« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

proof of a conspiracy

  • 62 Replies
  • 18610 Views
?

utilitarianism

  • 176
  • do you know the muffin man...
proof of a conspiracy
« on: April 20, 2009, 09:48:20 PM »
here it is, not total proof, but some pretty good evidence anyway.

I am here calculating the angle that NASA would have to fire a space probe in order to successfully hit mars. please excuse that my calculations are probably longer than they need to be.

according to (http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/mars_worldbook.html) the distance from earth to mars is 33,900,000 (at shortest)
according to the same site the radius of mars is 2107 miles. to give them a bit of room for gravitational pull, we'll tack on another 500 miles. for a total of 2607.

a right triangle is formed with three points
A. a point on earth
B. the center of mars
C. 500 miles from the edge of mars.

since it is a right triangle, and we know two sides (AB, and BC) the pythagorean theorom is used to find the third.

square root of 33,900,000^2+2607^2= 33,900,000.1

now, we use the reversed law of cosines to find the interior angle.
(not posting exact calcs, too difficult with keyboard)
the answer is .0044

when this triangle is reflected across line AB it forms an identical triangle. since the two triangles are the same, the angle A is the same. so .0044+.0044=.0088 which rounded is .01 (try and see that on a protractor)

so NASA would need to launch the mars rover at a tenth of a degree in order to achieve anywhere within 500 miles of mars.

admittedly, these calculations do not take into account correctional systems on the rover, but they also do not account for unpredictable solar wind, meteors, or margins of error in calculations of mars orbit/radius.

It doesn't necessarily prove there is a conspiracy, but you cant even see a hundredth of a degree on a protractor, is it possible that NASA could launch a rover with this kind of accuracy?
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17936
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2009, 09:55:41 PM »
NASA is still claiming that in the 70's when computers were sill the size of rooms and when the game pong was considered state of the art, that it built a space probe called Viking which could recognize the position of the sun, the stars, and automatically navigate itself through space in three dimensions to visit all of the planets of the solar system.  ::)
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 10:06:46 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

zork

  • 3319
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2009, 11:28:03 PM »
Quote from: utilitarianism on April 20, 2009, 09:48:20 PM
It doesn't necessarily prove there is a conspiracy, but you cant even see a hundredth of a degree on a protractor, is it possible that NASA could launch a rover with this kind of accuracy?
You realize that Mars and Earth are moving and rotating? You base your reasoning on things like there is some kind of big cannon which launches rover and must be adjusted to certain degree and Earth and Marss are standing still. It is kind of more complicated than that.
Logged
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.
?

dyno

  • 562
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2009, 05:21:00 AM »
It's possible this may be the most poorly thought out OP since bendy light.
You are trying to use some of the most simplistic trigonometry for calculating the launch vector of space vehicles. It's not that easy.
Logged
?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2009, 05:36:27 AM »
Quote
that it built a space probe called Viking which could recognize the position of the sun, the stars, and automatically navigate itself through space in three dimensions to visit all of the planets of the solar system.

What? Neither of the Viking probes could do anything like that, the orbiters nor the landers. Perhaps you are talking about the Voyager probes, but again they couldn't do anything like that. They relied on people telling them which direction to point and when to use their thrusters.

There is a lot to getting a probe from A to B. For a start, how much fuel would it take to change the course by a tenth of a degree? It may be a fair amount, meaning that getting such accuracy would be fairly easy. Most long distance launches also have mid course correction, so even if it isn't possible to aim with such accuracy at the start, adjustments are made as the probe nears it's target.

