The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: troy2000 on August 30, 2006, 06:19:50 AM
-
Firstly, I am definitely NOT an FE'er.
I have seen TWO Shuttle launches first-hand. No Internet TV, Sky Digital or any other of those services.
It seems aparent that FE'ers are quite capable of inventing an answer to any of these questions, so I am most likely wasting my time posting this.
If, as you say, the world is entirely flat (which I know it is not), attempt to answer these questions.
1: Why does the Shuttle launch at an angle? (I know that this is because it require movement so that its orbit does not decay)
2: What happens to the Shuttle after launch? (I know it enters orbit)
3: How does it re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and land?
4: A new devision of Virgin, Virgin Galactic has launch and is offering public trips into a sub-orbit where the customer will experience zero-gavity. Do you honesty believe that the people who have used this service are lying.
-
4: A new devision of Virgin, Virgin Galactic has launch and is offering public trips into a sub-orbit where the customer will experience zero-gavity.
Lol, we have to pay for some flat earthers to go on a virgin space flight....
and press their fat empty head against the glass and simply say....."look"
-
Lol, we have to pay for some flat earthers to go on a virgin space flight....
and press their fat empty head against the glass and simply say....."look"
I will volunteer. Send me the money and I will go as soon as they start service.
-
1: Why does the Shuttle launch at an angle?
To fool you into thinking you know what you think you know.
2: What happens to the Shuttle after launch?
It goes up for a while. Eventually, it lands.
3: How does it re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and land?
That question assumes that it leaves the earth's atmosphere to begin with.
4: A new devision of Virgin, Virgin Galactic has launch and is offering public trips into a sub-orbit where the customer will experience zero-gavity. Do you honesty believe that the people who have used this service are lying.
Zero gravity does not contradict FE. It's how they make movies about astronauts, and is not even a secret.
-
It goes up for a while. Eventually, it lands.
were does it land?
-
1: Why does the Shuttle launch at an angle?
To fool you into thinking you know what you think you know.
2: What happens to the Shuttle after launch?
It goes up for a while. Eventually, it lands.
3: How does it re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and land?
That question assumes that it leaves the earth's atmosphere to begin with.
4: A new devision of Virgin, Virgin Galactic has launch and is offering public trips into a sub-orbit where the customer will experience zero-gavity. Do you honesty believe that the people who have used this service are lying.
Zero gravity does not contradict FE. It's how they make movies about astronauts, and is not even a secret.
Here is one of the many things which I don't understand about the FE theory:
If the Earth is flat, and it is travelling at the speed of light to generate gravity, then why, after the first few moments would gravity still exist? It's against the laws of physics :roll:. "An object in motion remains in motion." Therefore, unless the planet was continually accellerating, there would be no gravity.
Here is another point I wish to make:
You say that when you look through a telescope at the Moon. You see a two dimensional image. However, if you observe such things as creators are other distubances on the surface, you will clearly see that they bend out of sight. This definitely indicates that the moon IS a sphere. If you don't believe me, then take a look at these images:
(http://www.astronomie.be/christophe.behaegel/MOON%20Hi-Res_files/moon24-11-2004-0918UT.jpg)
(http://www.astronomie.be/christophe.behaegel/MOON%20Hi-Res_files/HHH-moonmoz1.jpg)
Here is one of Mars:
(http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/global/browse/br_0124.jpg)
This proof cannot be denied.
:D
-
This proof cannot be denied.
:D
neither can pig ignorance
-
Was that remark at me or Erasmus?
-
not you troy....nice post.
its to FEers
-
Here is one of the many things which I don't understand about the FE theory:
If the Earth is flat, and it is travelling at the speed of light to generate gravity, then why, after the first few moments would gravity still exist? It's against the laws of physics :roll:. "An object in motion remains in motion." Therefore, unless the planet was continually accellerating, there would be no gravity.
