The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: RE or FE? on November 26, 2012, 10:26:55 AM
-
When the first Virgin Galactic flight takes off for a 68 mile high trip into space what will FE'rs do when thousands of photos from Joe Citizen flood the Internet and show the curvature of the Earth? What about the interviews that will take place upon their return from the maiden flight. There are more than 532 people on the waiting list for the space flights. How will the FE conspiracy hold up when the average (albeit wealthy) citizen comes back with no agenda to report how amazing their space flight was and how they could "see the curve of the Earth".
-
At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at a circle.
-
So if it looks like a circle and is a flat plane then the space flight will have to be directly above the circle. And if they are not directly above the circle and are at any angle then it will look elliptical and flat. There will be no apparent curve whatsoever correct?
-
So if it looks like a circle and is a flat plane then the space flight will have to be directly above the circle. And if they are not directly above the circle and are at any angle then it will look elliptical and flat. There will be no apparent curve whatsoever correct?
Correct, the curvature seen at such altitudes are slight and elliptical.
-
So if it looks like a circle and is a flat plane then the space flight will have to be directly above the circle. And if they are not directly above the circle and are at any angle then it will look elliptical and flat. There will be no apparent curve whatsoever correct?
Correct, the curvature seen at such altitudes are slight and elliptical.
You are admitting there will be a curvature? If so then what you are saying is that the appearance would be similar to looking at the top of a dome. This is not a flat plane then. I am not trying to create an argument...just trying to understand what you are saying exactly.
-
At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at a circle.
What is the diameter of that circle?
-
And will they see all the continents of the earth at once?
-
And will they see all the continents of the earth at once?
Perhaps not all of the continents but a good portion of them if we are following FET rules of the Earth's shape according to their maps. We should be able to see a good portion of the entire planet if FET actually proves to be true.
However, Tom has referenced in an above post that there will in fact be a curvature to the Earth so I am very perplexed by this statement considering it contravenes FET.
-
Curvature does not contradict FET. The atmolayer is not 100% transparent and thus the observers distance vision fades at a certain radius depending on the altitude. A 360 degree radial turn results in the observer looking down at a circle and circles have curvature. Thus the horizon will appear curved.
-
Though, of course the passengers will be able to see all the continents? And the ice wall? And the infinite plane?
What's an atmolayer anyway? Another postulate?
-
The sun lights up only a small section of earth. You wouldn't be able to see the infinite plane, or all of the continents. The distance is also faded by the atmosphere in such scenes.
-
The sun lights up only a small section of earth. You wouldn't be able to see the infinite plane, or all of the continents. The distance is also faded by the atmosphere in such scenes.
So the Sun (which emits light from all angles simultaneously) only shines its light onto a small portion of Earth at a time correct?
So the Flat Earth Society has redefined how the Sun works as well if I am understanding correctly? The Sun somehow is now a flashlight correct?
-
The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions. Its light is limited in its duration across the surface of the earth much like the light from a lighthouse is limited in its extent around it. The light from a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. After a distance the light from a light house peters out due to terrestrial perspective and the density of the atmosphere.
-
have you done any experimentation? any measurements at all?
what's your scientific back on this?
-
Which part of my post are you questioning?
1. That the sun is a sphere
2. That the light of a light house does not propagate for infinity
3. That the light of a light house is limited by terrestrial perspective and density of the atmosphere
-
The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions.
Stop....right there. If the Earth is a flat plane and the Sun is a sphere emitting light in all directions and the Sun is infinitely above the Earth at all times as claimed by FE'rs then the entire Earth would be illuminated 24/7/365. Unless when you say "shines in all directions" you mean "shines only on one area". Which do you mean? Because if you agree the Sun is a sphere and shines light in all directions and the Earth is a flat plane then explain why it is now dark outside while I type this message. Not only have FE'rs redefined what the Sun is am I now to understand that FE'rs have also redefined how light particles behave?
Now please provide some scientific backing and research that explains to me how light particles simultaneously dispersed in every direction illuminate ONLY a single spot on a flat plane and not the entire surface.
-
The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions.
Stop....right there. If the Earth is a flat plane and the Sun is a sphere emitting light in all directions and the Sun is infinitely above the Earth at all times as claimed by FE'rs then the entire Earth would be illuminated 24/7/365. Unless when you say "shines in all directions" you mean "shines only on one area". Which do you mean? Because if you agree the Sun is a sphere and shines light in all directions and the Earth is a flat plane then explain why it is now dark outside while I type this message. Not only have FE'rs redefined what the Sun is am I now to understand that FE'rs have also redefined how light particles behave?
