SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the it'll-run-on-a-pocket-calculator dept.
Quartz reports that a former NASA intern has made a Github repository for the Apollo 11 Guidance Computer code.
The AGC code has been available to the public for quite a while–it was first uploaded by tech researcher Ron Burkey in 2003, after he'd transcribed it from scanned images of the original hardcopies MIT had put online. That is, he manually typed out each line, one by one.
"It was scanned by a airplane pilot named Gary Neff in Colorado," Burkey said in an email. "MIT got hold of the scans and put them online in the form of page images, which unfortunately had been mutilated in the process to the point of being unreadable in places." Burkey reconstructed the unreadable parts, he said, using his engineering skills to fill in the blanks.
"Quite a bit later, I managed to get some replacement scans from Gary Neff for the unreadable parts and fortunately found out that the parts I filled in were 100% correct!" he said.
The effort made the code available to any researcher or hobbyist who wanted to explore it. Burkey himself even used the software to create a simulation of the AGC: [link to YouTube video embedded in original story]
As enormous and successful as Burkey's project has been, however, the code itself remained somewhat obscure to many of today's software developers. That was until last Thursday (July 7), when former NASA intern Chris Garry uploaded the software in its entirety to GitHub, the code-sharing site where millions of programmers hang out these days.
[Continues...]
There are some funny comments in the code, which the Quartz story mentions. This one appears to have been added in 2009, and explains the naming of the file BURN_BABY_BURN--MASTER_IGNITION_ROUTINE.agc:
## At the get-together of the AGC developers celebrating the 40th anniversary
## of the first moonwalk, Don Eyles (one of the authors of this routine along
## with Peter Adler) has related to us a little interesting history behind the
## naming of the routine.
##
## It traces back to 1965 and the Los Angeles riots, and was inspired
## by disc jockey extraordinaire and radio station owner Magnificent Montague.
## Magnificent Montague used the phrase "Burn, baby! BURN!" when spinning the
## hottest new records. Magnificent Montague was the charismatic voice of
## soul music in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles from the mid-1950s to
## the mid-1960s.
Other comments, such as these two from the file LUNAR_LANDING_GUIDANCE_EQUATIONS.agc, are clearly a bit older:
TC BANKCALL# TEMPORARY, I HOPE HOPE HOPE
CADR STOPRATE# TEMPORARY, I HOPE HOPE HOPE
Related: World's First Integrated Circuit Microcomputer Found
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:22AM
Explain how the moon buggy makes "rooster tails" in the alleged vacuum on the surface of the Moon.
NASA is mocking you (more clearly than ever, in this case)
There are no "moon landings". The Earth is flat.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:28AM
And you're a dickhead.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:43AM
Derp a derp - a rooster tail isn't created by an atmosphere. The very same mechanics that throw dust and mud into the air on earth are going to throw dust into the VACUUM on the moon. The stuff falls much like it does on earth. It has no air resistance going up, less gravity holding it down, so it goes higher. Then it has no air resistance when it is coming back down, so it falls more quickly. But, those pliable wheels and treads are still going to grab hold of stuff, and throw it.
WTF did you think - on the moon a tire isn't going to act like a tire? What does vacuum have to do with mechanical action?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @02:00PM
Derp a derp - a rooster tail isn't created by an atmosphere.
Hi derp a derp, nice to meet you.
A rooster tail IS created by an atmosphere: watch the video, and you will see that the different particles of dust do not individually describe parabolic orbits as they must in a vacuum.
For the "rooster tail" to be complete with "feathers", the finer parts of the bulk of the dust that gets spun out of the wheel tangentially (the bulk that forms the rooster tail "skeleton") has to impart momentum on air, and then to spread, deviating from its true parabolic trajectory and creating a billow-like structure (or a "feather"). Alas, this very fine and thin dust DOES SPREAD on the quite thin air of the studio where this footage was shot, and this can clearly be seen.
Furthermore, and as a proof of how this is possible, it is not necessary to draw all the air out of a studio: reducing pressure to a fraction (somewhere at 1/100 to 1/1000) of the regular, sea-level value, can imitate vacuum pretty well for, say, the "hammer and feather" experiment. Notice, as another example, the behavior of balloons [youtu.be] (apologies for the music, not my video) filled with Helium or Hydrogen that ascent to the stratosphere and burst at an altitude of about 90,000 - 120,000 ft. (30 to 40 km). Immediately after the burst, the fragments of the membrane of the balloon can be seen to free-fall almost directly downwards at more-or-less the same speed with the rest of the apparatus, and NOT to "ease" themselves down like a feather or a leaf in the wind. Note that by NO ACCOUNT those balloons are in vacuum. They do not fall like a brick either, because there is still thin atmospheric air to intercept their free-fall but, like the fine dust in the example above, they are still fine enough to interact a bit with it.
NASA also got me fooled for decades. I do not take it out on you, so I request that you do not take it out on me and instead use your anger to fuel your own research. And calm the f down.