The Earth never travels at the speed of light- it is continually accelerating (in the FE model, to which I do not subscribe, btw), but as it approaches lightspeed its acceleration slows along an asymptotic curve. However, even though its acceleration may be slowing relative to some objects, from the frame of reference of observers on the Earth, Earth never approaches lightspeed, and thus from our vantage point its acceleration would seem to remain constant. Don't bother disputing this- I did originally, and it took 12 pages of discussion to convince me that I was wrong.
-
I wonder how long it will take the FE'ers to come up with an explanation for those images :D. Another excellent way which could disprove the flatness of other planets, would be to post some stereoscopic images :wink:
-
Earth never approaches lightspeed, and thus from our vantage point its acceleration would seem to remain constant. Don't bother disputing this- I did originally, and it took 12 pages of discussion to convince me that I was wrong.
Too bad you gave up the good fight.
Acceleration is a change of velocity over time. If there is to be the affect to simulate gravity due to acceleration, then time dialation is also a factor. Just "as it approaches lightspeed its acceleration slows along an asymptotic curve" so does the rate at which time passes. The Universe would need to exist for an infinite time span for this to work, and most current theories do not allow for this, if for no other reason then entropy and the application of thermodynamics.
-
But time isn't dilated from the perspective of observers on the Earth. Go ask the guys at physicsforums.com, they support the FEers on this particular point. Here's the thread I posted asking about it there:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=129832
-
HA-HA
Gosh this must be a weird feeling for you dsyfunction. Sure is funny debating people who *KNOW* they must be absolutely right. :D
By the way, for anyone interested, this explanation is actually stickied. Not the 12 pages he's talking about (because 11.5 of them are irrelevant), but another thread I even missed completely till now.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3152
-
1: Why does the Shuttle launch at an angle? (I know that this is because it require movement so that its orbit does not decay)
So your proof that the Earth is round, is that the shuttle launches at an angle? Because of course, otherwise it would explode or something, so that can't be fake or unrelated, right?
2: What happens to the Shuttle after launch? (I know it enters orbit) )
It's a plane. What do you think it does? It goes up, flies for a bit, and then lands out of your sight.
3: How does it re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and land?
Mu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative))
4: A new devision of Virgin, Virgin Galactic has launch and is offering public trips into a sub-orbit where the customer will experience zero-gavity. Do you honesty believe that the people who have used this service are lying.
No, not at all, because this working has nothing to do with the earth being flat or round, but simply based on the idea of freefall. A good point is that they won't experience zero-gravity. Just like astronauts aren't weightless. You have to go an infinite distance away from the earth to not feel its gravity.
-
1: Why does the Shuttle launch at an angle? (I know that this is because it require movement so that its orbit does not decay)
So your proof that the Earth is round, is that the shuttle launches at an angle? Because of course, otherwise it would explode or something, so that can't be fake or unrelated, right?
2: What happens to the Shuttle after launch? (I know it enters orbit) )
It's a plane. What do you think it does? It goes up, flies for a bit, and then lands out of your sight.
3: How does it re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and land?
Mu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative))
4: A new devision of Virgin, Virgin Galactic has launch and is offering public trips into a sub-orbit where the customer will experience zero-gavity. Do you honesty believe that the people who have used this service are lying.
No, not at all, because this working has nothing to do with the earth being flat or round, but simply based on the idea of freefall. A good point is that they won't experience zero-gravity. Just like astronauts aren't weightless. You have to go an infinite distance away from the earth to not feel its gravity.
First of all, the Space Shuttle is most definitely NOT a plane. Second, it is clear to me that no-matter what evidence I give for the Earth being round, you will deny its truthfulness. However, if u took the time to examine those images I posted, then u would plainly see that what I attempted to explain. One undefeatable fact here, is that if the Earth really were flat (which it is not), then people would be saying "all this is a conspiracy" as well :roll:. Do you agree dysfunction?
-
Not really- nothing about the Space Shuttle launching definitively "proves" that it really goes into space. To debate these guys, you pretty much have to provide evidence they can verify themselves with absolutely no reliance on anyone else- otherwise they will just claim conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy, the Shuttle is fake. So your points about the Shuttle are pretty much moot, as far as being useful in this debate.
