The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: caelan96 on August 17, 2009, 04:31:00 PM
-
A few weeks ago I woke up early in the morning to watch the International Space Station pass over my city. The ISS is one of the brightest objects in space. So could someone please tell me what I saw?
-
notice how they've avoided this thread?
-
If you lurked moar, you'd notice that this has been discussed before.
-
Were you actually on the ISS? Then how do you know it was the ISS?
Oh, you were on the ISS? Well, what makes you think it wasn't the LSD?
-
A few weeks ago I woke up early in the morning to watch the International Space Station pass over my city. The ISS is one of the brightest objects in space. So could someone please tell me what I saw?
Really?!? You saw that really bright white light moving across the sky too?!? OMG I so totally knew it was the ISS and couldn't possibly be anything else. I mean just look at it! IT'S A BIG BRIGHT WHITE LIGHT!!!
Epic fail dude. Try again.
-
A few weeks ago I woke up early in the morning to watch the International Space Station pass over my city. The ISS is one of the brightest objects in space. So could someone please tell me what I saw?
Really?!? You saw that really bright white light moving across the sky too?!? OMG I so totally knew it was the ISS and couldn't possibly be anything else. I mean just look at it! IT'S A BIG BRIGHT WHITE LIGHT!!!
Epic fail dude. Try again.
*sarcastic tone* I'm serious! There was this other light next to it, I didn't know what it was so it must have been a cheeseball!!!!! I did bother to research orbital paths first you moron. I don't just pretend I know what I see in the sky. Not like UFO nutters.
-
A few weeks ago I woke up early in the morning to watch the International Space Station pass over my city. The ISS is one of the brightest objects in space. So could someone please tell me what I saw?
Really?!? You saw that really bright white light moving across the sky too?!? OMG I so totally knew it was the ISS and couldn't possibly be anything else. I mean just look at it! IT'S A BIG BRIGHT WHITE LIGHT!!!
Epic fail dude. Try again.
What is it my friend?
-
*sarcastic tone* I'm serious! There was this other light next to it, I didn't know what it was so it must have been a cheeseball!!!!! I did bother to research orbital paths first you moron. I don't just pretend I know what I see in the sky. Not like UFO nutters.
Orbital paths...you mean from that highly reliable NASA website, that would never try to cover up the fact that its not really up there?
What is it my friend?
A large white light apparently. :-\
-
Wardogg, do you have anything useful to contribute?
If not, why don't you stop spamming.
Instead of talking p*sh and trying to ridicule the Author, why don't you put forward a suggestion as to what he may have seen?
Because you have no idea? Thought so.
-
So could someone please tell me what I saw?
A bright light travel through the sky, apparently known as the ISS. Any alternative by me or anyone else would be pure speculation.
-
Wardogg, do you have anything useful to contribute?
If not, why don't you stop spamming.
Instead of talking p*sh and trying to ridicule the Author, why don't you put forward a suggestion as to what he may have seen?
Because you have no idea? Thought so.
Stratellite.
-
Wardogg, do you have anything useful to contribute?
If not, why don't you stop spamming.
Instead of talking p*sh and trying to ridicule the Author, why don't you put forward a suggestion as to what he may have seen?
Because you have no idea? Thought so.
Stratellite.
If this has been discussed before then you'll know that a stratellite can't go at that speed and that altitude.
Epic fail dude. Try again.
What altitude...what speed?
-
You idiots fail to realise that if you got a set of good binoculars you wouldn't see it as a bright white light but as a SPACE STATION.
-
Last Wednesday, I decided to track the path of the space station. As luck would have it, it would make a visible path over my location that evening. Sure enough, at 9:35 p.m., it appeared at an azimuth of 300 degrees, streaked southward across the sky, rose to an elevation of 22 degrees as I looked west, before finally disappearing below the horizon a little east of due south at an azimuth of 160 degrees. It set nine minutes after it rose. Could I see people inside or indeed the shuttle next to it? Of course not. It looked like a very bright, fast-moving star. So, what did I see, if not the space station?
I asked the same question a while back. I never got a good answer. The FAQ says "any number of possible pseudolites" without going into any detail.
-
One other mentioned it here already, but let me reinforce.
If you get even just a nice set of binoculars, steady your arms on a tree or car or something....and track ISS as it goes over you can quite clearly pick out the shape of it, especially now that it has all of it's solar arrays on it.
Try it sometime, I have many times. Even better yet, if you are lucky enough to have the ISS going over your area, right before or right after the shuttle docks to ISS, you will see both going across the sky one after the other. Also in this case if you have decent binoculars and a steady hand you can also pick out the distinct shape of the shuttle as well.
This little item seems to be a very tough one for these either nuts or assholes to explain away. You all are nuts if you actually believe all of this BS you are spewing out, nuts and delusional. Assholes full of hate in your hearts, if you all created this site to just fuck with weak minded people, and get reactions from intelligent people.
Also like you to explain how when I was a kid I went to the Naval Observatory in DC, looked through the telescope there and saw a clear shot of a man made car sitting on the surface of the moon. Oh wait....I already know the nut job answer there was some picture just pasted to then end of the telescope or they gave me LSD before I went in, somehow without me knowing.
Also can't explain the light the sun creates at dawn and at sunset. The graduation of different colors from the horizon to the other horizon, is smooth and steady. That means at least the atmosphere has to be curved in some way. Are you saying it's in the form of a dome over us? Cause I thought most have said it's also a flat layer...what is is 3K thick or something? Uniform all the way from the center to the edge in your theory right? If so....how do you get graduated colors?
Be interesting to see what the nuts say about this one....and you all are nuts you know that right? Like you should be round up and throw in padded cells nuts. Or assholes that should be rounded up and thrown in jail....What a sad sad life....I do kind of feel bad for you all.....kinda.
-
One other mentioned it here already, but let me reinforce.
If you get even just a nice set of binoculars, steady your arms on a tree or car or something....and track ISS as it goes over you can quite clearly pick out the shape of it, especially now that it has all of it's solar arrays on it.
Try it sometime, I have many times. Even better yet, if you are lucky enough to have the ISS going over your area, right before or right after the shuttle docks to ISS, you will see both going across the sky one after the other. Also in this case if you have decent binoculars and a steady hand you can also pick out the distinct shape of the shuttle as well.
This little item seems to be a very tough one for these either nuts or assholes to explain away. You all are nuts if you actually believe all of this BS you are spewing out, nuts and delusional. Assholes full of hate in your hearts, if you all created this site to just fuck with weak minded people, and get reactions from intelligent people.
Also like you to explain how when I was a kid I went to the Naval Observatory in DC, looked through the telescope there and saw a clear shot of a man made car sitting on the surface of the moon. Oh wait....I already know the nut job answer there was some picture just pasted to then end of the telescope or they gave me LSD before I went in, somehow without me knowing.
Also can't explain the light the sun creates at dawn and at sunset. The graduation of different colors from the horizon to the other horizon, is smooth and steady. That means at least the atmosphere has to be curved in some way. Are you saying it's in the form of a dome over us? Cause I thought most have said it's also a flat layer...what is is 3K thick or something? Uniform all the way from the center to the edge in your theory right? If so....how do you get graduated colors?
Be interesting to see what the nuts say about this one....and you all are nuts you know that right? Like you should be round up and throw in padded cells nuts. Or assholes that should be rounded up and thrown in jail....What a sad sad life....I do kind of feel bad for you all.....kinda.
