the myth of flat earth debunked again

[pgp_protector]

Indeed. The word cited from Strong's concordance cannot even be remotely pronounced as NASA.

(N.b., The guy Dan McClellan is responding to uses a "bad" word.)

Also isn't Hebrew written right to left vs left to right?
so it would have to be "asan" ?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Also isn't Hebrew written right to left vs left to right?
so it would have to be "asan" ?

1) Yes.
2) I don't know. But, we can write Hebrew left to right to help western minds comprehend how to say it.

 

[contratodo]

NASA is not a hebrew word. It is an initialism of four *English* words: National. Aeronautic. and Space. Administration. It is spelled with all capital letters NASA, though commonly spoken as if a word rather than reading out the initials: N. A. S. A.

Ok, that does not change the fact that the page linked is a clear deception, tracking the clock of your computer and not any 'satellite'.
They practice deception, 'to deceive' H5377 - nāšā' - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

The transliteration is 'nasa' it is pronounced in Hebrew "naw shaw". But we can see the English letters used in the transliteration are indeed 'n a s a'.
And anyone can view the supposed tracker website for themselves, change their clock and see that it is just tracking based on their clock not any satellite. They practice deception and the letters happen to be the transliteration letters of the Hebrew phrase 'to deceive'.

 

[contratodo]

@contratodo Why did you claim that the limit of human sight is three miles, which lines up perfectly with the distance of a horizon as seen by a ground level observer on a globe earth?

The straight ahead vanishing point is about three miles, the atmosphere often dims our view. If nothing is in the way we can see farther, as with looking up toward the sky. But we still experience a vanishing point effect no matter where we are looking.

If we were on a globe, the horizon line should get very noticeably lower as we increase in altitude.
What we experience however is a horizon line that remains generally eye level at all altitudes.

 

[contratodo]

Those who know real (actual) science
are aware that science does not deal in proof.

Science:

the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation

Airy's experiment failed to prove that the earth is moving, and shows that the earth is stationary.

 

[Ophiolite]

Science:

the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation

You posted this to counter @Estrid's observation that science does not deal in proof. Perhaps you did not notice that none of your definitions make any reference to proof. Thank you for confirming Estrid's observation, though no confirmation was necessary.

Note: it is normal practice, complying with legal standards, forum rules and common courtesy, to note the source of material you copy, Of course, if these are your own definitions then I am curious as to why you did not include "proof" within them.

 

[prodromos]

If we were on a globe, the horizon line should get very noticeably lower as we increase in altitude.

This is indeed what we observe, as we have posted previously, although it is not, "very noticeably lower" nor should it be on a globe.

What we experience however is a horizon line that remains generally eye level at all altitudes.

This is the false claim you keep repeating. You have not provided any photographs with any kind of instrument to demonstrate eye level. All you give is your subjective, and provably wrong, opinion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The straight ahead vanishing point is about three miles, the atmosphere often dims our view. If nothing is in the way we can see farther, as with looking up toward the sky. But we still experience a vanishing point effect no matter where we are looking.

If we were on a globe, the horizon line should get very noticeably lower as we increase in altitude.
What we experience however is a horizon line that remains generally eye level at all altitudes.

And it's amazing that both of what you claim we should see... is exactly what we see!
Minus the horizon always being at eye level which makes zero sense.

 

[prodromos]

The straight ahead vanishing point is about three miles, the atmosphere often dims our view. If nothing is in the way we can see farther, as with looking up toward the sky. But we still experience a vanishing point effect no matter where we are looking.

We can see distant mountains which are many times more than three miles away, but strangely enough, we can only see the tops of those mountain ranges, almost as if the bottom of the mountain range is hidden by the curvature of the earth.

Oh wait, that's exactly why we can only see the top of the mountain range. Your "vanishing point" theory is very selective in that it only causes the bottom of distant objects to disappear.

 

[prodromos]

That website you gave [ Voyager - Mission Status ] does not even have good programming,
it is just hooked into your computer clock not any actual time keeping.

They have made a not unreasonable assumption that people have their computer set to the right time and date. However, you have pointed out that they have allowed for the flexibility of calculating where the probes were, at a particular date and time, and presumably can also predict where they will be at a future date and time, if you so desire. It seems more like it is a feature than a bug.

