1

Flat Earth General / Re: Why is SpaceX replacing NASA?

« on: March 29, 2017, 05:39:59 AM »

Rockets can be launched and are costly but not hugely expensive. Used for decades already.

CGI is cheaper, and that's the preferred method.

Bitter about criminals stealing billions from innocent yet brainwashed people in "space travel" and "Global Warming" scams? Those crooks dwarf the biggest heist of history by a factor of 6 million.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Satellites.

« on: March 29, 2017, 05:33:32 AM »

I have even helped you in posting a link to high-altitude balloons, working fine in the stratosphere where the air density is so low that wind/drift don't play a role.

Either you accept that, or just keep trolling. Your choice.

3

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Does a so called space rocket accelerate?

« on: March 29, 2017, 05:31:11 AM »

A robber "accelerating" away from cops while they go at the same pace (= speed/velocity).

That must be a NASA robber, performing impossible physics. 

But that's what you people are pushing, which is why I put it.

No, it's not.

Speed/velocity/pace is the rate of location displacement over time.
Acceleration is the rate of velocity/speed/pace increase over time.

Both can be constant, as napoleon and others have shown.

A constant acceleration can however not lead to a constant velocity. That's where your confusion comes from.

It's not a shame to admit you made that mistake, it is maintaining it; it makes you look stupid while I know you're not.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Why is SpaceX replacing NASA?

« on: March 29, 2017, 05:27:20 AM »

Even for the high-paid criminals of NASA cum suis, space travel is an impossible challenge.

That's why they faked the whole lot.

(((Elon Musk))) is just getting a piece of the pie; more profitable than PayPal and CGI is cheap.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question 7 - The night sky

« on: March 29, 2017, 05:23:01 AM »

The southern celestial hemisphere was known to Europeans since the early modern period.

Robot-ham surely didn't listen to Da Gama and Magelhão.

6

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Does a so called space rocket accelerate?

« on: March 29, 2017, 05:17:39 AM »

Constant acceleration is far from nonsense. The gravity is at least for a given point on Earth a constant acceleration; 9.81 m/s^2.

Also napoleon's example shows how a constant acceleration of 1 km/h^2 works perfectly fine.

It doesn't work at all. There is no constant in any acceleration. It's impossible.

It's pretty stupid to deny something you can test yourself. This is first grade physics.Napoleon's example, spelled out shows how it works.

Now what doesn't work is a robber "accelerating away" from cops while both having the same "pace".

That indeed is physically impossible as acceleration by definition means they don't have the same pace.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Satellites.

« on: March 29, 2017, 05:13:46 AM »

I did, read back.

And not changing topics, the topic is man-made "satellites" allegedly working fine inside the most badass environment possible. Without maintenance. Funny.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Why is SpaceX replacing NASA?

« on: March 29, 2017, 05:11:50 AM »

With a laser at Kubricks "Moon"base in the Nevada desert, sure.

9

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Does a so called space rocket accelerate?

« on: March 29, 2017, 05:10:19 AM »

A robber "accelerating" away from cops while they go at the same pace (= speed/velocity).

That must be a NASA robber, performing impossible physics. 

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question 4 - Gravity

« on: March 29, 2017, 05:07:13 AM »

No, it doesn't.

Assume a tredmill that revolves with 5 km/h (or accelerates with a constant 5 km/h^2). If you walk in the opposite direction with a constant v or a also 5 km/h or km/h^2 it doesn't mean that suddenly the tredmill has stopped (0 v or a).

0 g is impossible; gravity is the omnipresent force of the Universe. No escape from it.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Satellites.

« on: March 29, 2017, 05:02:47 AM »

See the high-altitude balloon info.

Another physical cause for unworkable "satellites" in a "geostationary" orbit at 35,000 km high are the theoretical Van Allen Belts. Electronics couldn't work in the theorised regime of the VABs, less without maintenance. Nothing lasts forever and your TV is not losing signal when the crooks "install" a new "satellite" to "replace" the old one, now does it?

12

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Does a so called space rocket accelerate?

« on: March 29, 2017, 04:52:04 AM »

Constant acceleration is far from nonsense. The gravity is at least for a given point on Earth a constant acceleration; 9.81 m/s^2.

Also napoleon's example shows how a constant acceleration of 1 km/h^2 works perfectly fine.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Satellites.

« on: March 29, 2017, 04:49:09 AM »

They have to, because the presented alternative ("geostationary" "satellites") are physically impossible.

The centre of the Earth is not the centre of gravity; the Earth-Moon system is an integrated gravitational system where the common centre of gravity is outside of the centre of the Earth and not constant.

Over short timespans, such as in your photo, NEOs may look stationary, but over a months time they aren't. Not in any reference, taking a point on Earth as easiest.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Why is SpaceX replacing NASA?

« on: March 29, 2017, 04:44:12 AM »

Because it makes money from gullible people who want to believe mankind can go into space.

We can't. Ever.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question 4 - Gravity

« on: March 29, 2017, 04:39:31 AM »

The relation between mass and gravity is that the strength of gravity is proportional to mass.
But mass does not require gravity.
You can lie about it as much as you want, it won't make it true.

Mass does not require gravity, true. But that is because mass is the "cause" of gravity. The higher the mass, the higher it's gravitational effect, but the opposite does not work. Gravity is dependent on mass.

Reason why we can't say how much earth weights because that's relative. We can say it's mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg, but you are right in your argument that it's not it's weight.

What I don't understand about your standing point of view is why do you feel like gravity is "unnecessary"? How would you explain how masses, no mattering how dense, float when exposed to 0g?