-
To debate these guys, you pretty much have to provide evidence they can verify themselves with absolutely no reliance on anyone else.
This is because the flat Earth theory uses the "Zetetic" method.
-
Its like the Scientific method, only better
-
First of all, the Space Shuttle is most definitely NOT a plane
Oh really?
And why is that? I consider the space shuttle to be a fixed winged aircraft propelled by jets or propellers. How does this make it NOT a plane? The fact that it has LANDING GEAR only makes you look that much more wrong.
Here's NASA testing the shuttles atmospheric flight capabilities:
(http://history.nasa.gov/SP-432/p31a.jpg)
Second, it is clear to me that no-matter what evidence
Hmm. I should respond with mu again, but this one isn't a question. How could you possibly know my reaction to real evidence? What you presented in no way demostrates the earth is round. Hell, it doesn't even demostrate that the shuttle goes anywhere but above the cloud line for a short time.
-
The Shuttle does not use jets or propellers. Also, if you really knew the Shuttle's atmospheric flight capabillities, then you would also know that it handles like a brick. It was designed to be used primarily in space. It only uses wings to allow it to navigate when it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere(and you doubt it even leaves this). The Shuttle has no powered flight while in the atmosphere. This does not sound like a plane to me.
Next time you are in a plane at high altitude. Try looking out the window. You will clearly see the curvaure of the Earth.
According to the FE theory, there are no satellites, correct? Tonight, if the sky is clear look at the stars for a while and you will shortly see at least two little white specs moving in straight lines and eventually disappearing. These are called SATELLITES. I have often done this. One night I actually saw the Space Station with my telescope in detail. These are things which you can validate for yourself and you will see that I am correct.
-
The Shuttle does not use jets or propellers. Also, if you really knew the Shuttle's atmospheric flight capabillities, then you would also know that it handles like a brick. It was designed to be used primarily in space. It only uses wings to allow it to navigate when it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere(and you doubt it even leaves this). The Shuttle has no powered flight while in the atmosphere. This does not sound like a plane to me.
It still doesn't prove anything. Of course I already believe the Shuttle really does go into space, but just because the Shuttle is built as if it were intended to go into space doesn't mean it actually can or does.
-
The Shuttle does not use jets or propellers. Also, if you really knew the Shuttle's atmospheric flight capabillities, then you would also know that it handles like a brick. It was designed to be used primarily in space. It only uses wings to allow it to navigate when it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere(and you doubt it even leaves this). The Shuttle has no powered flight while in the atmosphere. This does not sound like a plane to me.
Oh yes it does:
(http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/kennedy/images/spaceshuttle12.jpg)
How those aren't 'jets' to you is hilarious.
Also, just because you made a BAD PLANE doesn't mean it still isn't a PLANE. It has wings, and goes through the air. It's a plane.
-
The Shuttle does not use jets or propellers. Also, if you really knew the Shuttle's atmospheric flight capabillities, then you would also know that it handles like a brick. It was designed to be used primarily in space. It only uses wings to allow it to navigate when it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere(and you doubt it even leaves this). The Shuttle has no powered flight while in the atmosphere. This does not sound like a plane to me.
Oh yes it does:
(http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/kennedy/images/spaceshuttle12.jpg)
How those aren't 'jets' to you is hilarious.
Also, just because you made a BAD PLANE doesn't mean it still isn't a PLANE. It has wings, and goes through the air. It's a plane.
I think he is quibbling the difference between jet engines and rocket engines. However, there is nothing to prevent an aircraft from having a rocket engine, though it may not be ideal.
-
Especially since a number of planes in history have had rocket engines; the two are not mutually exclusive.
-
Especially since a number of planes in history have had rocket engines; the two are not mutually exclusive.
I thought they had, but I wasn't sure, so I checked up on the X-15, which apparently did.
-
Next time you are in a plane at high altitude. Try looking out the window. You will clearly see the curvaure of the Earth.
OMG, YOU'RE SO RIGHT! How could I have missed that for so long?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v63/hardrocker/bangkok/image001-small.jpg)
It's like looking at a blue/green basketball! :lol:
-
Especially since a number of planes in history have had rocket engines; the two are not mutually exclusive.