It's also worth noticing that there have been a fair number of misses anyway, and as you would expect there are often problems with hitting these planets in the vast emptiness of space.
Logged
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2009, 05:44:39 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 09:55:41 PM
NASA is still claiming that in the 70's when computers were sill the size of rooms and when the game pong was considered state of the art, that it built a space probe called Viking which could recognize the position of the sun, the stars, and automatically navigate itself through space in three dimensions to visit all of the planets of the solar system.  ::)

A thought it was just Mars?   Also, the sun's position, etc was used for rotational stabilisation.   My father had a pocket scientific calculator in the 70s, I'm sure something of similar complexity could have been used to process sensor information and produce engine responses



Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2009, 06:36:25 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 09:55:41 PM
NASA is still claiming that in the 70's when computers were sill the size of rooms and when the game pong was considered state of the art, that it built a space probe called Viking which could recognize the position of the sun, the stars, and automatically navigate itself through space in three dimensions to visit all of the planets of the solar system.  ::)

Tom, some computers are still the size of rooms:


What was Pong considered state of the art of?  ???

Viking was a Mars probe.  It did not visit all of the planets of the solar system.

If you're going to criticize NASA, at least get your facts straight.   ::)
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

utilitarianism

  • 176
  • do you know the muffin man...
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2009, 07:35:55 PM »
Quote from: zork on April 20, 2009, 11:28:03 PM
you realize that Mars and Earth are moving and rotating? You base your reasoning on things like there is some kind of big cannon which launches rover and must be adjusted to certain degree and Earth and Marss are standing still. It is kind of more complicated than that.

anything more complicated throws unpredictable factors into the equation. this is the base reasoning for the angle they would have too fire it assumes several things.

1. the mars rover was shot like a bullet in a straight line.
2. fuel for correctional purposes is used to correct angles from other factors (solar wind, meteors, etc.)
3. the numbers obtained from NASA are accurate.
4. we know where mars will be at the time that the probe gets there

to assume anything else would complicate the equation even more. in fact, this is probably the equation that benefits NASA the most.

giving directions midflight is near impossible because of the amount of time it takes radio signals to reach the rover. and a computer would miss if the figures are off by a thousand miles or so.

If there is a factor that I haven't realized please do put it into the equations.
and if I missed an assumption, tell me and I'll add it.
otherwise, It's pretty obvious that this is not practically possible.
Logged
?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2009, 05:51:47 AM »
Quote
to assume anything else would complicate the equation even more. in fact, this is probably the equation that benefits NASA the most.

giving directions midflight is near impossible because of the amount of time it takes radio signals to reach the rover. and a computer would miss if the figures are off by a thousand miles or so.

If there is a factor that I haven't realized please do put it into the equations.
and if I missed an assumption, tell me and I'll add it.
otherwise, It's pretty obvious that this is not practically possible.

Whilst including more factors makes the equations more complex, time and difficulty of said equations are not too much of a problem when using computers, even fairly simple ones, to perform them.

Whilst it does take time to send a signal to an inter-planetary probe, the fact that these probes take several months, or even years, to reach their targets means that the delay is not too much of a problem, and it's of a predictable length, so it can be factored into the course adjustment.
Logged
?

equinox

  • 157
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2009, 08:09:54 AM »
This thread is a new low, and for this place, that's saying a lot. 

These things are fired relatively straight up, and for good reason.  They need to get away from the gravitational pull of the earth quickly and efficiently.  They're launched at a specific time, and on specific days to take advantage of the rotation of, and relative position of the earth in it's orbit around the sun, in order to meet up most efficiently with it's target.  The gravitational effect of the sun is figured in also, and the craft gets some help from a 'slingsgot effect' from the sun's pull (much like a comet) as it continues on it's elliptical path toward it's intended target.



Logged
?

grifoli

  • 213
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2009, 09:23:18 AM »
Quote from: utilitarianism on April 20, 2009, 09:48:20 PM
here it is, not total proof, but some pretty good evidence anyway.

