The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Amedeus on August 14, 2008, 01:15:12 PM
-
Ok, let's assume that all the moon landings were fake (baaaaah-ha-ha-ha-ha), sorry. We launch satellites all the time - since 1958. The satellites orbit the earth on precisely calculated paths. They talk to each other based on their orbital (i.e. circular) trajectory. They relay their positional data back down to earth...this is how we know where they're located.
Our nation's GPS system does this by design. A design based on rotational orbits, trajectories and much other known physics you seem to ignore. I know, I'm a engineer who has built these things for 22 years.
Lastly, based on your preposterous theory, if you were to circumnavigate Antarctica, you should clock about 26,000+ miles, correct? Uhhhhh, sorry, not even close. Check the continually verified polar orbit data from 50 years of spacecraft operations. My suggestion: Hang around some smarter people.
-
Amadeus is absolutely right.
i may refer to the movie title
"GET SMART"
-
GPS uses pseudolites. Polar orbit satellites either do not exist, or use a complex orbital path to create the illusion of polar orbit.
-
Ok, let's assume that all the moon landings were fake (baaaaah-ha-ha-ha-ha), sorry. We launch satellites all the time - since 1958. The satellites orbit the earth on precisely calculated paths. They talk to each other based on their orbital (i.e. circular) trajectory. They relay their positional data back down to earth...this is how we know where they're located.
Our nation's GPS system does this by design. A design based on rotational orbits, trajectories and much other known physics you seem to ignore. I know, I'm a engineer who has built these things for 22 years.
Lastly, based on your preposterous theory, if you were to circumnavigate Antarctica, you should clock about 26,000+ miles, correct? Uhhhhh, sorry, not even close. Check the continually verified polar orbit data from 50 years of spacecraft operations. My suggestion: Hang around some smarter people.
Applying RE logic to the FE model doesn't work due to the difference in both models' maps. Kindly GTFO and take your fail with you.
-
Ok, let's assume that all the moon landings were fake (baaaaah-ha-ha-ha-ha), sorry. We launch satellites all the time - since 1958. The satellites orbit the earth on precisely calculated paths. They talk to each other based on their orbital (i.e. circular) trajectory. They relay their positional data back down to earth...this is how we know where they're located.
Our nation's GPS system does this by design. A design based on rotational orbits, trajectories and much other known physics you seem to ignore. I know, I'm a engineer who has built these things for 22 years.
Lastly, based on your preposterous theory, if you were to circumnavigate Antarctica, you should clock about 26,000+ miles, correct? Uhhhhh, sorry, not even close. Check the continually verified polar orbit data from 50 years of spacecraft operations. My suggestion: Hang around some smarter people.
owned
Applying RE logic to the FE model doesn't work due to the difference in both models' maps. Kindly GTFO and take your fail with you.
-
How dare you people cut down this mans work to a simple "it can't happen"
He's clearly got some knowledge in the field. It's not like he sells viagra on the internet.
-
FE answer = faked by magic. Wizards are conspiring against us muggles.
-
How dare you people cut down this mans work to a simple "it can't happen"
He's clearly got some knowledge in the field. It's not like he sells viagra on the internet.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chewbacca%20defense (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chewbacca%20defense)
The Chewbacca Defense is going to get you more often than not on this site. ;)
-
Applying RE logic to the FE model doesn't work due to the difference in both models' maps. Kindly GTFO and take your fail with you.
[/quote]
I agree. From your perspective, logic doesn't work. I would imagine, science, test data, etc. doesn't work either.
-
Oh that's fresh! Laughable, but I like it....
GPS uses pseudolites. Polar orbit satellites either do not exist, or use a complex orbital path to create the illusion of polar orbit.
.....Oh God, this is killing me!
-
GPS uses pseudolites. Polar orbit satellites either do not exist, or use a complex orbital path to create the illusion of polar orbit.
What exactly are pseudolites? The little points of light that I see going overhead with the naked eye? Those fake things that were launched into the extreme upper atmosphere to dupe us poor RE'ers into thinking that they were launched into the upper atmosphere to provide information?
-
What exactly are pseudolites? The little points of light that I see going overhead with the naked eye? Those fake things that were launched into the extreme upper atmosphere to dupe us poor RE'ers into thinking that they were launched into the upper atmosphere to provide information?
They do provide information. They are just not in orbit.
-
What exactly are pseudolites? The little points of light that I see going overhead with the naked eye? Those fake things that were launched into the extreme upper atmosphere to dupe us poor RE'ers into thinking that they were launched into the upper atmosphere to provide information?
