Posted on 09/14/2018 5:31:16 PM PDT by LibWhacker
Sabotage aboard the International Space Station? MORE evidence of 'drilling' has been found in the docked Soyuz spacecraft, Russia claims
The ISS experienced a drop in pressure due to an air leak overnight to August 30 A top official in Moscow claimed last week the damage was caused by a drill Now Russian sources say more extensive evidence of 'drilling' has been found
Alarming new traces of 'drilling' have been found on a Soyuz spacecraft docked with the International Space Station, Russian sources revealed today.
Moscow had already hinted at possible sabotage over damage found to the Soyuz MS-09 and a major whodunnit investigation is underway.
Officials have claimed the damage to the spacecraft appears to have been caused by a drill, and could have occurred on the ground pre-launch - or while in orbit.
Now a source close to the Russian space agency Roscosmos has admitted the damage was more extensive than previously thought.
'Traces of drilling have been found not only inside the spacecraft's living compartment,' said the source.
The damage was also 'on the screen of the anti-meteorite shield that covers the spacecraft from the outside and is installed 15 millimetres from the pressurised hull'.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Again, cutting through your gyroscope bullcrap, I have had radio communications with the ISS, and the Doppler shift was correct for a spacecraft orbiting the Earth at about 270 miles. They can't fake downlink Doppler shift, because they don't know where the receiver is.
People like you give Christianity a bad name.
You have chosen to believe the lies of Satan and men over the word of YHWH.
... and you STILL have not answered the YES/NO question I posed on purely mechanical gyroscopes.
Apparently, you are not able. And here is the reason:
If you answer YES, you agree with basic physics and the fundamental operating principles of a gyroscope.
If you answer NO, you disagree with basic physics and the fundamental operating principles of a gyroscope.
You know that the answer is YES, but your pride will not let you admit it. You would have to concede my point.
... and so you choose to mock, insult, and ridicule.
Given that the answer is obviously YES, then, if the earth were spinning, the continuously spinning gyroscope would precess as the earth carried it along a circular path.
That does NOT happen.
The earth does NOT spin.
Do you really want to be counted among the mockers? Do you really want to be the one who denies the word of YHWH?
You are not dealing with me. I am just the messenger.
This is about you and your relationship with your Creator.
You are effectively calling Him a liar.
I’m with you on the Christ died for our sins part, but not with the flat earth part. Too much evidence indicating the earth is round.
I worked on early differential GPS, and I know how to do celestial navigation with a sextant and use ‘the geometry of spheres’ to figure out where I am on the oblate spheriod called Earth.
You can conduct your own experiments on what a flat earth engineer would have to pull off in terms of living on a disc rotating 66,627 mph.
I take it your not disputing the 24 hour day, or the 365.25 day year, right?
RinaseaofDs,
To be clear, we live on a flat, stationary plane. Our Earth is a part of that plane covered with a firmament (dome) which forms a circle at its base. Read Genesis Chapter 1. Think NOT spinning phonograph record.
Water does NOT curve. Look up the Rowbotham Experiment. The evidence of water NOT curving, anywhere on Earth, proves that the Earth is flat.
We experience a 24 hour day and a 365.25 day year.
Water DOES curve. See “Water suspended in weightless environment”
Liquids form globules, and once the inertial forces of expressing water into the weightless environment are dissipated by molecular friction, the water indeed forms spheres.
I’ve sailed from the Arctic to the Antarctic and crossed the Date Line and Equator in the space of one year. I’ve also gone West from Seattle and crashed eventually into New York too.
It’s round. Buy a drone, go straight up, and then look at the horizon. It’s not an optical illusion (though nautical twighlight is an illusion).
You’re saying the plane is stationary. Galileo disagrees with you, as does Copernicus, as does every other experiment that depends upon the Earth being an oblate spheroid.
I can, and have, bounced a laser off of the moon, which has a purpose built reflector placed there by men who landed there.
We clearly have the technology to prove a flat earth. Why hasn’t it happened?
RinaseaofDs,
We clearly have the technology to prove a flat earth.
It is called the Robotham Experiment.
Look. Up. The. Robotham. Experiment.
It proves that water DOES NOT curve over a six (6) mile path.
I am NOT talking about surface tension.
Galileo and Copernicus were FreeMasons. They are liars. Look it up.
Yes. You can circumnavigate the Earth. (Think of an ant following a groove in a phonograph record for one revolution.)
That DOES NOT prove a globe. That DOES NOT prove an “oblate spheroid.”
Like I said, I did it going North and South, the East to West.