I am here calculating the angle that NASA would have to fire a space probe in order to successfully hit mars. please excuse that my calculations are probably longer than they need to be.

according to (http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/mars_worldbook.html) the distance from earth to mars is 33,900,000 (at shortest)
according to the same site the radius of mars is 2107 miles. to give them a bit of room for gravitational pull, we'll tack on another 500 miles. for a total of 2607.

a right triangle is formed with three points
A. a point on earth
B. the center of mars
C. 500 miles from the edge of mars.

since it is a right triangle, and we know two sides (AB, and BC) the pythagorean theorom is used to find the third.

square root of 33,900,000^2+2607^2= 33,900,000.1

now, we use the reversed law of cosines to find the interior angle.
(not posting exact calcs, too difficult with keyboard)
the answer is .0044

when this triangle is reflected across line AB it forms an identical triangle. since the two triangles are the same, the angle A is the same. so .0044+.0044=.0088 which rounded is .01 (try and see that on a protractor)

so NASA would need to launch the mars rover at a tenth of a degree in order to achieve anywhere within 500 miles of mars.

admittedly, these calculations do not take into account correctional systems on the rover, but they also do not account for unpredictable solar wind, meteors, or margins of error in calculations of mars orbit/radius.

It doesn't necessarily prove there is a conspiracy, but you cant even see a hundredth of a degree on a protractor, is it possible that NASA could launch a rover with this kind of accuracy?

Please read some engineers books to help you solving your problem, such as Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Dyamics. You won't solve it by using only Pythagoras theorem.....
Logged
Quote from: Neil Armstrong
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
*

DD2014

  • 60
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2009, 01:00:32 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 09:55:41 PM
NASA is still claiming that in the 70's when computers were sill the size of rooms and when the game pong was considered state of the art, that it built a space probe called Viking which could recognize the position of the sun, the stars, and automatically navigate itself through space in three dimensions to visit all of the planets of the solar system.  ::)

Ummm.....Math could have somthing to do with that. You know, calculators?
Logged
I am from NASA, and I am here to disinform you...
?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2009, 01:04:19 PM »
Excellent OP.  I applaud this quality thread!  ;D
Logged
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
?

utilitarianism

  • 176
  • do you know the muffin man...
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2009, 07:52:54 PM »
I realize that NASA has a lot of money to take into account the predictable variables. I would say however, that there are factors that are not predictable. one of which is solar wind, another is gravity.

solar wind is not predictable by any means even NASA claims to have. it is not a constant and must be considered.

furthermore, in order to calculate the gravitational force exerted upon the probe, one needs to know the distance to the sun, something that is next to impossible to know exactly. then you need to know the mass of the sun. we do not yet have an accurate enough measurement of the mass of the sun. a third unpredictable is meteors, which provide obvious problems.

Mars is only about 4000 miles in diameter. once again, to miss by a hundredth of a degree is to miss by 2000 miles. so launching the thing at 1 degree off misses the planet by two hundred thousand miles. (as an afterthought, the equation assumes that the rover was spun around in earths orbit a few times and blasted out when scientists told it too. (that's how I thought they did it anyway)) that kind of distance is difficult to correct in space, where obtaining anythings position is an intensive and difficult process. please note that they do not necessarily know where the probe is, even if they know where mars is correcting it's path is not the easiest task.

and through all the unpredictable variables they still claim to be able to do it.
Logged
?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2009, 05:54:22 AM »
Quote
solar wind is not predictable by any means even NASA claims to have. it is not a constant and must be considered.

How much effect would you expect the solar wind to have? We'll consider a probe around where Earth is. The sun throws off about 2.5 * 10^-14 solar masses a year, or about 4.9723 * 10^17kg. This is travelling at about 520 km/s, which means the total momentum of a year's worth of solar wind is about 2.586 * 10^23 kg m/s.

We'll have the probe be a meter squared. At the Earth's orbit, this year's worth of momentum will be spread over a sphere with a radius of one astronomical unit, 1.496 * 10^11 meters. This is a sphere with surface area of 2.81 * 10^23 m^2, which this momentum is spread around.

This means that over the course of a year, the probe will have less than 1 kg m/s of momentum put upon it by the solar wind at Earth orbit. Considering that most probes go out further than Earth, to where the solar wind is even more tenuous, it's hardly a difficult value to compensate for, even if it did wildly fluctuate.


