It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Lied. Plain. Simple. Proof. UPDATED! New Earth Distance.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
this is an article i wrote disproving science and existance of planets

it is currently uploaded at 2 places.

check out either of the links below.

http:///f1bca4e76

www.scribd.com...

please note: when i speak of surface area, i mean that of a picture of a sphere, wich is in fact a circle.

i send my apologies, the weight of telescope owners, out weighs my theory of no planets.

my main reason for thinking planets were fake are that when i look at a picture of what appears to be outer space or a planet, even earth. it appears fake. it just coincides that i debunked their calculations about planets.

Note: If Your A Mod, Please Delete Thread Located At

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It Is Outdated.




posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Couldn't you have just added this to the thread that you'd already started? Seriously.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Didnt you post this on your original thread when you claimed that god is the moon?



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by altered_states
Didnt you post this on your original thread when you claimed that god is the moon?


Calling a concrete object like a moon "God" is idolatry and punishable by eternal damnation!

The Sun is the masculine gender principle, the Moon on the other hand is the feminine. Let's get that clear.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by hey_amigo
 


It's true NASA lies and it's true NASA airbrushes.

As for the rest of your claims I would recommend you read a book called

Dark Mission by Richard C. Hoagland if you haven't already.

This will give you a bigger picture and perhaps clear a few things up for you about the moon and what NASA is really all about.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by altered_states
Didnt you post this on your original thread when you claimed that god is the moon?


Calling a concrete object like a moon "God" is idolatry and punishable by eternal damnation!

The Sun is the masculine gender principle, the Moon on the other hand is the feminine. Let's get that clear.


aww damn I was REALLY starting to believe it aswel



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by hey_amigo
 


What is different about this thread from the other one?



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   
WTH? This is exactly what you posted on your first thread when, at the end, you stated that you now do believe there ARE planets.

Now you want to post ANOTHER thread of the same damn thing again, copy&paste no less, with the same links, same disposition, and have the other thread deleted?

Yet in this post you again restate your position that telescope owners have caused you to re-evaluate your position, but you are still saying there are no planets?

Did I say WTH yet?



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
You're still wrong. We know you mean the circular disc we see of the sun when you calculate the area. You're dead wrong to divide that by two, saying

"lets calculate the surface of half the sun. because in the Venus transit we could only see one side of the sun."

That's wrong. We see a whole circle, with the sun's radius as it's radius. You have no reason to divide by 2 here at all.

In fact, you keep making this mistake all through your paper, as if, for some reason, you assume the 2d equation for the area of a circle yields the area of both sides of a 3d circle in a 3d space. it doesn't. It yields the area of the ONLY side of a circle in a 2d plane. Your math, and paper is worthless until you correct this 6th grade error.

I'm not even going to bother reading it any farther, since all the numbers you go into deeper analysis with are wrong because of this.








EDIT: And to that other guy from the old thread, who believed that the planets are real, but, like, chilling in the upper earth's atmosphere for some reason, try this:

Assuming you assume the earth isn't flat, arrange to have two observatories separated by at least a few miles observe the azimuth angle and elevation to the planet of your choice at the same time on the same day.

Heck, no need for observatories, have two amateur astronomers do it. I'm sure you can find some. The difference between how you think it works, and how most people think it works is many orders of magnitude, so you don't exactly need the Hubble for this.

Get the results, do the math, factoring in the curvature of the earth and the altitude of the observatories, all simple 8th grade trig, and solve for how far away the planets are. If you're right, the parallax should be insane.

I'd bet you every cent I have to my name that you're wrong though. Fully thought through, the universe as you envision it doesn't make any sense.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by mdiinican]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
You're still wrong. We know you mean the circular disc we see of the sun when you calculate the area. You're dead wrong to divide that by two, saying

"lets calculate the surface of half the sun. because in the Venus transit we could only see one side of the sun."

That's wrong. We see a whole circle, with the sun's radius as it's radius. You have no reason to divide by 2 here at all.