I thought they had, but I wasn't sure, so I checked up on the X-15, which apparently did.
Oh, it's nothing as classified as the X line. Think mid F-line
(http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/F-15-7.jpg)
-
Images do not seem to help w prove anything here as many people assume they are fake and CG. However, I happen to work in CG. I know what the limits are. No CG image can possibly be this realistic. By todays level of technology it is impossible. But decide for yourself:
(http://ftp.sv.vt.edu/pub/projects97/mulford/orbit/Shuttle.jpg)
This is what I mean at a high altitude:
(http://www2.cemr.wvu.edu/~satellite.balloon/Spring%202004%20Balloon%20Sats%20Pictures/Flight%20Day%20In%20Air%20Photos%20-%20Group%20Dynamics/100_0370%205th%20shot%20of%20curvature%20of%20earth%20tops%20of%20clouds.JPG)
See the curve? It really couldn't be any clearer :)
-
Images do not seem to help w prove anything here as many people assume they are fake and CG. However, I happen to work in CG. I know what the limits are. No CG image can possibly be this realistic. By todays level of technology it is impossible. But decide for yourself:
(http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ftp.sv.vt.edu/pub/projects97/mulford/orbit/Shuttle.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ftp.sv.vt.edu/pub/projects97/mulford/orbit/&h=480&w=640&sz=31&hl=en&start=21&tbnid=63vzhzuMA2IjEM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dshuttle%2Bin%2Borbit%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN)
Well, that looks conclusive.
-
I happen to work in CG. I know what the limits are.
One of those statements is false. I would normally say both, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
5 minutes in MS Paint:
(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/1570/shuttlesk4.jpg)
I can't even imagine how much easier and nicer looking it would have been if I used something like photoshop.
-
All u have done is cut off part of the image. how is that meant to prove anything? My other post has been repaired.
-
(http://www.ritilan.com/archives/images/2005/05/powerdraw_by_Diamonster-tm.png)
This was made in MSPaint, completely from scratch. If that's what you can do with the most basic image software, what can the US government do?
I'm actually a round earther, I just love to debate and play devil's advocate.
-
All u have done is cut off part of the image. how is that meant to prove anything? My other post has been repaired.
I did more than that. Guess I stumped the big bad know it all CG guy with 5 minutes in MS Paint. LOL
There's no curvature anymore. How hard would it be to work the other way around? Say the earth is flat. Curving it wouldn't be at all hard.
-
Thats right. It woudl accualy be easy.
edit:
i changed that flat earth picture into a round earth one. It took me 30 seconds.... so its not as nice as it could be... but yah, you get the point.
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a207/MNICY/shuttlesk41.jpg)
-
The Shuttle does not use jets or propellers. Also, if you really knew the Shuttle's atmospheric flight capabillities, then you would also know that it handles like a brick. It was designed to be used primarily in space. It only uses wings to allow it to navigate when it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere(and you doubt it even leaves this). The Shuttle has no powered flight while in the atmosphere. This does not sound like a plane to me.
Oh yes it does:
(http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/kennedy/images/spaceshuttle12.jpg)
How those aren't 'jets' to you is hilarious.
Also, just because you made a BAD PLANE doesn't mean it still isn't a PLANE. It has wings, and goes through the air. It's a plane.
OK lol your an idiot because the small rockets on the shuttle are meant to propel the shuttle into orbit after the other crap is detached. Then by the time its in orbit the fuel is gone. During rentry its lands like a glider thats why it has wings. Also if all this was faked and the shuttle just hides above the clouds it cant happen even if it uses its rockets to stay in the air because rockets cant last longer than a few minutes and a glider cant stay up there for days becuase theres no thrust on a glider it eventually falls within a matter of hours so your completely wrong about the shuttle
-
Images do not seem to help w prove anything here as many people assume they are fake and CG. However, I happen to work in CG. I know what the limits are. No CG image can possibly be this realistic. By todays level of technology it is impossible. But decide for yourself:
This is what I mean at a high altitude:
See the curve? It really couldn't be any clearer :)
Mate, if you really work in CG (which I doubt after this post) you would know that those pictures are EASILY made in 3d. In fact, I know you don't work in CG.