If you object in doing this, then I wish you a happy derp-a-derping.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 06 2016, @02:46PM
A rooster tail IS created by an atmosphere
Sure it is. I'm going with Runaway on this. If this had been staged, the Soviets would be bragging about how easy it was to expose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @04:11PM
If this had been staged, the Soviets would be bragging about how easy it was to expose.
Not necessarily. The USSR was the first to claim sending machines, animals and humans in orbit. Note that when the USA was Sputnik'ed, the 'solid evidence' was that some 'beep beep' was coming from the heavens above: but there numerous ways to fake the origin of a signal, and there is many a signal that can be bounced off the 'ionosphere', short-wave radio being one example.
In my opinion, the USA administration/shadow govt./whatever of the time decided to play along by producing their own show instead of exposing the USSR. Exposing them contained the risk of people not believing it and believing the Soviets instead (the communist witch hunt was strong in the US at that time) strengthening the Soviet influence over the US. But staging a moon landing seemed to be the best course of action: it demonstrated US superiority over this new 'final frontier', beating the Soviets in their own game; winning the "space race"; feeding the patriot Troll inside each one of us; maintaining the illusion of the ball Earth; and making US citizenry much more prone to behave like a herd.
The same doctrine is employed today: stalk the so-called ISS, and I guarantee to you that you will be able to see it over past the day-night terminator (around 22 degrees past your own terminator, at that altitude). That thing is clearly self-luminescent, and not at all a bunch of aluminium tubes reflecting sunlight (or earth- or moon-light). How could it, when it is well within the Earth's shadow. And yet it seems way brighter than the brightest Venus. It does not compute. And just LOOK at how fake the Chinese "space program" looks!
If, back in the day, the US administration tried to debunk Soviet presence "in space" by stating the truth, they would end up being ridiculed by stating the obvious, not unlike my own position right now ..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 06 2016, @04:49PM
Not necessarily. The USSR was the first to claim sending machines, animals and humans in orbit. Note that when the USA was Sputnik'ed, the 'solid evidence' was that some 'beep beep' was coming from the heavens above: but there numerous ways to fake the origin of a signal, and there is many a signal that can be bounced off the 'ionosphere', short-wave radio being one example.
Let's review the evidence that Apollo and more generally, the space program is for real. First, we have copious evidence such as video footage, lunar samples, independent verification of Apollo communications, gear capable of landing on the Moon, eyewitness testimony of the astronauts involved, mirrors on the Moon, imaging of the sites from lunar orbit, and of course, the several hundred thousand people who worked on the project.
As to your claims in this thread? I think you messed up your observations. I don't buy that rooster feathers are some artifact of atmosphere. The ISS isn't actually "brighter than the brightest Venus" in Earth's shadow. For if it were, I would have seen it.
Sure, it must be comforting to pretend that they know some big secret, but sorry, Apollo is too big to fake. Anyway, it'll all sort out when we return to the Moon and witness once again the debris left by the various Apollo sorties. But then I suppose you'll move on to some other comforting conspiracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @05:43PM
First, we have copious evidence such as video footage
NASA monopoly. For Apollo, a feed was given by a camera shooting a projector image from NASA central. So their own feed was filtered twice, by them.
lunar samples
Where? Gimme!
independent verification of Apollo communications
By whom?
gear capable of landing on the Moon
Not really. Their tests kept failing, right up to the launch. No test EVER was successful, their own admission. Look it up.
mirrors on the Moon
Where are they? Have you personally shot a laser there and got an echo, or are you quoting me wikipedia and The Big Bang Theory show?
eyewitness testimony of the astronauts involved
Military men under oath, are military men under oath.
imaging of the sites from lunar orbit
you refer to the wide-angle lens one where the crater at lower left is kept into frame all the way? Are there more?
the several hundred thousand people who worked on the project
This can easily be circumvented with a "need-to-know" approach, and compartmentalization, not to mention the miles away you need to be from the launching site. You think all those "hundreds of thousands" saw the astronauts personally and shook their hands and had eyes 24/7 on them? Or all of them kept tracking the space machines? Or you think that every single last one of them was aware of the status of the project as a whole?
As to your claims in this thread? I think you messed up your observations.
No, I have not. But you are welcome to perform your own, and figure out the geometry for yourself.
I don't buy that rooster feathers are some artifact of atmosphere.
Then what are they? What is the factor resisting the fine dust's momentum and forcing it to a billow, deviating it from its ballistic trajectory that it must have in the alleged vacuum of the Lunar surface?
The ISS isn't actually "brighter than the brightest Venus" in Earth's shadow.
Correct: it should be INVISIBLE when in the Earth's shadow, and clearly (to me) it is not, because I have seen it. When I saw it it was more than 80 degrees high (almost near the local zenith) and its apparent magnitude was larger than Venus's apparent magnitude, and this is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
For if it were, I would have seen it.