Quote
furthermore, in order to calculate the gravitational force exerted upon the probe, one needs to know the distance to the sun, something that is next to impossible to know exactly. then you need to know the mass of the sun. we do not yet have an accurate enough measurement of the mass of the sun. a third unpredictable is meteors, which provide obvious problems.

We can measure the distance to the Sun by measuring the distance to Mercury and Venus. We can get the mass of the Sun by looking at how much force it needs to exert on the Earth to keep it in orbit where it is.

As for meteors, you just have to hope that you don't run into any. They are spread very finely though, so the chances of hitting one are extremely small.


Quote
please note that they do not necessarily know where the probe is, even if they know where mars is correcting it's path is not the easiest task.

They know quite well where the probe is. It's direction can be found simply by working out where the signal is coming from, and the distance can be found by sending a signal to it, and seeing how long it takes to reply.
Logged
?

utilitarianism

  • 176
  • do you know the muffin man...
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2009, 07:24:17 PM »
1 m/s is actually quite a bit. over the course of one year, that would adjust it's course by 31557 km. which puts it well out of the way of mars trajectory. furthermore, I would point out that the volume of the rover was greater than one cubic meter

and how do you propose to measure the distance to mercury and venus?

look, I know that the little factors like EXACTLY how much mass the sun has doesn't seem like much, but to put it in perspective, this is like shooting at a target 100 miles away that is a centimeter across. it ain't possible.
Logged
?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2009, 05:48:49 AM »
Quote
1 m/s is actually quite a bit. over the course of one year, that would adjust it's course by 31557 km. which puts it well out of the way of mars trajectory. furthermore, I would point out that the volume of the rover was greater than one cubic meter

But it's not something that's going to be impossible to correct. A sudden , unpredictable rise in the solar wind won't blast the probe wildly off course, it will just give it a tiny nudge that can be corrected shortly after.

The square meter measurement was just a random figure, as I'm not certain of the exact dimensions of said probes. I would also point out that the mass of the probe is likely to be a fair bit over one kilogram, and the solar wind will impart an acceleration on the probe, not a constant velocity, so the figure of 31,557 km may be a bit over exaggerated. The result I came up with is a unit of momentum, not of speed.


Quote
and how do you propose to measure the distance to mercury and venus?

The distance to the two planets is measured by sending a strong radio signal towards them, and timing how long it takes for the signal to bounce off the planet and return.


Quote
look, I know that the little factors like EXACTLY how much mass the sun has doesn't seem like much, but to put it in perspective, this is like shooting at a target 100 miles away that is a centimeter across. it ain't possible.

But when it takes several months to reach said target, you have plenty of time to nudge it and make sure it hits.
Logged
*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2009, 12:26:38 PM »
Actually, I think that the OP is over simplifying the target.  You aren't just trying to hit mars, you are trying to hit a certain area of mars.  Not only that, but they need to drop that sucker into the proper decent trajectory (and not forget to convert from feet to meters!).  Also, we don't know the mass of the sun?  I thought you could determine an objects mass if something with a known mass was rotating around it at a known speed.  We know earth's mass, we know earth's speed, what's keeping us from calculating the sun's mass?


EDIT NOTE:  The distance variable may need to be known as well, I dunno.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 12:29:01 PM by Pongo »
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2009, 12:36:27 PM »
Quote from: Pongo on April 24, 2009, 12:26:38 PM
Actually, I think that the OP is over simplifying the target.  You aren't just trying to hit mars, you are trying to hit a certain area of mars.  Not only that, but they need to drop that sucker into the proper decent trajectory (and not forget to convert from feet to meters!).  Also, we don't know the mass of the sun?  I thought you could determine an objects mass if something with a known mass was rotating around it at a known speed.  We know earth's mass, we know earth's speed, what's keeping us from calculating the sun's mass?


