A little science experiment - round earth

Quote from: user99 on February 26, 2009, 09:00:40 AM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on February 26, 2009, 08:50:58 AM

Have you any evidence that did not come from NASA and proves sustained space flight?

Oh dear lord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

He predates NASA by about 400 years.

How does a man dead centuries before we had rockets prove sustained space flight?

How does a man (Rowbotham) prove that sustained space flight was not possible before NASA was created?
According to Tom Bishop he did. He (Rowbotham) can't be trusted either.

The presence of the moon in the sky doesn't mean that rockets will get there.

No... it... means... that... things... can... orbit... the... earth... like... the ... moon.

FE Theory says "sustained spaceflight" is impossible. This is because they think that constant freefall is impossible.

But spaceflight alone is possible. Hence. Rocket go up sky.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on February 26, 2009, 09:05:56 AM

Quote from: user99 on February 26, 2009, 09:00:40 AM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on February 26, 2009, 08:50:58 AM

Have you any evidence that did not come from NASA and proves sustained space flight?

Oh dear lord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

He predates NASA by about 400 years.

How does a man dead centuries before we had rockets prove sustained space flight?

How does a man (Rowbotham) prove that sustained space flight was not possible before NASA was created?
According to Tom Bishop he did. He (Rowbotham) can't be trusted either.

Have you ever heard me seriously quote him?

@ user99:  Things can circle the earth, both models agree on that.  But, because a moon can circle the surface of the world doesn't say that we can throw a metal rock up there and have it stay there.

Go back, read the bleeding FAQ, please.  Then look up a few threads on space flight and the UA.

I have to ask where you got the idea the FE doesn't allow for freefall.  Would you link me to that discussion?

@ user99:  Things can circle the earth, both models agree on that.  But, because a moon can circle the surface of the world doesn't say that we can throw a metal rock up there and have it stay there.

Really? Why is that? What prevents us from putting something up there? FE Theory already accepts that rockets can be flown, it just supposes that they need to maintain constant thrust to stay aloft. But the Moon isn't expanding any force (in this general sense) So why can't we do like the moon once we're up there?

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on February 26, 2009, 09:35:45 AM

@ user99:  Things can circle the earth, both models agree on that.  But, because a moon can circle the surface of the world doesn't say that we can throw a metal rock up there and have it stay there.

Really? Why is that? What prevents us from putting something up there? FE Theory already accepts that rockets can be flown, it just supposes that they need to maintain constant thrust to stay aloft. But the Moon isn't expanding any force (in this general sense) So why can't we do like the moon once we're up there?

Again, this question has been answered a million times.  Search the threads that have covered this in far more exhausting detail than I'm going to.

Try entering this sentence:  "The earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2, so the amount of fuel necessary for sustained spaceflight would be astronomical to the point of being absurd."

and read the threads.

Try entering this sentence:  "The earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2, so the amount of fuel necessary for sustained spaceflight would be astronomical to the point of being absurd."

I think the point is that the Earth is not carrying around oceans of fuel which it's burning to accelerate at 9.8m/s^2. Neither is the Moon. Neither is the Sun. Neither is any celestial object. Why then does a space rocket have to carry around these mountains of fuel to accelerate like everything else once it's up in the same place as all these celestial objects?

Quote

Try entering this sentence:  "The earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2, so the amount of fuel necessary for sustained spaceflight would be astronomical to the point of being absurd."

I think the point is that the Earth is not carrying around oceans of fuel which it's burning to accelerate at 9.8m/s^2. Neither is the Moon. Neither is the Sun. Neither is any celestial object. Why then does a space rocket have to carry around these mountains of fuel to accelerate like everything else once it's up in the same place as all these celestial objects?

Read the threads I directed the last poster to.  The same answer is there.

I think the point is that the Earth is not carrying around oceans of fuel[/quote]do you know how much energy there is in one atom? how many atoms are there in one ocean?

Read the threads I directed the last poster to.  The same answer is there.

I can't see anything that explains why man-made objects can't be accelerated in the same way the celestial objects are, beyond things like 'The celestial objects are made of something different to man-made objects' Which is simply assuming that man-made objects can't be accelerated in such a way and trying to make up hypothesis that supports it.

do you know how much energy there is in one atom? how many atoms are there in one ocean?