In fact, you keep making this mistake all through your paper, as if, for some reason, you assume the 2d equation for the area of a circle yields the area of both sides of a 3d circle in a 3d space. it doesn't. It yields the area of the ONLY side of a circle in a 2d plane. Your math, and paper is worthless until you correct this 6th grade error.

I'm not even going to bother reading it any farther, since all the numbers you go into deeper analysis with are wrong because of this.








EDIT: And to that other guy from the old thread, who believed that the planets are real, but, like, chilling in the upper earth's atmosphere for some reason, try this:

Assuming you assume the earth isn't flat, arrange to have two observatories separated by at least a few miles observe the azimuth angle and elevation to the planet of your choice at the same time on the same day.

Heck, no need for observatories, have two amateur astronomers do it. I'm sure you can find some. The difference between how you think it works, and how most people think it works is many orders of magnitude, so you don't exactly need the Hubble for this.

Get the results, do the math, factoring in the curvature of the earth and the altitude of the observatories, all simple 8th grade trig, and solve for how far away the planets are. If you're right, the parallax should be insane.

I'd bet you every cent I have to my name that you're wrong though. Fully thought through, the universe as you envision it doesn't make any sense.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by mdiinican]


i did not divide by two, if your refering to "^2" thats exponent 2.
i said half the sun, because im calculating the surface area of a circle, when we look at the sun or a planet its 2 dimensional. im not calculating the surface area of the sphere and dividing it by 2



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by altered_states
reply to post by hey_amigo
 


What is different about this thread from the other one?


this thread is updated, i took back my crazyness about god being the moon. i apologized about the fact planets are not real. and i calculated the REAL distance of the earth from the sun at the end of the paper, i bet you never read, cause if you did you know know the difference of the two.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   


please note: when i speak of surface area, i mean that of a picture of a sphere, wich is in fact a circle.

i send my apologies, the weight of telescope owners, out weighs my theory of no planets.

my main reason for thinking planets were fake are that when i look at a picture of what appears to be outer space or a planet, even earth. it appears fake. it just coincides that i debunked their calculations about planets.

ok so what do you want to say today.And circle and sphere arent the same.


[edit on 17-8-2008 by peacejet]

[edit on 17-8-2008 by peacejet]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hey_amigo

Originally posted by altered_states
reply to post by hey_amigo
 


What is different about this thread from the other one?


this thread is updated, i took back my crazyness about god being the moon. i apologized about the fact planets are not real. and i calculated the REAL distance of the earth from the sun at the end of the paper, i bet you never read, cause if you did you know know the difference of the two.


well thankyou hey amigo for realising this, to be honest I thought it was hilarious but I was still a bit worried that you were actually serious but never mind thats gone but not forgotten
at least you have the balls to admit



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Is this not point scoring in the extreme !!!!! how many threads do you intend debating this issue on? There are some realy important topics in here and your thread is taking up their space.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by hey_amigo
i did not divide by two, if your refering to "^2" thats exponent 2.
i said half the sun, because im calculating the surface area of a circle, when we look at the sun or a planet its 2 dimensional. im not calculating the surface area of the sphere and dividing it by 2


Oh, I see what you're doing there. I thought you meant that you were calculating the cross sectional area of the sun, the way you did, and then divided that in two because we can only see one side. which would be stupid. But you're just calculating the cross sectional area. and describing it as something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

Seriously, you're quite difficult to parse.


Anyway, I'm quite sure you're wrong, since, doing the math myself, I find that, using your own numbers, assuming that for the moon to appear exactly the same size as the sun in the sky, which it nearly does, since it's a pretty good match during eclipses, the moon would be about 386,529 kilometers away. NASA says that at any given time it lies between 363,104 km and 405,696 km away, due to the elliptic orbit of the moon.