You seem to be obsessed with "nuts". Do you like nuts? Did you have some childhood trauma involving nuts?
A lot of that was unrelated and tl;dr.
Also,
Stratellite.
-
Also psuedolite.
-
One other mentioned it here already, but let me reinforce.
If you get even just a nice set of binoculars, steady your arms on a tree or car or something....and track ISS as it goes over you can quite clearly pick out the shape of it, especially now that it has all of it's solar arrays on it.
Try it sometime, I have many times. Even better yet, if you are lucky enough to have the ISS going over your area, right before or right after the shuttle docks to ISS, you will see both going across the sky one after the other. Also in this case if you have decent binoculars and a steady hand you can also pick out the distinct shape of the shuttle as well.
This little item seems to be a very tough one for these either nuts or assholes to explain away. You all are nuts if you actually believe all of this BS you are spewing out, nuts and delusional. Assholes full of hate in your hearts, if you all created this site to just fuck with weak minded people, and get reactions from intelligent people.
Also like you to explain how when I was a kid I went to the Naval Observatory in DC, looked through the telescope there and saw a clear shot of a man made car sitting on the surface of the moon. Oh wait....I already know the nut job answer there was some picture just pasted to then end of the telescope or they gave me LSD before I went in, somehow without me knowing.
Also can't explain the light the sun creates at dawn and at sunset. The graduation of different colors from the horizon to the other horizon, is smooth and steady. That means at least the atmosphere has to be curved in some way. Are you saying it's in the form of a dome over us? Cause I thought most have said it's also a flat layer...what is is 3K thick or something? Uniform all the way from the center to the edge in your theory right? If so....how do you get graduated colors?
Be interesting to see what the nuts say about this one....and you all are nuts you know that right? Like you should be round up and throw in padded cells nuts. Or assholes that should be rounded up and thrown in jail....What a sad sad life....I do kind of feel bad for you all.....kinda.
You seem to be obsessed with "nuts". Do you like nuts? Did you have some childhood trauma involving nuts?
A lot of that was unrelated and tl;dr.
Also,
Stratellite.
HA! Well predicted that answer...none at all. Just insults for people that push these freaks in a corner. Just like these angry republican insurance company shills showing up at Town Hall meetings spouting a bunch of nonsense fed to them by Insurance companies that only have one interest in mind....money.
So you have no real answer....therefore...your FE theory is busted...it's crap...and you all have been wasting your time, your lives, and Internet bandwidth with all this drivel.
So I now know most of you don't really believe any of this...but you all are just a bunch of assholes that get off on fucking with people on the Internet. Because you have no lives, and were not loved. So sorry for you all. Maybe someday some of you will see the light...see the error in your ways...and help the others along. Help them move on to more productive things in life. Maybe taking all this time an energy to do something to actually help people.
As for your blimp there man...just look at the ISS it looks nothing like that. Also wouldn't explain the speed at which it moves across the sky. If something of that size that you posted were moving across the sky that fast...it would have to be so close to me that I could easily pick out the shape with my naked eye...like a plane. These things you posted will not be moving that fast at those altitudes....not 17.5K miles per hour for sure!
Keep going...you all got anything else? Cause your hole is getting deeper here.
-
HA! Well predicted that answer...none at all. Just insults for people that push these freaks in a corner. Just like these angry republican insurance company shills showing up at Town Hall meetings spouting a bunch of nonsense fed to them by Insurance companies that only have one interest in mind....money.
Your opinion on health care is in no way relevant to this discussion. Please try and stay on topic.
So you have no real answer....therefore...your FE theory is busted...it's crap...and you all have been wasting your time, your lives, and Internet bandwidth with all this drivel.
Congratulations, I guess you beat the FES. I guess the only thing left to do is close the browser, eh?
So I now know most of you don't really believe any of this...but you all are just a bunch of assholes that get off on fucking with people on the Internet. Because you have no lives, and were not loved. So sorry for you all. Maybe someday some of you will see the light...see the error in your ways...and help the others along. Help them move on to more productive things in life. Maybe taking all this time an energy to do something to actually help people.
That's not funny. I was horrifically abused as a child, and have been in and out of foster care since I was 9.
As for your blimp there man...just look at the ISS it looks nothing like that. Also wouldn't explain the speed at which it moves across the sky. If something of that size that you posted were moving across the sky that fast...it would have to be so close to me that I could easily pick out the shape with my naked eye...like a plane. These things you posted will not be moving that fast at those altitudes....not 17.5K miles per hour for sure!
...What? Are you saying things move faster as they get closer to the Earth?
-
Your opinion on health care is in no way relevant to this discussion. Please try and stay on topic.
It's called an example to prove a point. Lawyers use the tactic all the time, and it's perfectly acceptable. Only people who are threated by the message tend to have a problem with that.
Congratulations, I guess you beat the FES. I guess the only thing left to do is close the browser, eh?
You would love that wouldn't you? Can't have any intelligent people here speaking the truth...Don't want to bring down your little house of cards.
That's not funny. I was horrifically abused as a child, and have been in and out of foster care since I was 9.
I'm sorry to hear that man. Really I am. But that does kind of prove my point...thanks.
...What? Are you saying things move faster as they get closer to the Earth?
No not at all, maybe you need to take some reading comprehension classes?
ISS moves across a large portion of the sky in just a matter of 2-5 minutes. For the blimp to be far enough away for me to not be able to pick out the shape with my naked eye means it would have to be moving at tremendous speed at stratospheric heights...and plus we are only talking about 20 miles or so. Depending on it's size I would be able with my eyes to resolve at least the rough shape of it. Which is very different from the 4 large winged structure of ISS. Plus the wiki for your blimp. 1. talks about how the they are not even sure if the thing will work, has not been completed yet, and it will communicate with low earth orbit sats.....explain that....hummm you can.
Give it up guys. Really. Put all this energy into something useful.
-
this is fun to read, even with the cheap shots at republicans to prove a point :D ....
-
It's called an example to prove a point. Lawyers use the tactic all the time, and it's perfectly acceptable. Only people who are threated by the message tend to have a problem with that.
Except you showed no correlation between the health care debate and this one.
You would love that wouldn't you? Can't have any intelligent people here speaking the truth...Don't want to bring down your little house of cards.
Yeah, that's why I wanted you to leave. ::)
I'm sorry to hear that man. Really I am. But that does kind of prove my point...thanks.
So you see nothing wrong with making fun of victims of abuse? And you dare insult our emotional development!
ISS moves across a large portion of the sky in just a matter of 2-5 minutes. For the blimp to be far enough away for me to not be able to pick out the shape with my naked eye means it would have to be moving at tremendous speed at stratospheric heights...and plus we are only talking about 20 miles or so. Depending on it's size I would be able with my eyes to resolve at least the rough shape of it. Which is very different from the 4 large winged structure of ISS. Plus the wiki for your blimp. 1. talks about how the they are not even sure if the thing will work, has not been completed yet, and it will communicate with low earth orbit sats.....explain that....hummm you can.
You realize the stratosphere is over 30 miles up, right? You can pick out a fast moving object, with the naked eye, that is 30 miles up?
-
this is fun to read, even with the cheap shots at republicans to prove a point :D ....
LOL thanks. That was easy and somewhat topical. I'm really a very middle of the road kind of guy politically. I'm an advocate of a no party system....were we just vote for a dude or dudette based on how we feel about that person, and not because of some party we are affiliate with....sorry for the aside...back to the program...