If you follow my recommendation of stalking it, you will see it. It is pointless for you to argue that "you would see it" while you have not been looking for it. First look for it, and IF you still cannot see it, THEN argue about not being able to see it.
Sure, it must be comforting to pretend that they know some big secret
'Comforting', how? For whom? How can be 'comforting' for anybody to keep a secret?
Anyway, it'll all sort out when we return to the Moon
I wouldn't hold my breath for that. I believe you shouldn't either.
What makes you believe that the Moon is a place that you can actually 'go' and 'walk on'? Is it the "1+1=2 and the Earth is a Globe" motto back when you were little? Is it various 'sciency' stuff you made and were exposed to as a kid? Were you told that being an astronaut is a hero thing to be? TV shows and movies? What?
Speaking of the moon, have you taken a good look at it, especially how the shadows of its features near the terminator are not geometrically consistent with that of a sphere illuminated at low angles and by infinite distance? (now is a good time for that)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @07:49PM
figure out the geometry for yourself
Eratosthenes would still like to have a word with you. You flat earthers can start by debunking his results.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @08:41PM
Speaking of the moon, have you taken a good look at it, especially how the shadows of its features near the terminator are not geometrically consistent with that of a sphere illuminated at low angles and by infinite distance? (now is a good time for that)
You need to demonstrate this. You can't just say it and expect someone to go away and do any work to prove you wrong.
In what way are they inconsistent? What measurements have you made to prove this?
If you follow my recommendation of stalking it, you will see it. It is pointless for you to argue that "you would see it" while you have not been looking for it. First look for it, and IF you still cannot see it, THEN argue about not being able to see it.
Or you could give a time, date, and location of one of your "impossible" viewings.
I can't work out what you mean about being able to see it 22 degrees "past your own terminator".
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:02PM
In what way are they inconsistent?
Shadows near the terminator (day-night "line" for the surface of the moon) should be longer, and they are not. Sun shining on a sphere from infinity cannot uniformly light it up, there needs to be some specular effect, and there isn't any. It looks self-luminescent to me.
I can't work out what you mean about being able to see it 22 degrees "past your own terminator".
By "terminator" I refer to the "line" dividing day and night, on the globe model of the Earth. So, when the Sun sets for you, you are sitting on your own terminator. "22 degrees past the terminator" according to the globe Earth model, is when the Earth has rotated (taking you with it) towards the East, by 22 degrees. Now you are well within the shadow of the Earth, as is everything with an altitude lower than about 400 km, which is also the ISS altitude. Therefore, the ISS is now inside the shadow of the Earth. The ISS is not self-luminescent, and you are supposed to see it only if it reflects Sunlight. But it is impossible to reflect Sunlight when you are more than 22 degrees into the night, because ISS will be in the Earth's shadow.
Do you see now?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:59PM
Shadows near the terminator (day-night "line" for the surface of the moon) should be longer, and they are not.
How long should they be? Which specific feature's shadow did you measure, and how did you do so?
Sun shining on a sphere from infinity cannot uniformly light it up, there needs to be some specular effect, and there isn't any.
The moon doesn't have a shiny surface. It has a matte one. And not just matte, but rough. That makes shading of the sort I assume you're talking about hard to see, but it's there.
But if you believe there is no "specularity" where there should be, what does this mean for what you think the moon to be? Are you, then, suggesting that it is not a sphere, but another flat disc?
Do you see now?
I now understand what you mean. I still haven't seen any evidence of any "impossible" sighting of the ISS, though. At what date, time, and location did you see an illuminated ISS when you should not have been able to? Did you measure the duration and position in the sky? Did you happen to note which constellations it was passing through?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:12PM
PS the moon isn't just matte. The fine dust of the regolith gives it some retro-reflective qualities. This causes more light to be scattered back in the direction it came from than you would otherwise expect. This will make a full moon appear even flatter than it otherwise would.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:18AM
I strongly disagree with your moon arguments and data and have several counterpoints, but this is getting a very long discussion already and I have other matters to attend to. I am not deflecting you and I will try to pick this up at a later time.
I now understand what you mean.
Good!
At what date, time, and location did you see an illuminated ISS when you should not have been able to?
I am sorry, but I cannot give you my location. As soon as this stops being an issue for me, you can have my home address for what I care, topped with an open invitation to come over and help out or even oversee experiments.
What I can give you is a tip that you can get predictions from the isstracker dot com website. Use a future date, and see where the 'ISS' is to show up. Its inclination is such that if you live further north than London it will never pass directly over you, so you are out of luck. Otherwise, it is just a matter of time before it passes overhead from a place near you while you are several hours after sunset, and it should be trivial for you to find an appropriate location and time to that end.
PS: Only if you feel "sufficiently motivated", of course. Nobody is forcing anything on anybody.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:36AM
What I can give you is a tip that you can get predictions from the isstracker dot com website.
Who are presumably part of the flat Earth conspiracy themselves, since their calculations wouldn't make sense otherwise.