You can see so for yourself by changing the time on your computer and then refreshing that page, it will give different results,
here are images of me doing it. It is not sincerely tracking anything, it is a webpage with cartoon animations on it, syncing with your computers clock not a satellite.

Obviously it is calculating the locations of the probes based on their trajectory and velocity.

I could do a better job myself

I sincerely doubt that. There is some impressive programming behind that webpage.

having it time sync to a time coming from a central server, they did not even do that

As noted above, it is a feature, not a deficiency

the page is designed to fool the dumbed down masses.

Your opinion is not worth a hill of beans

The page is complete b.s. Nasa is an agency of deception.

There is certainly complete b.s. above, but it isn't the NASA webpage

 

[Estrid]

Science:

the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation

Science does not deal with proof.

Anyone unaware of that most basic concept is in
a very poor position to offer science lessons.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What we experience however is a horizon line that remains generally eye level at all altitudes.

You can't 'notice' that the horizon is eye level. How does it look in a theodolite or some other surveying tool for measuring angles with respect to the perpendicular?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok, that does not change the fact that the page linked is a clear deception, tracking the clock of your computer and not any 'satellite'.
They practice deception, 'to deceive' H5377 - nāšā' - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

The transliteration is 'nasa' it is pronounced in Hebrew "naw shaw". But we can see the English letters used in the transliteration are indeed 'n a s a'.
And anyone can view the supposed tracker website for themselves, change their clock and see that it is just tracking based on their clock not any satellite. They practice deception and the letters happen to be the transliteration letters of the Hebrew phrase 'to deceive'.

Good grief!

The web page uses a script that takes your clock time in UTC and computes the current distance from a projection of recent measurements of distance and velocity. It's not as if NASA is getting a new distance every second or so from Voyager. For Pete's sake it takes many *hours* for a signal to travel to and from Voyager.

 

[Bradskii]

Good grief!

The web page uses a script that takes your clock time in UTC and computes the current distance from a projection of recent measurements of distance and velocity. It's not as if NASA is getting a new distance every second or so from Voyager. For Pete's sake it takes many *hours* for a signal to travel to and from Voyager.

From here: Voyager 1 transmitting data again after Nasa remotely fixes 46-year-old probe

'Earth’s most distant spacecraft, Voyager 1, has started communicating properly again with Nasa after engineers worked for months to remotely fix the 46-year-old probe.

Voyager 1 crossed into interstellar space in August 2012, making it the first human-made object to venture out of the solar system. It is currently travelling at 37,800mph (60,821km/h).

The fix was transmitted from Earth on 18 April but it took two days to assess if it had been successful as a radio signal takes about 22 and a half hours to reach Voyager 1 and another 22 and a half hours for a response to come back to Earth.

 

[contratodo]

Obviously it is calculating the locations of the probes based on their trajectory and velocity.

It is not, all calculations are based off the time, that it is why it is in bold at the top of the calculations.
The miles and everything change when the time changes, the time changes if you change the time on your computer.
The page tracks your computers clock not anything else.

The web page uses a script that takes your clock time in UTC and computes the current distance from a projection of recent measurements of distance and velocity. It's not as if NASA is getting a new distance every second or so from Voyager. For Pete's sake it takes many *hours* for a signal to travel to and from Voyager.

It does not matter how many hours it takes, once they get the data the page could easily be set to that data and simply show how long it would be till they get new data, so the page would simply show the last set of data. Instead it shows data in direct relation to whatever the users computer clock is set to, and all the data changes if the user changes their computer clock.

The fix was transmitted from Earth on 18 April but it took two days to assess if it had been successful as a radio signal takes about 22 and a half hours to reach Voyager 1 and another 22 and a half hours for a response to come back to Earth.

My post showing that it is simply tracking the users' computer clock was on April 22nd.

The Mission Elapsed time should not change with my computer clock, but it does.
The miles and everything change if one just changes their computer clock and refresh the page.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is not, all calculations are based off the time, that it is why it is in bold at the top of the calculations.
The miles and everything change when the time changes, the time changes if you change the time on your computer.
The page tracks your computers clock not anything else.