Putting my calculated rough value right smack in the middle, using your own numbers. That means that the the moon and the sun, at least, could be exactly where NASA says they are.

by my calculations, using your numbers, Venus would appear to be about 32 times smaller than the sun in the sky. Using the apparent angular sizes from Wikipedia Venus should appear to be about 35 times smaller than the sun. This also corresponds pretty well


As far as I can tell, you've got your numbers all mixed up and backwards, beyond any mortal untangling, and you're calculating the apparent cross sectional areas of the planets for no good reason at all. Just compare the radii. It's much harder to make mistakes that way.

Looks to me like you're going about all the math the wrong way, getting a meaningless answer because you used the wrong equations, and then saying that NASA lied. all the calculations I do work out just fine with both NASA's numbers and the physical reality of the situation.

EDIT: my calculations for Venus are for when it's between the earth and the sun

[edit on 17-8-2008 by mdiinican]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by altered_states
Didnt you post this on your original thread when you claimed that god is the moon?


Calling a concrete object like a moon "God" is idolatry and punishable by eternal damnation!

The Sun is the masculine gender principle, the Moon on the other hand is the feminine. Let's get that clear.



I would just like to thank EnlightenUp for being man enough to speak some reason in this godforsaken thread.

Thank you.

-v



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I think that at no point was it questionable if planets exist or not? I think to come to that conclusion in the first place you must have been very narrow minded. We're on a planet in the solar system. The Moon...exists..... and even the Vatican has its own Observatory and is one of the oldest institutions into Astronomical Research, so if they are trying to prove Gods existance, why would they play along with NASA and agree that planets exist even when they don't?

All The Best
Alex



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican

Oh, I see what you're doing there. I thought you meant that you were calculating the cross sectional area of the sun, the way you did, and then divided that in two because we can only see one side. which would be stupid. But you're just calculating the cross sectional area. and describing it as something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

Seriously, you're quite difficult to parse.


Anyway, I'm quite sure you're wrong, since, doing the math myself, I find that, using your own numbers, assuming that for the moon to appear exactly the same size as the sun in the sky, which it nearly does, since it's a pretty good match during eclipses, the moon would be about 386,529 kilometers away. NASA says that at any given time it lies between 363,104 km and 405,696 km away, due to the elliptic orbit of the moon.

Putting my calculated rough value right smack in the middle, using your own numbers. That means that the the moon and the sun, at least, could be exactly where NASA says they are.

by my calculations, using your numbers, Venus would appear to be about 32 times smaller than the sun in the sky. Using the apparent angular sizes from Wikipedia Venus should appear to be about 35 times smaller than the sun. This also corresponds pretty well


As far as I can tell, you've got your numbers all mixed up and backwards, beyond any mortal untangling, and you're calculating the apparent cross sectional areas of the planets for no good reason at all. Just compare the radii. It's much harder to make mistakes that way.

Looks to me like you're going about all the math the wrong way, getting a meaningless answer because you used the wrong equations, and then saying that NASA lied. all the calculations I do work out just fine with both NASA's numbers and the physical reality of the situation.

EDIT: my calculations for Venus are for when it's between the earth and the sun

[edit on 17-8-2008 by mdiinican]


my calculations are not wrong, and its not cross sectional.
i think we can both agree that if you stick a pin straight through a sphere from one side to the other, passing through the center point, it would be the diameter. in a photograph of a sphere (circle) the left most and right most, passing through a center point, is the same diameter as the one of the sphere. when i calculate the surface area of this "giant photograph" it is still using the same radius as the sphere. because the radius i used to begin with is that of the sphere. basicly the surface area of this circle (photograph, 2d view from here) is the same wether the sphere is or isnt cut in half.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
You see... posts like this make me rethink democracy and lean to a system of merit... like starship troopers, where you have to prove yourself to get a vote.

because, the fact that this is thought of seriously... well it scares the heck out of me that some people have responsabilities of anykind like voting given the obvious reality that... there are alot of seriously goofy folk out there.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Seriously goofy folk out there and with voting rights no doubt lol! You get a star for my second laugh of the day. Thanks much mopusvindictus! Now I will wipe the tears from my cheek and stop laughing enough to hit the reply button.


Vance



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join