Otherwise, it is just a matter of time before it passes overhead from a place near you while you are several hours after sunset, and it should be trivial for you to find an appropriate location and time to that end.
I've seen it, several times. I've also seen it fade as it enters the Earth's shadow. I guess they didn't forget to turn the lights off that time.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:21PM
Otherwise, it is just a matter of time before it passes overhead from a place near you while you are several hours after sunset, and it should be trivial for you to find an appropriate location and time to that end.
You need more than that. You need to know when the ISS will be in sunlight and when it won't. Several hours after sunset is not that far away from sunset at the higher latitudes, particularly in summer (for whichever hemisphere you are observing from). For example, 22 degrees of rotation is not 22 degrees of separation at 45 degrees latitude (which is my latitude incidentally). Rather it is about 15 degrees of separation (divide by square root of two) due to the lesser movement of rotation at the latitude (you're closer to the axis of rotation and don't move as far). The most extreme case would be at the pole where you rotate as much as you'd like, but it won't change the apparent elevation of the Sun because you aren't actually moving anywhere.
Also, let us note that it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the supposedly fake Moon landings whether the ISS glows or not.
Its inclination is such that if you live further north than London it will never pass directly over you, so you are out of luck.
Inclination? You blew off a bunch of physics and geometry earlier in the thread when it didn't suit you. But now the ISS has some parameter called "inclination" which actually matters. The same math and physics which can tell you very precisely where the ISS will be, is the same math and physics that tells us the Moon is something we can walk on.
(Score: 1) by EETech1 on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:11AM
I've seen the ISS hundreds of times, and many (if not most) times it disappears suddenly as it goes into the shadow of the Earth.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:48PM
What makes you believe that the Moon is a place that you can actually 'go' and 'walk on'? Is it the "1+1=2 and the Earth is a Globe" motto back when you were little? Is it various 'sciency' stuff you made and were exposed to as a kid? Were you told that being an astronaut is a hero thing to be? TV shows and movies? What?
First, we can establish the Moon's distance by bouncing radio waves off of the Moon. It's routinely done by ham operators. That also establishes the Moon as something that reflects radio waves. Second, we can directly measure the tidal forces of the Moon. That combined with its orbital period give a pretty good estimate of both the Earth and Moon's masses. We can easily measure its apparent width from Earth and that gives us an idea of its density which is consistent with Earth's crust. We don't see waves and such, so it's a solid object. Solid objects of that density can be walked on.
As to the observations you've claimed to have made, I don't believe you could make a good portion of those and still be operating in good faith. I don't know if you are outright lying or merely being extremely biased in your observations.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:15AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU [youtube.com]
Our rocket technology was superior to our video technology at the time. That is, we just barely had adequate tech to get to the moon, but we most definitely did not have the tech to fake all the video.
This guy seems just a bit bizarre to me, but he does know what he's talking about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @03:19PM
30 to 40 km isn't even out of the stratosphere [wikimedia.org], numbnuts. Do you even fucking know how gravity works? WTF does air density have to do with how quickly something accelerates towards the ground?
I told you the flat earth thing was made of ass and fail, but you didn't listen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @04:21PM
WTF? You babble with words that individually sound reasonable, but put together is some sort of physical nonsense. You need some lessons in Newton's Laws. You need to understand that, generally, for the same kind of material, smaller particles have smaller masses. You also need to be schooled in the lunar soil composition (hint: its particle distribution and composition isn't uniform at the surface and sub-surface, just like on Earth).
You had it right for decades, at least up until whatever head trauma you apparently suffered that changed your outlook on physics and life in general.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @04:42PM
WTF? You babble with words
You need to understand that
whatever head trauma you apparently suffered
Wow someone's angry. What happened, someone took your favorite ball away from you?
Don't you worry, I will replace it with a plane!
But in the meantime, go tie your knots someplace else, and quit your trolling bigotry- I am trying to have a civilized conversation here.
Off with you!
(Score: 1) by jorl17 on Tuesday September 06 2016, @07:13PM
I am genuinely curious. If you say the earth is flat, what kind of flat earth model are we talking about? How do you explain tides, day-night cycle and the usual "hot topics" in the discussion? Could you post answers to these and other questions or provide some link? I am very interested in understanding what you believe in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @07:51PM
To the flat earther: please also include your alternative calculations to account for Eratosthenes' observations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @08:43PM
I am genuinely curious.
As am I. And I am genuinely happy to share with you what I know and what I can prove.
If you say the earth is flat, what kind of flat earth model are we talking about?
I say that the Earth is flat as far as I can personally see. I will be the first one to admit that this perhaps is not too far: but it is far enough to convince me that the Earth is not a convex sphere 6397 km in radius.
