The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Rastafarth on October 20, 2008, 11:39:57 AM
-
I'm sure this queastin has beed asked many times, but I couldn't find any reasonal answer so I'll ask again. How do you explain the fact that ships clearly disapper over horizon? I guess everyone has already seen it, so you just can't deny it like everything else. And you can't explain it by saying that the ship is too far since it diseppears gradually...
Also I don't understand how you can actually belive in scientific theory like general relativity and yet belive in flat earth.
My last question is what makes you believe spaceflight and mainly satelites are impossible. Because if you suppose earth is sphere, it can be quite simply shown from Newton equations that body (i.e. satellite) can orbit the earth. You can see photos, videos of spaceflights, you can even see satellites with your own eye, yet you rather believe that earth is flat and that NASA is conspiracy? Sounds weird to me...
-
bendy light.
-
I'm sure this queastin has beed asked many times, but I couldn't find any reasonal answer so I'll ask again. How do you explain the fact that ships clearly disapper over horizon? I guess everyone has already seen it, so you just can't deny it like everything else. And you can't explain it by saying that the ship is too far since it diseppears gradually...
Also I don't understand how you can actually belive in scientific theory like general relativity and yet belive in flat earth.
My last question is what makes you believe spaceflight and mainly satelites are impossible. Because if you suppose earth is sphere, it can be quite simply shown from Newton equations that body (i.e. satellite) can orbit the earth. You can see photos, videos of spaceflights, you can even see satellites with your own eye, yet you rather believe that earth is flat and that NASA is conspiracy? Sounds weird to me...
show me a satellite without using a teleschope, please. point it out for me in a picture taken by your digital camera.
-
I know enought about general relativity to know that it is not caused by bended light.
You can see the satellite with your eyes even thought you see it only as a dot (just like stars). It is however exactly where it should be. You can find positions of many satellites on the internet for example here: http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25634 . I'm sure ISS for example can be seen with your eyes so wait when it flies above you (or find some other one tha can be seen with your eyes). And if you dont believe me, just buy small telescope, they are not expensive.
-
I'm sure this queastin has beed asked many times, but I couldn't find any reasonal answer so I'll ask again. How do you explain the fact that ships clearly disapper over horizon? I guess everyone has already seen it, so you just can't deny it like everything else. And you can't explain it by saying that the ship is too far since it diseppears gradually...
Also I don't understand how you can actually belive in scientific theory like general relativity and yet belive in flat earth.
My last question is what makes you believe spaceflight and mainly satelites are impossible. Because if you suppose earth is sphere, it can be quite simply shown from Newton equations that body (i.e. satellite) can orbit the earth. You can see photos, videos of spaceflights, you can even see satellites with your own eye, yet you rather believe that earth is flat and that NASA is conspiracy? Sounds weird to me...
show me a satellite without using a teleschope, please. point it out for me in a picture taken by your digital camera.
Take your camera outside and set it up for a long exposure, the longer the better, you will see streaks moving across the sky. Those streaks are satellites and the ISS. You can see this in every long exposure taken of the night sky. If you've ever looked at one, you have seen it.
-
show me a satellite without using a teleschope, please. point it out for me in a picture taken by your digital camera.
Look at the moon.
UR SO CLEVER MAN
-
"We all know the Moon is an apparition caused by the focussing of light through the end of a wormhole, which 'orbits' a common centre of rotation with the Sun (which is a projection of a distant star through another wormhole, which causes the spotlighting effect).
This would of course mean that either the Moon landings were faked, or the astronauts unwittingly travelled through a wormhole and landed on the real Moon, which is perhaps from a parallel Universe where the Earth is Round."
-
I don't know who I was quoting, but he sure seems to know what he's talking about!
-
I'm sure this queastin has beed asked many times, but I couldn't find any reasonal answer so I'll ask again. How do you explain the fact that ships clearly disapper over horizon? I guess everyone has already seen it, so you just can't deny it like everything else. And you can't explain it by saying that the ship is too far since it diseppears gradually...
Also I don't understand how you can actually belive in scientific theory like general relativity and yet belive in flat earth.
My last question is what makes you believe spaceflight and mainly satelites are impossible. Because if you suppose earth is sphere, it can be quite simply shown from Newton equations that body (i.e. satellite) can orbit the earth. You can see photos, videos of spaceflights, you can even see satellites with your own eye, yet you rather believe that earth is flat and that NASA is conspiracy? Sounds weird to me...
show me a satellite without using a teleschope, please. point it out for me in a picture taken by your digital camera.
Just look up at night, some nights you see stars soaring across the sky, WAY faster then an airplane, and they don't make sound or a tail like a shooting star. and if your REALLY LUCKY or if you just find out where you need to be at what time via the internet, you can see the ISS
-
I'm sure this queastin has beed asked many times, but I couldn't find any reasonal answer so I'll ask again. How do you explain the fact that ships clearly disapper over horizon? I guess everyone has already seen it, so you just can't deny it like everything else. And you can't explain it by saying that the ship is too far since it diseppears gradually...