-
Waste of Mind: You still have not answered the question.....because you can't.
You know you have lost the argument when you start arguing semantics.
You are just avoiding answering the question, because you want to deflect people away from it. You don't want people to think about the facts, cause then you all loose your footing.
You have not addressed the following:
1. The shape of ISS that I can see with my own eyes.
2. The shape of the Shuttle which I can also see myself.
3. The fact that your blimp has not been created yet, and the wiki talks about how most say it may not even float.
4. Human vision has an infinite resolution. If it's in our line of sight and either big enough or light brightly enough we can see it.
5. I could certainly discern the shape of something that is only 20-30 miles away with binoculars, because I know I can discern the shape of something that is 200 miles away.
Keep trying to deflect from the real facts here...but you are just digging your hole deeper.
-
1. The shape of ISS that I can see with my own eyes.
2. The shape of the Shuttle which I can also see myself.
So? An advanced stratolite (NASA has the money to make them) could easily appear to look like the "ISS"
3. The fact that your blimp has not been created yet, and the wiki talks about how most say it may not even float.
NASA easily has the money to create a stratolite, and the motive to hide it's existence.
4. Human vision has an infinite resolution. If it's in our line of sight and either big enough or light brightly enough we can see it.
...Sorry, the human eye does not have "infinite resolution". Try again.
5. I could certainly discern the shape of something that is only 20-30 miles away with binoculars, because I know I can discern the shape of something that is 200 miles away.
See the first answer.
-
1. The shape of ISS that I can see with my own eyes.
2. The shape of the Shuttle which I can also see myself.
So? An advanced stratolite (NASA has the money to make them) could easily appear to look like the "ISS"
3. The fact that your blimp has not been created yet, and the wiki talks about how most say it may not even float.
NASA easily has the money to create a stratolite, and the motive to hide it's existence.
4. Human vision has an infinite resolution. If it's in our line of sight and either big enough or light brightly enough we can see it.
...Sorry, the human eye does not have "infinite resolution". Try again.
5. I could certainly discern the shape of something that is only 20-30 miles away with binoculars, because I know I can discern the shape of something that is 200 miles away.
See the first answer.
Well get a pair of binoculars man. I have...I do it all the time. I look at an object that IS 200 miles away, can quite clearly see the shape. Ok let's say it's only 20 miles away or even 30 or whatever you would like to make it. I can still see that thing with my binoculars...so you are very wrong about not being able to see something that is that far away.
Backed into a corner and just making stuff up now. Give me evidence that the things you have said are true and we can tall. I've given you a piece of empirical evidence which you and everyone can test themselves. With their own eyes, none of you have provided any such evidence yet. So you have no feet to stand on.
Try again.
-
Backed into a corner and just making stuff up now. Give me evidence that the things you have said are true and we can tall. I've given you a piece of empirical evidence which you and everyone can test themselves. With their own eyes, none of you have provided any such evidence yet. So you have no feet to stand on.
Unable to prove me wrong, so you begin to accuse me of lying. That is an obvious sign of a poor debater.
-
Backed into a corner and just making stuff up now. Give me evidence that the things you have said are true and we can tall. I've given you a piece of empirical evidence which you and everyone can test themselves. With their own eyes, none of you have provided any such evidence yet. So you have no feet to stand on.
Unable to prove me wrong, so you begin to accuse me of lying. That is an obvious sign of a poor debater.
I posed the first question, you have yet to answer it with any of your own actual evidence. Just words and thoughts that have come out of your head, with nothing at all to back them up.
I've given you a very specific example of evidence I DO have, which none of you seem to have any of. I've given you a piece of evidence which all of you can directly verify yourselves.
Your whole theory provides no evidence at all, provide real evidence or just stop talking about it man.
-
Unable to prove me wrong, so you begin to accuse me of lying. That is an obvious sign of a poor debater.
-
Still no answer.
Any debate professor would declare this a win for me.
-
Still no answer.
Any debate professor would declare this a win for me.
*applauds*
-
The ISS has already been observed, photographed and filmed by amateur astronomers all around the world. The ISS is indeed real.
http://www.tracking-station.de/images/iss/2009-05/iss2009-05-23blr.jpg
http://www.tracking-station.de/images/iss/2007-06/iss07-06-18pre.jpg
http://www.tracking-station.de/images/iss/2008-02/iss2008-02-09-dhr.jpg
http://www.tracking-station.de/images/iss/2005-07/iss2005-07-02lr.jpg
Furthermore, you can track the ISS using the NASA Skywatch Sightings Calculator. Yes, it is programmed by NASA, but I use it all the time to watch the ISS and it appears in the sky at the time it was predicted by this program! It is awesome, isn't?
-
Still waiting for an answer from you guys. Ignoring it will not make the Space Station go away.
And as long as it exists, and you all can fit the explanation of it's existence in to your little FE theory, then there is really no reason for any of this, right? It means that all of your theories are wrong. It means everything this site pretends to stand for is wrong.
Why don't you all do the right thing and just take it down....if for no other reason to save bandwidth.
-
Hummm still nothing?
Been lots of other posts in other thread over this time, so I know you all are here.
Very interesting that you have nothing further of any use to say on this topic.
But here's a bump to give you all a fair chance.
-
It's a hologram.
-
Can you show me the technology that would make a hologram of that nature possible?
-
Can you show me the technology that would make a hologram of that nature possible?
No.
-
Ok so I can't show you what god looks like, I can't prove that Mary existed, and I can't prove anything in the bible basically. A world full of people believe the book word for word they take it quite literally and not as a life lesson which it was originally intended as. But I have no empirical evidence to support any of the claims in the bible, there is a nearly endless list of different ways just that one book as been interpreted. Forget about all the other flavors of religion! How can they all be right? How can any one of them be right? They are not they are just examples to help the less moral people...the people who it takes a bit longer to get stuff...the weak people that just don't have the time or capicity to think about it all. So much easier to have someone else do all your thinking for you. But that's no way to live. That and the fact none of it can be proved is the reason I'm an Agnostic/Atheist.
I don't need a made up entity to make me a moral person. All you need is the Golden Rule. Don't do crap to other people that you wouldn't want them doing to you.
I like science because a scientist can create an experiment that anyone that has the means can recreate themselves. This may shock you all, but I don't believe that anything is absolute fact. There are kind of grades of believing in facts, so yes from that standpoint science is certainly sort of belief at some levels in some instances. Anything that can happen will happen, and even some things that we thought couldn't happen before, do sometimes happen. What I look for is things that can be observed, tested and proven my myself or anyone one else that chooses to do it. These things we are referring to as fact and empirical evidence, is only considered that, because it can and has been tested by countless other people. All using the same scientific processes, scientists can test, record results, and time and time again come up with the same numbers, then you can be content to live your life knowing that thing as fact, keeping in mind that the reasons that make something a fact could change, as we learn more about how the world works, but observations, testing, and repeating results are very hard to argue with on a day to day basis.
I've already read some of the book and I still see nothing I would even come close to considering evidence. And I have yet to have any of you show me any evidence that what I'm seeing with my own eyes is a blimp or a hologram or whatever crazy crap you all have to offer next with no proof or way of testing what you tell us. That means you are really saying nothing.
So anyone else wanna give it a shot?