I can easily spot vessels (that I have the schematics for and know their dimensions) well beyond the alleged convexity of such a sphere. One of those vessels is about 8m high at the body, and if you include the mast it is about 13.5m high. On a clear day, I can see all of it when it is more than 20km away from me, by using a camera with an optical zoom of x83. When it apparently 'sinks' below the horizon, I set up a refraction telescope that has an objective lens with a focal point at 90cm. I use an eye piece with a focal length of 45mm with this objective lens, which brings up the optical magnification to x200, and then I can clearly see the whole vessel again until it disappears into the haze. The altitude of the camera and the telescope is between 3.7 to 3.8m, and I have verified the trigonometry that I used to be sure how much of the vessel should be hidden at that distance.
There is no plausible combination of atmospheric attenuation, optical illusions, thermal inversions or lens and measurement error to account for what I am able to see: sometimes, when viewing conditions are not optimal, I see ocean swell, distorted images, reflections and the like. But I have repeated this experiment enough times to be able to know when I get a sharp and clear image, because I also have had enough crappy images to compare it with. Plus, I am taking it to the limit: my target should be completely hidden from the alleged curvature.
This of course does not prove that the whole Earth is flat. However, if the Earth is NOT flat and "has to" be a convex sphere (for whatever reason), then it must have a much much higher radius than 6397 km
How do you explain tides
I cannot explain tides (though I have encountered various 'crazy' models about them) but I can tell you that I do not believe they are explained by the theory of gravity. Not only tide charts for different parts of the world report cycles that are not consistent with a 24h period, but if gravity was the cause of tides, then tides would be observed in every large body of water: but closed seas, lakes and rivers all lack tides. So all I can gather is that gravity cannot be responsible for tides because, if it were, it would not discriminate between oceans and contained bodies of water.
day-night cycle
The model that seems to fit the most to what I observe is that the Sun's light is localized, the Sun acting like a spotlight of sorts as it circles around the Earth, and that it cannot illuminate the totality of the Earth's surface at once. Surely it appears to go "below" the horizon in everyday life, but I have seen the Sun set over dry deserts and also at high altitudes (where the atmospheric effects are minimized) and I took note how it diminishes in apparent angular size, something that is consistent with an object moving away towards the horizon: if you get lucky, you can see it reducing its size quite noticeably as it retreats, requiring no special instrument to measure it. Also, as Sunlight cannot penetrate the ocean forever having a depth where the column density of the water is simply too high for Sunlight to penetrate (around 200m if I am not mistaken), so it is not outrageous to infer the same about the atmosphere.
the usual "hot topics" in the discussion?
I am not sure what you refer to exactly. I guess that the basic "hot topic" would be that if the Earth is flat, or even "flat enough" to still have a globular shape, it is quite different than the sizes quoted by modern astronomy, and the theory of gravity is right out of the window, which forces the re-examination of the heavenly bodies, the nature and distance of the Sun and the Moon, all that.
Out of what I am guessing you are asking, I can also tell you that if what we know about gyroscopic behavior is true, then I deduce the Earth to be motionless: once you spin a gyroscope then its orientation should be fixed, and it will resist change in angular direction (it will 'point' to the same star, ignoring the Earth's rotation below it). But this is not so: try as I might, I could never observe this.
Two points here: I realized that the artificial horizon in aircraft (I have flown aircraft myself) is a purely mechanical device. You calibrate it while you are in the ground to level it with the ground, and neither the convexity, nor the rotation of the Earth is ever taken into account. Aircraft fly and navigate according to machinery built for a stationary and flat Earth.
Point two: I have served in the military, artillery division: never did we account for any rotation or convexity while executing, and we executed some pretty neat shots.
or provide some link?
I am not sure what to tell you, because I would really hate to influence you with any one video or post. Per your remark it is a hot topic, and there is a lot of ranting out there. There is proof, almost proof, clues, hints, bitching, plain stupidity and disinformation. There is a lot of good information, but a lot of, well, no so good. You should really try to see for yourself. For me, there is a guy that appears to be quite objective and honest, so maybe you want to hear what he has to say. Try and search youtube for "The Ultimate Litmus Test", and perhaps this guy [youtube.com]. All amateur stratospheric balloons are pretty awesome too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:04PM
Also Eratosthenes, numbnuts. Start with the basics. I'm even giving you room to get creative here with your hypothesis about the sun moving around above a flat earth.
How does a stick cast a shadow one place when another stick in another place casts no shadow at the same time?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:46AM
Explain how the moon buggy makes "rooster tails" in the alleged vacuum on the surface of the Moon.
Because that's exactly what would be expected.
Note how the dust doesn't billow as it would on Earth, thus proving that the event occurred in a vacuum.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @01:29PM
Note how the dust doesn't billow
You are hopeless: the dust DOES billow on the supposed surface of the Moon, impossible in a vacuum.
Watch the damn video.
And haven't I already told you that is time to wake up?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @01:40PM
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! Arise from your thousand year slumber!
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @01:53PM
Watch the damn video.
The video? Which video would that be?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @02:02PM
The video? Which video would that be?
The video with the moon buggy making rooster tails.
Sorry I yelled at you (blurry morning)
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @02:06PM
Rooster tails are not billows.