0g doesn't exist.

Replicating "weightlessness" in a vomit comet countering g with -g (acceleration) doesn't make gravity 0.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Satellites.

« on: March 29, 2017, 04:33:55 AM »

At stratospheric altitudes there is no wind/drift. That's why these balloons are used everyday and released every day. They are not eternal, so there are constantly released. Mainstream fact.

Modern balloons generally contain electronic equipment such as radio transmitters, cameras, or """satellite""" navigation systems, such as GPS receivers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon

"... such as GPS receivers." Receivers, note, not transmitters. Presumably so that they can self-locate.

Do you have any evidence that high altitude balloons are used for GPS transmission, or TV broadcasting?

If signal receivers can be installed on balloons, it is of course impossible to install signal transmitters on the same balloons. Impossible, couldn't happen, we'd need physically impossible "satellites" to do that job. 

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question 2 - Seasons

« on: March 29, 2017, 04:28:49 AM »

An acceleration cannot happen as it would result in a change in velocity, especially in a case where the "spotlight" Sun is so close to Earth's surface.

If the Sun really would be 5000 km away and just 50 km in diameter in zenith (Dec 21 seen from Rio de Janeiro), it would be a tiny looking sphere seen from Oslo (10,000+ km away) on the same day.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index.

« on: March 29, 2017, 04:23:48 AM »

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...

photos ?

or CGI ? 

seriously the "moon landing" has being debunked to death. its almost a given these days.
what you got ?

can sound travel in a vacuum ? 

That's right, only shills and desperate "I want it to be truhueee" believers keep defending that Kubrick production done under Ricky Nixon's government.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question 2 - Seasons

« on: March 29, 2017, 04:12:51 AM »

You can visit Antarctica. It's not cheap, but possible on a cruise.

How can Ushuaia have long summer days in your FE idea?

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Satellites.

« on: March 29, 2017, 04:10:51 AM »

At stratospheric altitudes there is no wind/drift. That's why these balloons are used everyday and released every day. They are not eternal, so there are constantly released. Mainstream fact.

Modern balloons generally contain electronic equipment such as radio transmitters, cameras, or """satellite""" navigation systems, such as GPS receivers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question 8 - The other side

« on: March 29, 2017, 04:00:11 AM »

Answer 8:

here it is.



Oppos! All questions are answered.

Don't forget there is several bitch here only aims to confuse and I ignored most part of them. So don't care about them. My answers are enough for your questions. If you have new questions, you should to ask  freely.

Lucky for you, you are not a geologist.

You really want to present that cartoon as an alternative to the detailed geological mapping, seismic imaging, 10,000s of oil and gas wells and seismology from earthquakes? 

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Satellites.

« on: March 29, 2017, 03:54:22 AM »

Balloons can, they are released every day. Planes cannot, that's why they are not used for continuous data (like "GPS", "satellite" tv and phone), but for shorter timespan data, as temperature, forest fire and other types of "satellite" data, not streamed continuously.

Man-made satellites cannot physically exist.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question 6 - Day and night.

« on: March 29, 2017, 03:48:32 AM »

Intikam, I think you are confused. FE idealists claim the Sun (and Moon) are about 3000 miles (or 5000 kilometres) away. And a diameter of just 50 km (so your "length" would be the radius).

How such a tiny Sun, with a surface area the size of Bali, could heat the vastly larger "Flat" Earth and not differ in size when seen from 2 locations, a FE'r yet has to explain.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Satellites.

« on: March 29, 2017, 03:42:08 AM »

The use of high flying balloons explains the apparent continuous "satellite" data.
The use of high flying planes explains the apparent measured "satellite" data.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question 7 - The night sky

« on: March 29, 2017, 03:38:08 AM »

FE is very much an armchair idea, developed in Europe, from where the Southern Cross is not visible.

Rowbotham didn't count on people actually watching the southern skies and ask these relevant questions.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Satellites.

« on: March 29, 2017, 03:30:18 AM »

That's a natural satellite around the Earth; NEO. They certainly exist. Man-made satellites don't; they cannot exist.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question 2 - Seasons

« on: March 29, 2017, 03:25:26 AM »

How do seasons work in this theory? Why is it winter on the north while and it summer in the south, and etc?

It doesn't.

The Sun on June 21, the northern summer, makes a 68% smaller circle in the same time as on Dec 21, the southern summer.

- no apparent angular velocity change is noted
- the "spotlight" Sun would heat up the northen hemisphere far more than the southern; making a summer day in Oslo much hotter than a summer day in Ushuaia
- the observed climatic patterns on Earth do not follow from a FE idea
- Antarctica has 24/7 ĺight in summer, yet this is impossible in the FE idea

28

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Does a so called space rocket accelerate?

« on: March 28, 2017, 08:17:22 PM »

Submarines were and are designed to function in the physical environment they work well in.

Same for airplanes you wouldn't want to function under water.

Rockets are a military "invention" designed for atmospheric conditions.

They (nor anything else) don't do well without it.

29

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 911 What is the truth?

« on: March 28, 2017, 08:11:23 PM »

I actually offered to meet him at the pub and buy him a beer.

He declined.

I have similar experiences with lying forumers. Bad for them.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX Falcon 9

« on: March 28, 2017, 08:08:28 PM »

Cape Canaveral? The Nazi base?

No, the US Air Force station.

There really is no difference between (((authoritarian "Germans"))) and (((NASA liars))).

I hear that NASA pays better and has better labor unions.

No doubt they pay well.

It's the moral conscience you'd have to throw away, but that's just for us, the sheeple.