Also I don't understand how you can actually belive in scientific theory like general relativity and yet belive in flat earth.
My last question is what makes you believe spaceflight and mainly satelites are impossible. Because if you suppose earth is sphere, it can be quite simply shown from Newton equations that body (i.e. satellite) can orbit the earth. You can see photos, videos of spaceflights, you can even see satellites with your own eye, yet you rather believe that earth is flat and that NASA is conspiracy? Sounds weird to me...
show me a satellite without using a teleschope, please. point it out for me in a picture taken by your digital camera.
Just look up at night, some nights you see stars soaring across the sky, WAY faster then an airplane, and they don't make sound or a tail like a shooting star. and if your REALLY LUCKY or if you just find out where you need to be at what time via the internet, you can see the ISS
oh that has alread been said :-[ i'm a baaaaaaaaad debater :'(
-
Just look up at night, some nights you see stars soaring across the sky, WAY faster then an airplane, and they don't make sound or a tail like a shooting star. and if your REALLY LUCKY or if you just find out where you need to be at what time via the internet, you can see the ISS
If they're stars, then they aren't man-made satellites. You lose.
-
So Osama, are you suggesting that actual stars fly across the sky in a few minutes? He was just pointing out that they look like stars, i.e. points of light although they don't twinkle.
If you want to see the ISS, have a look at http://www.heavens-above.com/ You can put in your location and see when it next passes over and is extremely accurate.
-
But according to FE the stars, and the moon, are satellites, albeit "natural" satellites, which float above the earth at 3100 miles. If natural satellites can "orbit" the earth, why can't man made ones?
No satellite orbits the Earth.
So Osama, are you suggesting that actual stars fly across the sky in a few minutes?
No.
-
No satellite orbits the Earth.
-
So, as a genuine question, why can the Moon or the Sun float (or rather accelerate with) the FE but man made satellites can't?
Feel free to correct the "accelerate with" bit, but the gist of the question still stands.
EDIT: Actually, scratch that. Could you answer the original poster's question about ships "disappearing" over the "horizon". This went off topic somewhere...
-
I agree with answering the original question, but I'd be interested to hear the answer to your question there, Galileo.
-
Wow, are you denying the moon exists?
No.
-
How about you just explain why the moon isn't a satellite?
But it is.
-
How about you just explain why the moon isn't a satellite?
But it is.
I get it. The moon is a satellite that orbits above the FE. Of course that still doesn't explain exactly what the moon is orbiting around (supposedly some rather intense gravitational source that apparently does not interact with the FE).
-
No satellite orbits the Earth.
Oh so i guess the moon is in on the conspiracy too.
-
No satellite orbits the Earth.
Oh so i guess the moon is in on the conspiracy too.
No.
-
What ever mechanism allows the moon and stars to float above the earth would also allow man-made objects to float above the earth.
*shrugs*
This has been suggested and refuted many times before. In RET, spacecraft ascend a few hundred kilometres into a low Earth orbit first, and then go up higher if necessary. In FET, you need to go up a few thousand kilometres for your motion to be sustained by Dark Energy. Such a journey requires a lot more fuel to execute in one go.
-
Well yes. I'd assume somewhere less than 3000 miles, since thats the distance to the moon and stars.
According to FE diagrams, the DEF is at its thinest (due to the "bowshock") towards the perimeter of the disk. A launch from here would require minimum amount of fuel.
And launching from Antarctica or the middle of the Southern Ocean is extremely practical, isn't it?
-
No, but that's not what I said is it?
I'd suggest the southern tip of South America, or South Africa, or Australia, or New Zealand. Pretty simple.
The atmoplane is still very thick, even at these locations.
-
It's all irrelevant anyway since all space launches are conducted according to RET, meaning the launch site is located as close to the equator as possible. You'd have to convince someone to waste their very expensive rocket in order to test the FET bowshock claim.
-
if it takes so much fuel to launch a rocket into space, how much fuel does it take to keep one of your wonderful stratellites aloft?
-
They could be solar powered long-endurance UAVs... Those things have been shown to be able to stay in the air for ages without maintenance. Would still require them being replaced fairly regularly though.
-
Really? How thick?
At least a megametre.
if it takes so much fuel to launch a rocket into space, how much fuel does it take to keep one of your wonderful stratellites aloft?
None. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
-
So a stratellite is lighter than our atmosphere ???
Give me a break. ::)
-
So a stratellite is lighter than our atmosphere ???
Give me a break. ::)
Most things the size of a stratellite are lighter than the atmoplane.
-
Again you have never confirmed this, you are just making it up.
-
Again you have never confirmed this, you are just making it up.
A stratellite that is not lighter than the atmoplane would have a density thousands of times that of a white dwarf.
-
Where did you pull that from?