And I can't read your mind; give me a link to the video you're talking about.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @03:40PM
Rooster tails are not billows.
Never claimed they are. However, they contain billows (the "feather" or "puff" of the rooster tail).
And I can't read your mind; give me a link to the video you're talking about.
Aren't you the lazy one. Here [youtube.com]. Pick your own, there are quite a few around. I recommend you watch them muted at least once. Here [youtube.com] is a muted one, from Apollo 17 presumably (not that it matters).
And here is some breakdancing [youtube.com] I have been trying to match for years. MAN this guy can MOVE! I wish I had a balloon filled with Helium to attach it to my shoulderblades and walk around with!
As for the Soviets, consider this: if, just IF, space is not what they teach you and me at school, how would they then call it without also exposing themselves? After all, they Sputnik'ed the US of A in shame.
Perhaps you are good in coding. Me I am not that good. If you happen to be, then go get this "released" code from github. See if it checks out. And bear in mind that if it does, this does not prove that NASA walked on the Moon. Or that the Moon is walkable. But if it does not, now that would be interesting.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @06:35PM
Aren't you the lazy one.
No, you were being lazy. You claimed there was a video. I wasn't going to waste my time finding one only to be told that it didn't show the effect or was inelligible for some other reason. So I wanted you to provide a video so there would be no arguments about the one that got used.
I see no billowing. I see rooster tails which stay far too coherent for far too long to be happening in an atmosphere. The particles are following parabolas, just as one should expect in a vacuum.
Just look at the way the dust comes off the tops of the tyres in coherent sheets. Again not something that would happen in an atmosphere.
if, just IF, space is not what they teach you and me at school, how would they then call it without also exposing themselves? After all, they Sputnik'ed the US of A in shame.
If space is not what they teach at school, why didn't the US call the Soviets out as soon as they'd "launched" Sputnik? And what, pray tell, was the point of perpetuating all the supposed falsehoods up to and after then?
See if it checks out. And bear in mind that if it does, this does not prove that NASA walked on the Moon.
Then what's the point of "seeing if it checks out"?
Thousands of better nerds than I are going to be poring over this code. If there's anything suspect about it, we would find out soon enough.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @07:24PM
No, you were being lazy.
Perhaps, but you are still acting lazy. I covered this further up on the thread [soylentnews.org] (that you are too lazy to follow =P)
And what, pray tell, was the point of perpetuating all the supposed falsehoods up to and after then?
The obvious common denominator that I can see in all this, is to present the Earth as an insignificant randomly generated spinning ball, similar to billions of trillions of others; and that "you shouldn't worry about the nature of our environment, because we worried about it already and here are some pictures on how it is, now have some pie and goodnight, nothing further to see here". Yet EVERY experiment that you can do will show you that the Earth is motionless, and geometrically consistent with the geometry of an infinite plane. The only altitude where the horizon will not follow you and be at eye level is at NASA altitude: was the Earth a globe, the horizon would recede as you gain altitude. The ONLY claims that disagree with the motionless Earth and the lack of convexity come from post-WW2 governments, impossible to be reproduced unless you own your own satellites, missiles, and access to Antarctica and the North Pole, and this is why there has been such a long debate about the shape of the Earth. What, suddenly Einstein is proclaimed a genius by the Fox news of the day, NASA shows you some pictures during the '50s allegedly "from satellites", and the debate for the shape of the Earth is over?
And as a personal remark, stop behaving as if I have all the answers. I entertain your 3 or 4 questions as I have done so in the past, and I always prompt you to go and do your own observations and research, and not to take my word for it. And you return with like 10 more questions, AND an attitude.
Is there something preventing you from doing your own observations and experiments?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @07:55PM
EVERY experiment that you can do will show you that the Earth is... geometrically consistent with the geometry of an infinite plane
Eratosthenes!
I'll deal with motionless once you explain him away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:41PM
I have covered Eratosthenes at a previous post [soylentnews.org].
I'll deal with motionless once you explain him away.
Thank you for your vote of confidence. But the only thing you need to 'deal with' is your angry self. I envy you not.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @08:28PM
Yet EVERY experiment that you can do will show you that the Earth is motionless
Such as? And what about the ones which don't, like Foucault pendulum?
and geometrically consistent with the geometry of an infinite plane.
So where does the sun - which does not change angular velocity or angular width in the sky - go at night, and why do people on the other side of the world see it when we don't?
For that matter, why can't I see the French alps from my window?
The ONLY claims that disagree with the motionless Earth and the lack of convexity come from post-WW2 governments
What? Eratosthenes measurement the circumference of the Earth in ancient times. He'd have been hard-pushed to do so if the Earth was flat. And scientific claims don't all get filtered through government. This isn't 1984.
NASA shows you some pictures during the '50s allegedly "from satellites", and the debate for the shape of the Earth is over?
It was over long before then. Only contrarians like yourself who seem to some deep need to be at odds with the status quo are trying to keep it alive.