-
Ok so I can't show you what god looks like, I can't prove that Mary existed, and I can't prove anything in the bible basically. A world full of people believe the book word for word they take it quite literally and not as a life lesson which it was originally intended as. But I have no empirical evidence to support any of the claims in the bible, there is a nearly endless list of different ways just that one book as been interpreted. Forget about all the other flavors of religion! How can they all be right? How can any one of them be right? They are not they are just examples to help the less moral people...the people who it takes a bit longer to get stuff...the weak people that just don't have the time or capicity to think about it all. So much easier to have someone else do all your thinking for you. But that's no way to live. That and the fact none of it can be proved is the reason I'm an Agnostic/Atheist.
I don't need a made up entity to make me a moral person. All you need is the Golden Rule. Don't do crap to other people that you wouldn't want them doing to you.
I like science because a scientist can create an experiment that anyone that has the means can recreate themselves. This may shock you all, but I don't believe that anything is absolute fact. There are kind of grades of believing in facts, so yes from that standpoint science is certainly sort of belief at some levels in some instances. Anything that can happen will happen, and even some things that we thought couldn't happen before, do sometimes happen. What I look for is things that can be observed, tested and proven my myself or anyone one else that chooses to do it. These things we are referring to as fact and empirical evidence, is only considered that, because it can and has been tested by countless other people. All using the same scientific processes, scientists can test, record results, and time and time again come up with the same numbers, then you can be content to live your life knowing that thing as fact, keeping in mind that the reasons that make something a fact could change, as we learn more about how the world works, but observations, testing, and repeating results are very hard to argue with on a day to day basis.
I've already read some of the book and I still see nothing I would even come close to considering evidence. And I have yet to have any of you show me any evidence that what I'm seeing with my own eyes is a blimp or a hologram or whatever crazy crap you all have to offer next with no proof or way of testing what you tell us. That means you are really saying nothing.
So anyone else wanna give it a shot?
This may shock you, but you're not the only scientist here. So get off your high horse.
-
Ok so I can't show you what god looks like, I can't prove that Mary existed, and I can't prove anything in the bible basically. A world full of people believe the book word for word they take it quite literally and not as a life lesson which it was originally intended as. But I have no empirical evidence to support any of the claims in the bible, there is a nearly endless list of different ways just that one book as been interpreted. Forget about all the other flavors of religion! How can they all be right? How can any one of them be right? They are not they are just examples to help the less moral people...the people who it takes a bit longer to get stuff...the weak people that just don't have the time or capicity to think about it all. So much easier to have someone else do all your thinking for you. But that's no way to live. That and the fact none of it can be proved is the reason I'm an Agnostic/Atheist.
I don't need a made up entity to make me a moral person. All you need is the Golden Rule. Don't do crap to other people that you wouldn't want them doing to you.
I like science because a scientist can create an experiment that anyone that has the means can recreate themselves. This may shock you all, but I don't believe that anything is absolute fact. There are kind of grades of believing in facts, so yes from that standpoint science is certainly sort of belief at some levels in some instances. Anything that can happen will happen, and even some things that we thought couldn't happen before, do sometimes happen. What I look for is things that can be observed, tested and proven my myself or anyone one else that chooses to do it. These things we are referring to as fact and empirical evidence, is only considered that, because it can and has been tested by countless other people. All using the same scientific processes, scientists can test, record results, and time and time again come up with the same numbers, then you can be content to live your life knowing that thing as fact, keeping in mind that the reasons that make something a fact could change, as we learn more about how the world works, but observations, testing, and repeating results are very hard to argue with on a day to day basis.
I've already read some of the book and I still see nothing I would even come close to considering evidence. And I have yet to have any of you show me any evidence that what I'm seeing with my own eyes is a blimp or a hologram or whatever crazy crap you all have to offer next with no proof or way of testing what you tell us. That means you are really saying nothing.
So anyone else wanna give it a shot?
This may shock you, but you're not the only scientist here. So get off your high horse.
And even yet more deflection from the actual matter at hand. You have yet to address with any proof what we are seeing when viewing ISS with our own eyes.
You have just started the debate and you have already lost, because you refuse to address the meat of this topic, and instead it's just a way to get people to not think about this topic.
Listen I'm going to go ahead and take my few wins here tonight....and hope you sensible people still left in here, carry the torch and keep the flame on them about this ISS question...And go back to the world of sane people now.
It was fun playing with you all tonight.
Enjoy yourselves....don't fall off the edge!
-
And even yet more deflection from the actual matter at hand. You have yet to address with any proof what we are seeing when viewing ISS with our own eyes.
You have just started the debate and you have already lost, because you refuse to address the meat of this topic, and instead it's just a way to get people to not think about this topic.
Listen I'm going to go ahead and take my few wins here tonight....and hope you sensible people still left in here, carry the torch and keep the flame on them about this ISS question...And go back to the world of sane people now.
It was fun playing with you all tonight.
Enjoy yourselves....don't fall off the edge!
I'm not the one who decided to write a completely irrelevant three-paragraph rant about how I'm so much better than my opponent because I follow the scientific method. For your information, the hologram projections are administered by the Conspiracy using technology developed in the 1930s and installed around the world during World War II, which served as a convenient ruse for this preparation for the space race. Unfortunately, the Conspiracy has not shared this technology with any of us, so we have no direct evidence that it exists.
I have reason to believe that supernova 1987A was a projection using the very same holographic technology, as the only supernova to have been observed near our own galaxy since the advent of photography. In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way.
-
A few weeks ago I woke up early in the morning to watch the International Space Station pass over my city. The ISS is one of the brightest objects in space. So could someone please tell me what I saw?
duhh - anything which blatantly contradicts the concept of a flat earth is obviously part of "the conspiracy"
-
I search the word "Stratolite" with google. Nothing found. What is a "Stratolite"?
-
And even yet more deflection from the actual matter at hand. You have yet to address with any proof what we are seeing when viewing ISS with our own eyes.
You have just started the debate and you have already lost, because you refuse to address the meat of this topic, and instead it's just a way to get people to not think about this topic.
Listen I'm going to go ahead and take my few wins here tonight....and hope you sensible people still left in here, carry the torch and keep the flame on them about this ISS question...And go back to the world of sane people now.
It was fun playing with you all tonight.
Enjoy yourselves....don't fall off the edge!
I'm not the one who decided to write a completely irrelevant three-paragraph rant about how I'm so much better than my opponent because I follow the scientific method. For your information, the hologram projections are administered by the Conspiracy using technology developed in the 1930s and installed around the world during World War II, which served as a convenient ruse for this preparation for the space race. Unfortunately, the Conspiracy has not shared this technology with any of us, so we have no direct evidence that it exists.
I have reason to believe that supernova 1987A was a projection using the very same holographic technology, as the only supernova to have been observed near our own galaxy since the advent of photography. In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way.
Can I ask you why do you think that man has never been to the Moon, for example? Or why the ISS cannot exists? Do you think that NASA photos and videos of the moon mission are fake? Why? I mean, don't tell me "cause the hoax", i want to know why it is scientifically impossible to do all that stuff.
Another thing: how can you claim that "I have reason to believe that supernova 1987A was a projection using the very same holographic technology, as the only supernova to have been observed near our own galaxy since the advent of photography. In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way." Are you an astrophisic? What is your degree? What this phrase mean: "In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way." Explain why. For example, Betelgeuse, that you can see with naked eyes, has a ray 1000 times bigger than the sun. Do you think it is not enough? If yes, why? How much a star has to be big to explode in a supernova? And why someone have to fake a supernova explosion?