EDIT NOTE:  The distance variable may need to be known as well, I dunno.

The conspiracy's answer on how to calculate the mass of the sun: 
Quote from: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/cyg-X1-mass/mass-of-sun.html
Because the gravitational attraction of our Sun for the Earth is the centripetal force causing the Earth's circular motion around the Sun, we can use Netwon's law of universal gravitation to find the mass of the Sun without ever actually visiting the Sun.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

iznih

  • 471
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2009, 02:03:47 PM »
Quote from: utilitarianism on April 23, 2009, 07:24:17 PM
1 m/s is actually quite a bit.

he calculated momentum, not speed
Logged
?

utilitarianism

  • 176
  • do you know the muffin man...
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2009, 08:54:56 PM »
measuring the distance to the sun is only accurate to a point. here are the variables NASA needs in order to calculate the gravitational pull.

1. the formula of gravity (they have this)
2. mass of the probe (they have this)
3. mass of the sun (only a VERY rough estimate)
4. mass of all other objects passed by the probe (even rougher estimates)
5. distance between sun and probe (best estimate comes down to as accurate as the hundred thousand mile mark)
6. distance between probe and all other applicable large objects of mass (even less accurate)
7. position of the probe at all times (they do not have this)

now of all these variables, it is number 7 which is the most important. this variable prevents them from "nudging" the probe.
the best way that I can see that they are to find the position of a probe several million miles away in space, is to either
a. look at it
b. measure using radio signals.

problem with a) it's next to impossible to line up a telescope to find a couple-cubic-meter or so device that is in couple-billion-or-so cubic meters of space. then to find its relation with mars? not possible.

problem with b) the target you are nudging it towards is essentially a 2-dimensional line from the probe; every degree counts. finding an accuracy within a hundredth of a degree is not even possible using this method.

without knowing the probes position in space you can't nudge it towards anything because you don't even know the DIRECTION necessary to nudge it in! do you go left, or right? unless you know the things position that question cannot be answered
Logged
?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2009, 06:14:01 AM »
Quote
3. mass of the sun (only a VERY rough estimate)

I'm not exactly sure why the Sun's mass is needed. All you need is the apparent attractive force the sun exerts on the probe at one place, and you can use the inverse square law to work out how this will change with distance.


Quote
4. mass of all other objects passed by the probe (even rougher estimates)

The mass of the planets were indeed very rough estimates at first. That's why the first missions to these planets were flybys, so scientists could get a better estimate of the planet's mass by looking at how much it deflects the probe.


Quote
5. distance between sun and probe (best estimate comes down to as accurate as the hundred thousand mile mark)

I'm fairly certain that we know the position of the planets to a higher degree than that.


Quote
now of all these variables, it is number 7 which is the most important. this variable prevents them from "nudging" the probe.
Quote
without knowing the probes position in space you can't nudge it towards anything because you don't even know the DIRECTION necessary to nudge it in! do you go left, or right? unless you know the things position that question cannot be answered

You should also bear in mind that the probe can send back a little info about it's position. If you tell it to point in the right direction and take a photo, then by looking at the size and position of the planet in the photo you can make sure it's on the right course. It's important to remember that although space is a big place, things in it follow very, very predictable paths.
Logged
?

Redingold

  • 164
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #22 on: May 04, 2009, 03:22:00 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 09:55:41 PM
NASA is still claiming that in the 70's when computers were sill the size of rooms and when the game pong was considered state of the art, that it built a space probe called Viking which could recognize the position of the sun, the stars, and automatically navigate itself through space in three dimensions to visit all of the planets of the solar system.  ::)

And you're claiming that they had the computer technology to create this?



Logged
?

utilitarianism

  • 176
  • do you know the muffin man...
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #23 on: May 04, 2009, 09:10:23 PM »
their paths are only predictable if you can find the mass, position, and inertial movement of all of them. the most accurate statistic presented by NASA's website is at the hundred thousand mile mark. it is no small task to find the mass of a planet.

a picture can only help so much, just because I have a picture of any part of space does not mean I can find the position of the probe in space. maybe NASA can do it within a couble hundred cubic miles, but not to the degree of specificity necessary to be accurate.

a flyby only works if you know the distance from the planet to the object flying by. still impossible.

