Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 01, 2023, 04:00:15 AM

Quote from: Stash on April 01, 2023, 03:48:33 AM

No slow-mo required. Here's a guy who builds model rockets. He's been working for years to replicate SpaceX booster landings. Here's a test flight in real time. See how it slowly rises with thrust and slowly gains speed, just like the big ones do...


Here's his model booster landing - 7 years to get it to work...

Correct, no slow motion because it's a real rocket/missile under full thrust against mass leaving the lift-off to be marginal in terms of thrust-to-mass ratio.
Would you like me to show you model rockets and how they lift off rather than the cherry-picked one that struggles?
Go and look at a real missile and then go and look at a supposed space rocket launch and tell me the difference.

Why does a dumptruck fully loaded with 10 tons of gravel slowly accelerate from a standstill and eventually gets up to maximum speed after a minute or so versus an F1 car that blasts off the line and reaches it's maximum speed in about 5 seconds?

In both cases the truck and the car are not using full acceleration.

Interesting experiment that shows adding weight to a bicyclist makes it harder to bike up hill.

Anyway..  added





In a no gravity delusion, weight has no meaning.  Yet weight has real and measurable consequences for a bicyclist.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 01, 2023, 05:35:56 AM

In both cases the truck and the car are not using full acceleration.

Whatever…

From..
Modern cars absolutely confirm gravity

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91142.30

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 15, 2023, 03:28:56 AM

Interesting experiment that shows adding weight to a bicyclist makes it harder to bike up hill.

Anyway..  added





In a no gravity delusion, weight has no meaning.  Yet weight has real and measurable consequences for a bicyclist.

Why do you act like certain things have never been posted and debated….

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 01, 2023, 06:30:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 01, 2023, 05:35:56 AM

In both cases the truck and the car are not using full acceleration.

Whatever…

From..
Modern cars absolutely confirm gravity

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91142.30

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 15, 2023, 03:28:56 AM

Interesting experiment that shows adding weight to a bicyclist makes it harder to bike up hill.

Anyway..  added





In a no gravity delusion, weight has no meaning.  Yet weight has real and measurable consequences for a bicyclist.

Why do you act like certain things have never been posted and debated….

What are you trying to offer with this?

Quote from: Stash on April 01, 2023, 04:26:47 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 01, 2023, 04:00:15 AM

Quote from: Stash on April 01, 2023, 03:48:33 AM

No slow-mo required. Here's a guy who builds model rockets. He's been working for years to replicate SpaceX booster landings. Here's a test flight in real time. See how it slowly rises with thrust and slowly gains speed, just like the big ones do...


Here's his model booster landing - 7 years to get it to work...

Correct, no slow motion because it's a real rocket/missile under full thrust against mass leaving the lift-off to be marginal in terms of thrust-to-mass ratio.
Would you like me to show you model rockets and how they lift off rather than the cherry-picked one that struggles?
Go and look at a real missile and then go and look at a supposed space rocket launch and tell me the difference.

Why does a dumptruck fully loaded with 10 tons of gravel slowly accelerate from a standstill and eventually gets up to maximum speed after a minute or so versus an F1 car that blasts off the line and reaches it's maximum speed in about 5 seconds?

In both cases the truck and the car are not using full acceleration. The only reason the F1 car gets to maximum acceleration is due to its mass and shape and through the gears.
The dump truck gets there in exactly the same way only over more time due to the mass against the acceleration

Also, this is horizontal and bears no resemblance to a vertical rocket at full thrust.

Offer something else.

You're going to have to come up with a better argument.

Quote from: Stash on April 01, 2023, 10:07:57 AM

You're going to have to come up with a better argument.

It's the best he has. He gave you his crème de la crème!

And it was still a pile of steaming turd

In both cases the truck and the car are not using full acceleration. The only reason the F1 car gets to maximum acceleration is due to its mass and shape and through the gears.

The dump truck gets there in exactly the same way only over more time due to the mass against the acceleration

Also, this is horizontal and bears no resemblance to a vertical rocket at full thrust.

Quote from: Kami on March 30, 2023, 11:26:21 AM

The presence of mass and energy curves the fabric of spacetime. This causes a lot of (measured and proven) effects, the most prominent one is gravity. With some reasonable assumptions, gravity can be approximated by Newton's inverse square law which states that masses attract each other (similar to the electromagnetic force, just weaker and in the opposite direction).