Now please provide some scientific backing and research that explains to me how light particles simultaneously dispersed in every direction illuminate ONLY a single spot on a flat plane and not the entire surface.
The sun's light is limited in extent just as the light from a light house is limited in extent. The light does not propagate indefinitely into the distance. Its limit is diminished by the opacity of the atmosphere and terrestrial perspective.
-
The sun is also not infinitely above the Earth. Its approximate altitude is 3100 miles.
-
...and the Sun is infinitely above the Earth at all times...
The sun is also not infinitely above the Earth. Its approximate altitude is 3100 miles.
Comprehension 101..... Beautiful.
The sun's light is limited in extent just as the light from a light house is limited in extent.
The sun now includes a Fresnel Lens I am told.
-
Which part of my post are you questioning?
1. That the sun is a sphere
2. That the light of a light house does not propagate for infinity
3. That the light of a light house is limited by terrestrial perspective and density of the atmosphere
i am questioning your comparison between the sun and a light house
it's totally irrelevant. i don't see any point of comparing the two.
there's still no science, no data
-
The sun lights up only a small section of earth. You wouldn't be able to see the infinite plane, or all of the continents. The distance is also faded by the atmosphere in such scenes.
Doesn't the rest of the infinite plane ever get lit up? Is it only "our" bit, that we call earth, that gets sunlight? Otherwise might not see another load of land masses and go "err, what's that?"
-
The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions.
Stop....right there. If the Earth is a flat plane and the Sun is a sphere emitting light in all directions and the Sun is infinitely above the Earth at all times as claimed by FE'rs then the entire Earth would be illuminated 24/7/365. Unless when you say "shines in all directions" you mean "shines only on one area". Which do you mean? Because if you agree the Sun is a sphere and shines light in all directions and the Earth is a flat plane then explain why it is now dark outside while I type this message. Not only have FE'rs redefined what the Sun is am I now to understand that FE'rs have also redefined how light particles behave?
Now please provide some scientific backing and research that explains to me how light particles simultaneously dispersed in every direction illuminate ONLY a single spot on a flat plane and not the entire surface.
The sun's light is limited in extent just as the light from a light house is limited in extent. The light does not propagate indefinitely into the distance. Its limit is diminished by the opacity of the atmosphere and terrestrial perspective.
This argument and forum have made me realize regardless of the logic applied that FE'rs simply believe what they believe simply because they do not recognize or acknowledge those that have come before them who demonstrated findings through proven scientific results based on the scientific method. I am not interested in debating semantics.
You believe what you believe and it is not my right to say whether you are right or wrong. What I can say is that your process for arriving at your conclusions is flawed. If you disagree with this then it means you do not understand the fundamental process and basic structure of an argument.
Your premises must be true in order for your conclusion to be true. You may have 15 supporting premises be true and one untrue premise and it will always render a conclusion as false.
-
What is incorrect about Tom Bishop's statements? You can rant all your want (we have a section specifically for that, by the way), but what you say has no meaning when you can not even point to what you want to argue.
-
What is incorrect about Tom Bishop's statements? You can rant all your want (we have a section specifically for that, by the way), but what you say has no meaning when you can not even point to what you want to argue.
Nobody is "ranting" - you are just trying to typify an argument as emotional so you can dismiss it out of hand. Another low content post from yourself.
I am just asking questions about the infinite plane as seen from space, maybe you could have a crack:
Doesn't the rest of the infinite plane ever get lit up? Is it only "our" bit, that we call earth, that gets sunlight? Otherwise might not see another load of land masses and go "err, what's that?"
-
So when someone sees this from space, this is the lit portion of the disk, correct?
(http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Earth-from-space-night-terminator-day-Apollo-11-mission-July-1969-medium.jpg)
So if the sun's light shines down on a circle of the earth, what is distorting the view from space to make it look like this crescent shape?
Also, since there is no atmosphere in space, the moon should be visible all of the time over the infinite plane given that there is nothing preventing one from being able to see it. So why can it not be seen all of the time, and why it can be seen rising up over the horizon while a craft/the ISS is in orbit. This image below will demonstrate what I'm talking about.
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/01/iss_moonrise_jan2011.jpg)
EDIT: Does the moon rest on the earth at times, and it is now rising up out of the fog of the atmosphere into space?