-
I have to agree with Rick_James....
You do NOT know what your talking about.
-
Rick James is right, however we have had film from space for decades, and CG technology has not had the ability to produce such realistic imagery during that entire time.
-
CG technology has not had the ability to produce such realistic imagery during that entire time.
CG technology freely available to the public hasn't had the ability...
-
As it says somewere, the money NASA used to develolpe spaceships was accualy used to make photo image software.
-
BULL SHIT IN THE 60'S THEY COULDN'T PRODUCE IMAGES LIKE THAT .PERIOD
-
CG technology has not had the ability to produce such realistic imagery during that entire time.
CG technology freely available to the public hasn't had the ability...
Fair enough, but there needs to be a limit on the number of things that can be attributed to a conspiracy.
-
CG technology has not had the ability to produce such realistic imagery during that entire time.
CG technology freely available to the public hasn't had the ability...
Fair enough, but there needs to be a limit on the number of things that can be attributed to a conspiracy.
I didn't say anything about a conspiracy - do you deny that the Government (conspiracy or not) posesses technology not yet available to the general public? And that some of this technology we don't yet know about/understand (such as CG in the 60's [possibly])?
This is seperate from the conspiracy claims.
EDIT: Also, why does there need to be a limit? Is there a limit to how many secretive actions a conspiritor may perform as part of his conspiracy?
-
EDIT: Also, why does there need to be a limit? Is there a limit to how many secretive actions a conspiritor may perform as part of his conspiracy?
No, but there's a limit to the number of assumptions a hypothesis is allowed to make.
-
Images do not seem to help w prove anything here as many people assume they are fake and CG. However, I happen to work in CG. I know what the limits are. No CG image can possibly be this realistic. By todays level of technology it is impossible. But decide for yourself:
This is what I mean at a high altitude:
See the curve? It really couldn't be any clearer :)
Mate, if you really work in CG (which I doubt after this post) you would know that those pictures are EASILY made in 3d. In fact, I know you don't work in CG.
CG technology can come close to real images, but you will ALWAYS be able to tell the difference. I was once asked to create a scene of the shuttle in orbit, I was told that it had to be completely photorealistic. After several days of modelling and rendering in Lightwave, the end result was quite realistic and almost identical to the original, but was obviously a 3D render. You can observe many 3D renders done by many 3D artists, but none are COMPLETELY photorealistic. :D
-
Images do not seem to help w prove anything here as many people assume they are fake and CG. However, I happen to work in CG. I know what the limits are. No CG image can possibly be this realistic. By todays level of technology it is impossible. But decide for yourself:
This is what I mean at a high altitude:
See the curve? It really couldn't be any clearer :)
Mate, if you really work in CG (which I doubt after this post) you would know that those pictures are EASILY made in 3d. In fact, I know you don't work in CG.
CG technology can come close to real images, but you will ALWAYS be able to tell the difference. I was once asked to create a scene of the shuttle in orbit, I was told that it had to be completely photorealistic. After several days of modelling and rendering in Lightwave, the end result was quite realistic and almost identical to the original, but was obviously a 3D render. You can observe many 3D renders done by many 3D artists, but none are COMPLETELY photorealistic. :D
There's 2 obvious problems with your render - first you were using lightwave. O...M...G.... use 3D Studio Max or Maya if you want to feel pretentious...
Secondly, you were making it...
hahahahaha but seriously, photo-realism is achieveable with the correct software and animators.
I would not be the correct animator, because I've had to put my work on hold to try and pin down a full time job (to pay for a new computer that can run the latest version of Max) - however my friend who switched to the Melbourne campus could do a pretty good job - and a professional animator is paid to do that stuff. You think big budget movies fly people into space to get that sweet re-entry shot? :roll:
-
but you will ALWAYS be able to tell the difference.
Sorry for the double post, but I needed to address this part seperately.