Gravity explains how the solar system formed, why all planets (and the sun) are ball-shaped, how the sun maintains nuclear fusion, how the orbits of planets work, and how tides work. Would you like me to explain how gravity causes tides?

When all of this BS came out, over many years, and many other excuses along the way, this is a part of what they finally settled on, to claim as being all truths. 

Now, they're telling us that they have seen a monstrous-sized 'black hole' in 'space', way, way out in 'space', which nobody else has ever seen, or ever WILL see, except for only THEM to ever  see, with their own eyes, etc.

How could anyone believe this crap, is just baffling.

If they claim that they have seen, or 'detected with instruments', some gigantic-sized thing they spewed about being 'out in deep space', or said it was most likely to exist, anyway, until now, or recently, at least. 

But now, they claim to have SEEN an 'actual black hole', out in deep, deep, space, right?

This would certainly be considered a most EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM, and would certainly require to show that it has the most extraordinary proof for it, too, while it has absolutely NO proof at all, and worst of all, they don't allow anyone else to see this most incredible sighting, which nobody ever had seen, or known to even EXIST, at all, until now.

But we're never going to see it, because it's complete BS, claiming to see something out in 'space', but never allowing anyone else to see it, to confirm it is true, or if it is all BS, which it always is, or they'd allow us to see it, and they WOULD, and MUST, allow others to see it, and confirm it is true, or not true, if this was an actual science, but it's the very opposite of actual science, and all their claims are based entirely on what they claim to have seen, which nobody else has ever seen, which could only be PROVEN AS TRUE, or false, with OTHER PEOPLE seeing what they've claimed to see 'out there, in deep space', right?

That's not science, it's a perversion of science, claiming to be actual science. They use half-truths, to give the appearance of being legitimate science, to spread their many lies, for all of the rest, once in while. Lie after lie, with little of truth, if any at all.

'Space' is nothing that we clearly have seen, they have lied about everything about 'space', which is an illusion they created as being true, for the entire story.

After they said Earth was a ball, speeding through endless space, without any proof at all, and yet everyone still believed it was all true, we were all doomed, right there. It's so sad.

Quote from: Wolvaccine on March 31, 2023, 06:03:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 31, 2023, 05:57:52 AM

Quote from: Kami on March 30, 2023, 11:26:21 AM

With some reasonable assumptions, gravity can be approximated by Newton's inverse square law which states that masses attract each other (similar to the electromagnetic force, just weaker and in the opposite direction).

Ok give me an example of mass attracting mass.
Let's use a small model boat and a supertanker 10 feet apart.
Do you think the small model boat is going to stick to the supertanker?

Aren't you forgetting about the ~5,970,000,000,000,000,000,000,000kg rock they are both on top of?

Who weighs that?
Isn't your rock in a  supposed space vacuum just spinning against nothing?
Any idea about how this mass works in that scenario...say...against the other smaller piece of rock you claim is your moon?


Anyway back to the model boat and the supertanker 10 feet apart. Any idea why the mass doesn't attract the mass?

Mean,  something like this…

Quote

'Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary

https://www.newsweek.com/behind-curve-netflix-ending-light-experiment-mark-sargent-documentary-movie-1343362?amp=1



In his first attempt, Campanella's laser light spread out too much over the distance, making an accurate measurement impossible. But at the very end of Behind the Curve, Campanella comes up with a similar experiment, this time involving a light instead of a laser. With two holes cut into styrofoam sheets at the same height, Campanella hopes to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth.

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

This supposed flat Earth proponent is supposedly finding out on his video that the Earth is actually a ball, with some test that doesn't use sharp, focused laser beams because he said they were not accurate enough over some distance, and then uses some sort of flashlight instead, and bores holes into panels of some sort, lines them over a distance, with these holes at the same height. And then he points his 'flashlight' to the first hole in a panel, and sees if the light goes through the second hole, exactly the same height as it did with the FIRST hole, and so on, to the third hole, and fourth hole, etc.

Of course, you don't have any clue about it being a propaganda piece, put out by the liars of your side, which you don't even know ARE complete liars, or refuse to accept they are.

The most obvious indication that it is a propaganda piece, it when they describe him as a 'flat Earth believer', and basically says that 'He created this test, expecting it would 'prove' that the Earth actually IS flat'.   

Why would they mention that he 'believes Earth is flat', like some sort of headline to the whole piece? That those who believe Earth is flat, like 'this guy', who actually did his own 'tests' to prove Earth is flat, later find out that they were completely wrong, and even prove it is a BALL, with their OWN tests!

Whoever was behind this crap, perhaps a bunch of lackies, or just some fools, or whatever, isn't relevant to this, and we'd probably never even know, anyway.


As for his 'test', the only RELEVANT matter here, it is yet ANOTHER indication of being a propaganda piece of the ball Earth bunch. It says that this flat Earth believer had first tried to use LASER lights in his test, but found out that they weren't ACCURATE enough, as they would spread out more over more distance away!

Why did it describe this as a laser light, but not a laser level? Is it actually a laser LEVEL, or just a laser light, from a POINTER? Why describe it as a laser LIGHT, but not even describe what the INSTRUMENT is?  To describe the specific INSTRUMENTS used, for tests, is essential, or it's worthless. Or the specific piece would, at best, be considered as a 'puff piece', which are articles used to promote or hype some products being developed, or for sale, and they splash it out in these puff pieces, which appear as 'pseudo-science' articles, but have little or no specific details in them.

At that alone, this makes your article a puff piece, since there's not any details mentioned, like what the instruments he used in his tests were, where the tests were done, how was it set up, everything used in the tests, what distance, or distances, used in the tests.....

It's entire lack of details, alone, makes it a puff piece, or propaganda, that's beyond any doubt.

There are many other things that indicate propaganda pieces, some which are in your article, if you aren't convinced it is sheer propaganda, or mostly so.


One last point - they claim that he first tried to use a 'laser light' - is it a laser light on a pointer,  or is it a laser LEVEL? Whatever it is, they never tell us.

The best part, though, is when they said this 'ball Earth believer', after his 'laser light' failed to be accurate enough for his tests, replaced it with 'lights'.

What 'lights' he used, isn't described at all, either. It just calls them 'lights', that's it!

This piece (of you know what) was solely intended as ball Earth propaganda, created by ball Earth shills, trying to smear those who know it's a lie, by making up MORE lies about those who know it's a lie.

You've got no clue what instruments were used, or anything at all, but that he used a 'laser light', which failed, but when he used some sort of 'light', but who cares about what kind of 'light' it was, right?

You simply believe what it says, is true, and hold it up as some sort of 'proof' for the Earth being a ball!   

Have you ever heard of some sort of 'lights', which aren't laser lights, that we use to measure for level, because of how ACCURATE those 'lights' measure for level?

No, of course not. Since we use lasers to measure for level, because they ARE accurate, in measuring for level, over distances. We never use other types of 'light', to measure for level, over distances, since they aren't usable, and would NOT work at all, so what they claim is yet another lie.


It's absolute garbage, period.

Of course, you don't have any clue about it being a propaganda piece

The most obvious indication that it is a propaganda piece, it when they describe him as a 'flat Earth believer', and basically says that 'He created this test, expecting it would 'prove' that the Earth actually IS flat'.   

Why would they mention that he 'believes Earth is flat', like some sort of headline to the whole piece? That those who believe Earth is flat, like 'this guy', who actually did his own 'tests' to prove Earth is flat, later find out that they were completely wrong, and even prove it is a BALL, with their OWN tests!

Why describe it as a laser LIGHT, but not even describe what the INSTRUMENT is?  To describe the specific INSTRUMENTS used, for tests, is essential, or it's worthless.

It's absolute garbage, period.

Why did it describe this as a laser light, but not a laser level?

Why did it describe this as a laser light, but not a laser level?

Rainy Lake Experiment: Conclusion

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Conclusion

Summary
All data and observations agree with the predictions of the Globe Model, which includes Terrestrial Refraction. The predictions for the Flat Earth Model, however, contradict the observations.

The Rainy Lake Experiment shows even better than the Bedford Level Experiment that the earth is a globe, since we also have GPS measurements that are not influenced by Refraction or Perspective, but are of a pure geometric nature. GPS measurements directly provide the radius of the earth.

Only one conclusion remains:

The earth cannot be flat, but is a globe with a mean radius of 6371 km!

And how does that laser choose a direction to point?

Again, they measure an angle, and then extrapolate.
The primary factors determining the accuracy of a laser level over its range is its ability to self level, i.e. how accurately the laser is aligned, which is an angular measurement; and the divergence of the laser.

No, laser levels are instruments which use a laser light which beams out as a fine, sharp, STRAIGHT light, within a degree of accuracy, over distances.

By now, you should realize that laser levels today are extremely accurate in measuring for level

Like all other levels, laser levels measure for straight lines

Surveyors know that Earth's surface is flat

They measure for accuracy of laser levels, which is how accurate they are to being a perfectly straight line over distances.

Sure, they can measure them at angles, but there has to be a straight, level, horizontal line to measure them against, as angles to it.

Two.  What do you gain vs a laser level vs a laser set up as level vs a light and boards with holes at set distances as jigs.

The boards with holes at set distances used as jigs are probably the best at eliminating error if the earth was truly flat. But the earth isn’t flat.  As repeatedly proven and demonstrated.

There's nothing said about this 'light', the specific details of it, or anything at all.

You buy whatever they say, or show you, without any clue about it, as true, or not true, or unknown as either one, as yet.

No, laser levels are instruments which use a laser light which beams out as a fine, sharp, STRAIGHT light, within a degree of accuracy, over distances.

Rainy Lake Experiment: Conclusion

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Conclusion

Summary
All data and observations agree with the predictions of the Globe Model, which includes Terrestrial Refraction. The predictions for the Flat Earth Model, however, contradict the observations.

The Rainy Lake Experiment shows even better than the Bedford Level Experiment that the earth is a globe, since we also have GPS measurements that are not influenced by Refraction or Perspective, but are of a pure geometric nature. GPS measurements directly provide the radius of the earth.

Only one conclusion remains:

The earth cannot be flat, but is a globe with a mean radius of 6371 km!

Notice how you entirely ignored the question?
Again, how do laser levels determine the direction to point?

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 02, 2023, 01:52:55 AM

No, laser levels are instruments which use a laser light which beams out as a fine, sharp, STRAIGHT light, within a degree of accuracy, over distances.

And none of that in any way refutes what I have said.
The primary inaccuracies of the laser level relate to the levelling of the laser, and the beam divergence.

How do you think they work? Just magically snapping to some magical reference plane?

No. They work by determining the direction to down, and projecting a laser out perpendicular to that.

And as already established, over their range they are no accurate enough to measure the curve.

If you need very long distances you don't use a laser level, as they are too inaccurate.
You use a theodolite, a device which can measure the curve of Earth and has.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 02, 2023, 12:18:35 AM

Like all other levels, laser levels measure for straight lines

Again, pure BS.
Like all other levels, laser levels show the direction perpendicular to down.
That is the fundamental mechanism of how they work.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 02, 2023, 12:18:35 AM

Surveyors know that Earth's surface is flat

And more pure BS.
Surveyors know that Earth's surface is very much NOT flat, that it is round, with lots of uneven terrain.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 02, 2023, 12:18:35 AM

They measure for accuracy of laser levels, which is how accurate they are to being a perfectly straight line over distances.

Again, they measure the accuracy of the angle.
Do you think the laser light is magically bent and wavy, and that is why they need to measure it?

Just what do you think makes it less accurate at larger distances?

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 02, 2023, 12:18:35 AM

Sure, they can measure them at angles, but there has to be a straight, level, horizontal line to measure them against, as angles to it.

And more delusional BS.

They reference is a line straight down. Not level, not horizontal, DOWN!
And that is because it is a very trivial direction to find.

But then you try to claim that they are not accurate over 500 meters, or whatever? It can't work both ways, so which one do you believe is true? It doesn't matter, one of your claims is wrong, that's for sure.

'Space' is nothing that we clearly have seen, they have lied about everything about 'space', which is an illusion they created as being true, for the entire story.

No. They work by determining the direction to down, and projecting a laser out perpendicular to that.

If the Earth's surface was curving at a rate of 8 inches per mile, and at a rate of 64 inches over 2 miles, and so on, it would have been measured long ago,

Proof of Earth Curvature: The Rainy Lake Experiment

Saturday, July 20, 2019 - 00:50 | Author: wabis | Topics: FlatEarth, Knowlegde, Science, Experiment

In 1901, Henry Yule Oldham, a reader in geography at King's College, Cambridge, reproduced Wallace's results using three poles fixed at equal height above water level. When viewed through a theodolite, the middle pole was found to be about 6 feet (1.8 m) higher than the poles at each end.[10][11] This version of the experiment was taught in schools in England until photographs of the Earth from space became available, and it remains in the syllabus for the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education for 2023.[12][13][14][15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

If the Earth's surface was curving at a rate of 8 inches per mile, and at a rate of 64 inches over 2 miles, and so on, it would have been measured long ago,

One of the most intriguing aspects of flat earth are those that push space travel is impossible.

And yet.  Comets come and go, changing the night sky.  Comets that travel about our solar system.  Orbit the sun if they don’t get vaporized by the sun.  And a well documented comet that broke apart and crashed into Jupiter.  Leaving dark spots for months, if not changes to Jupiter for years. 

Meteorites light up heaven and earth when falling from space. 

We know, or the evidence is well documented, there is a belt of asteroids in our solar system.

We have a moon, earth’s natural satellite, orbiting our planet.  We can see with binoculars or telescopes other planets in our solar system also have natural satellites.

But, some flat earther’s believe it’s impossible for man to follow where comets, meteorites, and natural satellites have traveled.  Makes no sense.

Because it really doesn't matter.
Just what about the light will magically change it?
Are you suggesting they used some magical light that bends?

No, we don't.
'We accept what makes sense and is supported by evidence.

"'Space' is nothing that we clearly have seen, they have lied about everything..." Now couldn't I apply the same logic™ to your dome? No one has ever "clearly seen" this firmament, this dome you speak of. Doesn't that make the dome a lie? Are you lying about a firmament? Does that mean you lie about everything? 

Are you lying according to your own logic?

A line straight down is called a perfectly VERTICAL line, which is exactly 45 degrees to a perfectly HOIZONTAL line, which is straight across the surface of Earth, and they are both measured by levels, of all types.

When we measure for level, on Earth, or above Earth's surface, over long distances, which would have to account for your 'curvature', even if it DID exist, our instruments which measure for level, have to CONTINUALLY measure for level, over the whole distance it travels, in the case of planes.

Laser levels measure for level over a short distance, with almost perfect accuracy

if it measured that same distance, over and over again, in consecutive segments, of this same distance

If the Earth's surface was curving at a rate of 8 inches per mile, and at a rate of 64 inches over 2 miles, and so on, it would have been measured long ago, and still would be measured today, only more accurately, over more distances, than before.

First, you claim that laser levels have reached out half a million miles away, to the moon's surface

But then you try to claim that they are not accurate over 500 meters, or whatever?

What would be your 'evidence' of this light, when you have no idea what it even IS, other than what they claim was some sort of 'light'!
Think how stupid that is, because it is....you can see that, right?

You deny actual measurements which prove Earth is flat

then say a made up magical force

Your arguments have nothing but lies, piled on more lies, which is not even an argument at all, it is a fairy tale story, but far more bizarre, and made up, than all others.

No, I'm the one who challenges you ball Earth believers to settle who is the liar, and who is telling the truth, by sending rockets upward, to prove if there is, or is not, a Firmament above the Earth.

This is very, very simple to do, and it would settle this entire debate, once and for all.

But when your side refuses to do it, having the rockets to do it, we know who the liar is already

it s the one who refuses to prove who is right, because they know it's not them.

Every astronomer is paid to be a liar, that's their whole purpose, to make up lies, and fables, and of course, NEVER ALLOW ANYONE ELSE TO CONFIRM WHAT THEY"VE CLAIMED TO SEE.

This is nothing but a joke, a sad, pathetic joke, played on the ignorance and gullibility of the masses. It is very, very sad, indeed.

Because it shows how gravity acts like a force.

Both vehicles are pedals to the floor at the start, full thrust.

And it is relevant, horizontal versus vertical is inconsequential.
Both examples are attempting to move mass. Different frictional forces, but both moving mass nonetheless. You're going to have to come up with a better argument.

You deny actual measurements which prove Earth is flat,