-
The larger picture is not real, the smaller images are of the Earth's lit disc.
Doesn't the rest of the infinite plane ever get lit up? Is it only "our" bit, that we call earth, that gets sunlight? Otherwise might not see another load of land masses and go "err, what's that?"
Lighting an infinite plane would require an infinite Sun. The Sun is not infinite in size.
-
The larger picture is not real, the smaller images are of the Earth's lit disc.
Well I guess I should have seen that one coming. How do you know it's not real? The source states that it's from Apollo 11. I'm sure I can find other images from Apollo, or maybe from Russian space missions. If you want to wait a few years, I can pull images from Chinese moon missions.
Now, you say the other images are of "earth's lit disc," but that was not relevant to the questions about the other images.
-
Well I guess I should have seen that one coming. How do you know it's not real? The source states that it's from Apollo 11. I'm sure I can find other images from Apollo, or maybe from Russian space missions. If you want to wait a few years, I can pull images from Chinese moon missions.
How do you know its real? Have you sent the equipment up yourself to see? Funny that all personal cameras sent up via balloons and rockets show a disc, but this picture shows a globe
Now, you say the other images are of "earth's lit disc," but that was not relevant to the questions about the other images.
The moon is simply fading from view, it is still obscured by the upper atmolayer.
-
Now, you say the other images are of "earth's lit disc," but that was not relevant to the questions about the other images.
The moon is simply fading from view, it is still obscured by the upper atmolayer.
So the atmosphere extends indefinitely, even to the point of being at the same altitude as the moon? This means it would also be at the same altitude as the sun.
The moon is fading from view, appearing to move downward, from ~400km above the surface of the earth, where there is little to no atmosphere present. What phenomena are we invoking to explain the reason for this?
-
So the atmosphere extends indefinitely, even to the point of being at the same altitude as the moon? This means it would also be at the same altitude as the sun.
I can't say if the atmolayer extends indefinitely, as I have never had an indefinite altitude. However, the Moon is of lower altitude than the Sun, and thus the atmolayer would be a bit thicker at Moon level.
The moon is fading from view, appearing to move downward, from ~400km above the surface of the earth, where there is little to no atmosphere present. What phenomena are we invoking to explain the reason for this?
That is a perspective trick. If you look down a long street, the street lamps will appear to get closer to the horizon, but they're not. The farther something is, the harder time your eyes will have judging the perspective. It's the same reason the Moon appears larger when closer to the horizon.
-
The larger picture is not real, the smaller images are of the Earth's lit disc.
Doesn't the rest of the infinite plane ever get lit up? Is it only "our" bit, that we call earth, that gets sunlight? Otherwise might not see another load of land masses and go "err, what's that?"
Lighting an infinite plane would require an infinite Sun. The Sun is not infinite in size.
Well, or an infinite number of suns. So the rest of the infinite plane is completely dark? Presumably when the passengers look down on the earth the rest of the universe will be completely obscured by the infinite plane that cuts right through it. Or does the plane just extend into another dimension?
-
So the atmosphere extends indefinitely, even to the point of being at the same altitude as the moon? This means it would also be at the same altitude as the sun.
I can't say if the atmolayer extends indefinitely, as I have never had an indefinite altitude. However, the Moon is of lower altitude than the Sun, and thus the atmolayer would be a bit thicker at Moon level.
The FAQ says that the sun and moon "orbit" at an altitude of 3,100 miles.
The moon is fading from view, appearing to move downward, from ~400km above the surface of the earth, where there is little to no atmosphere present. What phenomena are we invoking to explain the reason for this?
That is a perspective trick. If you look down a long street, the street lamps will appear to get closer to the horizon, but they're not. The farther something is, the harder time your eyes will have judging the perspective. It's the same reason the Moon appears larger when closer to the horizon.
So perspective is either causing it to totally disappear behind the atmosphere and seem to go behind the earth from an altitude of ~400km while not changing in apparent size or speed, or it is causing the atmosphere to rise up and gobble it up like a hungry dog. If one is above the atmosphere, then the distances and sizes should become much more apparent. Especially since the atmosphere is no longer in the way and FETs magical magnification/diffusion/refraction/diffraction cannot be happening.
-
Well, or an infinite number of suns. So the rest of the infinite plane is completely dark? Presumably when the passengers look down on the earth the rest of the universe will be completely obscured by the infinite plane that cuts right through it. Or does the plane just extend into another dimension?