-
Can I ask you why do you think that man has never been to the Moon, for example? Or why the ISS cannot exists? Do you think that NASA photos and videos of the moon mission are fake? Why? I mean, don't tell me "cause the hoax", i want to know why it is scientifically impossible to do all that stuff.
If the Earth is flat, then sustained spaceflight is impossible with current technology.
Another thing: how can you claim that "I have reason to believe that supernova 1987A was a projection using the very same holographic technology, as the only supernova to have been observed near our own galaxy since the advent of photography. In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way." Are you an astrophisic? What is your degree? What this phrase mean: "In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way." Explain why. For example, Betelgeuse, that you can see with naked eyes, has a ray 1000 times bigger than the sun. Do you think it is not enough? If yes, why? How much a star has to be big to explode in a supernova? And why someone have to fake a supernova explosion?
According to FET, the stars are about the same distance away as the Sun. They are far smaller than it; the biggest ones can't possibly be more than about 100 metres across. The supernova explosion was faked to lend credibility to the idea that stars are actually extremely massive balls of plasma, fusing many millions of tonnes of hydrogen into helium each second just to remain luminous. The far simpler truth is that the Sun heats the stars as it passes by on its daily orbit, and they then radiate this energy away at night.
-
Can I ask you why do you think that man has never been to the Moon, for example? Or why the ISS cannot exists? Do you think that NASA photos and videos of the moon mission are fake? Why? I mean, don't tell me "cause the hoax", i want to know why it is scientifically impossible to do all that stuff.
If the Earth is flat, then sustained spaceflight is impossible with current technology.
Another thing: how can you claim that "I have reason to believe that supernova 1987A was a projection using the very same holographic technology, as the only supernova to have been observed near our own galaxy since the advent of photography. In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way." Are you an astrophisic? What is your degree? What this phrase mean: "In actuality, stars are too small to just explode that way." Explain why. For example, Betelgeuse, that you can see with naked eyes, has a ray 1000 times bigger than the sun. Do you think it is not enough? If yes, why? How much a star has to be big to explode in a supernova? And why someone have to fake a supernova explosion?
According to FET, the stars are about the same distance away as the Sun. They are far smaller than it; the biggest ones can't possibly be more than about 100 metres across. The supernova explosion was faked to lend credibility to the idea that stars are actually extremely massive balls of plasma, fusing many millions of tonnes of hydrogen into helium each second just to remain luminous. The far simpler truth is that the Sun heats the stars as it passes by on its daily orbit, and they then radiate this energy away at night.
So what you're saying is, science is all a big lie and every scientist and astronomer is out to get you, for no reason.
I guess you never grew up.
-
So what you're saying is, science is all a big lie and every scientist and astronomer is out to get you, for no reason.
I don't know where you get that impression from. If I was of the opinion that science were all a big lie, I'd hardly be studying towards a Bachelor of Science degree, now would I?
-
If the Earth is flat, then sustained spaceflight is impossible with current technology.
Why? You know, the Sun is the proof that sustained spaceflight is possible. In fact, it stay constantly in the sky. Why something made by men cannot stay in space exactly the same way as the sun?
According to FET, the stars are about the same distance away as the Sun. They are far smaller than it; the biggest ones can't possibly be more than about 100 metres across. The supernova explosion was faked to lend credibility to the idea that stars are actually extremely massive balls of plasma, fusing many millions of tonnes of hydrogen into helium each second just to remain luminous. The far simpler truth is that the Sun heats the stars as it passes by on its daily orbit, and they then radiate this energy away at night.
Ok. So, what is a star? The sun is not a star, I understand this from your post. What is the sun? How is it possible that a star "radiate this energy away at night"? If the stars are the same distance away as the sun, the sun it's not a spotligh pointing the earth, am I right? What is the difference between a planet and a star? According to FEt, i think there are no other planetes other than earth.
-
Why? You know, the Sun is the proof that sustained spaceflight is possible. In fact, it stay constantly in the sky. Why something made by men cannot stay in space exactly the same way as the sun?
I didn't say sustained spaceflight wasn't possible. I said it wasn't possible with current technology. We would need to go a lot higher than the Low Earth Orbit proposed by RET to achieve it, and the acceleration we would need to overcome would remain relatively constant throughout the journey, unlike in RET where it would be expected to drop off more rapidly and could be countered by orbital motion.
So, what is a star?
A star is a small object of unknown shape and composition, though it is most likely made up of some sort of dense rocky material with a high specific heat capacity that behaves very much like an ideal black body. It would also be expected to have a warm, thin, partly ionised atmosphere made up of hydrogen and a few other gases which create the stellar line spectra we observe.
What is the sun?
The Sun is an extremely large, roughly spherical collection of particles and antiparticles in dynamic equilibrium. Their strong attraction to one another is balanced by the slow, steady annihilation of particles with antiparticles in its core, which produces its energy output. It, too, has a thin, partly ionised atmosphere which creates the line spectrum we see coming from the Sun. This atmosphere would have formed from the same celestial gases as those of the stars, which is why the Sun was originally mistaken to be a star - their line spectra look identical.
How is it possible that a star "radiate this energy away at night"?
In the same way that the filament in an incandescent light bulb radiates light when heated by an electric current.
If the stars are the same distance away as the sun, the sun it's not a spotligh pointing the earth, am I right?
That is correct. Not all Flat Earthers believe that the Sun is a spotlight.
What is the difference between a planet and a star?
A planet is different in that it has a far lower heat capacity, is probably much less dense and is also rather larger than a star. It is also different in that its orbit follows the ecliptic, whereas stars are evenly spread across the celestial plane.
According to FEt, i think there are no other planetes other than earth.
According to FET, the Earth is not a planet.
-
I didn't say sustained spaceflight wasn't possible. I said it wasn't possible with current technology. We would need to go a lot higher than the Low Earth Orbit proposed by RET to achieve it, and the acceleration we would need to overcome would remain relatively constant throughout the journey, unlike in RET where it would be expected to drop off more rapidly and could be countered by orbital motion.
Quite vague, don't you think? In REt, we have tons of data and numbers and maths that demonstrate how space flights are possible. You have at least to say some numbers and some mathematical explanation of the reason why with the current technology we cannot go trough space.
A star is a small object of unknown shape and composition, though it is most likely made up of some sort of dense rocky material with a high specific heat capacity that behaves very much like an ideal black body. It would also be expected to have a warm, thin, partly ionised atmosphere made up of hydrogen and a few other gases which create the stellar line spectra we observe.
Your first sentence says it all: you dunno what a star is.
The Sun is an extremely large, roughly spherical collection of particles and antiparticles in dynamic equilibrium. Their strong attraction to one another is balanced by the slow, steady annihilation of particles with antiparticles in its core, which produces its energy output. It, too, has a thin, partly ionised atmosphere which creates the line spectrum we see coming from the Sun. This atmosphere would have formed from the same celestial gases as those of the stars, which is why the Sun was originally mistaken to be a star - their line spectra look identical.
Why the sun is the only celestial body having this charateristics? Don't you think it's more simple thinking that it is only a star like tons of others in the universe? I am interested in what is the FEt theory for the creation of the universe.
A planet is different in that it has a far lower heat capacity, is probably much less dense and is also rather larger than a star. It is also different in that its orbit follows the ecliptic, whereas stars are evenly spread across the celestial plane.
So, you think planetes are larger than stars. Mmmmm. Did you make some measurement? In what way you can measure a star? So, the stars stand still, and the planetes moves? Moves why and around what?
of others in the universe? I am interested in what is the FEt theory for the creation of the universe.