EDIT: the mass of the sun is needed in order to predict the gravitational pull of the sun on the probe.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #24 on: May 04, 2009, 09:23:41 PM »
Quote from: utilitarianism on May 04, 2009, 09:10:23 PM
EDIT: the mass of the sun is needed in order to predict the gravitational pull of the sun on the probe.

The mass of the sun isn't that tough to figure out:
Quote from: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/LeonVaysburd.shtml
The sun is the most prominent feature in our solar system. It is the largest object and contains approximately 98% of the total solar system mass. To measure the mass of the sun we will use Newton's laws of motion together with his law of gravity. Those laws give a relation between the period (T) of a planet's orbit, the distance (a) from the planet to the sun, and a constant (G) measured in laboratory experiments. To measure the mass of the sun we will assume that the orbits are circles, and that the mass of a planet is tiny compared to the mass of the sun.

M = 4π2a3/GT2

Using this relation with T for the earth we get the mass of the sun. The period of the Earth is 31,536,000 seconds and the distance from the Earth to the sun is 1.496 ? 1011 m.

M = 4(3.14)2(1.496 ? 1011 m)3/((6.7 ? 10-11N?m2/kg2)(365*24*60*60 s)2)

The mass of the sun is thus 1.99 ? 1030 kg

Leon Vaysburd -- 2000

The masses of the other planets can be calculated in a similar manner.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #25 on: May 05, 2009, 06:31:49 AM »
Quote
their paths are only predictable if you can find the mass, position, and inertial movement of all of them. the most accurate statistic presented by NASA's website is at the hundred thousand mile mark. it is no small task to find the mass of a planet.

The path a planet can be represented by an ellipse. The figures presented on the fact sheet on the NASA site do not represent the most accurate measurements that have been taken, and have been rounded. It's fairly easy to get a suitably accurate value for the mass of a planet using a flyby.


Quote
a picture can only help so much, just because I have a picture of any part of space does not mean I can find the position of the probe in space. maybe NASA can do it within a couble hundred cubic miles, but not to the degree of specificity necessary to be accurate.

I can't see why that accuracy wouldn't be enough.


Quote
a flyby only works if you know the distance from the planet to the object flying by. still impossible.

Why is that impossible? Surely you could bounce a signal from the probe to the planet and time how long it takes for a reflection to bounce back to get a distance.


Quote
EDIT: the mass of the sun is needed in order to predict the gravitational pull of the sun on the probe.

No it isn't.

It takes 31557600 seconds to perform one rotation of the Sun at Earth distance, and the Sun is 1.496 * 10^11 meters away. The velocity of the Earth is given by the formula v = (2 * pi * radius) /  time period, which gives a velocity of about 29785.7 m/s.

The acceleration required to produce circular motion at that velocity is given by the formula a = (2 * pi * v) / time period, which gives a gravitational pull of about 5.93 * 10^-3 m/s^2. At no point was the mass of the sun needed to get that figure.
Logged
?

utilitarianism

  • 176
  • do you know the muffin man...
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2009, 08:32:15 PM »
how do you plan to get the distance to the sun? with light waves bouncing back and forth? that only works at a very large number. recall what we're trying to do here. the equivalent proportion is shooting at a target that is one centimeter across, and about a hundred miles away! the projectile would have to be the size of an atom too. I mean at this point we have many billions of theories kicking around here and what we have touched on is only the surface! at what point does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle kick in?

Quote
The path a planet can be represented by an ellipse. The figures presented on the fact sheet on the NASA site do not represent the most accurate measurements that have been taken, and have been rounded. It's fairly easy to get a suitably accurate value for the mass of a planet using a flyby.

to what degree will it be accurate too? without knowing the exact distance to the object being flown by, the kind of specific information we need can not be achieved.