In less than 10 yrs, there will be no more Hollywood. Celebrities as we know it will no longer exist, because we will be able to snimate them perfectly. You won't[/u] be able to tell the difference, and as a result, all major movies will be animated because of the MILLIONS of dollars they will save. No need for actors or lighting or cameras or sets or makeup or wardrobe - even down to stuff like liability insurance for the town they shoot in etc. You are about to see some amazing advancements in CG techonology.
-
but you will ALWAYS be able to tell the difference.
Sorry for the double post, but I needed to address this part seperately.
In less than 10 yrs, there will be no more Hollywood. Celebrities as we know it will no longer exist, because we will be able to snimate them perfectly. You won't[/u] be able to tell the difference, and as a result, all major movies will be animated because of the MILLIONS of dollars they will save. No need for actors or lighting or cameras or sets or makeup or wardrobe - even down to stuff like liability insurance for the town they shoot in etc. You are about to see some amazing advancements in CG techonology.
(http://features.cgsociety.org/gallerycrits/199846/199846_1156997804_large.jpg)
CG.
-
That's a really nice render. And that's done now (or possibly the last couple of years), so imagine how much better it will be in 2, 5, or 10 years.
-
BUMP.
Fuck me that is a good CG pic......
Thats kinda scary though :evil:
-
Thats a really nice render :). I agree that CG technology will evolve to the level u mentioned. But for now, nothing is 100% photoreal. Even in that render, I can tell that it is not real. Also, I mainly use Max, but sometimes LW 8 is the only way to get it done.
But anyway, this is going WAY off topic ;). Can anyone offer an explanation (from FE view) of that high alt photo I posted?
-
It's fake.
-
1: Why does the Shuttle launch at an angle?
To fool you into thinking you know what you think you know.
2: What happens to the Shuttle after launch?
It goes up for a while. Eventually, it lands.
3: How does it re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and land?
That question assumes that it leaves the earth's atmosphere to begin with.
4: A new devision of Virgin, Virgin Galactic has launch and is offering public trips into a sub-orbit where the customer will experience zero-gavity. Do you honesty believe that the people who have used this service are lying.
Zero gravity does not contradict FE. It's how they make movies about astronauts, and is not even a secret.
1: isn't that why you people made a site? to fool yourselves.
2: why hasnt anyone seen it come down after launch? these days you can find someone with a camera everywhere.. watching for something like this to get 15 minutes of fame... or to prove their crackpot theories.
3: sigh
4: not gonna bother touching that one.
it looks like you took 3 seconds to give him those answers... go cruise by another forum.. most people posting provide links, facts, sources, credibility... all the things you lack
-
The space shuttles went up and came down, mostly where planned. Ditto with the moon launches and the space station launches.
Those launches were big deals, very expensive. Very hard to imagine that the govt - and private investors - threw away money knowing the Earth is flat and that nothing really orbits. Also hard to imagine how they managed the trick of that enormous launch sending the rocket up and then the semi-enormous trick of having the landing module come back later.
Even astronomers - in several countries - with optical telescopes and radio telescopes reported seeing the rockets in outer space.
They couldn't keep this fraud going for thalidomide, so howcome you think they could do it for the space program?
-
-
That is a nice pic, But I saw it before I read it was CG, and I got an uncanny valley vibe. Something about her was too... shiny. It is really good, and in a few years I bet I wouldn't be able to tell, but I could tell now.
-
It's not a pic, it's a video.
-
The space shuttles went up and came down, mostly where planned. Ditto with the moon launches and the space station launches.
Those launches were big deals, very expensive. Very hard to imagine that the govt - and private investors - threw away money knowing the Earth is flat and that nothing really orbits. Also hard to imagine how they managed the trick of that enormous launch sending the rocket up and then the semi-enormous trick of having the landing module come back later.
Even astronomers - in several countries - with optical telescopes and radio telescopes reported seeing the rockets in outer space.
They couldn't keep this fraud going for thalidomide, so howcome you think they could do it for the space program?
Why did you feel the need to necro-bump a 10 year old thread? ???