According to FET, the Earth is not a planet.
And what is it?
-
Quite vague, don't you think? In REt, we have tons of data and numbers and maths that demonstrate how space flights are possible. You have at least to say some numbers and some mathematical explanation of the reason why with the current technology we cannot go trough space.
I tried to come up with some mathematics for you, but after midnight probably isn't the best time to be messing around with calculus. I'll come up with something for you tomorrow.
Your first sentence says it all: you dunno what a star is.
That's true, I don't. Nor does anybody else.
Why the sun is the only celestial body having this charateristics? Don't you think it's more simple thinking that it is only a star like tons of others in the universe?
How is a source of energy which has never been shown to be sustainable powering billions of stars all over the Universe simpler than a single body with an unverified power generation mechanism? FET has one unknown source of energy; RET has billions.
I am interested in what is the FEt theory for the creation of the universe.
Probably some sort of Big Bang.
So, you think planetes are larger than stars. Mmmmm. Did you make some measurement? In what way you can measure a star?
According to FET, the stars are about the same distance away from us as the planets. I have observed Jupiter and Saturn, amongst other planets, using a telescope, and they appear larger in angular diameter than stars. Therefore, if they are the same distance away, they must be larger.
So, the stars stand still, and the planetes moves? Moves why and around what?
No, the stars move too. They all move around the north celestial pole, except for Mercury and Venus which appear to orbit the Sun. The cause is likely to be either gravitational or electromagnetic; it has not yet been demonstrated one way or the other.
And what is it?
It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.
-
I tried to come up with some mathematics for you, but after midnight probably isn't the best time to be messing around with calculus. I'll come up with something for you tomorrow.
Ok.
That's true, I don't. Nor does anybody else.
Mmmmm. Not really true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
How is a source of energy which has never been shown to be sustainable powering billions of stars all over the Universe simpler than a single body with an unverified power generation mechanism? FET has one unknown source of energy; RET has billions.
Again, not really true. Ret has a decent explanation. Fet does not. What is the difference in having an "unkown source of energy" instead of billions, if they are all stars?
Probably some sort of Big Bang.
Why a big bang sholud produce things that are so different and unique? You know, you take an enormous and ultra-dense ball of matter, and make them blow: the phisic laws are the one that we can see, so why the big bang produces this odd things? I think it's more natural thinking that in the space there a re tons of galaxy and stuffs like that, quite similar one to another. It is a more realistic scenario. What sort of big bang projects things only "upwards", while there is nothing "downwards"?
According to FET, the stars are about the same distance away from us as the planets. I have observed Jupiter and Saturn, amongst other planets, using a telescope, and they appear larger in angular diameter than stars. Therefore, if they are the same distance away, they must be larger.
Ok. So, I'm now putting the fingers here, just near my eyes, and I see that it is much more big than the Sforza Castle. Accordig to FEt, my finger is bigger than a castle.
No, the stars move too. They all move around the north celestial pole, except for Mercury and Venus which appear to orbit the Sun. The cause is likely to be either gravitational or electromagnetic; it has not yet been demonstrated one way or the other.
I think you, as some other FEt, like relativity. It happens because of gravitation.
It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.
My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.
-
It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.
My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.
How do you propose we "go around and discover" and infinite area?
-
How do you propose we "go around and discover" and infinite area?
Luckily, over the past few hundred years or so, we have had people who aren't as defeatist as you are and have put themselves out to discover the true nature of the earth. There are still people, who, instead of reading an inaccurate, poorly written book by some 'zeteticist' (let's start a new science as we are not capable of working withing the bounds of normal science (I seem to remember he couldn't even get the value of pi accurate)) get off their backsides and go and find out for themselves about the earth. I doubt there were any who found the earth to be either infinite or flat.
Others, sit on a computer and dream up ideas as to how the earth could possibly be a different shape and then fail to argue their case convincingly.
I know who I believe but I have to admit I enjoy the way you make fools of yourselves.
-
It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.
My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.
How do you propose we "go around and discover" and infinite area?
The concept of an infinite earth is simply absurd. Neither the universe is infinite. The proposal of an infinite earth come into play only to cover the holes in the theory. Ok, i was thinking why none flat earther in history try to enter the NASA or any other space institute to prove they are conspirator and to put the hands on tecnologies that can help him demonstrate that the earth is really flat.
-
It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.
My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.
How do you propose we "go around and discover" and infinite area?
The concept of an infinite earth is simply absurd. Neither the universe is infinite. The proposal of an infinite earth come into play only to cover the holes in the theory. Ok, i was thinking why none flat earther in history try to enter the NASA or any other space institute to prove they are conspirator and to put the hands on tecnologies that can help him demonstrate that the earth is really flat.
It came into play to explain several phenomenon, some of which the RE theories fail to explain.
-
The concept of an infinite earth is simply absurd. Neither the universe is infinite. The proposal of an infinite earth come into play only to cover the holes in the theory. Ok, i was thinking why none flat earther in history try to enter the NASA or any other space institute to prove they are conspirator and to put the hands on tecnologies that can help him demonstrate that the earth is really flat.
It came into play to explain several phenomenon, some of which the RE theories fail to explain.
Which phenomena would an infinite FE explain that an RE (or even a finite FE) wouldn't?
-
To begin, the lack of gravitational difference due solely to altitude.
However, I'll post a complete list in a bit. I was actually working on compiling a list from a few sources that are often ignored.
I'll post it here and it will also be available at the news site.
-
To begin, the lack of gravitational difference due solely to altitude.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
-
Hafele-Keating and the attempt to surpress it. If one looks at the original data, one sees clearly no change happens where is predicted.
-
It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.
My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.
How do you propose we "go around and discover" and infinite area?
The concept of an infinite earth is simply absurd. Neither the universe is infinite. The proposal of an infinite earth come into play only to cover the holes in the theory. Ok, i was thinking why none flat earther in history try to enter the NASA or any other space institute to prove they are conspirator and to put the hands on tecnologies that can help him demonstrate that the earth is really flat.
It came into play to explain several phenomenon, some of which the RE theories fail to explain.
Science is always in evolution. If I have a good theory that explain so many things but fail explaining something, not necessarily I have to conclude that my theory is wrong. I can conclude that I am missing something, somehow. But I can't push into my theory things that I know are completely absurd, like an infinite earth, only to cover the holes in my theory.
-
Ok.
Interestingly, in attempting to come up with some actual numbers, I managed to show that the energy required to lift an object into space in FET would actually be less than that required to send it into orbit in RET, simply because RET requires acceleration to orbital velocity whereas FET allows dark energy to pick up after a few thousand kilometres. I hereby retract my previous statement; sustained spaceflight should be quite possible in FET.
Mmmmm. Not really true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
The page you have linked to is a statement of hypothesis, which is not the same thing as knowledge.
Again, not really true. Ret has a decent explanation. Fet does not.
Nuclear fusion has never been experimentally validated as a sustainable source of energy.
What is the difference in having an "unkown source of energy" instead of billions, if they are all stars?
Because FET only has one freak instance to explain. What is more probable, that billions of objects all over the Universe somehow developed an untested and unverified method of producing energy, or that we simply have one unexplained power source that is providing energy to all the stars?
