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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
lol, i'm serious... I get real caught up in human rights and...I'm a decent guy...

But it just occoured to me when I read this that... people are being elected in part thanks to the votes of other people who... apparently seriously believe that G-d is the Moon, there are no planets and... who knows what else...

I'm laughing too but really it's a reflex reaction to cope with utter spine chilling fear



I already feel really bad that Bush got elected in part because I wouldn't vote for Kerry because... I didn't like the shape of his head

I can't imagine the criteria that a guy that thinks G-d is the Moon uses when he gets into the voting booth...

"I'm against Nasa because the rocket might land on Christs Balls and really piss him off"


You know, this is the sort of post that makes people pass legislation against home schooling...




posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
i dont vote, i am not american.

so dont try to guilt trip me.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   
i appluad the OP for changing his view based on overwhelming evidence presented by the ATS members.

This type of humility is what we need more of at ATS.

Bravo for admitting your wrong. It takes a real man/woman to do that.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
just wondering but..... NASA lied?

I mean there were bunch of people who noticed something bright in the sky (sun) far far before they even thought about NASA.

Oh let me guess, devil helped the stone-age men to create the techology and an secret society so they could fool their son's daughter's son's son's son's son's son's daughter's son to not believe in God.

I would make such an great christian



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
he believe in god but not in planets?

sense ?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
If anything said to exist in space was lied about since discovery of outer space in the 1400's; it would be the hugest conspiracy of ALL TIME because they kept the secret for hundreds of years.

That's all I've got to say.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   
First of all, bare with me for my english writing skills are not good at all.

Here it gows:

I am amazed to see that everyone on this new thread and also the old one is bashing this guy without offering some counterproof to his theory. I know that for some it may be quite obvious that planets do exist as it is for me, but this guy tried to figure out if NASA is telling us the truth and made the calculations to prove it right or wrong. That should be encouraged since NASA isn't exactly trustworthy.

Now to hey_amigo, sometimes when your calculations are so different then the rest of the world's, it may not mean that the whole world is lying to you. I've read your calculations and from what I understood you imagined all the "heavenlly bodies" (sun, earth, moon, mercury) side by side and calculated its proportional sizes (area of the body seen from earth) to eath other. Thats ok (I think), you stated that Mercury is 81 268.3451 smaller(visually from earth if they were side by side) then the SUN.

So, here is your flaud assumption:


at 2 439.7 (touching the sun, because thats the distance of mercury's radius) mercury appears
0.0012% the size of the sun.



Acctually at 2 437.7 the surface of Mercury would not touch sun's surface, but it's center. So in order for Mercury's surface to touch the sun's surface you would have to count in 2 437.7 + SUN's radius, because you may be comparing 2d sizes of these bodies, but when you calculate its distances from us you must consider 3 dimensons. Aftrer all the universe(visible universe) is 3 dimensional.

Even considering the Sun's diameter you will not have an accurrate size ratio difference. I did not calculate it myself, but it should make much more sense now.

I had the trouble to write you this because it seemed that this mistake shook your entire belief system, and maybe you can see this mistake as well so you can get back to earth.



Peace to us all.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MorfeuZ
 


I had assumed there was a simple error in his calculations because even though his numbers seemed to add up, the answer was clearly wrong. One of my best math teachers told me that if my result didn't make sense that there was something wrong with my math. I started looking for the error here but couldn't find it, yet I knew the results had to be incorrect. I didn't look hard enough.

Nice work MorfeuZ. You've given us all a demonstration of how a very simple incorrect assumption can lead to a very, very bad conclusion. This is a mistake that is easy to make. Science and math really do work!

Did you work the correct calculations to the end? I'm too tired and lazy right now.


[edit on 19-8-2008 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Actually I didn't even calculated it, I was too lazy too. hehehe
I have just read through his math, it took me a while to understand his logic, but when I understood what he was trying to do I saw it. Actually, when I first started reading his math I saw calculations of 1D ratio followed by 2D ratios. That alone led me to think he was missing something in his calculaitons since you cannot mix 1D with 2D and expect correct results. Even though after reading to the DISTANCE point there was no 1D & 2D mixes in his text.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   
I also read through the beginning of the paper and saw the 2d calculations begin, which immediately discredited the information in the paper for me initially. I will sit down tomorrow (today?) and work out the math that you are doing and see how valid it is. I have had to go through Calc 2 and Differential Equations in University for my degree, and can hopefully shed some light on why this math looks so "funky".

For now though, I am going to say that I cannot prove or disprove his claims, how ever earth shattering they may be.

Just remember that at some point people were telling the same things to the guy running around saying "The World Is Not Flat!".

I'll repost sometime tommorow or Wednesday with what I find.


-xmad



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   
I think his math is wrong, because when I use his numbers to do the kind of calculations that make sense to me, my numbers work out exactly the same as the rest of the world's.

To save work, I used simple trig to find the distance of the moon that would give it the same angular size as the sun, and then used simple trig again to find out mercury's apparent angular size vs the sun.

frankly, I don't know what the OP is doing with his math, but it doesn't seem logical to me. He introduces so many unnecessary steps that I have to assume that he screwed up somewhere.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Actually after re-reviewing his "math" I have to agree that this guy is coocoo.

I did not read properly before. Adding the sun's radius would do nothing.

I will stick with the distance of Sun and Mercury here as it seems to be the same logic over and over.

He makes a lot of calculatios and ratios for nothing. He reaches the point that he throws away everything(except the SUNMercury diference in size) he has done so far and comes with this:


now lets find out how many times it would have grown at 69 800 000 km.

69 800 000
/ ---------- = 28610.0750 times.
2 439.7

this means that it would be roughly 28610/81268'th of the sun at 69 800 000 km.
lets find the percentage of the size of the sun it would appear at this distance.


This was (mercury's distance from the sun) / (radius of mercury) equals to 28,610.0750. This is how many half-mercuries would fit in between mercury and the sun, not how much it would visually grow at 69800000km. Where did u get this?

Secondlly he makes this:

28 610 x 35
------ = --- = ---
81 268 100 100

at 69 800 000 km, mercury should appear 35% of the sun.


That means he is dividing "how many times it would have grown at 69 800 000 km."(wich in fact it is not) by the difference in size between sun and mercury. How can this calculation provide you that mercury should be seen as 35% the sie of the sun? This makes no sense at all.

Your logic is what is BOGUS!



new topics




 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join