Quote
I can't see why that accuracy wouldn't be enough.

because at the scale we're talking about, the measurements matter to a single kilometer
tell me this, how far away is earth in this picture?

http://xplanet.sourceforge.net/Gallery/20030508_earth/earth_200.jpg

that is a picture of earth from the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. how far away is earth in that picture?
that's all NASA has to work with too.

Quote
Why is that impossible? Surely you could bounce a signal from the probe to the planet and time how long it takes for a reflection to bounce back to get a distance.

knowing how fast light moves, how accurate could this measurement possibly be?

Quote
No it isn't.

It takes 31557600 seconds to perform one rotation of the Sun at Earth distance, and the Sun is 1.496 * 10^11 meters away. The velocity of the Earth is given by the formula v = (2 * pi * radius) /  time period, which gives a velocity of about 29785.7 m/s.

The acceleration required to produce circular motion at that velocity is given by the formula a = (2 * pi * v) / time period, which gives a gravitational pull of about 5.93 * 10^-3 m/s^2. At no point was the mass of the sun needed to get that figure.

it still requires the distance to the sun, still not possible to the degree necessary.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2009, 08:51:40 PM »
Quote from: utilitarianism on May 06, 2009, 08:32:15 PM
Quote
No it isn't.

It takes 31557600 seconds to perform one rotation of the Sun at Earth distance, and the Sun is 1.496 * 10^11 meters away. The velocity of the Earth is given by the formula v = (2 * pi * radius) /  time period, which gives a velocity of about 29785.7 m/s.

The acceleration required to produce circular motion at that velocity is given by the formula a = (2 * pi * v) / time period, which gives a gravitational pull of about 5.93 * 10^-3 m/s^2. At no point was the mass of the sun needed to get that figure.

it still requires the distance to the sun, still not possible to the degree necessary.

http://www.astro-tom.com/getting_started/earth-sun_distance.htm
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2009, 05:32:34 AM »
Quote from: utilitarianism on May 06, 2009, 08:32:15 PM
how do you plan to get the distance to the sun?
Quote
it still requires the distance to the sun, still not possible to the degree necessary.

As the previous poster pointed out, you can get the distance to the Sun by looking at the distance to the inferior planets.


Quote
to what degree will it be accurate too? without knowing the exact distance to the object being flown by, the kind of specific information we need can not be achieved.
Quote
knowing how fast light moves, how accurate could this measurement possibly be?

A system based on radio waves will be accurate to a few centimetres I believe, with more energetic waves providing greater accuracy. Getting that distance to a suitable accuracy is not a problem.


Quote
because at the scale we're talking about, the measurements matter to a single kilometer
tell me this, how far away is earth in this picture?

http://xplanet.sourceforge.net/Gallery/20030508_earth/earth_200.jpg

that is a picture of earth from the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. how far away is earth in that picture?
that's all NASA has to work with too.

If the image was not cropped, and I knew the field of view of the camera taking it, I could give you a value. I don't see why the measurement would matter to a single kilometre at this distance, as when very close to the planet, different systems are used to measure distances.
Logged
?

utilitarianism

  • 176
  • do you know the muffin man...
Re: proof of a conspiracy
« Reply #29 on: May 13, 2009, 10:02:11 PM »
thank you for the proof, I concede that the distance to the sun IS measurable. (as well as the distance to mars)

nevertheless, the problem of where the probe is still exists. the picture I presented you is one of many. if you can find just one from which you can give me an accurate measurement as to the position of the probe in space I will concede.

but, also remember that the planet used cannot be mars, because the planet will move. unless the point in space which mars WILL occupy when the probe reaches there is used (virtually impossible) the measurements will not be accurate.

other than that all you need to do is be able to find the position of a space probe in space from a picture, and of course, show your work. (I want to be able to do this)

I don't believe it's possible.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »