The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: n1rvana on July 20, 2014, 05:22:32 AM
-
You guys don't believe the World is a sphere?
(http://)
The man jumping from this space craft is 128,000 foot above the earths surface, besides the tonnes of pictures and other videos from it, you can see the curvature of the Earth.. That's no light trick, not the camera angle; that's simply the earth's shape. Your argument rules out the law of gravity and its affect, Varying Star Constellations, the degree of shadows measured off other planets which lay out as if they were on a sphere based surface, the existence of time zones, the center of gravity and the fact that you can SEE other planets/stars such as Jupiter, Mars, mercury with a telescope and you can see the sun and the moon with the naked eye (which are clearly sphere shapes) which all point to the answer that the planet we also live on, is probably the same.
Also don't tell me space isn't real.
-
You guys don't believe the World is a sphere?
(http://)
The man jumping from this space craft is 128,000 foot above the earths surface, besides the tonnes of pictures and other videos from it, you can see the curvature of the Earth.. That's no light trick, not the camera angle; that's simply the earth's shape. Your argument rules out the law of gravity and its affect, Varying Star Constellations, the degree of shadows measured off other planets which lay out as if they were on a sphere based surface, the existence of time zones, the center of gravity and the fact that you can SEE other planets/stars such as Jupiter, Mars, mercury with a telescope and you can see the sun and the moon with the naked eye (which are clearly sphere shapes) which all point to the answer that the planet we also live on, is probably the same.
Also don't tell me space isn't real.
The video is a fake and... "I am telling you that space isn't real."
-
Why do you think this was faked?
-
Why do you think this was faked?
Oh, I could go on forever about why it was fake. Should we start at one point at a time?
I won't go with the obvious first, I'll simply put this to you.
At 128,000 feet, he jumps. He free falls through a near vacuum as we are told. He feels no resistance because, as we have been already told, he's in a vacuum. He goes into a massive tumble, spinning out of control...in this vacuum...this vacuum that has bno resistance on his body. Would you care to tell me what constitutes making someone spin uncontrollably in this vacuum?
Just for clarity, let me cite a few things to help you along.
In air, if you are on a plane and you move the flaps, the plane changes course. It does this because you have upset the balance you were in and created a "resistance" against the flow. Ok?
In a vacuum chamber, the penny and feather fall at roughtly the same rate. They do this because there is no air resistance to alter their state of fall, meaning the feather that is built for air resistance, is now nullified.
Ok, we get that, right?
So Baumgartner falls out of his capsule and down he goes. He can flap his arms... bend his back...kick his legs, or even pull a surf board out. He's going nowhere other than how his body first fell.
Bear that in mind, then tell me how he spun out of control and as to how this was achieved. Once we deal with this, I'll get to the many other things.
-
" He goes into a massive tumble, spinning out of control...in this vacuum.."
I see where you are going wrong here. The density of the atmosphere at the top of the jump was so low(not a vacuum) that he just fell nice and straight. If you watch the land based video you can see his initial free fall is without any tumble.
Very quickly the atmosphere became more dense and his suit caused him to tumble.
Please continue. This is very interesting to me.
-
Why do you think this was faked?
Oh, I could go on forever about why it was fake. Should we start at one point at a time?
I won't go with the obvious first, I'll simply put this to you.
At 128,000 feet, he jumps. He free falls through a near vacuum as we are told. He feels no resistance because, as we have been already told, he's in a vacuum. He goes into a massive tumble, spinning out of control...in this vacuum...this vacuum that has bno resistance on his body. Would you care to tell me what constitutes making someone spin uncontrollably in this vacuum?
Just for clarity, let me cite a few things to help you along.
In air, if you are on a plane and you move the flaps, the plane changes course. It does this because you have upset the balance you were in and created a "resistance" against the flow. Ok?
In a vacuum chamber, the penny and feather fall at roughtly the same rate. They do this because there is no air resistance to alter their state of fall, meaning the feather that is built for air resistance, is now nullified.
Ok, we get that, right?
So Baumgartner falls out of his capsule and down he goes. He can flap his arms... bend his back...kick his legs, or even pull a surf board out. He's going nowhere other than how his body first fell.
Bear that in mind, then tell me how he spun out of control and as to how this was achieved. Once we deal with this, I'll get to the many other things.
That's the most idiotic reply I've ever heard. You're so wrapped up in conspiracy theories that you can't tell the truth from the mental rofl. None of that answer applies to anything that happened that day, the reason he spun out in a vacuum is because a vacuum has a circular motion to it, with his parachute going out of control. You'd know this if you didn't just think everything was fake, that's a lame way to dismiss something. There's recordings of it from people on the ground, working for news channels, people watched it on their telescopes and you're saying they all saw nothing LOL I bet that guy would laugh in your face if you said that to him, as you've done nothing close to that.
Did you know you can see space yourself by getting various balloons, some holding material and a wireless camera? Lot's of people have done it and seen the earth from the outter atmosphere, and surprise - the planets round. Maybe you should try this yourself before you think the ground is going to eat you.
-
Why do you think this was faked?
Because you can see the curvature of the Earth before it even leaves the Earth.
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-08-13124055.png)
-
" He goes into a massive tumble, spinning out of control...in this vacuum.."
I see where you are going wrong here. The density of the atmosphere at the top of the jump was so low(not a vacuum) that he just fell nice and straight. If you watch the land based video you can see his initial free fall is without any tumble.
Very quickly the atmosphere became more dense and his suit caused him to tumble.
Please continue. This is very interesting to me.
At what point and at what speed was he doing when he supposedly went out of control where this dense atmosphere caused him and his suit to tumble. I'd like to know the answer from you before I carry on. Let's place some serious logic to all this if you're game.
-
At what point and at what speed was he doing when he supposedly went out of control where this dense atmosphere caused him and his suit to tumble.
I'm not sure I understand when or how his uncontrolled spin began maters to the event's authority. But.. I'll try to answer this new question.
Shortly after his jump he entered an uncontrolled spin. You can watch the video and decide for your self exactly when it started. About 1:20 after his jump he corrected it without using his droug chute.
His speed was approximately 800 miles per hour
I think even in the FE theory atmosphere gets less dense the higher you go... Or am I wrong about that? Does the FE theory maintain the atmosphere is less dense at higher altitudes?
Jroa,
Please include more details for your skepticism. I am unclear why you think this is fake.
-
At what point and at what speed was he doing when he supposedly went out of control where this dense atmosphere caused him and his suit to tumble.
I'm not sure I understand when or how his uncontrolled spin began maters to the event's authority. But.. I'll try to answer this new question.
Shortly after his jump he entered an uncontrolled spin. You can watch the video and decide for your self exactly when it started. About 1:20 after his jump he corrected it without using his droug chute.
His speed was approximately 800 miles per hour
I think even in the FE theory atmosphere gets less dense the higher you go... Or am I wrong about that? Does the FE theory maintain the atmosphere is less dense at higher altitudes?
Jroa,
Please include more details for your skepticism. I am unclear why you think this is fake.
Try sticking your head out of a plane (with suit on) at the speed of 500 mph at about 35,000 feet.
I think we both know what would happen if you done this.
Ok, so we know the air is thin at that height but still thick enough to cause shift a massive change when something is placed into it, such as yourself.
If that plane could fly at 128,000 feet, if you stood on it (assuming magically that you could) you would be gliding along happily onto of it without having your body ripped to shreds like you would at 35,000 feet, because as we are told, it's a virtual vacuum at 128,000 feet.
Bearing that in mind, you could hold out your arms or even pull open your bat wing coat and still nothing would happen.
Nothing would happened because your body cannot change the stance it is holding as there is no air pressure to affect that stance.
Having said that. You mentioned how Baumgartner went into a spin at 800 mph despite falling from his capsule as steady as a rock.
What force put him into a spin?
If you mention that air pressure did it as he came down without the parachute, then I think you can be certain that he would have been torn to shreds. His body would have been literally pulled apart.
This is logically undeniable.
No pressure = no change in body motion to affect a spin.
Pressure that affects a spin, means death at speeds like that.
There's no way around it as to how he survived...except that the whole thing was a scam from start to finish.
I'm not asking you to believe that. I don;t care if you go into 100% denial mode. I'm just simply putting logic your way. How you accept that is down to you. If you follow your own logic and think for yourself, then start questioning it. If you want to be a part of the crowd and don't feel like being set upon, then immediately go into denial and do not even read this with any rational thought.
-
"Try sticking your head out of a plane (with suit on) at the speed of 500 mph at about 35,000 feet.
I think we both know what would happen if you done this."
This guy was not traveling at any speed until he jumped out.
"Ok, so we know the air is thin at that height but still thick enough to cause shift a massive change when something is placed into it, such as yourself."
The height at which he jumped was not thick enough to effect any change in his body. He fell into the height that contained thicker atmosphere which effected his body and caused the spin.
"If that plane could fly at 128,000 feet, if you stood on it (assuming magically that you could) you would be gliding along happily onto of it without having your body ripped to shreds like you would at 35,000 feet, because as we are told, it's a virtual vacuum at 128,000 feet."
If you travel at that altitude in a plane you must move at a velocity that enables the wings to maintain lift. If you use a balloon, you don't need to move at a high velocity.
"Bearing that in mind, you could hold out your arms or even pull open your bat wing coat and still nothing would happen.
Nothing would happened because your body cannot change the stance it is holding as there is no air pressure to affect that stance."
Beaumgarter moved downward, starting at zero speed towards 800 mph. As he moved downward he fell into increasingly denser air. So at the start, he could move fast and had little resistance or turbulence which would cause an uncontrolled roll.
"Having said that. You mentioned how Baumgartner went into a spin at 800 mph despite falling from his capsule as steady as a rock.
What force put him into a spin?"
As he fell into more dense atmosphere he went into an uncontrolled spin.
"If you mention that air pressure did it as he came down without the parachute, then I think you can be certain that he would have been torn to shreds. His body would have been literally pulled apart.
This is logically undeniable."
Here is where I think your making a key mistake. He's not falling into a wall of atmosphere. It increases gradually much like diving deeper into water gradually increases pressure. He fell with almost no change to his orientation until the atmosphere became more of an influence and started tumbling.
"No pressure = no change in body motion to affect a spin.
Pressure that affects a spin, means death at speeds like that.
There's no way around it as to how he survived...except that the whole thing was a scam from start to finish."
No pressure = no change in body motion to effect a spin is correct. The rest is not true because he had significant protection from his pressure suit and you might be thinking of the airplane flying fast at high altitudes thing.
"I'm not asking you to believe that. I don;t care if you go into 100% denial mode. I'm just simply putting logic your way. How you accept that is down to you. If you follow your own logic and think for yourself, then start questioning it. If you want to be a part of the crowd and don't feel like being set upon, then immediately go into denial and do not even read this with any rational thought."
This paragraph seems to be arguing something other than the facts of this jump which I'd rather not do. You're welcome to think anything you want. I have no interest in changing your mind. I simply want to understand why FEers believe these things.
In this case it seems you believe this video was faked and used your conceptions of what happens at high altitudes as a basis. You don't have to believe what I said in this thread. I'd like to think you wouldn't doubt my sincerity though.
-
Why do you think this was faked?
Because you can see the curvature of the Earth before it even leaves the Earth.
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-08-13124055.png)
Yea, the bug eyed lens is not what anyone would use to validate the reality of this event. Could you add something else that shows this event was a hoax?
-
Why do you think this was faked?
Because sceptimatic is a genius who knows more about everything than anybody else on the earth...Which of course is flat .
-
I did not say the jump was faked. The leses usded were simply for dramatic effect and do not give an accurate representation of the horizon.
-
I'm sure they were used to gather a larger area than a regular lens could. Taking your
Why do you think this was faked?
Because you can see the curvature of the Earth before it even leaves the Earth.
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-08-13124055.png)
Well, it seemed you were using this picture to prove it was faked. Anyway if you want to see the curvature of the planet with a balloon I'm sure it's not hard to do with your own camera and balloon.
-
At what point and at what speed was he doing when he supposedly went out of control where this dense atmosphere caused him and his suit to tumble.
I'm not sure I understand when or how his uncontrolled spin began maters to the event's authority. But.. I'll try to answer this new question.
Shortly after his jump he entered an uncontrolled spin. You can watch the video and decide for your self exactly when it started. About 1:20 after his jump he corrected it without using his droug chute.
His speed was approximately 800 miles per hour
I think even in the FE theory atmosphere gets less dense the higher you go... Or am I wrong about that? Does the FE theory maintain the atmosphere is less dense at higher altitudes?
Jroa,
Please include more details for your skepticism. I am unclear why you think this is fake.
Try sticking your head out of a plane (with suit on) at the speed of 500 mph at about 35,000 feet.
I think we both know what would happen if you done this.
Ok, so we know the air is thin at that height but still thick enough to cause shift a massive change when something is placed into it, such as yourself.
If that plane could fly at 128,000 feet, if you stood on it (assuming magically that you could) you would be gliding along happily onto of it without having your body ripped to shreds like you would at 35,000 feet, because as we are told, it's a virtual vacuum at 128,000 feet.
Bearing that in mind, you could hold out your arms or even pull open your bat wing coat and still nothing would happen.
Nothing would happened because your body cannot change the stance it is holding as there is no air pressure to affect that stance.
Having said that. You mentioned how Baumgartner went into a spin at 800 mph despite falling from his capsule as steady as a rock.
What force put him into a spin?
If you mention that air pressure did it as he came down without the parachute, then I think you can be certain that he would have been torn to shreds. His body would have been literally pulled apart.
This is logically undeniable.
No pressure = no change in body motion to affect a spin.
Pressure that affects a spin, means death at speeds like that.
There's no way around it as to how he survived...except that the whole thing was a scam from start to finish.
I'm not asking you to believe that. I don;t care if you go into 100% denial mode. I'm just simply putting logic your way. How you accept that is down to you. If you follow your own logic and think for yourself, then start questioning it. If you want to be a part of the crowd and don't feel like being set upon, then immediately go into denial and do not even read this with any rational thought.
Jesus you're so thick.
Accelerated free fall coarses thought me among many other more experienced skydivers how to exit a plane. During acceleration the human body undergoes the greatest sensation of 0 control. This is what makes skydiving scary! That first 8 seconds of accelerated free fall before your body reaches terminal velocity.
They practically learn you to stay in the arch position until the velocity is reached at about 200 km/h. Felix jumped much higher than 15000 ft, meaning the air pressure is so low that he would keep on accelerating past mach 1. We however reach somewhere around 220 km/h then slowly start decelerating to 200 km/h while in control. Control meaning using air resistance in order to orientate yourself in the Arch position.
You'll learn that position if you ever to attempt to jump out of an airplane. And by far how easy it is to get into an uncontrollable spin.
My dad used to jump much more than me and because of a car accident years ago, age only affects him now, skydiver clubs pushes him out due to his one leg causing serious instability during acceleration. This is heavily threatening to other sky divers around him because of the velocities achieved in the spin.
I have less than 50 jumps, my dad more than 200, while a good friend of mine, instructor and that of my dad has more than 1000. Henk van Wyk even used his reserve after uncorrectable line over problems in Mosselbay.
Don't even think of using anything skydive related to your defense unless you have jumped before.
As for the wide angle lens. Just because of you idiots, I'm actually quite pissed that they used fish eye cameras. At more than 100,000 ft the curve is surely visible but the red bull guys had to fsck it up using a fish eye to exaggerate the drama and make the video look more vivid.
Edit: Because Afrikaans and grammar.
-
Having said that. You mentioned how Baumgartner went into a spin at 800 mph despite falling from his capsule as steady as a rock.
What force put him into a spin?
If you mention that air pressure did it as he came down without the parachute, then I think you can be certain that he would have been torn to shreds. His body would have been literally pulled apart.
This is logically undeniable.
What part of 'extremely low-pressure air at high elevation increasing in pressure at an increasing rate the lower one travels in elevation' are you incapable of comprehending?
-
Having said that. You mentioned how Baumgartner went into a spin at 800 mph despite falling from his capsule as steady as a rock.
What force put him into a spin?
If you mention that air pressure did it as he came down without the parachute, then I think you can be certain that he would have been torn to shreds. His body would have been literally pulled apart.
This is logically undeniable.
What part of 'extremely low-pressure air at high elevation increasing in pressure at an increasing rate the lower one travels in elevation' are you incapable of comprehending?
I think his issues begin at the word what.
-
Having said that. You mentioned how Baumgartner went into a spin at 800 mph despite falling from his capsule as steady as a rock.
What force put him into a spin?
If you mention that air pressure did it as he came down without the parachute, then I think you can be certain that he would have been torn to shreds. His body would have been literally pulled apart.
This is logically undeniable.
Just shows how thick you are. At what altitude do you thing Felix opened his parachute? The same one he was still traveling at mach one and being completely out of control? If you think that you're fscked stupid.
He was traveling at around 200 km/h his parachute deployed which is a safe velocity to do this at.
And if you took some sense into that little head of yours and read the comment I posted. Spinning due to accelerated free fall is way more common than you think. Imagine heights of 120000 ft giving much more acceleration times. Now go skydive and test it for yourself moron.
-
The jump was fake, just like Kittinger before him. I explained a few reasons, I could explain much more but there seems no point. Just believe in the fantasy. Like the saying goes. Movies are made so people can make fantasy their reality.
-
The jump was fake, just like Kittinger before him. I explained a few reasons, I could explain much more but there seems no point. Just believe in the fantasy. Like the saying goes. Movies are made so people can make fantasy their reality.
Please realize calling our view on this event a fantasy is insulting. If that was your intent, fine.
I think I understand that you believe the uncontrolled spin is a reason to believe this was faked but you really haven't made a link between, he was in an uncontrolled spin and this is fake.
Unless you were suggesting he would surely die from an uncontrolled spin? Which would need some explaining also.
Or, would you like to debunk this event in some other way?
-
At what point and at what speed was he doing when he supposedly went out of control where this dense atmosphere caused him and his suit to tumble.
I'm not sure I understand when or how his uncontrolled spin began maters to the event's authority. But.. I'll try to answer this new question.
Shortly after his jump he entered an uncontrolled spin. You can watch the video and decide for your self exactly when it started. About 1:20 after his jump he corrected it without using his droug chute.
His speed was approximately 800 miles per hour
I think even in the FE theory atmosphere gets less dense the higher you go... Or am I wrong about that? Does the FE theory maintain the atmosphere is less dense at higher altitudes?
Jroa,
Please include more details for your skepticism. I am unclear why you think this is fake.
Try sticking your head out of a plane (with suit on) at the speed of 500 mph at about 35,000 feet.
I think we both know what would happen if you done this.
Ok, so we know the air is thin at that height but still thick enough to cause shift a massive change when something is placed into it, such as yourself.
If that plane could fly at 128,000 feet, if you stood on it (assuming magically that you could) you would be gliding along happily onto of it without having your body ripped to shreds like you would at 35,000 feet, because as we are told, it's a virtual vacuum at 128,000 feet.
Bearing that in mind, you could hold out your arms or even pull open your bat wing coat and still nothing would happen.
Nothing would happened because your body cannot change the stance it is holding as there is no air pressure to affect that stance.
Having said that. You mentioned how Baumgartner went into a spin at 800 mph despite falling from his capsule as steady as a rock.
What force put him into a spin?
If you mention that air pressure did it as he came down without the parachute, then I think you can be certain that he would have been torn to shreds. His body would have been literally pulled apart.
This is logically undeniable.
No pressure = no change in body motion to affect a spin.
Pressure that affects a spin, means death at speeds like that.
There's no way around it as to how he survived...except that the whole thing was a scam from start to finish.
I'm not asking you to believe that. I don;t care if you go into 100% denial mode. I'm just simply putting logic your way. How you accept that is down to you. If you follow your own logic and think for yourself, then start questioning it. If you want to be a part of the crowd and don't feel like being set upon, then immediately go into denial and do not even read this with any rational thought.
What the fuck? Have you ever stuck your head out a plane? It goes over 5000mph at 30,000 ft, and lets get this clear; you'll fall at a max of 100mph, which he exactly did before he pulled his chute, which then caused it to twist as he was falling fucking fast due to the height, but no where near enough for it to kill him lol! .. Also, You don't get wind in space as it's a vacuum, you get solar wind which is a complete different effect. 128,000 ft IS OUTTER SPACE, where his ship was just resting on gravity, as it makes things WEIGHTLESS. He wasn't moving at 500 mph so no he ain't gonna get ripped apart thanks to his suit. In the video it's his parachute spinning out, and it's a very common thing cause by extreme acceleration - his body didn't randomly start spinning out, it was his parachute as he was jumping from such a large height. You're arguments baffle me as you don't make any real sense, yet you love to argue anyway even though you're opposed to logic. Is this why you have such primitive views? because you just love to argue for the sake of it? Theres no winning with people like you because you don't listen to reason.
-
n1rvana, please watch what you say in the upper fora. Foul language and personal attacks are not allowed here. Consider this a warning.
-
n1rvana, please watch what you say in the upper fora. Foul language and personal attacks are not allowed here. Consider this a warning.
Foul language is just a point of view but fine, where was the personal attack? It was a genuine question.
-
Having said that. You mentioned how Baumgartner went into a spin at 800 mph despite falling from his capsule as steady as a rock.
What force put him into a spin?
If you mention that air pressure did it as he came down without the parachute, then I think you can be certain that he would have been torn to shreds. His body would have been literally pulled apart.
This is logically undeniable.
Just shows how thick you are. At what altitude do you thing Felix opened his parachute? The same one he was still traveling at mach one and being completely out of control? If you think that you're fscked stupid.
He was traveling at around 200 km/h his parachute deployed which is a safe velocity to do this at.
And if you took some sense into that little head of yours and read the comment I posted. Spinning due to accelerated free fall is way more common than you think. Imagine heights of 120000 ft giving much more acceleration times. Now go skydive and test it for yourself moron.
First dude on this forum who speaks some damn sense! Thank you, though he won't listen.
-
n1rvana, don't further derail a topic by arguing about warnings in the thread in which they occur. We have a Suggestions and Concerns forum for that. Consider this another warning. Thanks.
-
n1rvana, don't further derail a topic by arguing about warnings in the thread in which they occur. We have a Suggestions and Concerns forum for that. Consider this another warning. Thanks.
Aren't you further derailing it therefore you should get a warning yourself? Sorry, but being banned from a forum that consists of people who have the mind of an 15th century catholic priest isn't too much of a worry for me.
FLAT EARTH THEORY IS MORE FLAWED THAN A 96 YEAR OLD KOREAN PROSTITUTE WITH GANGRENE.
See, I bought it back on topic and made a very valid statement.
-
Go ahead and take the rest of the day off. When you decide that you will not ignore warnings, then I will welcome you back.
-
Go ahead and take the rest of the day off. When you decide that you will not ignore warnings, then I will welcome you back.
I was done on my first comment, there's no argument or discussion, but thanks anyway. Maybe you shouldn't ignore the warnings of logic?
-
In a vacuum chamber, the penny and feather fall at roughtly the same rate. They do this because there is no air resistance to alter their state of fall, meaning the feather that is built for air resistance, is now nullified.
No they fall at precisely the same rate actually… in a perfect vacuum.
Now roll the same penny off the edge of a ramp in a vacuum and see what happens.
This isn't what happened in the case of RB Stratos though.
He didn't start spinning until there was significant air pressure to cause him to spin while his body was not symmetrical.
This would have continued had he not made the effort to stabilise himself.
-
No they fall at precisely the same rate actually… in a perfect vacuum.
In a perfect vacuum, yes. We cannot produce that on Earth, so there will be a slight difference in riction acting on different objects.
Now roll the same penny off the edge of a ramp in a vacuum and see what happens.
This isn't what happened in the case of RB Stratos though.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, here.
He didn't start spinning until there was significant air pressure to cause him to spin while his body was not symmetrical.
This would have continued had he not made the effort to stabilise himself.
A spin is caused by uneven air pressure on an object. If there was enough air pressure to make him spin like we were shown in the crappy footage, there was enough air pressure to rip his body to bits...no doubt about it at that speed they said he was going at.
You can't have it both ways.
-
He actually did go that speed. There's undisputable video evidence.
Denying it is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand.
-
He actually did go that speed. There's undisputable video evidence.
Denying it is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand.
Ok, show me the video evidence.
-
The video has already been posted on this forum multiple times.
-
Please show proof he isn't traveling at the speed the video says he is.
Then please show proof he was really as high as it says.
Then show proof the entire video is fake.
You're making the claims, it's on you to provide proof.
-
The video has already been posted on this forum multiple times.
Can you find it for me and post it, please.
-
You can't have it both ways.
You can if air density changes with altitude, which you may not accept, but is what's being asserted.
Your own example demonstrates that terminal velocity of the same object changes with air pressure (your feather example).
Only you have just mentioned one extreme and the other... the atmosphere we experience, and a vacuum.
If the object (Human or not) is falling a distance from Earth great enough that the pressure changes so greatly from one
extreme to the other in the same fall, of course there is going to be variation in terminal velocity, and the ability for a Human
to utilise his own body to control decent is going to become more effective with the increase in air density.
I don't know the thoughts on changes in air pressure for someone who doesn't believe in "outer space",
but any citizen with the cash to spare can stick a GPS on a weather balloon full of helium and track it until it pops,
and go get it when it hits the ground. The increasing difference in pressure in & outside the balloon causes it to expand
gradually until it pops. The GPS thing... well no matter your thoughts on how that works it still works.
-
Can you find it for me and post it, please.
No. But you can click back to page 1 of this thread and use the link the OP put up. Or find another thread that has the video posted.
You're welcome.
-
"A spin is caused by uneven air pressure on an object. If there was enough air pressure to make him spin like we were shown in the crappy footage, there was enough air pressure to rip his body to bits...no doubt about it at that speed they said he was going at."
The amount of air pressure it takes to make him spin is very low compared to the air pressure it takes to rip him apart.
I don't understand why you think they are even close.
-
Please show proof he isn't traveling at the speed the video says he is.
Then please show proof he was really as high as it says.
Then show proof the entire video is fake.
You're making the claims, it's on you to provide proof.
I can't directly prove anything. All I can do is appeal to people's logic.
I can no more directly prove he didn't do it, no more than you can directly prove he did.
Let's look at it logically, though.
Your proof is silly video evidence by unconditional belief. It's basically like saying, " oh, I saw a kid flying and levitating with no means of holding him up, it's on video so it's true."
My logic is by taking the video apart by showing inconsistencies and using common sense to make people aware of how being up that height would kill any human, let alone falling from it.
-
You can't have it both ways.
You can if air density changes with altitude, which you may not accept, but is what's being asserted.
Your own example demonstrates that terminal velocity of the same object changes with air pressure (your feather example).
Only you have just mentioned one extreme and the other... the atmosphere we experience, and a vacuum.
If the object (Human or not) is falling a distance from Earth great enough that the pressure changes so greatly from one
extreme to the other in the same fall, of course there is going to be variation in terminal velocity, and the ability for a Human
to utilise his own body to control decent is going to become more effective with the increase in air density.
I don't know the thoughts on changes in air pressure for someone who doesn't believe in "outer space",
but any citizen with the cash to spare can stick a GPS on a weather balloon full of helium and track it until it pops,
and go get it when it hits the ground. The increasing difference in pressure in & outside the balloon causes it to expand
gradually until it pops. The GPS thing... well no matter your thoughts on how that works it still works.
Let's talk about these increasing pressure. You tell me, without using google, what you think happens to a helium balloon from launch to stopping before popping at whatever height it reaches.
What I want to know is: the reason why a helium balloon rises.
Why does it pop at a certain height?
We can go on from this and see where it will become evident to anyone why it's impossible for Baumgartner to have done that jump.
-
Can you find it for me and post it, please.
No. But you can click back to page 1 of this thread and use the link the OP put up. Or find another thread that has the video posted.
You're welcome.
How about putting the video up for me. What's wrong?
-
" using common sense to make people aware of how being up that height would kill any human, let alone falling from it."
You keep saying that. You agree the air is less dense as you go up. You agree that the air becomes more dense as you go down....
Why do you think the air pressure would kill him?
-
Moving at the same velocity through the atmosphere as you would in a vacuum (or near vacuum)
could perhaps present a little problem for a Human, but as air pressure is increased terminal velocity for the same object changes.
I have not even looked at the numbers on the site, but hazard a guess that his greatest velocity was achieved closer to the beginning of the jump where there is less air resistance to slow the object down.
-
"A spin is caused by uneven air pressure on an object. If there was enough air pressure to make him spin like we were shown in the crappy footage, there was enough air pressure to rip his body to bits...no doubt about it at that speed they said he was going at."
The amount of air pressure it takes to make him spin is very low compared to the air pressure it takes to rip him apart.
I don't understand why you think they are even close.
If air pressure is thin from a near vacuum, it's not going to put him in a spin as it's friction is not enough to spin his dense body.
If it was, it would rip him apart at the speed he was supposedly doing.
-
My logic is by taking the video apart by showing inconsistencies and using common sense to make people aware of how being up that height would kill any human, let alone falling from it.
Of course that relies on assumption that you understand enough about what was going on to make an intelligent assessment. So far, I have not seen enough evidence to confirm this assumption.
-
" using common sense to make people aware of how being up that height would kill any human, let alone falling from it."
You keep saying that. You agree the air is less dense as you go up. You agree that the air becomes more dense as you go down....
Why do you think the air pressure would kill him?
Go and drive down a motorway at 100 mph and get someone to stand up through the sun roof. What do you think would happen?
I know what you're going to say. Your going to say, " yes but he was falling in air that was very thin."
I agree, it would be very thin. It wouldn't be very thin for too long though in terms of friction on his body, at 800+ mph as we are told.
So,the next scene is, " yes but he pulled his drogue parachute to slow him down to a sensible speed before opening his main one."
His drogue parachute would be like opening a net curtain and jumping out of a plane. Little resistance and a plummet to death.
Now then: Let's get back to the car.
How about deploying a parachute at 100 mph as you're hanging out of that sun roof?
How about 400 mph?
The man would be ripped apart on his spin, even before he pulled any chute. Also a spin at that speed would have knocked him senseless even if he was super human.
There's no way out of it. The jump was as fake as a £1 market rolex.
-
My logic is by taking the video apart by showing inconsistencies and using common sense to make people aware of how being up that height would kill any human, let alone falling from it.
Of course that relies on assumption that you understand enough about what was going on to make an intelligent assessment. So far, I have not seen enough evidence to confirm this assumption.
That's fair enough. At least you hold the mind that it's possible the jump was faked just as much as it could be real. That's something rather than outright acceptance.
As you know: I can't directly prove anything. I'm typing on a forum and basically putting out stuff for people to think on.
Kittinger in his suit V Baumgartner in his suit and capsule should really be enough for any logical person to see it was all a complete scam.
-
Making stuff up that defies reality isn't appealing to logic.
Your proof is silly video evidence by unconditional belief. It's basically like saying, " oh, I saw a kid flying and levitating with no means of holding him up, it's on video so it's true."
Actually, it's not like that at all.
It's a video of a guy making a jump from 128,000 feet..............because he actually did make a jump from 128,000 feet.
You denying it is like seeing a video of a person jumping in a swimming pool and saying it's fake despite there being no evidence to support it.
My logic is by taking the video apart by showing inconsistencies and using common sense to make people aware of how being up that height would kill any human, let alone falling from it.
You haven't taken anything apart. You've expressed opinions and it's plainly obvious to anyone with a brain that you're wrong.
Your claims are baseless and unfounded. They lack the logic you claim to be appealing to.
-
How about putting the video up for me. What's wrong?
What's wrong with clicking over to page 1 of this thread? What is wrong with going to a new window and using youtube?
Put forth some effort scepti.
-
Your proof is silly video evidence by unconditional belief. It's basically like saying, " oh, I saw a kid flying and levitating with no means of holding him up, it's on video so it's true."
That's a bit narrow minded, we can see a lot more than that. For just one simple and omitted example, the compelling reactions of his loved ones on Earth at various stages of the decent.
The helium balloon rises initially for the same reason a bubble of air rises to the top of a body of water.
It gets larger as the surrounding air pressure gradually becomes lower allowing the balloon to expand
(the same thing will happen to a bubble of air in water as it rises.
The balloons are designed to pop at a specific altitude, so the thickness of the latex is initially calculated
to withstand a certain amount of pressure from the inside before they pop, and the payload falls to earth
sometimes slowed with the aid of a pre-deployed parachute.
-
"You tell me, without using google, what you think happens to a helium balloon from launch to stopping before popping at whatever height it reaches."
If the ballon plus the helium inside weighs less than the the air it displaces it will rise. As the balloon goes up it will feel less and less pressure and expand till it releases the helium through pores in the balloon or just pops.
Is there something about a Flat Earth that counters this?
-
Go and drive down a motorway at 100 mph and get someone to stand up through the sun roof. What do you think would happen?
I know what you're going to say. Your going to say, " yes but he was falling in air that was very thin."
I agree, it would be very thin. It wouldn't be very thin for too long though in terms of friction on his body, at 800+ mph as we are told.
Scepti, do you understand the concept of terminal velocity? It means that friction from the the atmosphere will only allow you to free fall so fast. At the altitude that Felix jumped, the air was thin enough for long enough so that he could reach about 800 mph. But, as you said, the air started getting thick enough so that friction started slowing him down. Eventually, the atmosphere got thick enough where friction slowed him down to about 120 mph, or so, so that he could safely deploy his parachute.
-
Making stuff up that defies reality isn't appealing to logic.
Your proof is silly video evidence by unconditional belief. It's basically like saying, " oh, I saw a kid flying and levitating with no means of holding him up, it's on video so it's true."
Actually, it's not like that at all.
It's a video of a guy making a jump from 128,000 feet..............because he actually did make a jump from 128,000 feet.
You denying it is like seeing a video of a person jumping in a swimming pool and saying it's fake despite there being no evidence to support it.
My logic is by taking the video apart by showing inconsistencies and using common sense to make people aware of how being up that height would kill any human, let alone falling from it.
You haven't taken anything apart. You've expressed opinions and it's plainly obvious to anyone with a brain that you're wrong.
Your claims are baseless and unfounded. They lack the logic you claim to be appealing to.
No...my denying it, isn't like me seeing a video of someone diving into a swimming pool. You see, I've dived into one many times, as have you probably, so I can take that video as being not an issue to question.
A 128,000 feet jump from a helium balloon hold many questions against it's authenticity, having not seen much of it, except Kittingers in his silly suit and helmet, plus silly open capsule v baumgartners space like suit and closed capsule.
The video footage of both goes from extremely crisp, to pathetic, it's almost like the technology decides to go pre-historic just at the right times where people would start to question it.
My logic is sound. Your logic isn't logic. It's immediate refusal to even look at it critically, for whatever reason.
-
How about putting the video up for me. What's wrong?
What's wrong with clicking over to page 1 of this thread? What is wrong with going to a new window and using youtube?
Put forth some effort scepti.
I just want you to put the video up of his 800 mph fall and spin. That's all I need to see. Do you have the footage or not?
-
(http://)
You can see the fall, snip and recovery here.
What part of this video is pre-historic?
-
Your proof is silly video evidence by unconditional belief. It's basically like saying, " oh, I saw a kid flying and levitating with no means of holding him up, it's on video so it's true."
That's a bit narrow minded, we can see a lot more than that. For just one simple and omitted example, the compelling reactions of his loved ones on Earth at various stages of the decent.
The helium balloon rises initially for the same reason a bubble of air rises to the top of a body of water.
It gets larger as the surrounding air pressure gradually becomes lower allowing the balloon to expand
(the same thing will happen to a bubble of air in water as it rises.
The balloons are designed to pop at a specific altitude, so the thickness of the latex is initially calculated
to withstand a certain amount of pressure from the inside before they pop, and the payload falls to earth
sometimes slowed with the aid of a pre-deployed parachute.
Correct, the helium expands in the balloon wich pushes the denser air out of the way which comes back around and under it, which pushes the balloon up.
Now what do you think is happening inside of his suit as soon as he opens that capsule.And what do you think would happen as he falls. Think of diver, doing a fast dive.
-
Go and drive down a motorway at 100 mph and get someone to stand up through the sun roof. What do you think would happen?
I know what you're going to say. Your going to say, " yes but he was falling in air that was very thin."
I agree, it would be very thin. It wouldn't be very thin for too long though in terms of friction on his body, at 800+ mph as we are told.
Scepti, do you understand the concept of terminal velocity? It means that friction from the the atmosphere will only allow you to free fall so fast. At the altitude that Felix jumped, the air was thin enough for long enough so that he could reach about 800 mph. But, as you said, the air started getting thick enough so that friction started slowing him down. Eventually, the atmosphere got thick enough where friction slowed him down to about 120 mph, or so, so that he could safely deploy his parachute.
Yes...which is my whole point. His speed whilst drpping into more friction would ensure that he would have been ripped apart on his tumble. His tumble can only happen if there's enough friction to change his mass to form that spin.
-
(http://)
You can see the fall, snip and recovery here.
What part of this video is pre-historic?
I'll dissect this video soon. Give me half an hour and I'll show you what's wrong with it all.
-
Well.. No. The balloon feels less pressure on top than on bottom. So it rises.
When he opens the door the pressure outside his suit is almost none. The suit provides pressure inside the suit to keep him alive.
When he jumps he feels almost no pressure. As he falls he starts feeling pressure and begins spinning. He is unable to correct the spin because there is not enough pressure for his arms and legs to be useful.
Gradually he feels more and more pressure until his arms and legs are useful to control his attitude.
When a diver dives into water he is going from air(low density) directly into water(higher density).
Do you think there is some layer of increased pressure like air and water?
-
(http://)
You can see the fall, snip and recovery here.
What part of this video is pre-historic?
I'll dissect this video soon. Give me half an hour and I'll show you what's wrong with it all.
You've exposed your queen. You state clearly you already decided it is fake.
-
My logic is sound.
Denying anything that you either can't understand or doesn't fit your fantasy does not qualify as logic.
-
Give me half an hour and I'll show you what's wrong with it all.
This promise sounds about as likely as all the diagrams you've promised and have never produced.
-
I just want you to put the video up of his 800 mph fall and spin. That's all I need to see. Do you have the footage or not?
The video was posted at the very beginning of this thread. Are you capable of clicking over to page 1 or not?
-
Oh Scepti, forever ignoring anything you don't like the sound of while endlessly repeating the same nonsensical rebuttal you come up with at the start of each thread. I imagine you would not have done well on a debating team.
It's been said roughly 6 times now that atmospheric density gradually increases as distance from the surface of the earth decreases, you've admitted that this is the case. Yet you're still acting like only 2 scenarios exist: vacuum, or atmospheric density at sea level. Not to mention "if you stuck your head out of a plane at 500mph "we all know what would happen"". Actually, we don't. More specifically, you don't. Have you tried it? For someone who is so unwilling to accept the truth of something without having attempted it yourself, you're awfully willing to use untested assumptions in your own arguments. I mean really, some of these things you come up with are so weak I feel like you must know they're utter crap, and are in fact just an unsuccessful troll. It's honestly hard to tell.
-
Oh Scepti, forever ignoring anything you don't like the sound of while endlessly repeating the same nonsensical rebuttal you come up with at the start of each thread. I imagine you would not have done well on a debating team.
It's been said roughly 6 times now that atmospheric density gradually increases as distance from the surface of the earth decreases, you've admitted that this is the case. Yet you're still acting like only 2 scenarios exist: vacuum, or atmospheric density at sea level. Not to mention "if you stuck your head out of a plane at 500mph "we all know what would happen"". Actually, we don't. More specifically, you don't. Have you tried it? For someone who is so unwilling to accept the truth of something without having attempted it yourself, you're awfully willing to use untested assumptions in your own arguments. I mean really, some of these things you come up with are so weak I feel like you must know they're utter crap, and are in fact just an unsuccessful troll. It's honestly hard to tell.
Would you like to take me on over the Baumgartner video that was posted and see if you can answer my questions by giving logical answers?
I'll pick it apart one step at a time and leave you to answer if you're game. Fair enough? Let's see my logic against your logic.
-
Ask a logical question with scientific reasoning and I'm sure you will get logical answers.
You haven't even attempted that.
Besides, there has been lots of logical, scientific information thrown at you here and you just deny it.
-
"A spin is caused by uneven air pressure on an object. If there was enough air pressure to make him spin like we were shown in the crappy footage, there was enough air pressure to rip his body to bits...no doubt about it at that speed they said he was going at."
The amount of air pressure it takes to make him spin is very low compared to the air pressure it takes to rip him apart.
I don't understand why you think they are even close.
If air pressure is thin from a near vacuum, it's not going to put him in a spin as it's friction is not enough to spin his dense body.
If it was, it would rip him apart at the speed he was supposedly doing.
You keep repeating this and I don't understand why.
Time 1 seconds: he jumps out and feels almost zero friction.
Time 2 seconds: he falls toward the earth and feels a tiny tiny bit more friction.
Time 3 seconds: he falls toward the earth and feels a tiny tiny bit more friction.
Skipping a few seconds...
Time :15. he falls towards the earth and begins to feel just enough pressure to cause him to change attitude.
Time :25. He has enough pressure on his suit that it causes his uncontrolled roll but not enough pressure to allows his arms and legs control to stop it.
Time 1:20. He has enough pressure to allow his arms and legs control enough to maintain a proper attitude.
At no point did he feel pressure enough to overcome his suit and rip his arms and legs off.
-
Ask a logical question with scientific reasoning and I'm sure you will get logical answers.
You haven't even attempted that.
Besides, there has been lots of logical, scientific information thrown at you here and you just deny it.
Scientific reasoning? You mean, like, give you formulas as I question stuff? ;D
No...I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll start with the video and I'll pose one question at a time and let's see your answers. How about that. Are you game?
-
"A spin is caused by uneven air pressure on an object. If there was enough air pressure to make him spin like we were shown in the crappy footage, there was enough air pressure to rip his body to bits...no doubt about it at that speed they said he was going at."
The amount of air pressure it takes to make him spin is very low compared to the air pressure it takes to rip him apart.
I don't understand why you think they are even close.
If air pressure is thin from a near vacuum, it's not going to put him in a spin as it's friction is not enough to spin his dense body.
If it was, it would rip him apart at the speed he was supposedly doing.
You keep repeating this and I don't understand why.
Time 1 seconds: he jumps out and feels almost zero friction.
Time 2 seconds: he falls toward the earth and feels a tiny tiny bit more friction.
Time 3 seconds: he falls toward the earth and feels a tiny tiny bit more friction.
Skipping a few seconds...
Time :15. he falls towards the earth and begins to feel just enough pressure to cause him to change attitude.
Time :25. He has enough pressure on his suit that it causes his uncontrolled roll but not enough pressure to allows his arms and legs control to stop it.
Time 1:20. He has enough pressure to allow his arms and legs control enough to maintain a proper attitude.
At no point did he feel pressure enough to overcome his suit and rip his arms and legs off.
Yeah, ok, if you say so. Let's see how you answer the video, eh?
-
Maybe there is a fundamental different understanding of the basics.
Sceptimatic
Do you believe there is a gradual increase in pressure as you move down from the top of the atmosphere?
-
Forst of all, right at the very beginning, you see his round door open. Does anyone see any runners? What was it attached to?
Just a simple one to start with.
(http://#ws)
-
"A spin is caused by uneven air pressure on an object. If there was enough air pressure to make him spin like we were shown in the crappy footage, there was enough air pressure to rip his body to bits...no doubt about it at that speed they said he was going at."
The amount of air pressure it takes to make him spin is very low compared to the air pressure it takes to rip him apart.
I don't understand why you think they are even close.
If air pressure is thin from a near vacuum, it's not going to put him in a spin as it's friction is not enough to spin his dense body.
If it was, it would rip him apart at the speed he was supposedly doing.
You keep repeating this and I don't understand why.
Time 1 seconds: he jumps out and feels almost zero friction.
Time 2 seconds: he falls toward the earth and feels a tiny tiny bit more friction.
Time 3 seconds: he falls toward the earth and feels a tiny tiny bit more friction.
Skipping a few seconds...
Time :15. he falls towards the earth and begins to feel just enough pressure to cause him to change attitude.
Time :25. He has enough pressure on his suit that it causes his uncontrolled roll but not enough pressure to allows his arms and legs control to stop it.
Time 1:20. He has enough pressure to allow his arms and legs control enough to maintain a proper attitude.
At no point did he feel pressure enough to overcome his suit and rip his arms and legs off.
Yeah, ok, if you say so. Let's see how you answer the video, eh?
Answer what?
-
Maybe there is a fundamental different understanding of the basics.
Sceptimatic
Do you believe there is a gradual increase in pressure as you move down from the top of the atmosphere?
I sure do.
-
Forst of all, right at the very beginning, you see his round door open. Does anyone see any runners? What was it attached to?
Just a simple one to start with.
(http://)
I have no idea what the hatch was connected to. It looks like a pressure hatch to me. There are other examples pictured on the internet. Surely your not basing your arguments here on hinges of a door not shown on a video?
-
Maybe there is a fundamental different understanding of the basics.
Sceptimatic
Do you believe there is a gradual increase in pressure as you move down from the top of the atmosphere?
I sure do.
Do you believe the pressure ranges from almost zero at the top to something quite higher on the surface? Do you believe the pressure is a gradual change or a sudden change?
-
Forst of all, right at the very beginning, you see his round door open. Does anyone see any runners? What was it attached to?
Just a simple one to start with.
(http://)
I have no idea what the hatch was connected to. It looks like a pressure hatch to me. There are other examples pictured on the internet. Surely your not basing your arguments here on hinges of a door not shown on a video?
No, no, I'm not basing any argument on a hatch. I am asking questions and evaluating the answers, that's all.
Ok so it could be a pressure hatch, as in, the internal pressure seals the hatch , right?
Ok, I'll accept that for now.
Next question:
At the very start 0:00 you notice his suit is not pressurised at all, despite the de-pressurisation of the capsule. How can this be?
-
Maybe there is a fundamental different understanding of the basics.
Sceptimatic
Do you believe there is a gradual increase in pressure as you move down from the top of the atmosphere?
I sure do.
Do you believe the pressure ranges from almost zero at the top to something quite higher on the surface? Do you believe the pressure is a gradual change or a sudden change?
A gradual change, if you were falling at say, 10 mph or so.
-
Scientific reasoning? You mean, like, give you formulas as I question stuff? ;D
No...I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll start with the video and I'll pose one question at a time and let's see your answers. How about that. Are you game?
It's been proven in this thread and others that even when you are given a sound, rational answer to a question you will continue to deny the truth.
-
Scientific reasoning? You mean, like, give you formulas as I question stuff? ;D
No...I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll start with the video and I'll pose one question at a time and let's see your answers. How about that. Are you game?
It's been proven in this thread and others that even when you are given a sound, rational answer to a question you will continue to deny the truth.
I'm not denying anything right now, I'm asking questions. What are you scared of?
-
Forst of all, right at the very beginning, you see his round door open. Does anyone see any runners? What was it attached to?
Just a simple one to start with.
(http://)
I have no idea what the hatch was connected to. It looks like a pressure hatch to me. There are other examples pictured on the internet. Surely your not basing your arguments here on hinges of a door not shown on a video?
No, no, I'm not basing any argument on a hatch. I am asking questions and evaluating the answers, that's all.
Ok so it could be a pressure hatch, as in, the internal pressure seals the hatch , right?
Ok, I'll accept that for now.
Next question:
At the very start 0:00 you notice his suit is not pressurised at all, despite the de-pressurisation of the capsule. How can this be?
I don't know why you think the suit was not pressurized. It was and you can hear them reference that while going over the check list.
Is there a way that you can tell if the suit is pressurized that I cannot?
-
A gradual change, if you were falling at say, 10 mph or so.
I don't think you're understanding exactly how great a distance 40km is. The change of air density is very gradual, and that's a very large distance. At 10mph it would take him 2 hours and 40ish minutes to reach the surface of the earth.
-
Also, I concur. The suit doesn't change in appearance throughout the video. Either it was pressurised the entire time or never pressurised. You can't really tell visually. Either way it doesn't contribute anything relevant to this discussion
-
Red Bull Stratos FULL POV - Multi-Angle + Mission Data (http://#ws)
This one is great. It shows all the effects on the skydiver as he's falling into thicker atmosphere.
-
Forst of all, right at the very beginning, you see his round door open. Does anyone see any runners? What was it attached to?
Just a simple one to start with.
(http://)
I have no idea what the hatch was connected to. It looks like a pressure hatch to me. There are other examples pictured on the internet. Surely your not basing your arguments here on hinges of a door not shown on a video?
No, no, I'm not basing any argument on a hatch. I am asking questions and evaluating the answers, that's all.
Ok so it could be a pressure hatch, as in, the internal pressure seals the hatch , right?
Ok, I'll accept that for now.
Next question:
At the very start 0:00 you notice his suit is not pressurised at all, despite the de-pressurisation of the capsule. How can this be?
I don't know why you think the suit was not pressurized. It was and you can hear them reference that while going over the check list.
Is there a way that you can tell if the suit is pressurized that I cannot?
Yeah, the creases give it away quite easily.
Let me just explain something. Remember when we talked about the helium balloon expanding the higher it got?
The reason for that is because as it sets off, the lighter helium, or expanded helium, is easily squeezed by the dense atmosphere, so it's easier to push up or squeeze up.
It's like holding wet soap and trying to grip it in the bath. The soap gets pushed up by your hand grip because your hand grip can't hold onto it.
As the balloon gets pushed up a bit further, the atmosphere pushing it, gets weaker, meaning the helium can actually expand more inside the balloon. This creates a wider area of balloon, meaning it's always going to be pushed up as long as it expands. The higher it goes into the lighter elements, the more the helium inside can expand again against that weaker force acting against it.
If the balloons elasticity is stretched to its limit, the balloon will pop. If its elasticity can hold out...the balloon could get to the stage where it hits a point where it cannot go any higher as it would become equal with the pressure outside of it, so would float for want of a term, because it cannot fall back, just like an air balloon can't fall under water. It will just float on top. Same kind of thing.
Ok, now that's out of the way...let's deal with Baumgartners suit.
In his pressurised container, his suit wouldn't need to be pressurised as his body can't expand against that pressure that is upon him inside the capsule.
As soon as that capsule is de-pressurised, his suit must be pressurised in unison as that capsule de-pressurises, or he's dead.
His suit would have to inflate to stop his body cells expanding to fit the suit. You see, the pressure in the suit would be enough to hold back his body from inflating and the suit holds the pressure, so everything is fine.
If that suit is not pressurised his body must equalise the environment it finds itself in, which naturally will be the elasticirty of that suit. Basically he would swell up to fill it but be dead before he even got close to that.
This is undeniable and you people, should know this.
The opposite would happen to a deep sea diver.
You pressurise a diving suit to cope with the water pressure tyou find yourself under. As you moe down, you up the pressure to repel the crush.
If you de-pressurised that diving suit when at a depth, your body cells would immediately start to be compressed and squeezed up through the weakest part of that suit which would be your soft torso or your guts, which would be pushed through your head and out of any orifice you have.
These are facts.
-
A gradual change, if you were falling at say, 10 mph or so.
I don't think you're understanding exactly how great a distance 40km is. The change of air density is very gradual, and that's a very large distance. At 10mph it would take him 2 hours and 40ish minutes to reach the surface of the earth.
Of course the air pressure from top to bottom would be gradual. As I said. If you were falling at a slow speed and your suit was capable of change, then fine. Falling at a speed like that would be impossible for the body, because your suit would have to equalise the pressures as it falls, as in, release the air pressure inside the suit as you fall.
At that speed, itisn't going to happen as he would simply die anyway even if it was possible, which it isn't and never will be.
-
Also, I concur. The suit doesn't change in appearance throughout the video. Either it was pressurised the entire time or never pressurised. You can't really tell visually. Either way it doesn't contribute anything relevant to this discussion
Yes it does contribute. Are you kidding me?
Pressurisation is paramount. If his capsule is pressurised, then he isn't. If his capsule is de-pressurised, then his suit to be pressurised. I thought you people knew what you were talking about?
-
Red Bull Stratos FULL POV - Multi-Angle + Mission Data (http://#ws)
This one is great. It shows all the effects on the skydiver as he's falling into thicker atmosphere.
It's scary to think you people actually believe this stuff. A kid can see this crap for what it is.
What's with the air sound at 128,000 feet?
What's with the same sized Earth from 128,000 feet down to about 40,000?
You people don't believe this at all. You're holding onto a sack of garbage and you know it.
-
Forst of all, right at the very beginning, you see his round door open. Does anyone see any runners? What was it attached to?
Just a simple one to start with.
(http://)
I have no idea what the hatch was connected to. It looks like a pressure hatch to me. There are other examples pictured on the internet. Surely your not basing your arguments here on hinges of a door not shown on a video?
No, no, I'm not basing any argument on a hatch. I am asking questions and evaluating the answers, that's all.
Ok so it could be a pressure hatch, as in, the internal pressure seals the hatch , right?
Ok, I'll accept that for now.
Next question:
At the very start 0:00 you notice his suit is not pressurised at all, despite the de-pressurisation of the capsule. How can this be?
I don't know why you think the suit was not pressurized. It was and you can hear them reference that while going over the check list.
Is there a way that you can tell if the suit is pressurized that I cannot?
Yeah, the creases give it away quite easily.
Let me just explain something. Remember when we talked about the helium balloon expanding the higher it got?
The reason for that is because as it sets off, the lighter helium, or expanded helium, is easily squeezed by the dense atmosphere, so it's easier to push up or squeeze up.
It's like holding wet soap and trying to grip it in the bath. The soap gets pushed up by your hand grip because your hand grip can't hold onto it.
As the balloon gets pushed up a bit further, the atmosphere pushing it, gets weaker, meaning the helium can actually expand more inside the balloon. This creates a wider area of balloon, meaning it's always going to be pushed up as long as it expands. The higher it goes into the lighter elements, the more the helium inside can expand again against that weaker force acting against it.
If the balloons elasticity is stretched to its limit, the balloon will pop. If its elasticity can hold out...the balloon could get to the stage where it hits a point where it cannot go any higher as it would become equal with the pressure outside of it, so would float for want of a term, because it cannot fall back, just like an air balloon can't fall under water. It will just float on top. Same kind of thing.
Ok, now that's out of the way...let's deal with Baumgartners suit.
In his pressurised container, his suit wouldn't need to be pressurised as his body can't expand against that pressure that is upon him inside the capsule.
As soon as that capsule is de-pressurised, his suit must be pressurised in unison as that capsule de-pressurises, or he's dead.
His suit would have to inflate to stop his body cells expanding to fit the suit. You see, the pressure in the suit would be enough to hold back his body from inflating and the suit holds the pressure, so everything is fine.
If that suit is not pressurised his body must equalise the environment it finds itself in, which naturally will be the elasticirty of that suit. Basically he would swell up to fill it but be dead before he even got close to that.
This is undeniable and you people, should know this.
The opposite would happen to a deep sea diver.
You pressurise a diving suit to cope with the water pressure tyou find yourself under. As you moe down, you up the pressure to repel the crush.
If you de-pressurised that diving suit when at a depth, your body cells would immediately start to be compressed and squeezed up through the weakest part of that suit which would be your soft torso or your guts, which would be pushed through your head and out of any orifice you have.
These are facts.
I don't think you understand how a pressure suit works. When he is on the ground his suit is the same pressure inside and out. He has to travel up to the top of his accent and back down without changing his inside pressure.
How you can tell it is or isn't pressurized seems to be a misunderstanding of what the suit is made of. Take a look at some pictures on the web and you will see where your going wrong there.
-
Red Bull Stratos FULL POV - Multi-Angle + Mission Data (http://#ws)
This one is great. It shows all the effects on the skydiver as he's falling into thicker atmosphere.
It's scary to think you people actually believe this stuff. A kid can see this crap for what it is.
What's with the air sound at 128,000 feet?
What's with the same sized Earth from 128,000 feet down to about 40,000?
You people don't believe this at all. You're holding onto a sack of garbage and you know it.
Please try not to be insulting.
There is air at 128,000 feet. He was traveling through it at a high rate of speed. That makes noise.
-
I don't think you understand how a pressure suit works. When he is on the ground his suit is the same pressure inside and out. He has to travel up to the top of his accent and back down without changing his inside pressure.
When he's on the ground, his external pressure is around 15psi, against his suit and body. His suit is not pressurised at this time. If it was, he would be in some discomfort.
You do not understand how it all works, at all.
How you can tell it is or isn't pressurized seems to be a misunderstanding of what the suit is made of. Take a look at some pictures on the web and you will see where your going wrong there.
It's easy to tell. His suit is flapping and creased. His suit would be bulked out with air pressure, not looking like a formula one drivers suit.
-
Red Bull Stratos FULL POV - Multi-Angle + Mission Data (http://#ws)
This one is great. It shows all the effects on the skydiver as he's falling into thicker atmosphere.
It's scary to think you people actually believe this stuff. A kid can see this crap for what it is.
What's with the air sound at 128,000 feet?
What's with the same sized Earth from 128,000 feet down to about 40,000?
You people don't believe this at all. You're holding onto a sack of garbage and you know it.
Please try not to be insulting.
There is air at 128,000 feet. He was traveling through it at a high rate of speed. That makes noise.
Not according to the bull crap meters on Baumgartners mission control dials. ;D
-
]It's easy to tell. His suit is flapping and creased. His suit would be bulked out with air pressure, not looking like a formula one drivers suit.
What are basing this statement on?
-
Red Bull Stratos FULL POV - Multi-Angle + Mission Data (http://#ws)
This one is great. It shows all the effects on the skydiver as he's falling into thicker atmosphere.
It's scary to think you people actually believe this stuff. A kid can see this crap for what it is.
What's with the air sound at 128,000 feet?
What's with the same sized Earth from 128,000 feet down to about 40,000?
You people don't believe this at all. You're holding onto a sack of garbage and you know it.
Please try not to be insulting.
There is air at 128,000 feet. He was traveling through it at a high rate of speed. That makes noise.
Not according to the bull crap meters on Baumgartners mission control dials. ;D
He rode a helium or hydrogen balloon. Those float in air. Key word being air.
-
Ok, let's move on. I'm sure there's plenty of people who Know I'm right on the pressure stuff.
At 3.35 in the video, Baumgartner allegedly fall out. At 0:06 seconds on the mission control timer, it switches to a side view and blackness of Baumgartner seen from the side.
As a conseervative calculation using the gravity ruse...Baumgartner should have descended around 180 feet from the capsule. This horizontal visual of him falling lasts for about 27 seconds as his speed builds up to over 500 mph.
My question is this: who took the video of this. We can safely assume that it's not from his balloon. We can rule out a helicopter at 128,000 feet.
So what could have taken this picture and how did it manage to track the speed of his descent.
Can anyone give me a logical answer to this?
-
I'm sure there's plenty of people who Know I'm right on the pressure stuff.
I will give you $100 for every person you can find that will post on this forum that you're right on this.
The stipulation is earthisaspaceship can't be one of them and they can't be newly registered users.
-
I'm sure there's plenty of people who Know I'm right on the pressure stuff.
I will give you $100 for every person you can find that will post on this forum that you're right on this.
The stipulation is earthisaspaceship can't be one of them and they can't be newly registered users.
Ok that sounds good. Let's just sit back and wait on it.
-
Is there a way that you can tell if the suit is pressurized that I cannot?
Yeah, the creases give it away quite easily.
Oh, so you think that the outermost layer of his suit is what keeps him pressurized? That's so cute.
Suit: It has four layers. The outer layer is made of Nomex, a fire-retardant material that will also act as an insulator. Under the Nomex is a mesh restraint, which holds a gas-filled bladder. The innermost layer is a breathable liner. Once pressurized, the suit will become rigid. Its vertical orientation will help Baumgartner maintain delta position (head down, feet up) throughout his free fall—crucial if he is to avoid a flat spin.
-
Is there a way that you can tell if the suit is pressurized that I cannot?
Yeah, the creases give it away quite easily.
Oh, so you think that the outermost layer of his suit is what keeps him pressurized? That's so cute.
Suit: It has four layers. The outer layer is made of Nomex, a fire-retardant material that will also act as an insulator. Under the Nomex is a mesh restraint, which holds a gas-filled bladder. The innermost layer is a breathable liner. Once pressurized, the suit will become rigid. Its vertical orientation will help Baumgartner maintain delta position (head down, feet up) throughout his free fall—crucial if he is to avoid a flat spin.
I don't think I ever made that assumption.
Let me clarify.
I don't care how many layers of cloth there is. There is a bladder that is pressurised and the material will stop that pressure from over-expanding the suit.
Here's a copy and paste from how it works.
The space suit provides air pressure to keep the fluids in your body in a liquid state -- in other words, to prevent your bodily fluids from boiling. Like a tire, a space suit is essentially an inflated balloon that is restricted by some rubberized fabric, in this case, Neoprene-coated fibers. The restriction placed on the "balloon" portion of the suit supplies air pressure on the astronaut inside, like blowing up a balloon inside a cardboard tube.
-
Is there a way that you can tell if the suit is pressurized that I cannot?
Yeah, the creases give it away quite easily.
Oh, so you think that the outermost layer of his suit is what keeps him pressurized? That's so cute.
Suit: It has four layers. The outer layer is made of Nomex, a fire-retardant material that will also act as an insulator. Under the Nomex is a mesh restraint, which holds a gas-filled bladder. The innermost layer is a breathable liner. Once pressurized, the suit will become rigid. Its vertical orientation will help Baumgartner maintain delta position (head down, feet up) throughout his free fall—crucial if he is to avoid a flat spin.
I don't think I ever made that assumption.
Let me clarify.
I don't care how many layers of cloth there is. There is a bladder that is pressurised and the material will stop that pressure from over-expanding the suit.
Here's a copy and paste from how it works.
The space suit provides air pressure to keep the fluids in your body in a liquid state -- in other words, to prevent your bodily fluids from boiling. Like a tire, a space suit is essentially an inflated balloon that is restricted by some rubberized fabric, in this case, Neoprene-coated fibers. The restriction placed on the "balloon" portion of the suit supplies air pressure on the astronaut inside, like blowing up a balloon inside a cardboard tube.
Then why did you say that his pressure suit was not pressurized if you knew that the outermost layer was not the pressure bladder or mesh restraint?
-
Is there a way that you can tell if the suit is pressurized that I cannot?
Yeah, the creases give it away quite easily.
Oh, so you think that the outermost layer of his suit is what keeps him pressurized? That's so cute.
Suit: It has four layers. The outer layer is made of Nomex, a fire-retardant material that will also act as an insulator. Under the Nomex is a mesh restraint, which holds a gas-filled bladder. The innermost layer is a breathable liner. Once pressurized, the suit will become rigid. Its vertical orientation will help Baumgartner maintain delta position (head down, feet up) throughout his free fall—crucial if he is to avoid a flat spin.
I don't think I ever made that assumption.
Let me clarify.
I don't care how many layers of cloth there is. There is a bladder that is pressurised and the material will stop that pressure from over-expanding the suit.
Here's a copy and paste from how it works.
The space suit provides air pressure to keep the fluids in your body in a liquid state -- in other words, to prevent your bodily fluids from boiling. Like a tire, a space suit is essentially an inflated balloon that is restricted by some rubberized fabric, in this case, Neoprene-coated fibers. The restriction placed on the "balloon" portion of the suit supplies air pressure on the astronaut inside, like blowing up a balloon inside a cardboard tube.
Then why did you say that his pressure suit was not pressurized if you knew that the outermost layer was not the pressure bladder or mesh restraint?
Because his suit isn't pressurised, You can blatantly see that it isn't. The clue is it flapping about as he is supposedly falling.
Are you trying to say that a bladder would not push out the fabric?
-
Are you saying it's impossible for the suit to have a loose layer with creases overtop a skintight layer?
-
Because his suit isn't pressurised, You can blatantly see that it isn't. The clue is it flapping about as he is supposedly falling.
Are you trying to say that a bladder would not push out the fabric?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. The mesh restraint layer is what keeps the pressurized badder from pressing against the loose Nomex outer layer.
-
Are you saying it's impossible for the suit to have a loose layer with creases overtop a skintight layer?
No. I'm saying it's impossible to have a loose layer with flapping creases ovr a INFLATED/PRESSURISED inner bladder.
Pressurise a suit and you force that bladder against your body. For it to force against your body and not simply bloat out like a big ball, the outer fabric is there to stop that. the result is a stretched or taut fabric.
-
Because his suit isn't pressurised, You can blatantly see that it isn't. The clue is it flapping about as he is supposedly falling.
Are you trying to say that a bladder would not push out the fabric?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. The mesh restraint layer is what keeps the pressurized badder from pressing against the loose Nomex outer layer.
Markjo, you are not as clueless as that. Go and look up pressurised suits and come back to me.
-
Are you saying it's impossible for the suit to have a loose layer with creases overtop a skintight layer?
No. I'm saying it's impossible to have a loose layer with flapping creases ovr a INFLATED/PRESSURISED inner bladder.
Pressurise a suit and you force that bladder against your body. For it to force against your body and not simply bloat out like a big ball, the outer fabric is there to stop that. the result is a stretched or taut fabric.
What if the mesh is keeping the bladder from expanding past a crertain point? It sounds like that's the function of the mesh, not the outer layer.
-
Because his suit isn't pressurised, You can blatantly see that it isn't. The clue is it flapping about as he is supposedly falling.
Are you trying to say that a bladder would not push out the fabric?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. The mesh restraint layer is what keeps the pressurized badder from pressing against the loose Nomex outer layer.
Markjo, you are not as clueless as that. Go and look up pressurised suits and come back to me.
Better yet, why don't you look up pressurized suits and tell me where I'm wrong?
-
Are you saying it's impossible for the suit to have a loose layer with creases overtop a skintight layer?
No. I'm saying it's impossible to have a loose layer with flapping creases ovr a INFLATED/PRESSURISED inner bladder.
Pressurise a suit and you force that bladder against your body. For it to force against your body and not simply bloat out like a big ball, the outer fabric is there to stop that. the result is a stretched or taut fabric.
Blow up a party balloon. Put said balloon in a sweatshirt. Did the sweatshirt instantly become tight? No, it didn't. A loose layer over a rigid layer is impossible how?
-
Are you saying it's impossible for the suit to have a loose layer with creases overtop a skintight layer?
No. I'm saying it's impossible to have a loose layer with flapping creases ovr a INFLATED/PRESSURISED inner bladder.
Pressurise a suit and you force that bladder against your body. For it to force against your body and not simply bloat out like a big ball, the outer fabric is there to stop that. the result is a stretched or taut fabric.
What if the mesh is keeping the bladder from expanding past a crertain point? It sounds like that's the function of the mesh, not the outer layer.
What mesh. Define this mesh. You appear to be talking about some kind of fencing mesh. Clarify what you are saying.
-
Because his suit isn't pressurised, You can blatantly see that it isn't. The clue is it flapping about as he is supposedly falling.
Are you trying to say that a bladder would not push out the fabric?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. The mesh restraint layer is what keeps the pressurized badder from pressing against the loose Nomex outer layer.
Markjo, you are not as clueless as that. Go and look up pressurised suits and come back to me.
Better yet, why don't you look up pressurized suits and tell me where I'm wrong?
I wouldn't be arguing the point if I hadn't done muy homework...now try and look at it with a clear mind and look up pressursied space suits.
If for some reason the internet refuses to allow you, I'll be more than happy to show you some. Let me know, Markjo.
-
Are you saying it's impossible for the suit to have a loose layer with creases overtop a skintight layer?
No. I'm saying it's impossible to have a loose layer with flapping creases ovr a INFLATED/PRESSURISED inner bladder.
Pressurise a suit and you force that bladder against your body. For it to force against your body and not simply bloat out like a big ball, the outer fabric is there to stop that. the result is a stretched or taut fabric.
Blow up a party balloon. Put said balloon in a sweatshirt. Did the sweatshirt instantly become tight? No, it didn't. A loose layer over a rigid layer is impossible how?
One thing I gathered from your posts...the few you dared to take part in. You are no scientist in any form but the basic. I'm insulting you because you attempt that with others.
For someone to say a soap bubble contains nothing, is all I need to know that you are nothing other than a chancer that feeds off other posters indoctrination.
-
Are you saying it's impossible for the suit to have a loose layer with creases overtop a skintight layer?
No. I'm saying it's impossible to have a loose layer with flapping creases ovr a INFLATED/PRESSURISED inner bladder.
Pressurise a suit and you force that bladder against your body. For it to force against your body and not simply bloat out like a big ball, the outer fabric is there to stop that. the result is a stretched or taut fabric.
What if the mesh is keeping the bladder from expanding past a crertain point? It sounds like that's the function of the mesh, not the outer layer.
What mesh. Define this mesh. You appear to be talking about some kind of fencing mesh. Clarify what you are saying.
Did you not read the description of the 4 layers of the suit? I don't know any more about it at this time than you do. What makes you think it sounds like "fencing mesh"? ???
Maybe you should do a little more research into the suit before you decide it can't possibly work, because it sounds like you have no idea at all about how it's constructed and what it actually does.
-
Are you saying it's impossible for the suit to have a loose layer with creases overtop a skintight layer?
No. I'm saying it's impossible to have a loose layer with flapping creases ovr a INFLATED/PRESSURISED inner bladder.
Pressurise a suit and you force that bladder against your body. For it to force against your body and not simply bloat out like a big ball, the outer fabric is there to stop that. the result is a stretched or taut fabric.
What if the mesh is keeping the bladder from expanding past a crertain point? It sounds like that's the function of the mesh, not the outer layer.
What mesh. Define this mesh. You appear to be talking about some kind of fencing mesh. Clarify what you are saying.
Did you not read the description of the 4 layers of the suit? I don't know any more about it at this time than you do. What makes you think it sounds like "fencing mesh"? ???
Maybe you should do a little more research into the suit before you decide it can't possibly work, because it sounds like you have no idea at all about how it's constructed and what it actually does.
How about you define the mesh that stops the suit showing inflation on the exterior before I show you the actual reality.
Oh and don't think I've forgotton about the 128,000 feet horizontal video of the supposed super mph fall of Baumgartner, either. I'd like an explanation for that which you people conveniently avoid like the plague.
-
Are you saying it's impossible for the suit to have a loose layer with creases overtop a skintight layer?
No. I'm saying it's impossible to have a loose layer with flapping creases ovr a INFLATED/PRESSURISED inner bladder.
Pressurise a suit and you force that bladder against your body. For it to force against your body and not simply bloat out like a big ball, the outer fabric is there to stop that. the result is a stretched or taut fabric.
Blow up a party balloon. Put said balloon in a sweatshirt. Did the sweatshirt instantly become tight? No, it didn't. A loose layer over a rigid layer is impossible how?
One thing I gathered from your posts...the few you dared to take part in. You are no scientist in any form but the basic. I'm insulting you because you attempt that with others.
Because such a simple experiment destroys everything you believe in?
For someone to say a soap bubble contains nothing, is all I need to know that you are nothing other than a chancer that feeds off other posters indoctrination.
You related molecules expanding to fill voids to soap bubbles. Care to disprove all known science about bond lengths? Covalent bonds? Ionic bonds? hydrogen bonds?
-
Are you saying it's impossible for the suit to have a loose layer with creases overtop a skintight layer?
No. I'm saying it's impossible to have a loose layer with flapping creases ovr a INFLATED/PRESSURISED inner bladder.
Pressurise a suit and you force that bladder against your body. For it to force against your body and not simply bloat out like a big ball, the outer fabric is there to stop that. the result is a stretched or taut fabric.
What if the mesh is keeping the bladder from expanding past a crertain point? It sounds like that's the function of the mesh, not the outer layer.
What mesh. Define this mesh. You appear to be talking about some kind of fencing mesh. Clarify what you are saying.
Did you not read the description of the 4 layers of the suit? I don't know any more about it at this time than you do. What makes you think it sounds like "fencing mesh"? ???
Maybe you should do a little more research into the suit before you decide it can't possibly work, because it sounds like you have no idea at all about how it's constructed and what it actually does.
How about you define the mesh that stops the suit showing inflation on the exterior before I show you the actual reality.
Oh and don't think I've forgotton about the 128,000 feet horizontal video of the supposed super mph fall of Baumgartner, either. I'd like an explanation for that which you people conveniently avoid like the plague.
I don't know what you mean by "128,000 feet horizontal video".
Anyway. I don't think you have any authority to comment on this even until you have a better grasp of what the pressure suit does.
-
Are you saying it's impossible for the suit to have a loose layer with creases overtop a skintight layer?
No. I'm saying it's impossible to have a loose layer with flapping creases ovr a INFLATED/PRESSURISED inner bladder.
Pressurise a suit and you force that bladder against your body. For it to force against your body and not simply bloat out like a big ball, the outer fabric is there to stop that. the result is a stretched or taut fabric.
What if the mesh is keeping the bladder from expanding past a crertain point? It sounds like that's the function of the mesh, not the outer layer.
What mesh. Define this mesh. You appear to be talking about some kind of fencing mesh. Clarify what you are saying.
Did you not read the description of the 4 layers of the suit? I don't know any more about it at this time than you do. What makes you think it sounds like "fencing mesh"? ???
Maybe you should do a little more research into the suit before you decide it can't possibly work, because it sounds like you have no idea at all about how it's constructed and what it actually does.
How about you define the mesh that stops the suit showing inflation on the exterior before I show you the actual reality.
Oh and don't think I've forgotton about the 128,000 feet horizontal video of the supposed super mph fall of Baumgartner, either. I'd like an explanation for that which you people conveniently avoid like the plague.
Why don't you do your own research for a change and show us what makes the mesh inadequate.
Now you want to change the subject away from the suit? Are you giving up on your criticism of the suit now?
-
At 3.35 in the video, Baumgartner allegedly fall out. At 0:06 seconds on the mission control timer, it switches to a side view and blackness of Baumgartner seen from the side.
As a conseervative calculation using the gravity ruse...Baumgartner should have descended around 180 feet from the capsule. This horizontal visual of him falling lasts for about 27 seconds as his speed builds up to over 500 mph.
My question is this: who took the video of this. We can safely assume that it's not from his balloon. We can rule out a helicopter at 128,000 feet.
So what could have taken this picture and how did it manage to track the speed of his descent.
Can anyone give me a logical answer to this?
Very easy to answer. If you actually look at the video it doesn't show him side on. It's taken from a downward angle. Presumably on the ground or from a tall structure. As for how they can track him: have you watched the video? They clearly can't track him well at all. The camera is waving all over the place. If you want a better look at what happened check out the other video posted in this thread that shows everything from the cameras mounted on his suit.
Also 6 seconds, in a near vacuum, with gravitational acceleration does not equal 180 feet.
You also really, really need to stop making ridiculous claims then requiring evidence from other people. It's just getting ridiculous, prove your own arguments.
-
Because his suit isn't pressurised, You can blatantly see that it isn't. The clue is it flapping about as he is supposedly falling.
Are you trying to say that a bladder would not push out the fabric?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. The mesh restraint layer is what keeps the pressurized badder from pressing against the loose Nomex outer layer.
Markjo, you are not as clueless as that. Go and look up pressurised suits and come back to me.
Better yet, why don't you look up pressurized suits and tell me where I'm wrong?
I wouldn't be arguing the point if I hadn't done muy homework...now try and look at it with a clear mind and look up pressursied space suits.
If for some reason the internet refuses to allow you, I'll be more than happy to show you some. Let me know, Markjo.
I have looked up pressure suits and I don't understand why you're having such difficulty understanding how a layer of Nomex fabric can be loosely wrapped around of a rigid, pressurized suit.
-
How about you define the mesh that stops the suit showing inflation on the exterior before I show you the actual reality.
Oh and don't think I've forgotton about the 128,000 feet horizontal video of the supposed super mph fall of Baumgartner, either. I'd like an explanation for that which you people conveniently avoid like the plague.
Mesh or some layer over the bladder that it's tight against, and the looser exterior fabric over that.
The video shot from another angle was shot from a lower altitude.
This is too easy Scepti, give us something harder.
-
I'll give scepti one thing: he's really not afraid of being wrong. He is afraid over ever admitting he was wrong however, no matter how tortuous and silly his "reasoning" gets.
This pressure suit shit is just one long, painful facepalm.
-
I don't know what you mean by "128,000 feet horizontal video".
Anyway. I don't think you have any authority to comment on this even until you have a better grasp of what the pressure suit does.
Ok I'll explain. You know when you video someone in your garden or on the beach or wherever? You're capturing the moment horizontally, as in you are aiming the camera horizontally, as in straight ahead, as in at the level the people you are videoing are.
Like the video that's supposedly watching Baumgartner free falling. Now who is taking the video footage and where are they at?
3:42 in the video and lasts 20 odd seconds of video capture before the screen changes. So tell me who took this video at 128,000 feet because it sure as hell isn't taken from his balloon.
(http://#)
-
Are you saying it's impossible for the suit to have a loose layer with creases overtop a skintight layer?
No. I'm saying it's impossible to have a loose layer with flapping creases ovr a INFLATED/PRESSURISED inner bladder.