Galileo constructed experiments that have been repeated over and over again.
As for Robotham, This experiment is conducted every single day with ships at sea. I can’t tell you how many ‘Hull Down’ sitings I’ve reported in my career. It’s a condition where you only see the superstructure of the ship, because the hull itself is obscured by the curvature of the earth.
That IS the robotham experiment.
At night, you can trail a freighter, and eventually it will be obscured by the curvature of the earth, even though the light is still visible based on your height of eye.
Pay the money, and get a ticket on a cargo freighter going to Asia. It’s a great way to travel actually. Stand a lookout watch leaving the US, or arriving Hong Kong, Japan, or Singapore.
You will see it many, many times.
RinaseaofDs,
You are confusing the vanishing point of perspective with curvature.
Here is how you discern the difference.
1) Using your eyes only, watch a “Hull Down” at sea (or from the shore.) Your perception will be that part of the vessel is obscured by water curvature.
2) Now look through a high powered telescope at what you had been observing with your eyes. The “obscured” part of the hull will reappear. This WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE if the hull were hidden by curving water.
You cannot see through curving water with your eyes alone. You cannot see through curving water with a high powered telescope.
The fact that the hull “re-emerges” for the telescope view is proof that water does not curve.
Dude, no.
You can look through the Big Eyes, which is what a lookout uses on duty, and you can see a vessel hull down.
In fact, you can photograph it too, which is what you do to substantiate that a vessel in the Caribbean Sea is moving Northbound toward the US.
You snap a photo, with the bearing in the shot, and you send that to DC. They talk to the embassy of whatever flag the ship is flying, get a statement of no objection to board, and you board.
You can look at it through the Hubble, and the ship will be hull down. Many, many, many times I have done this. Many times have many, many lookouts in navies throughout the world have done this.
Here’s a photo that shows the distinction:
It’s round. Fat and round, and it wobbles.
RinaseaofDs,
With respect to you, (you are being sincere - thank you), you have missed the point entirely.
The point is NOT what you are stating. Let me be clear.
1) You will observe a “hull down” with unaided vision - at the limit of your unaided vision - due to perspective.
2) You will observe a “hull down” with telescopic vision - at the limit of your telescopic vision - due to perspective.
3) The limit of your telescopic vision IS FARTHER THAN the limit of your unaided vision.
We find our proof within the range that begins with the limit of the unaided view and ends with the limit of the telescopic view. To wit:
What appears to be a “hull down” to the unaided eye view IS NOT a “hull down” to the telescopic view.
If it were truly a “hull down” to the unaided eye due to the curvature of water, then it would be a “hull down” for the telescopic view as well.
It is not.
Read what you just wrote.
If the condition of ‘hull down’ exists in the telescopic case, then it exists in all cases. In fact, refraction is evidence of curvature, and we know that exists because I can reduce three celestial sights and come up with a pin point fix if my timekeeping is accurate.
I can do this without a computer, just with hyperbolic equations, so there’s no invisible ‘thumb’ on the scales somewhere. Back when I was going through, the required you know the hyperbolic geometry of celestial nav.
In fact, and I worked on some of this stuff, in order to build a guided missile, you have to use hyperbolic functions to correct for curvature. At the academy, our tank was calibrated for curvature so that we didn’t have to factor it out of our data when testing hull designs.
Again, there has to be a way for flat-earthers to build an experiment that supports their assertions such that others can repeat it.
I was in USCGC Eagle in the yards doing a lookout watch (almost never done - there’s no ‘crows nest’ on Eagle, but you can stand on the rail under the yard and use binoculars. The idea was to visually sight contacts and report them before they could appear on radar in the bridge.
The entire point was to burn in the impact of height of eye (HOE) as a source of error in celestial nav.
I live this. I teach this to kids in Power Squadron as a certified Navigator. The math works.
From the royals on Eagle, you can actually SEE the Earth curve. The royals on Eagle are about 120 feet above the waterline, depending on how she’s loaded.
RinaseaofDs,
“Hull Down” is caused by perspective and the limit of sight.
Everything disappears at some distance due to perspective and limit of sight. Some sight is farther than other sight (optically enhanced, binoculars, telescope, etc.), but it all meets the same fate. The target shrinks to the point where it is no longer visible.
On the ocean, it is affected by chop and air/weather conditions, but it is not caused by curvature. If water does NOT curve over six (6) miles [Robotham Experiment], then it does not curve at all.
Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
Again, stick to science.
Any optically enhanced system of observation can overcome ‘limit of sight’. Your visible horizon depends on your height of eye.
No, everything does not disappear at some distance, thanks to lasers. If you want to track something in terms of its position relative to a stationary point on Earth, you can do it as long as you have line of sight.
Water DOES curve over 6 miles. Water curves over 100 feet too. The Robotham Experiment is repeated thousands of times a day, and every time you can perceive a hull down condition depending on your height of eye and the sea condition.
Best place to do this is in the Arctic. I once transited the Chuckchi Sea, and it was so calm that it appeared we were entering a museum of ice sculptures (growlers) all presented on a floor that was polished such that it had no blemishes. Not a breath of wind. Not a single ripple. Not even disturbance caused by sea life surfacing.
I’ll never forget it. In that place, you could get your eye 1 inch above the water, and you could perceive hull down in a much shorter distance.
So many services and devices you take advantage of every day would simply not work if the world were not an oblate spheroid.
As for perspective, it DOES matter, but only in quantum physics. The speed of light is not dependent on perspective. It’s the constant. Time dilates.
It also matters in terms of wave/particle duality. When a molecule/atom/electron fired at two slits cut from cardboard, the pattern it creates on a backdrop changes depending on whether it is observed or not. All you have to do is observe it.
Experiment has been replicated thousands of times, same result. Einstein couldn’t explain it either.
If you still think ‘hull down’ is caused by perspective and limit of sight, then show it mathematically, or propose an experiment that isolates the absence of curvature in creating an effect that fools the observer into perceiving curvature.
RinaseaofDs,
We have come to a fundamental disagreement.
Water DOES NOT curve over 6 miles.
I expect that we will not get past this point.
Thank you for keeping the discussion civil.
Parting gift:
The Gospel in Six Words:
Created (God created you)
Loved (God loves you)
Sinned (You are separated from God by sin, your own or inherited. The penalty for sin is death.)
Bought (God sent His son to pay the penalty (death) for your sin.)
Believed (You must believe that He has done this for you, both mind and heart. Romans 10:9-10. Accept the gift of life that your Creator is offering to you.)
Saved (If you believe, accepting God’s gift of forgiveness and eternal life in true faith, you will be saved.)
Do not put off the gift that God is offering to you.
If you do not choose life, what is the alternative?
There will be no second chance.
Blessings to you and your loved ones,
Dan :-)
This is the issue.
It has nothing to do with disagreement. Science is about evidence.
I am willing to chuck every single thing I think I know about any system if presented with evidence that requires tossing it.
You realize that for 300 years there was ample evidence that many of Newton’s theories were wrong. It’s just that Newton was a Monster of Science, and if you were going to say Newton was wrong, you had to be positive, or you might never work in science again (this is why ‘disagreement’ is so corruptive in science).
Consider time. In what right mind would a scientist propose that the speed of light was what remained constant, but TIME IS WHAT CHANGED.
That’s insane. He wrote this stuff as a patent clerk. His best years were 1900 to 1904, and it took to 1927 to finally prove that light actually bent.
Prior to Einstein, most of the real pioneers of science were right about something important, but way, way off on everything else. Rutherford, Bohr, JJ Thompson - so very far off.
Thing is they were right about something important.
Consider the nucleus - the idea that positively charged particles would bunch together. It’s a stupid thought. particles with the same charge repel each other mightily.
I don’t DISAGREE with you. I don’t. I’m asking you to provide proof. It isn’t too much to ask. At all. It’s how we keep science from phrenology (study of bumps on the head), alchemy (Newton spent 25% of his research time trying to convert lead to gold), and other ideas that while compelling at the time, don’t stand up to experimentation.
Galileo’s famous statement in his recant, “And yet, it moves.” The Church required and demanded an Earth centered universe. Galileo could prove that the Sun was the center and Earth moved around it. Science got hijacked for 300 years on that little mess.
But let’s get current. Based on what evidence I’ve examined, I think Carbon 14 dating is a mess as a way of dating anything. Carbon-14 dating is accepted science. I’m positive ‘disagreement’ (aka politics) will delay any progress here for a good long while.
Disprove or prove. If we could stick to that, we’d all be better off.
Christ peace be with you and your family.
I concede nothing. My statements are all correct. You are a nutter flat-earther geocentrist who will not listen to basic science and mathematics. May Jesus Christ be praised, He who created the spinning spherical Earth which orbits around the Sun.
Now I KNOW you're either a lunatic, or trying to be a troll. If the latter, you ought to get zotted.
backwoods-engineer:
Here are a few places where the bible claims a fixed and immovable Earth:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.