The web page shows a *model* of the flight path of Voyager it is based on all of the past observations and telemetry data.

It does not matter how many hours it takes, once they get the data the page could easily be set to that data and simply show how long it would be till they get new data, so the page would simply show the last set of data. Instead it shows data in direct relation to whatever the users computer clock is set to, and all the data changes if the user changes their computer clock.

There is no "data" on your computer. IT IS A MODEL. The forces on Voyager (mostly gravity) are well known and simple predictions of the future flight (for the next week or so) can be made based on them. Slight deviations measured by future telemetry will be used by NASA to correct the model and this is exactly how they measure the forces on V'ger.

Voyager is so far away that the delay time absolutely matters in even defining what you mean by "where is Voyager now?". Are we talking about the "now" from which the signal from the spacecraft will take 22+ hours to get here? Are we talking about the "now" of the signal that just got here and where the spacecraft was when it was emitted? I don't know what conventions NASA uses for celestial navigation, but it is not trivial. (The Earth has also moved in the 22 hours for the signal travel time.)

My post showing that it is simply tracking the users' computer clock was on April 22nd.

The Mission Elapsed time should not change with my computer clock, but it does.
The miles and everything change if one just changes their computer clock and refresh the page.

Mission Elapsed time is *CALCULTED* by subtracting the launch time from the current time: duration = now - launch. If you change what "now" is by resetting your clock then OF COURSE the displayed time will change. Your computer and that app have not been running continuously since the mid-70s.

 

[contratodo]

I sincerely doubt that. There is some impressive programming behind that webpage.

https://codepen.io/Contrapenner/pen/gOyyjVN

There you go, I made an imaginary moon tracker, with animations and all, the moon being tracked is 2051 trillion imaginary light years away
and its imaginary orbit started on April 29th 2024 at 9:09 central time. Notice however that the track of the orbit itself around its earth is tracked based on the moons movement itself idependant of time.

If I had access to the server, the variable you see in the code as "now" could come from the server.
And in that case the time would be from the server and it would not matter what the users time clock is.

Because it is coming from JavaScript, the users web browser, the Date Object of the browser,
it therefore changes based on what the users clock is, a user can set their clock to before April 29th and have a strange result,
negative numbers. The same is true for the Nasa page, they are simply using the Date Object of the browser,
it is not really any advanced programming at all, and it is not really tracking anything at all.

 

[contratodo]

"now" is by resetting your clock then OF COURSE the displayed time will change.

Which it is easy to not do so with a server keeping the actual time of the launch, I have showed with code above, how the Nasa page is working.
It is not actually tracking anything, and is using basic browser code, when it could be using proper server code to at least keep track of a constant time. And also not just the time changes, all of the values change, the miles the thing has supposedly traveled changes! Why would that not be constant? Why does that change with my clock? Because the page is just a gimmick, the same as I just programmed real fast to show you all.

 

[Ophiolite]

Which it is easy to not do so with a server keeping the actual time of the launch, I have showed with code above, how the Nasa page is working.
It is not actually tracking anything, and is using basic browser code, when it could be using proper server code to at least keep track of a constant time. And also not just the time changes, all of the values change, the miles the thing has supposedly traveled changes! Why would that not be constant? Why does that change with my clock? Because the page is just a gimmick, the same as I just programmed real fast to show you all.

For reason given here:

Mission Elapsed time is *CALCULTED* by subtracting the launch time from the current time: duration = now - launch. If you change what "now" is by resetting your clock then OF COURSE the displayed time will change. Your computer and that app have not been running continuously since the mid-70s.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which it is easy to not do so with a server keeping the actual time of the launch, I have showed with code above, how the Nasa page is working.
It is not actually tracking anything, and is using basic browser code, when it could be using proper server code to at least keep track of a constant time. And also not just the time changes, all of the values change, the miles the thing has supposedly traveled changes! Why would that not be constant? Why does that change with my clock? Because the page is just a gimmick, the same as I just programmed real fast to show you all.

You don't need a server to keep track of when the launch was. It is a simple fact:

Voyager 1 launch: September 5, 1977, 12:56:00 UTC