find all the experiments (current and historical) interesting.

I also think we have lost quite a bit in terms of insight about reality that the ancient cosmological frame would have given people (and Christians) in the past.
 
MosesTheBlack said:
Ok, where is your evidence that interpreting it literally is what the Orthodox Church teaches? Because it doesn’t. It’s not the same as Christian fundamentalists.
Click to expand...
I couldn't care less what the Orthodox Church teaches but I doubt they would agree with you that Genesis is "outdated."

You should always be interpreting the Bible literally, that is not the same thing as interpreting it literalistically, which is the error of the Flat Earthers.

There is nothing in the Biblical text that forces one into believing the Flat Earth psy-op. That is part of the false-dialectic. The other side to that is "Science has proven the Bible is outdated." Neither of those are true.
 
Last edited:
GuitarVH said:
Concluding Question - Why is this terminology being used by highly intelligent people in very serious papers where calculations and mathematics are extremely important?
Click to expand...
It says so right in the paper you quoted: "In this summary, we want to describe the flight dynamics with equations. This is, however, very difficult. To simplify it a bit, we have to make some simplifying assumptions. We assume that..."
 
GuitarVH said:
Here is a valid question
Click to expand...

No it’s not.

GuitarVH said:
that requires answers:
Click to expand...

Requires answer huh? Sounds pretty strong . And who are you? Oh yeah a completely uneducated rando on the internet spouting gibberish.

GuitarVH said:
Why do government and scientific documents use the term "flat earth" and "flat non-rotating earth"?
Click to expand...

Because if you’ve ever taken any sort of math or physics course (which you probably haven’t) researchers will make certain assumptions that simplify their equations and calculations.
 
scorpion said:
It says so right in the paper you quoted: "In this summary, we want to describe the flight dynamics with equations. This is, however, very difficult. To simplify it a bit, we have to make some simplifying assumptions. We assume that..."
Click to expand...

So in a 3rd year advanced course in flight dynamics, they are learning inaccurate information because curvature calculations would be too advanced and difficult to do? When will they learn equations that work in the real world as aeronautical engineers? Is it possible that the information they're learning is sufficient and works already in the real world?

This terminology is used frequently as mentioned in my post, including the other two examples and many other papers.
 
MosesTheBlack said:
No it’s not.



Requires answer huh? Sounds pretty strong . And who are you? Oh yeah a completely uneducated rando on the internet spouting gibberish.



Because if you’ve ever taken any sort of math or physics course (which you probably haven’t) researchers will make certain assumptions that simplify their equations and calculations.
Click to expand...

Get lost.
 
GuitarVH said:
So in a 3rd year advanced course in flight dynamics, they are learning inaccurate information because curvature calculations would be too advanced and difficult to do? When will they learn equations that work in the real world as aeronautical engineers? Is it possible that the information they're learning is sufficient and works already in the real world?

This terminology is used frequently as mentioned in my post, including the other two examples and many other papers.
Click to expand...

Ok smart guy. The earth is flat huh. So go create your own set of rockets based on that knowledge. You’ll be a billionaire in no time, even challenging Musk and SpaceX!

You can be the richest man in the world! All that money would sure help the world’s poor wouldn’t it?

Oh wait there’s no space to use them huh… then what about just the sky?

So you and your flat earth friends get to it!

We’re all waiting.
 
MosesTheBlack said:
Ok smart guy. The earth is flat huh. So go create your own set of rockets based on that knowledge. You’ll be a billionaire in no time, even challenging Musk and SpaceX!

You can be the richest man in the world! All that money would sure help the world’s poor wouldn’t it?

Oh wait there’s no space to use them huh… then what about just the sky?

So you and your flat earth friends get to it!

We’re all waiting.
Click to expand...
Dude.

You need to tone it down now or you're going to get banned.

I agree that space is not fake, but you're acting like a pissant in your tone to members here... Everyone is good with a little trenchant speech but you're coming off rather caustically

Edited to add.

I doubt very seriously your priest would approve of the way you're communicating here.
 
Get2choppaaa said:
Dude.

You need to tone it down now or you're going to get banned.

I agree that space is not fake, but you're acting like a pissant in your tone to members here... Everyone is good with a little trenchant speech but you're coming off rather caustically

Edited to add.

I doubt very seriously your priest would approve of the way you're communicating here.
Click to expand...

You’re right and he wouldn’t. I don’t mind coming off caustically in threads like this that are based on pure nonsense. But I agree the better course of action would just be my first instinct which was just to put these guys on ignore.
 
GuitarVH said:
So in a 3rd year advanced course in flight dynamics, they are learning inaccurate information because curvature calculations would be too advanced and difficult to do? When will they learn equations that work in the real world as aeronautical engineers? Is it possible that the information they're learning is sufficient and works already in the real world?

This terminology is used frequently as mentioned in my post, including the other two examples and many other papers.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's not uncommon in many physics and engineering calculations, especially given the context of that particular paper. Look at the full list of assumptions they made:

• There is a flat Earth. (The Earth’s curvature is zero.)
• There is a non-rotating Earth. (No Coriolis accelerations and such are present.)
• The aircraft has constant mass.
• The aircraft is a rigid body.
• The aircraft is symmetric.
• There are no rotating masses, like turbines. (Gyroscopic effects can be ignored.)
• There is constant wind. (So we ignore turbulence and gusts.)
Click to expand...

None of these assumptions can be taken for granted if you are going for 100% real world accuracy, but they aren't in this example. They are going for developing an understanding of basic flight dynamics. Once the basics are understood, you start adding in variables and removing the initial simplifying assumptions.

The fact that you seem to have searched a database of scientific papers for the term "flat earth" and just posted what you came up with (completely out of context) as evidence supporting your theory is ridiculous and reveals a total lack of credibility. Are we truly to believe this is the best evidence you can present for this argument?
 
GuitarVH said:
Here is a valid question that requires answers: Why do government and scientific documents use the term "flat earth" and "flat non-rotating earth"? Below are 3 examples. There are dozens of others but let's concentrate on these three for now. Seriously, why are they using this terminology? Should we not take them literally and instead interpret them metaphorically even though they're used in modern scientific papers? Also @GodfatherPartTwo, they did not use the term "pancake".


Example 1:
Joseph R. Miletta. Adelphi, MD : U.S. Army Research Laboratory, [2001]
Propagation of Electromagnetic Fields Over Flat Earth

Conclusion



Example 2:
NASA Reference Publication 1207 [1988]
Eugene L. Duke, Robert F. Antoniewicz, and Keith D. Krambeer Ames Research CenterDryden Flight Research Facility Edwards, California
Derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model

From the Introduction on Page 7 of the PDF


Example 3:
Aerostudents.com, Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. Circa [2010]



So are they just teaching with wrong information and wrong assumptions in their Flight Dynamics course but once in the real world, the students and pilots will somehow know to correct what they learned and function properly on a spherical rotating earth as opposed to a flat, non-rotating earth?


Concluding Question - Why is this terminology being used by highly intelligent people in very serious papers where calculations and mathematics are extremely important?
Click to expand...
For local flight conditions, a flat earth mathematical model can be used for aeronautical calculations such as air flow over a wing. Aeronautical engineering and pilot training definitely take the spherical shape of the Earth into account, including the use of great circle flight path calculations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top