And as a personal remark, stop behaving as if I have all the answers.
As an equally personal remark, stop believing things for the sake of the feeling of specialness it gives you to know you're "right." Stop making ridiculous claims without decent evidence (unless you're happy to accept that people would be right, in such circumstances, to ignore you).
Is there something preventing you from doing your own observations and experiments?
Yes, it's called the burden of proof, and it rests entirely with you.
My observations, anyway, are as follows:
1. The Sun disappears below the horizon at night. It doesn't change angular velocity or angular size in the sky.
2. I can't see the French alps from my window.
3. I can't see England either.
4. My sister, who I have no evidence to suspect is part of a massive government conspiracy, consistently claims that her local time is some six hours behind mine.
5. I've literally seen the curvature of the Earth with my own eyes.
All of these things are inconsistent with a flat Earth.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:39PM
Yes, it's called the burden of proof, and it rests entirely with you.
You misunderstand: me trying to answer the questions you pose to me does not mean that I "have to" prove anything to you. Nobody "has to" do anything for anybody, unless you believe in slavery. And even according to the "burden of proof" and "status quo" doctrine that you unfortunately seem to have submitted your free will to, I still do not "have to" anything: the claim that the Earth is a spinning ball hanging in space and rotating around a perpetual nuclear fusion at mind-boggling speeds held by the magic force of gravity, that only NASA and Einstein have proofs for, all those coming from a Big Bang grand explosion where nothing, for no reason, arbitrarily decided to explode and create life out of pure coincidence, is equally extraordinary to the notion of a flat and stationary Earth. The difference is that it is a story that you (and me) are taught and spoon-fed enough throughout youth, and feel more familiar and comfortable with.
1. The Sun disappears below the horizon at night. It doesn't change angular velocity or angular size in the sky.
It does change angular size during Sunset. It shrinks. A known and prominent effect on high altitudes, and also deserts, where atmospheric attenuation is relatively low.
2. I can't see the French alps from my window.
Attenuation.
3. I can't see England either.
Ditto. This is no different than (2).
4. My sister, who I have no evidence to suspect is part of a massive government conspiracy, consistently claims that her local time is some six hours behind mine.
The globe model is not the only one that can explain timezones. A spotlight-like Sun over a flat planar Earth can also explain this observation.
5. I've literally seen the curvature of the Earth with my own eyes.
You have mentioned this before. Something about you climbing a high mountain. And I have literally seen the flat horizon following me at eye level, at every altitude. And as I pointed to you before, this is subjective, and this is why I also proposed an experiment to you, where you can use a simple x200 refractory telescope and track objects behind the alleged curvature, as explained in detail in previous posts. An experiment you still refuse to perform.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:31PM
It does change angular size during Sunset. It shrinks.
Only in one direction, and in a manner perfectly consistent with refraction.
Attenuation.
No, not attenuation. Attenuation doesn't mean you suddenly can't see beyond a certain distance. Considering that from orbit the ground can be clearly observed through the atmosphere, the (not all that much, comparatively) extra distance required for me to see England should not render it invisible.
If attenuation were that much of a factor, I wouldn't be able to see moon when it's rising, either (assuming you agree that it does actually rise and set, which you may well not, even though it would be contrary to the evidence of your own eyes).
At a height of 10 degrees I'd be looking through almost as much atmosphere as the distance to England, and yet I can still see the moon and even stars (which are much dimmer than the moon) at that height.
The globe model is not the only one that can explain timezones. A spotlight-like Sun over a flat planar Earth can also explain this observation.
But that "explanation" is entirely inconsistent with the constant-angular-velocity constant-angular-width Sun which we see passing through the sky every day. Not to mention the blindingly obvious fact that the Sun rises and sets.
You have mentioned this before. Something about you climbing a high mountain. And I have literally seen the flat horizon following me at eye level, at every altitude.
Not a mountain - a translantic flight at 30,000+ feet. That's higher than any mountain.
where you can use a simple x200 refractory telescope and track objects behind the alleged curvature, as explained in detail in previous posts. An experiment you still refuse to perform.
Because it's a damn near impossible experiment for me to perform. Some of us don't have easy access to conveniently sized bodies of water. In any case, I would not be sufficiently motiviated by the evidence you have thus far presented to feel any such effort would be warranted (and I'm not exactly hopeful that you'd view any results with objectivity, anyway).
Why don't you do an even simpler experiment - I mean, it doesn't get any simpler, really - and watch the sun set? Now explain that in the context of a flat Earth with time zones.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:50AM
AnonTroll is a troll
Amazing how many goats walked over his bridge though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @01:38PM
Ditto. He hasn't taken my advice on either finding a better conspiracy theory or revamping this one, so it's best at this point to simply mod down and ignore him.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:37PM
Well, I am sure that they laughed at the Academy of Science when he presented his flat lunar billows theory. Since when did they start providing internet to inmates of the Home for the Criminally Insane Mad Scientists?