Why a big bang sholud produce things that are so different and unique? You know, you take an enormous and ultra-dense ball of matter, and make them blow: the phisic laws are the one that we can see, so why the big bang produces this odd things? I think it's more natural thinking that in the space there a re tons of galaxy and stuffs like that, quite similar one to another. It is a more realistic scenario. What sort of big bang projects things only "upwards", while there is nothing "downwards"?
I think it's more likely "outwards" than "upwards". We've just been moving for so long that everything around us appears to accelerate in the same direction. There may very well be other Earths out there, also moving outwards from the initial Big Bang in different directions.
Ok. So, I'm now putting the fingers here, just near my eyes, and I see that it is much more big than the Sforza Castle. Accordig to FEt, my finger is bigger than a castle.
No, that is not what I said. Please read my post again.
I think you, as some other FEt, like relativity. It happens because of gravitation.
Where is your evidence for this?
My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.
Large-scale observations of the Earth are not so easy for an individual to perform. Those who do have the capability to perform these observations are hiding the truth from the public.
-
It is a large, possibly infinite, flat expanse of rock, dirt, water, air and organic material.
My question was what the earth is, not what the earth possibly coul be. The earth is there, it is free. So, feel free, to go around and discover what it is.
How do you propose we "go around and discover" and infinite area?
The concept of an infinite earth is simply absurd. Neither the universe is infinite. The proposal of an infinite earth come into play only to cover the holes in the theory. Ok, i was thinking why none flat earther in history try to enter the NASA or any other space institute to prove they are conspirator and to put the hands on tecnologies that can help him demonstrate that the earth is really flat.
It came into play to explain several phenomenon, some of which the RE theories fail to explain.
Science is always in evolution. If I have a good theory that explain so many things but fail explaining something, not necessarily I have to conclude that my theory is wrong. I can conclude that I am missing something, somehow. But I can't push into my theory things that I know are completely absurd, like an infinite earth, only to cover the holes in my theory.
And who is the arbiter of the absurd? Churches were once. Now? The farce that is the scientific community - lead by greed and what can only be called fashion - is in its place.
No, no one can be an arbiter of the absurd - everything must be considered. Time and time again these arbiters, in many cases the science community, has pushed back advances that may have come earlier or have dismissed ideas that would have been fruitful due to either their vanity, their adherence to fashion, or for plain old wealth.
Or is it you that are arbitrating in this instance? Unless there is a valid concern, that goes against a theory - not because it is "unfashionable" or ridiculous as you put it - then it should be considered.
Not so long ago many of our ideas would have been consider black magic and absurd.
Ridiculous argument.
-
Hafele-Keating and the attempt to surpress it. If one looks at the original data, one sees clearly no change happens where is predicted.
From what I've been able to gather, the main controversy of Hafele-Keating has to do with insufficient precision of the atomic clocks used in the experiment. It seems that a 25th anniversary recreation of the experiment using more accurate atomic clocks confirmed the original conclusions.
On return to NPL the travelling clock was predicted to have gained 39.8 ns, including an additional geometric factor. This compared remarkably well with a measured gain of 39.0 ns. We estimated the uncertainty due to clock instabilities and noise to be around ?2 ns. This short flying clock experiment therefore provided a clear demonstration of relativistic effects.
-
Hafele-Keating and the attempt to surpress it. If one looks at the original data, one sees clearly no change happens where is predicted.
From what I've been able to gather, the main controversy of Hafele-Keating has to do with insufficient precision of the atomic clocks used in the experiment. It seems that a 25th anniversary recreation of the experiment using more accurate atomic clocks confirmed the original conclusions.
On return to NPL the travelling clock was predicted to have gained 39.8 ns, including an additional geometric factor. This compared remarkably well with a measured gain of 39.0 ns. We estimated the uncertainty due to clock instabilities and noise to be around ?2 ns. This short flying clock experiment therefore provided a clear demonstration of relativistic effects.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the actual data published. It had to do with misrepresenting the data. While there was controversy concerning the precision also, this was not the main issue, iirc.
-
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the actual data published. It had to do with misrepresenting the data. While there was controversy concerning the precision also, this was not the main issue, iirc.
Are you referring to the original experiment, or to the 25th anniversary reenactment? Either way, gravimeters provide a far simpler method for measuring the variations in gravitation at various altitudes without having to worry about time dilation (the primary purpose of Hafele-Keating).
-
Interestingly, in attempting to come up with some actual numbers, I managed to show that the energy required to lift an object into space in FET would actually be less than that required to send it into orbit in RET, simply because RET requires acceleration to orbital velocity whereas FET allows dark energy to pick up after a few thousand kilometres. I hereby retract my previous statement; sustained spaceflight should be quite possible in FET.
Ok, so you have to adjust the FAQ according to this new discovery. Now, if sustained spaceflight is possible, why is it impossible that we went to the moon or that there is an ISS orbiting the earth?
The page you have linked to is a statement of hypothesis, which is not the same thing as knowledge.
Oh yes. Same as you. But the REt hypothesis are quite realistic, i think.
Nuclear fusion has never been experimentally validated as a sustainable source of energy.
Same for your sun.
Because FET only has one freak instance to explain. What is more probable, that billions of objects all over the Universe somehow developed an untested and unverified method of producing energy, or that we simply have one unexplained power source that is providing energy to all the stars?
I think it's more probable the billions of objects. Because only one object looks like an anomaly.
I think it's more likely "outwards" than "upwards". We've just been moving for so long that everything around us appears to accelerate in the same direction. There may very well be other Earths out there, also moving outwards from the initial Big Bang in different directions.
So there are more infinite earth. Illogic.
No, that is not what I said. Please read my post again.
I think your way of calculating the distance is wrong. Can you tell me your method?
Where is your evidence for this?
Big Masses produces space distortion. The evidence is that the light bends when approaching massive body.
Large-scale observations of the Earth are not so easy for an individual to perform. Those who do have the capability to perform these observations are hiding the truth from the public.
Hoax. I understand. Why FEers does not have a scientific community?
-
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the actual data published. It had to do with misrepresenting the data. While there was controversy concerning the precision also, this was not the main issue, iirc.
Are you referring to the original experiment, or to the 25th anniversary reenactment? Either way, gravimeters provide a far simpler method for measuring the variations in gravitation at various altitudes without having to worry about time dilation (the primary purpose of Hafele-Keating).
Can't find the 25th, overviewed the original.
The original purpose of Hafele-keating actually had nothing to do with time dialation. They bastardized the results later to fit time dialation to justify their money spent.
As far as I know, gravimeters only really show differences based on density of mass. If one measures at the top of a mountain and then compares it to the relative mass at that area (in a smart fashion of course) one sees no discernable difference.
-
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the actual data published. It had to do with misrepresenting the data. While there was controversy concerning the precision also, this was not the main issue, iirc.
Are you referring to the original experiment, or to the 25th anniversary reenactment? Either way, gravimeters provide a far simpler method for measuring the variations in gravitation at various altitudes without having to worry about time dilation (the primary purpose of Hafele-Keating).
Can't find the 25th, overviewed the original.
The original purpose of Hafele-keating actually had nothing to do with time dialation. They bastardized the results later to fit time dialation to justify their money spent.
I'm sorry, but I can't see how Hafele-Keating could reasonably relate to anything but time dilation. Why else would they send the planes around the world in opposite directions? If anything, this would confirm the rotation of the earth on its axis because the difference in the clock readings was greater than zero because the planes were traveling at the velocity of the rotation of the earth +/- the velocity of the planes relative to the rotation of the earth. Granted, they may not have come up with a precise value for the dilation, but the fact that they measured a value greater than zero to a high degree of confidence is significant.