Educated guess.
-
So a stratellite is lighter than our atmosphere ???
Give me a break. ::)
Most things the size of a stratellite are lighter than the atmoplane.
The website states the cubic meter of a stratellite to be 87,450 cubic meters (Length 75m, Width 44m, Height 26.5m).
The Saturn V rocket was 1,117.06 cubic meters (Height 110.6m, Diameter 10.1m).
Sounds pretty big to me.
-
The website states the cubic meter of a stratellite to be 87,450 cubic meters (Length 75m, Width 44m, Height 26.5m).
The Saturn V rocket was 1,117.06 cubic meters (Height 110.6m, Diameter 10.1m).
Sounds pretty big to me.
Please show a source stating that the Saturn V rocket was heavier than the atmoplane.
-
Where did you pull that from?
Educated guess.
Based on what?
Based on the altitude of the Sun and Moon.
-
The website states the cubic meter of a stratellite to be 87,450 cubic meters (Length 75m, Width 44m, Height 26.5m).
The Saturn V rocket was 1,117.06 cubic meters (Height 110.6m, Diameter 10.1m).
Sounds pretty big to me.
Please show a source stating that the Saturn V rocket was heavier than the atmoplane.
I didn't quote a source that said anything about how heavy the rocket was in reference to the atmoplane. I asked that question at Johnston Space Center, but they laughed at me. I told them it was for you, but they didn't believe me. You said, most things the size of a stratellite are lighter then the atmosphere. I simply stated that the Strattelite is a great deal larger in size then the Saturn V rocket. Simple facts.
-
The website states the cubic meter of a stratellite to be 87,450 cubic meters (Length 75m, Width 44m, Height 26.5m).
The Saturn V rocket was 1,117.06 cubic meters (Height 110.6m, Diameter 10.1m).
Sounds pretty big to me.
Please show a source stating that the Saturn V rocket was heavier than the atmoplane.
I didn't quote a source that said anything about how heavy the rocket was in reference to the atmoplane. I asked that question at Johnston Space Center, but they laughed at me. I told them it was for you, but they didn't believe me. You said, most things the size of a stratellite are lighter then the atmosphere. I simply stated that the Strattelite is a great deal larger in size then the Saturn V rocket. Simple facts.
Right. I don't understand what relevance this has to anything. If you're making the point that the Saturn V rocket is lighter than the atmoplane, then I agree.
-
Based on the altitude of the Sun and Moon.
In what way?
(grief this is like pulling teeth)
What do you mean, in what way? The atmoplane cannot be any higher than the celestial bodies at its peak, which I would estimate to be 3-4 Mm. Therefore, further south, it would have to be lower, but not too low or it would reach zero thickness before it gets to the edge. That is, assuming the DEF theory is true; I still tend to prefer the Greater Ice Wall, which would see the atmoplane at a constant thickness of probably a few hundred kilometres, with a DEF bow shock above that.
-
The website states the cubic meter of a stratellite to be 87,450 cubic meters (Length 75m, Width 44m, Height 26.5m).
The Saturn V rocket was 1,117.06 cubic meters (Height 110.6m, Diameter 10.1m).
Sounds pretty big to me.
Please show a source stating that the Saturn V rocket was heavier than the atmoplane.
I didn't quote a source that said anything about how heavy the rocket was in reference to the atmoplane. I asked that question at Johnston Space Center, but they laughed at me. I told them it was for you, but they didn't believe me. You said, most things the size of a stratellite are lighter then the atmosphere. I simply stated that the Strattelite is a great deal larger in size then the Saturn V rocket. Simple facts.
Right. I don't understand what relevance this has to anything. If you're making the point that the Saturn V rocket is lighter than the atmoplane, then I agree.
Cool, sustained space flight is possible. We have been to the moon. Also keep in mind, the Saturn V is the largest rocket ever launched.
-
Cool, sustained space flight is possible. We have been to the moon. Also keep in mind, the Saturn V is the largest rocket ever launched.
Non sequitur.
Uh huh. Next time I ask, just say "I made it up". It'll save time.
That's what "educated guess" means. Except that thought goes into an educated guess; it has to be more than a hundred kilometres and less than five megametres. I chose a value somewhere in the middle to be safe.
-
No that's not what educated guess means. You're just pulling crap out of thin air. It's your DEF/atmoshield/tetronlayer/plaqueguard, surely you can determine how thick it is? Picking a random number between 100 and 5000000 is beyond laughable.
100 and 5000, you mean. A megametre is a thousand kilometres. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix
-
Yes. But still extremely lame.
Making a guess within a range of an order of magnitude and a half is lame?
-
Yes. But still extremely lame.
Making a guess within a range of an order of magnitude and a half is lame?
100 and 5000 is not the same order of magnitude. Good grief, you are studying physics right?!
Two orders of magnitude above 100 is 10000, one is 1000. Therefore, the range is about an order of magnitude and a half.