But it was rather fun to watch Runaway and khallow take it seriously enough to try and refute it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:46AM
But it was rather fun to watch Runaway and khallow take it seriously enough to try and refute it.
Runaway and khallow are doing just fine, and so does wonkey_monkey. All are being quite fair and are having a flawless and civilized discussion. They very seldom allow their attitude, pretentiousness and arrogance to take over, they do not lose their cool in places where I do, and they do not give answers based on their reflexes and their 'reputation' on soylentnews. They answer logged in, while I post AC. In short, they are willing to examine and debate claims no matter how extraordinary they may seem, something that science should be all for, and not against, otherwise it becomes dogma and witch hunt.
I recommend that you behave and you behave wisely, and use this as an opportunity to take a good hard look at yourself first, followed by a good hard look on what you think you know about the world around you.
Unless of course you want to be remembered as that guy that resorts to ridicule and petty bigotry, when in lack of arguments.
'Aristarchus' is not an easy nickname to live up to, so tread carefully.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:02AM
Unless of course you want to be remembered as that guy that resorts to ridicule and petty bigotry, when in lack of arguments.
'Aristarchus' is not an easy nickname to live up to, so tread carefully.
Um, your measurements of the lunar sphere are way off. We knew stuff like this back in the Third Century, BC! So really, it is you who lack arguments, my dear and fluffy AC. And what is this talk of "nicknames"?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:56AM
One advantage of a story being kinda late in the hype cycle is when I saw this earlier in the cycle a month or two ago, I was motivated enough to re-read the Obrien book "The Apollo Guidance Computer: Architecture and Operation" (yeah that guy: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/franko.html [nasa.gov] )
Its long but seems to be written for non-programmers so I found it a pretty easy read.
Anyway... some of the engineering decisions and architectural decisions are interesting and have far reaching influence in the code. I donno if there's much point in reading the code without having the 400 page manual at hand.
As an example from the book, if you're all "WTF is gimbal lock and why is there a lot of work to detect and avoid it" in theory a static or infinitely slowly moving inertial platform only "needs" three axis however for a good laugh do the calculus to figure out the angular velocity and acceleration for a given movement depending on other axis angles and unfortunately you can align (oh the pun) an IMU axis set such that a small angular movement means one of the axis has to do a 180 flip around as another axis passes thru 90 degrees and the angular velocity times diameter means the surface velocity has to be a good chunk of the speed of light etc. There are (trivial-ish) mechanical ways to avoid this involving driving yet more axis pretty quickly to keep the measurement axis in happy-mode.
Another interesting "SCADA" like concept is the AGC is basically totally open loop. It tells the machinery what to do, assumes it happens, and only reacts based on other large scale results. So the DAP just kinda assumes the RCS system works, and keeps on assuming it until the astronauts take over or it semi-automatically handles asymmetric thrust or whatever. It does a lot (although not all) in what car engine computers would call "open loop".
Almost everywhere in 2016 I'd use an I2C A/D converter the AGC goes to great effort to send delta modulation pulses that are totalized by interrupt service routines. A lot of work is put into zero-ing systems and making services fast because back then a simple counter or A/D converter was quite large and heavy.
The book explains some stuff that would probably be total WTF if never seen before. For example I know about gyrocompasses for marine use, its a gross simplification of a Foucault pendulum, in retrospect unsurprisingly an easy way to bootstrap an IMU sitting on the ground for the last ten minutes before launch or whatever is to go full Foucault pendulum to align the IMU. Ironically the AGC is a passenger for the 1st and 2nd stage which has its own computer and IMU.
You may be wondering where the HVAC controls are, etc, and the answer is there aren't any computer connections. Fundamentally its an incredibly complex autopilot that can talk directly to multiple engines and a sextant and telescope for alignment and its capable of some pretty amazing scheduled flight maneuvers but it doesn't play mp3 files or dim the lights or run the air conditioner. It really is the apollo Guidance computer not a general purpose computer like the shuttles and later spacecraft had.
Finally philosophically the author and I are on the same wavelength WRT some issues like "power". There's always some jackass who claims their iphone is 20 or a billion or a trillion times "more powerful" than the ole AGC, to which the only possible response is "OK so if power level 1 gets humans to the moon and back, your power level trillion means you're posting selfies on Mars with that iphone, or your iphone is NOT as powerful as you claim?" Probably a better way to compare an embedded spacecraft control systems "power" is via its extensive I/O and control capability, in that fairer comparison its about as "powerful" as a 2016 car's engine computer system plus maybe the transmission and the GPS all in one.
So anyway thats my weird book review, that repo goes together quite well with "The Apollo Guidance Computer: Architecture and Operation"
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday September 06 2016, @02:35PM
There's a Youtube channel called "Vintage Space" that covers gimbal lock and some other cool stuff.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Tuesday September 06 2016, @12:48PM
I fully expect to see a javascript game for a browser - with the elite control panel. LOL
But on a side note, interesting to see the computational density...not much space at all...