As far as I know, gravimeters only really show differences based on density of mass. If one measures at the top of a mountain and then compares it to the relative mass at that area (in a smart fashion of course) one sees no discernable difference.
I suppose that depends on what type of gravimeter you use. Some are essentially high precision strain gauges that measure the weight of a known mass (essentially an accelerometer). Others time the rate of a ball dropping (or rising and dropping) a known distance. Granted, the mining industry does use gravimetric surveys to help locate areas of different density, but I would think that the difference in density would have less of an effect on a gravimeter than that of altitude (but I haven't done the research to confirm this yet).
-
http://parma.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/8275600
This video shows the ISS passing in front of the moon. Nice video.
-
Ok, so you have to adjust the FAQ according to this new discovery. Now, if sustained spaceflight is possible, why is it impossible that we went to the moon or that there is an ISS orbiting the earth?
I do not have the power to edit the FAQ. Furthermore, while sustained spaceflight may be possible in FET, orbit is not possible, making every one of NASA's launches thus far doomed to failure because their trajectories would simply have brought them back down to Earth.
Oh yes. Same as you. But the REt hypothesis are quite realistic, i think.
As is the FET hypothesis.
Same for your sun.
Glad we agree.
I think it's more probable the billions of objects. Because only one object looks like an anomaly.
So how are billions of anomalies more likely than a single one?
So there are more infinite earth. Illogic.
That model does not work with an infinite Earth. I personally am a subscriber to the finite Earth branch of FET.
I think your way of calculating the distance is wrong. Can you tell me your method?
I used the figures given in the FAQ, to be honest. I am not aware of any other FE figures for these distances, and I do not have the time to make such measurements myself.
Big Masses produces space distortion. The evidence is that the light bends when approaching massive body.
Where is your evidence that this is the effect which causes the celestial plane to rotate?
Hoax. I understand. Why FEers does not have a scientific community?
Basically, this website holds the few true FEers left in the world. The remaining FE scientific community isn't really big enough to do anything more than debate it on an internet forum at the moment, because the Conspiracy has brainwashed the majority of the population into believing its RE propaganda.
http://parma.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/8275600
This video shows the ISS passing in front of the moon. Nice video.
I still maintain that it is a hologram.
-
I do not have the power to edit the FAQ. Furthermore, while sustained spaceflight may be possible in FET, orbit is not possible,
But what is the moon doing? And the sun (according to FE Theory)?
http://parma.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/8275600
This video shows the ISS passing in front of the moon. Nice video.
I still maintain that it is a hologram.
Shame you have no evidence it's a hologram.
-
But what is the moon doing? And the sun (according to FE Theory)?
Sorry, I should have said that geocentric orbit is not possible.
Shame you have no evidence it's a hologram.
It wouldn't be a very good conspiracy if I did, now would it?
-
http://parma.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/8275600
This video shows the ISS passing in front of the moon. Nice video.
I still maintain that it is a hologram.
??? How does one use a hologram to project a dark image in front of a luminous body?
-
Sorry, I should have said that geocentric orbit is not possible.
What kind of orbit are the moon and sun in (according to FE theory) and what stops other objects from doing the same?
It wouldn't be a very good conspiracy if I did, now would it?
Conspiracies. Is there anything they can't prove?
-
??? How does one use a hologram to project a dark image in front of a luminous body?
Ask the Conspiracy.
What kind of orbit are the moon and sun in (according to FE theory) and what stops other objects from doing the same?
They orbit about the North Celestial Pole. Since there is no obvious large mass at the centre of their orbits, it is likely that they are charged objects, kept in orbit by the Earth's magnetic field. In order to place a spacecraft into orbit, we would not only need to launch it into space, but also give it kinetic energy and an electric charge, which would mean that it would need to be that much heavier to accommodate the technology to do so, requiring a lot more fuel to launch it in the first place.
-
I do not have the power to edit the FAQ. Furthermore, while sustained spaceflight may be possible in FET, orbit is not possible, making every one of NASA's launches thus far doomed to failure because their trajectories would simply have brought them back down to Earth.
This is what they do: go to the moon and come back to earth. Where is the contradiction?
So how are billions of anomalies more likely than a single one?
Simple: if they are billions, they are not anomalies. They are common.
That model does not work with an infinite Earth. I personally am a subscriber to the finite Earth branch of FET.
Mmmmm...
I used the figures given in the FAQ, to be honest. I am not aware of any other FE figures for these distances, and I do not have the time to make such measurements myself.
Believe me, your measurement is wrong, as the sustained spaceflight. Try again and you will see that the sun is much more far away. And it is very massive.
Where is your evidence that this is the effect which causes the celestial plane to rotate?
Dunno. But FEers have to choose: you believe in relativity or you believe only the aspects of relativity that patch your holes?
Basically, this website holds the few true FEers left in the world. The remaining FE scientific community isn't really big enough to do anything more than debate it on an internet forum at the moment, because the Conspiracy has brainwashed the majority of the population into believing its RE propaganda.
Mmmmm... have you ever stopped and thought why the number of FEers believers is so small?
I still maintain that it is a hologram.
No words for this one...
-
They orbit about the North Celestial Pole. Since there is no obvious large mass at the centre of their orbits
This large mass take the name of Mother Earth.
-
They orbit about the North Celestial Pole. Since there is no obvious large mass at the centre of their orbits
This large mass take the name of Mother Earth.
I wasn't aware the Earth was located five megametres above the north pole.
-
??? How does one use a hologram to project a dark image in front of a luminous body?
Ask the Conspiracy.
I was right. There's nothing the conspiracy can't do.
What kind of orbit are the moon and sun in (according to FE theory) and what stops other objects from doing the same?
They orbit about the North Celestial Pole. Since there is no obvious large mass at the centre of their orbits, it is likely that they are charged objects, kept in orbit by the Earth's magnetic field. In order to place a spacecraft into orbit, we would not only need to launch it into space, but also give it kinetic energy and an electric charge, which would mean that it would need to be that much heavier to accommodate the technology to do so, requiring a lot more fuel to launch it in the first place.
Kinetic energy is not hard to come by. Electric charge is also not hard to come by.
Unless you can put some fact around that post I'm going to have to notch it up as a fantasy short story.
-
They orbit about the North Celestial Pole. Since there is no obvious large mass at the centre of their orbits
This large mass take the name of Mother Earth.
I wasn't aware the Earth was located five megametres above the north pole.
I mean, the Moon orbiting around the Earth. This is common sense.
-
??? How does one use a hologram to project a dark image in front of a luminous body?
Ask the Conspiracy.
So you were just making a baseless accusation? That's what I thought.
-
I mean, the Moon orbiting around the Earth. This is common sense.
The Moon does not orbit the Earth in FET. We know this because it is always visible from somewhere.
So you were just making a baseless accusation? That's what I thought.
If the Earth is flat, then geocentric orbit is impossible. Therefore, the objects we see in the sky cannot really be there. That is the basis for my accusation.
-
The Moon does not orbit the Earth in FET. We know this because it is always visible from somewhere.
The explanation of it's visibilty stands in the fact that earth is round and the moon orbiting around it. But whatever, you don't believe the earth is round, so... this is pointless.
-
The explanation of it's visibilty stands in the fact that earth is round and the moon orbiting around it.
That is one possible explanation. However, we are not discussing RET, so it is also irrelevant.