They do provide information. They are just not in orbit.
OK...where are they, then?...and how do they maintain constant altitude? And what might their trajectory be? if they make passes every 91 minutes, that is a circular path. Not just the garden variety East/west trajectories, but also the North/South movers as well. Not trying to be too much of a smart ass, but I would like a bit more of an answer than "beacues that the way it is"
-
OK...where are they, then?...and how do they maintain constant altitude? And what might their trajectory be? if they make passes every 91 minutes, that is a circular path. Not just the garden variety East/west trajectories, but also the North/South movers as well. Not trying to be too much of a smart ass, but I would like a bit more of an answer than "beacues that the way it is"
This puzzles me too. I haven't yet seen a satisfactory answer to this.
-
This puzzles me too. I haven't yet seen a satisfactory answer to this.
[/quote]
Very refreshing answer. It's a lot better than the "Because i said so" arguments that keep being bandied about.
-
FE answer = faked by magic. Wizards are conspiring against us muggles.
Just genuinely loled hard. Brilliant.
-
In an earlier post you used the phrase, "complex orbital path" complex or not, orbital is circular.
In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of one object around a point or another body, for example the gravitational orbit of a planet around a star.[1] Wikipedia.org
Or a satellite around a planetary object.[2] Me.
-
My use of the word "orbital" was erroneous. I apologise.
-
My use of the word "orbital" was erroneous. I apologise.
What word would you use, then?
-
What word would you use, then?
Well, I don't know. Never having worked for NASA, I wouldn't know how they create the illusion of polar orbit.
-
uote]
Well, I don't know. Never having worked for NASA, I wouldn't know how they create the illusion of polar orbit.
[/quote]
Fair enough. You seem like a logical fellow. What is your theory on their apparent movement?
-
I don't yet have one.
-
I don't yet have one.
OK..that's fair also. Yet you concede that you see satellites/pseudolites moving in predictable paths? Again, I'm not trying to be picky, I'm just trying to see/understand the world through a FE'ers eyes. If there is more Empirical Data in a RE view than in an FE view, it must be a challenge to keep to your beliefs. At least, I've seen more Emperical Data in RET than in FET.
-
OK..that's fair also. Yet you concede that you see satellites/pseudolites moving in predictable paths? Again, I'm not trying to be picky, I'm just trying to see/understand the world through a FE'ers eyes. If there is more Empirical Data in a RE view than in an FE view, it must be a challenge to keep to your beliefs. At least, I've seen more Emperical Data in RET than in FET.
I have not stated my position with respect to the FE/RE debate.
-
I have not stated my position with respect to the FE/RE debate.
[/quote]
Yet you postulate about it...is that not taking a position?
-
Yet you postulate about it...is that not taking a position?
No, that is furthering discussion for discussion's sake.
-
What also amazes me about this is NASA isnt the only space agency on Earth. Do they think they space programs of every nation on Earth got together one day and said "Well weve got some time to waste.....for for absolutely no reason lets dupe the world into thinking Earth is round"
-
No, that is furthering discussion for discussion's sake.
[/quote]
So...if I were to advocate an FE world view, you would argue the RE side?
-
So...if I were to advocate an FE world view, you would argue the RE side?
Not necessarily. I tend to argue for FE more often primarily because it is the lesser developed theory, making it that much more interesting to debate for. There is only so much one can say in the defence of RE that hasn't been said before. I also find that most of the time, FET is being attacked by the majority and so I step in to help defend it. However, in a situation where RE supporters are in short supply and the debate is beginning to dry up, I would be inclined to take up a RE stance in order to rekindle the discussion.
-
A little wiki on the Rowbotham experiment hat the FE seem to take as gospel. It was proven flawed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
-
Not necessarily. I tend to argue for FE more often primarily because it is the lesser developed theory, making it that much more interesting to debate for. There is only so much one can say in the defence of RE that hasn't been said before. I also find that most of the time, FET is being attacked by the majority and so I step in to help defend it. However, in a situation where RE supporters are in short supply and the debate is beginning to dry up, I would be inclined to take up a RE stance in order to rekindle the discussion.
[/quote]
Gotcha...well...it makes for interesting conversation...
-
It's amazing how many ignorant and illogical people have shown up lately.
-
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f308/cloud1613/1199584798914.gif)
-
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/bring-me-solo-and-the-wookiee-they-will-all-suffr-4-dis-outrage_r.jpg)