I wouldn't know, as I have never been there nor have I seen it. I highly doubt that the Earth is an infinite plane, you could try asking Tom why he believes it is.
The FAQ says that the sun and moon "orbit" at an altitude of 3,100 miles.
I'm not the FAQ. Furthermore, if they were at the same altitude, during a solar eclipse, the Sun would collide with the Moon, not be covered by it.
So perspective is either causing it to totally disappear behind the atmosphere and seem to go behind the earth from an altitude of ~400km while not changing in apparent size or speed, or it is causing the atmosphere to rise up and gobble it up like a hungry dog. If one is above the atmosphere, then the distances and sizes should become much more apparent. Especially since the atmosphere is no longer in the way and FETs magical magnification/diffusion/refraction/diffraction cannot be happening.
Yes.
-
So perspective is either causing it to totally disappear behind the atmosphere and seem to go behind the earth from an altitude of ~400km while not changing in apparent size or speed, or it is causing the atmosphere to rise up and gobble it up like a hungry dog. If one is above the atmosphere, then the distances and sizes should become much more apparent. Especially since the atmosphere is no longer in the way and FETs magical magnification/diffusion/refraction/diffraction cannot be happening.
Yes.
How insightful. How does perspective cause this to happen then? The space is not wide enough to close a 3,100 mile gap, and the section of the planet that the moon would be "disappearing" into would almost surely be dark.
-
I wouldn't know, as I have never been there nor have I seen it. I highly doubt that the Earth is an infinite plane, you could try asking Tom why he believes it is.
Maybe you should, especially before you defend his position. The difference between earth being infinite or finite is far more fundamental than the difference between a flat or round earth.
@ThinkingMan, weird isn't it? It's sort of like the model doesn't work at all....
-
Back on topic regarding the OP. The point is regardless of the massive volume of data that will come from the personal experiences of the passengers of the Virgin Galactic flights the FE'rs are going to deny, deny, deny. I can hear them now. "What proof do you have that people actually went up into space and took these pictures. How do you know Virgin didn't falsify all the space flights and create people out of thin air?"
The clock is ticking so very soon...yes very soon...we will have actual civilians without an agenda to report back to the rest of the people in steerage what shape the Earth actually is.
-
People have been saying personal space flights will be "soon" for the past fifty years. All the companies that have tried either shut down prematurely or go bankrupt trying to get into space. Virgin isn't even close, the best they have done so far is high altitude airplane flights and even that seems to be hard for them to do often. The question is not of our denial, its of yours. When will you stop holding out for evidence of a nonexistent round Earth?
"I don't have to believe in FET, RET will prove itself... soon!"
-
People have been saying personal space flights will be "soon" for the past fifty years. All the companies that have tried either shut down prematurely or go bankrupt trying to get into space. Virgin isn't even close, the best they have done so far is high altitude airplane flights and even that seems to be hard for them to do often. The question is not of our denial, its of yours. When will you stop holding out for evidence of a nonexistent round Earth?
"I don't have to believe in FET, RET will prove itself... soon!"
What other companies have tried and failed? Also, Virgin Galactic has successfully flown several sub-orbital missions.
-
What other companies have tried and failed? Also, Virgin Galactic has successfully flown several sub-orbital missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies)
Proposed, testing, and cancelled is throughout the list. The only successful companies are the ones that simply launch satellites, which is fake. (Don't make the topic about satellites, we have plenty of other threads on that). Virgin has done nothing more than high altitude flights.
-
So I suppose this company doesn't exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Adventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Adventures)
6 Tourists? The tourists aren't satellites.
What about all the others that say "testing," next to "spaceplane." They aren't launching satellites. In fact, if they're testing, that means they have something that works and they're making sure it works the way they built it to work. Lurk M0ar.
-
So I suppose this company doesn't exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Adventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Adventures)
6 Tourists? The tourists aren't satellites.
What about all the others that say "testing," next to "spaceplane." They aren't launching satellites. In fact, if they're testing, that means they have something that works and they're making sure it works the way they built it to work. Lurk M0ar.
People paying hundreds of millions of dollars into the company are not "tourists." If anything, they are investors whom wanted others to think the company was doing well.
-
So I suppose this company doesn't exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Adventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Adventures)
6 Tourists? The tourists aren't satellites.
What about all the others that say "testing," next to "spaceplane." They aren't launching satellites. In fact, if they're testing, that means they have something that works and they're making sure it works the way they built it to work. Lurk M0ar.
People paying hundreds of millions of dollars into the company are not "tourists." If anything, they are investors whom wanted others to think the company was doing well.
So that makes me not a tourist if I pay to board a flight to another country to see things I've never seen before? The cost is generated from somwhere. In the international flight's case, it is the cost of the airplane, runway, paying people in the airport, maintenance, fuel, and some profit. In the case of a flight to the ISS or another orbital location, the costs are much higher and the risks much greater. So the cost for an individual to go there is much higher. Also, where did you get your figure of hundreds of millions of dollars?
-
When the first Virgin Galactic flight takes off for a 68 mile high trip into space what will FE'rs do when thousands of photos from Joe Citizen flood the Internet and show the curvature of the Earth? What about the interviews that will take place upon their return from the maiden flight. There are more than 532 people on the waiting list for the space flights. How will the FE conspiracy hold up when the average (albeit wealthy) citizen comes back with no agenda to report how amazing their space flight was and how they could "see the curve of the Earth".
Good God... You can predict the future!
No, really, those events haven't happened yet. From my understanding, nobody has done any single one of those things, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you're making the assumption that they are going to happen. First off, if there really is no government intervention on a trip to space, then it won't happen. The people will say, "Jeepers, looks pretty darn flat." But if there is government intervention, the flight either won't occur, or they'll be forced to lie, most likely the former.
-
When the first Virgin Galactic flight takes off for a 68 mile high trip into space what will FE'rs do when thousands of photos from Joe Citizen flood the Internet and show the curvature of the Earth? What about the interviews that will take place upon their return from the maiden flight. There are more than 532 people on the waiting list for the space flights. How will the FE conspiracy hold up when the average (albeit wealthy) citizen comes back with no agenda to report how amazing their space flight was and how they could "see the curve of the Earth".
Good God... You can predict the future!
No, really, those events haven't happened yet. From my understanding, nobody has done any single one of those things, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you're making the assumption that they are going to happen. First off, if there really is no government intervention on a trip to space, then it won't happen. The people will say, "Jeepers, looks pretty darn flat." But if there is government intervention, the flight either won't occur, or they'll be forced to lie, most likely the former.
Why would there be government intervention? The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they were testing the Dragon. The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they sent Dragon to the ISS on a cargo run. The government isn't interfering with SpaceX on their reusable rocket program. They haven't intervened with Space Adventures bringing people to stay on the ISS. So why would they intervene with Virgin Galactic performing a simply suborbital flight?
-
People paying hundreds of millions of dollars into the company are not "tourists." If anything, they are investors whom wanted others to think the company was doing well.
You guys are very keen on inventing new definitions to suit you. They are not investors, they are customers. They will pay for a service then they will be done - they will have no investment in the company. Unless of course they buy shares - but this has nothing to do with it.
You are already poisoning the well.
-
Why would there be government intervention? The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they were testing the Dragon. The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they sent Dragon to the ISS on a cargo run. The government isn't interfering with SpaceX on their reusable rocket program. They haven't intervened with Space Adventures bringing people to stay on the ISS. So why would they intervene with Virgin Galactic performing a simply suborbital flight?
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many government permits, certifications, clearances and general red tape is involved in setting up a regular airline? Just imagine how much more bureaucracy there is to wade through to get permission to send paying customers into space in a rocket plane.
-
Why would there be government intervention? The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they were testing the Dragon. The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they sent Dragon to the ISS on a cargo run. The government isn't interfering with SpaceX on their reusable rocket program. They haven't intervened with Space Adventures bringing people to stay on the ISS. So why would they intervene with Virgin Galactic performing a simply suborbital flight?
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many government permits, certifications, clearances and general red tape is involved in setting up a regular airline? Just imagine how much more bureaucracy there is to wade through to get permission to send paying customers into space in a rocket plane.
I'm not sure that's the type of intervention he was referring to. I know that's not what I was referring to. I meant an act that was meant to prevent or alter the plans.
-
Why would there be government intervention? The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they were testing the Dragon. The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they sent Dragon to the ISS on a cargo run. The government isn't interfering with SpaceX on their reusable rocket program. They haven't intervened with Space Adventures bringing people to stay on the ISS. So why would they intervene with Virgin Galactic performing a simply suborbital flight?
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many government permits, certifications, clearances and general red tape is involved in setting up a regular airline? Just imagine how much more bureaucracy there is to wade through to get permission to send paying customers into space in a rocket plane.
I'm not sure that's the type of intervention he was referring to. I know that's not what I was referring to. I meant an act that was meant to prevent or alter the plans.
Something as simple as an inspection can be used to, for example, modify the windows to distort light. Be careful underestimating what can be done with that "bureaucracy."
-
Why would there be government intervention? The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they were testing the Dragon. The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they sent Dragon to the ISS on a cargo run. The government isn't interfering with SpaceX on their reusable rocket program. They haven't intervened with Space Adventures bringing people to stay on the ISS. So why would they intervene with Virgin Galactic performing a simply suborbital flight?
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many government permits, certifications, clearances and general red tape is involved in setting up a regular airline? Just imagine how much more bureaucracy there is to wade through to get permission to send paying customers into space in a rocket plane.
I'm not sure that's the type of intervention he was referring to. I know that's not what I was referring to. I meant an act that was meant to prevent or alter the plans.
Something as simple as an inspection can be used to, for example, modify the windows to distort light. Be careful underestimating what can be done with that "bureaucracy."
And I'm sure all of the pilots and engineers wouldn't notice anything like that on pre-flight checks.
-
Why would there be government intervention? The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they were testing the Dragon. The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they sent Dragon to the ISS on a cargo run. The government isn't interfering with SpaceX on their reusable rocket program. They haven't intervened with Space Adventures bringing people to stay on the ISS. So why would they intervene with Virgin Galactic performing a simply suborbital flight?
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many government permits, certifications, clearances and general red tape is involved in setting up a regular airline? Just imagine how much more bureaucracy there is to wade through to get permission to send paying customers into space in a rocket plane.
I'm not sure that's the type of intervention he was referring to. I know that's not what I was referring to. I meant an act that was meant to prevent or alter the plans.
Something as simple as an inspection can be used to, for example, modify the windows to distort light. Be careful underestimating what can be done with that "bureaucracy."
And I'm sure all of the pilots and engineers wouldn't notice anything like that on pre-flight checks.
A little bit of light distortion? I honestly doubt they will.
-
The company is more likely to warp the windows themselves, to make it seem to tourists that the craft is nearer to the space than it is.
-
The company is more likely to warp the windows themselves, to make it seem to tourists that the craft is nearer to the space than it is.
Of course it is Tom. What makes you say that?? Do you have some intimate knowledge of the operation?
-
Its useless debating with people who jump to their conspiracies when their logic and reason fails...
-
To be fair, they don't have much choice - scientific and observational evidence backs them into a very small corner - they can only get out of it by postulating some enormous conspiracy.
-
The company is more likely to warp the windows themselves, to make it seem to tourists that the craft is nearer to the space than it is.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! The entertainment here NEVER ends. I have struck a nerve with this post because the FE'rs realize the time is coming soon and all your baseless arguments are coming to an end. You can try to explain it away all you want but to no avail.
-
When the first Virgin Galactic flight takes off for a 68 mile high trip into space what will FE'rs do when thousands of photos from Joe Citizen flood the Internet and show the curvature of the Earth? What about the interviews that will take place upon their return from the maiden flight. There are more than 532 people on the waiting list for the space flights. How will the FE conspiracy hold up when the average (albeit wealthy) citizen comes back with no agenda to report how amazing their space flight was and how they could "see the curve of the Earth".
Good God... You can predict the future!
No, really, those events haven't happened yet. From my understanding, nobody has done any single one of those things, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you're making the assumption that they are going to happen. First off, if there really is no government intervention on a trip to space, then it won't happen. The people will say, "Jeepers, looks pretty darn flat." But if there is government intervention, the flight either won't occur, or they'll be forced to lie, most likely the former.
??? - Are you really that obtuse? The first time I ever climbed a mountain guess what I did when I reached the apex? Took a picture. The first time I jumped from 13,500 feet guess what I did? Had a videographer document the entire skydive. The first time (and every time) I ever dove on a ship wreck guess what I did? Took tons of pictures. Anything I do that is daring and exciting I document. As do millions of people everyday when they, too, do something daring and exciting. Why? Why you ask?
BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE TO DOCUMENT THE COOL STUFF THEY SEE AND DO. It is basic common sense. So I ask you how is my assumption that people will take pictures of space hard to fathom?
And what the heck are you talking about regarding "government intervention"? Huh? Sir Richard Branson doesn't invest $1.6 BN into his Galactic enterprise under the assumption he could possibly be shut down. You are being obtuse.