And? The Earth and celestial objects are not carrying around oceans of fuel that they are using to constantly accelerate, regardless of whether there's a lot of energy in an atom or not.

Quote

Read the threads I directed the last poster to.  The same answer is there.

I can't see anything that explains why man-made objects can't be accelerated in the same way the celestial objects are, beyond things like 'The celestial objects are made of something different to man-made objects' Which is simply assuming that man-made objects can't be accelerated in such a way and trying to make up hypothesis that supports it.

Quote

do you know how much energy there is in one atom? how many atoms are there in one ocean?

And? The Earth and celestial objects are not carrying around oceans of fuel that they are using to constantly accelerate, regardless of whether there's a lot of energy in an atom or not.

Did you read the theory on the UA yet or not?

Come back when you do.  It will explain the questions you have raised by the FE model.

Quote from: NTheGreat on February 26, 2009, 04:59:22 PM

Quote

Read the threads I directed the last poster to.  The same answer is there.

I can't see anything that explains why man-made objects can't be accelerated in the same way the celestial objects are, beyond things like 'The celestial objects are made of something different to man-made objects' Which is simply assuming that man-made objects can't be accelerated in such a way and trying to make up hypothesis that supports it.

Quote

do you know how much energy there is in one atom? how many atoms are there in one ocean?

And? The Earth and celestial objects are not carrying around oceans of fuel that they are using to constantly accelerate, regardless of whether there's a lot of energy in an atom or not.

Did you read the theory on the UA yet or not?

Come back when you do.  It will explain the questions you have raised by the FE model.

Like the UA doesn't raise more questions than it answers.

Try entering this sentence:  "The earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2, so the amount of fuel necessary for sustained spaceflight would be astronomical to the point of being absurd."

No that's not the answer. Christ you don't even know flat earth doctrine.

Flat Earth Doctrine: Space flight is possible. Rockets can go up and momentarily out run the earth (to put it crudely) They cannot stay "up" without constantly burning fuel, because there is no concept of "orbit" around a spherical earth such that force from angular velocity equals the "force" of "gravity".

Sustained space flight is not possible because of the UA.

Search "sustained space flight, UA" and that should lead you to a thread or six that will give you the current explanations.

I searched and I didn't find any thread which would explain anything or any descriptions from real world observations/experiments. Can you refer to some specific thread which I missed because if I search for UA that I get bunch of messages with words that contain ua, like febrUAry and so on.
 Only one message that actually made sense - http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21733.0
PREMISE: Sustained space flight is not possible.

PROOF: None. This assumption is based on the unproven assumptions that there is upward acceleration (UA) and that the UA only affects certain objects. Additionally, it has not been independently verified.

CONCLUSION: UNVERIFIED

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2009, 12:35:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 19, 2009, 08:09:06 AM

How did you arrive at the tens of thousands of miles distant conclusion? 

The launch of the balloon was done at the break of dawn and the spotlight of the sun is at a minimum 12,500 miles wide depending on the time of the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

hahaha

+1

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on February 26, 2009, 09:04:04 AM

Quote from: Hammod on February 26, 2009, 08:54:52 AM

Quote

It's not a requirement that I be on every space flight. It's a fallacy to suggest that in order for something to be true, it has to be personally experienced by the debater.

That's a shame, because the entire FE argument is that none of us have been into space, therefore it isn't possible. Sadly nobody else on here has been in my house, damn - that must meen it doesn't exist! Wait, does that also mean I don't exist, since nobody on here has met me - OMG! The weakness and continous failure of FE is causing a rift in space-time continuum.

I can, however, interact with you, by the means of this board.

I type something, you respond to it and then I respond again.

Due to this, I have a working hypothesis that you are a sentient being of some sort.  By my own experience, you have a domicile of some sort.  Most earth based sentient beings call that domicile a house or home.

Therefore, in the absence of any other data, I can assume that you exist and have a house.

Now, I cannot, by the experience that I have had with you at this point, prove if you are male, female, nor can I prove your race, shape or eye colour, but you are a being.

Opened another truckload of fail there, read this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4263278.stm

The fact that you are conversing with me does not prove I exist.

Of course it does.  Please note that I made no claims to what type of being you were.  "George" may not be a human, but that doesn't mean he cannot be a being for the purposes of the net.

In fact, I would say on the net, he's far more real than some of us.

Quote from: Hammod on February 27, 2009, 03:44:28 AM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on February 26, 2009, 09:04:04 AM

Quote from: Hammod on February 26, 2009, 08:54:52 AM

Quote

It's not a requirement that I be on every space flight. It's a fallacy to suggest that in order for something to be true, it has to be personally experienced by the debater.

That's a shame, because the entire FE argument is that none of us have been into space, therefore it isn't possible. Sadly nobody else on here has been in my house, damn - that must meen it doesn't exist! Wait, does that also mean I don't exist, since nobody on here has met me - OMG! The weakness and continous failure of FE is causing a rift in space-time continuum.

I can, however, interact with you, by the means of this board.

I type something, you respond to it and then I respond again.

Due to this, I have a working hypothesis that you are a sentient being of some sort.  By my own experience, you have a domicile of some sort.  Most earth based sentient beings call that domicile a house or home.

Therefore, in the absence of any other data, I can assume that you exist and have a house.

Now, I cannot, by the experience that I have had with you at this point, prove if you are male, female, nor can I prove your race, shape or eye colour, but you are a being.

Opened another truckload of fail there, read this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4263278.stm

The fact that you are conversing with me does not prove I exist.

Of course it does.  Please note that I made no claims to what type of being you were.  "George" may not be a human, but that doesn't mean he cannot be a being for the purposes of the net.

In fact, I would say on the net, he's far more real than some of us.

How did you rule out that you're just delusional and actually conversing with your cat and not the net? Maybe your mind is tricking you yet again?

How did you rule out that you're just delusional and actually conversing with your cat and not the net? Maybe your mind is tricking you yet again?

Simple.  I don't have a cat.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on February 28, 2009, 08:24:42 AM

How did you rule out that you're just delusional and actually conversing with your cat and not the net? Maybe your mind is tricking you yet again?

Simple.  I don't have a cat.

Well, no one has a cat. Does a cat have you, and you not know it--is the question! They are sneaky that way.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on February 28, 2009, 08:32:12 AM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on February 28, 2009, 08:24:42 AM

How did you rule out that you're just delusional and actually conversing with your cat and not the net? Maybe your mind is tricking you yet again?

Simple.  I don't have a cat.

Well, no one has a cat. Does a cat have you, and you not know it--is the question! They are sneaky that way.

I do have a nice set of ferrets, which is why I don't have a cat.  Apollo and Tammarrion are not fond of cats, except in a "I want to kill you" sort of way.

My sister has two ferrets. They are nice, and they play with her puppy. The older one likes to groom beards.

My sister has two ferrets. They are nice, and they play with her puppy. The older one likes to groom beards.

I need to spend more time with mine, they are still a bit hyperactive and tend to chew on things they shouldn't.

They are such good animals. Even when koda was little he wouldn't run away if he got out, he'd just explore until he found people to play with.

They are such good animals. Even when koda was little he wouldn't run away if he got out, he'd just explore until he found people to play with.

They are great pets... but I'm a bit annoyed with Tammarrion this morning.

I got up early and was on the way to the bathroom when she pounced on my foot and scared the shit out of me.

They hate feet. I think feet are their mortal enemies. And it tickles when they try to eat them.

They hate feet. I think feet are their mortal enemies. And it tickles when they try to eat them.

When you're half asleep in a dark hallway, it doesn't tickle.  Tammarrion drew blood, damn it.

You have weak feet. He is simply thinning the foot herd so future generations of ferret will have worthy opponents.

Ferret rabies. 

You have weak feet. He is simply thinning the foot herd so future generations of ferret will have worthy opponents.

Weak feet my tush...  She was trying to feed on my poor foot.

@Markjo:  Tammarrion doesn't have rabies.  Were-creatures can't catch rabies.

Quote from: Raist on March 03, 2009, 12:40:09 PM

You have weak feet. He is simply thinning the foot herd so future generations of ferret will have worthy opponents.

Weak feet my tush...  She was trying to feed on my poor foot.

@Markjo:  Tammarrion doesn't have rabies.  Were-creatures can't catch rabies.

Were-ferret?  Hmm...  Well, I suppose that's what you get for having feet made out of meat.