Pressurise a suit and you force that bladder against your body. For it to force against your body and not simply bloat out like a big ball, the outer fabric is there to stop that. the result is a stretched or taut fabric.
What if the mesh is keeping the bladder from expanding past a crertain point? It sounds like that's the function of the mesh, not the outer layer.
What mesh. Define this mesh. You appear to be talking about some kind of fencing mesh. Clarify what you are saying.
Did you not read the description of the 4 layers of the suit? I don't know any more about it at this time than you do. What makes you think it sounds like "fencing mesh"? ???
Maybe you should do a little more research into the suit before you decide it can't possibly work, because it sounds like you have no idea at all about how it's constructed and what it actually does.
How about you define the mesh that stops the suit showing inflation on the exterior before I show you the actual reality.
Oh and don't think I've forgotton about the 128,000 feet horizontal video of the supposed super mph fall of Baumgartner, either. I'd like an explanation for that which you people conveniently avoid like the plague.
Why don't you do your own research for a change and show us what makes the mesh inadequate.
Now you want to change the subject away from the suit? Are you giving up on your criticism of the suit now?
I've shown you that his suit is not pressurised. That's all anyone needs to know, who cares to question it. You and your likeminded friends are going to defend your stance to keep the scam alive. I understand that.
-
At 3.35 in the video, Baumgartner allegedly fall out. At 0:06 seconds on the mission control timer, it switches to a side view and blackness of Baumgartner seen from the side.
As a conseervative calculation using the gravity ruse...Baumgartner should have descended around 180 feet from the capsule. This horizontal visual of him falling lasts for about 27 seconds as his speed builds up to over 500 mph.
My question is this: who took the video of this. We can safely assume that it's not from his balloon. We can rule out a helicopter at 128,000 feet.
So what could have taken this picture and how did it manage to track the speed of his descent.
Can anyone give me a logical answer to this?
Very easy to answer. If you actually look at the video it doesn't show him side on. It's taken from a downward angle. Presumably on the ground or from a tall structure. As for how they can track him: have you watched the video? They clearly can't track him well at all. The camera is waving all over the place. If you want a better look at what happened check out the other video posted in this thread that shows everything from the cameras mounted on his suit.
Also 6 seconds, in a near vacuum, with gravitational acceleration does not equal 180 feet.
You also really, really need to stop making ridiculous claims then requiring evidence from other people. It's just getting ridiculous, prove your own arguments.
Taken from a downward angle?
Come on then, explain who videoed it and where from.
-
How about you define the mesh that stops the suit showing inflation on the exterior before I show you the actual reality.
Oh and don't think I've forgotton about the 128,000 feet horizontal video of the supposed super mph fall of Baumgartner, either. I'd like an explanation for that which you people conveniently avoid like the plague.
Mesh or some layer over the bladder that it's tight against, and the looser exterior fabric over that.
The video shot from another angle was shot from a lower altitude.
This is too easy Scepti, give us something harder.
Lower altitude? Explain it then. What altitude? Was if videoed by someone in a passing jet? Helicopter? Another helium balloon?
At what altitude was the video taken from?
Too easy my aris.
-
I'll give scepti one thing: he's really not afraid of being wrong. He is afraid over ever admitting he was wrong however, no matter how tortuous and silly his "reasoning" gets.
This pressure suit shit is just one long, painful facepalm.
I agree it is a bit cringeworthy when a select group of posters do not understand what a pressure suit is.
-
Would you please show us a picture of the type of pressure suit your talking about? It sounds like you are describing something completely different from what this guy used.
Those cameras were all on the balloon. There was a tracking camera on the ground too. It's not hard to see there is a boom with a camera facing the hatch.
-
Would you please show us a picture of the type of pressure suit your talking about? It sounds like you are describing something completely different from what this guy used.
Those cameras were all on the balloon. There was a tracking camera on the ground too. It's not hard to see there is a boom with a camera facing the hatch.
When you understand why your body is built to withstand the 15psi of air pressure it is under, then you might understand why a pressure suit will need to expand at high altitude where the pressure is extremely low.
As for the camera being on the balloon being the one that took the footage of his supposed speedy fall...you know that's absolute garbage, so try for a better explanation or accept it was faked.
-
Would you please show us a picture of the type of pressure suit your talking about? It sounds like you are describing something completely different from what this guy used.
Those cameras were all on the balloon. There was a tracking camera on the ground too. It's not hard to see there is a boom with a camera facing the hatch.
When you understand why your body is built to withstand the 15psi of air pressure it is under, then you might understand why a pressure suit will need to expand at high altitude where the pressure is extremely low.
As for the camera being on the balloon being the one that took the footage of his supposed speedy fall...you know that's absolute garbage, so try for a better explanation or accept it was faked.
Pressure suits don't need to expand, they just need to be pressurized.
-
Would you please show us a picture of the type of pressure suit your talking about? It sounds like you are describing something completely different from what this guy used.
Those cameras were all on the balloon. There was a tracking camera on the ground too. It's not hard to see there is a boom with a camera facing the hatch.
When you understand why your body is built to withstand the 15psi of air pressure it is under, then you might understand why a pressure suit will need to expand at high altitude where the pressure is extremely low.
As for the camera being on the balloon being the one that took the footage of his supposed speedy fall...you know that's absolute garbage, so try for a better explanation or accept it was faked.
I wish you'd show us a picture do a pressure suit type you are describing.
And I don't understand why you think any of those cameras were fake. You haven't explained that either.
-
Would you please show us a picture of the type of pressure suit your talking about? It sounds like you are describing something completely different from what this guy used.
Those cameras were all on the balloon. There was a tracking camera on the ground too. It's not hard to see there is a boom with a camera facing the hatch.
When you understand why your body is built to withstand the 15psi of air pressure it is under, then you might understand why a pressure suit will need to expand at high altitude where the pressure is extremely low.
As for the camera being on the balloon being the one that took the footage of his supposed speedy fall...you know that's absolute garbage, so try for a better explanation or accept it was faked.
Pressure suits don't need to expand, they just need to be pressurized.
I'll pretend I didn't see you type this.
-
Would you please show us a picture of the type of pressure suit your talking about? It sounds like you are describing something completely different from what this guy used.
Those cameras were all on the balloon. There was a tracking camera on the ground too. It's not hard to see there is a boom with a camera facing the hatch.
When you understand why your body is built to withstand the 15psi of air pressure it is under, then you might understand why a pressure suit will need to expand at high altitude where the pressure is extremely low.
As for the camera being on the balloon being the one that took the footage of his supposed speedy fall...you know that's absolute garbage, so try for a better explanation or accept it was faked.
I wish you'd show us a picture do a pressure suit type you are describing.
And I don't understand why you think any of those cameras were fake. You haven't explained that either.
I'm not interested in the cameras that were supposedly on the capsule.
I'm interested in someone explaining the video of Baumgartner falling after 6 seconds, up to 27 seconds by some video that is opposite (not above) him.
All I want to know is...who took this footage and what craft were they using at 128,000 feet?
-
When you understand why your body is built to withstand the 15psi of air pressure it is under, then you might understand why a pressure suit will need to expand at high altitude where the pressure is extremely low.
Ummm... No. If a pressure suit is allowed to expand, then how is it supposed to keep your body from expanding?
-
When you understand why your body is built to withstand the 15psi of air pressure it is under, then you might understand why a pressure suit will need to expand at high altitude where the pressure is extremely low.
Ummm... No. If a pressure suit is allowed to expand, then how is it supposed to keep your body from expanding?
It's the air pressure inside the suit that keeps your body from expanding. The same air pressure that expands the bladder which is compressed against the outer cloth which resists allowing the bladder to stretch, thus allowing the air pressure to exert what the body requires.
Think of a car tyre and inner tube. That's your space suit in a fashion.
-
Would you please show us a picture of the type of pressure suit your talking about? It sounds like you are describing something completely different from what this guy used.
Those cameras were all on the balloon. There was a tracking camera on the ground too. It's not hard to see there is a boom with a camera facing the hatch.
When you understand why your body is built to withstand the 15psi of air pressure it is under, then you might understand why a pressure suit will need to expand at high altitude where the pressure is extremely low.
As for the camera being on the balloon being the one that took the footage of his supposed speedy fall...you know that's absolute garbage, so try for a better explanation or accept it was faked.
I wish you'd show us a picture do a pressure suit type you are describing.
And I don't understand why you think any of those cameras were fake. You haven't explained that either.
I'm not interested in the cameras that were supposedly on the capsule.
I'm interested in someone explaining the video of Baumgartner falling after 6 seconds, up to 27 seconds by some video that is opposite (not above) him.
All I want to know is...who took this footage and what craft were they using at 128,000 feet?
Are you talking about the film that looks like he is a little white dot? I thought it was obvious it was a ground based camera zoomed in.
You have just posted a decent description of how the pressure suit works. So why do you think his suit will blow up and be tight like a balloon removing creases as you've said?
-
Think of a car tyre and inner tube. That's your space suit in a fashion.
Exactly. Now loosely wrap a blanket around the tire and you have the Nomex layer of the pressure suit. Honestly, I don't understand why you're having such a hard time understanding such a simple concept.
-
Think of a car tyre and inner tube. That's your space suit in a fashion.
Exactly. Now loosely wrap a blanket around the tire and you have the Nomex layer of the pressure suit. Honestly, I don't understand why you're having such a hard time understanding such a simple concept.
Boom, headshot!
Septic, please move on from the pressure suit. You're clearly failing this argument.
-
No need to be rude. I'm sure he just didn't quite understand what was going on with the pressure suit.
But, at least that part has been solved.
-
No need to be rude. I'm sure he just didn't quite understand what was going on with the pressure suit.
But, at least that part has been solved.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no need to be rude?
I guess you're new to dealing with septic?
-
Go to 3:54 and observe his suit. Watch the video from that point on and learn from what I've been trying to tell you.
Now go and look at Baumgartners video again. He is NOT under any pressure because it's fake.
(http://#)
-
How about you define the mesh that stops the suit showing inflation on the exterior before I show you the actual reality.
Oh and don't think I've forgotton about the 128,000 feet horizontal video of the supposed super mph fall of Baumgartner, either. I'd like an explanation for that which you people conveniently avoid like the plague.
Why don't you do your own research for a change and show us what makes the mesh inadequate.
Now you want to change the subject away from the suit? Are you giving up on your criticism of the suit now?
I've shown you that his suit is not pressurised. That's all anyone needs to know, who cares to question it. You and your likeminded friends are going to defend your stance to keep the scam alive. I understand that.
You've shown nothing but a willingness to make baseless claims about things you have no knowledge of.
-
Go to 3:54 and observe his suit. Watch the video from that point on and learn from what I've been trying to tell you.
Now go and look at Baumgartners video again. He is NOT under any pressure because it's fake.
(http://#)
That's Mark Shuttleworth, not Felix Baumgartner. Felix wore a completely different pressure suit. Skydivers like to have a nice and loose outer layer that flaps around in the wind. The extra drag gives them a bit of extra stability and control.
-
Go to 3:54 and observe his suit. Watch the video from that point on and learn from what I've been trying to tell you.
Now go and look at Baumgartners video again. He is NOT under any pressure because it's fake.
(http://#)
That's Mark Shuttleworth, not Felix Baumgartner. Felix wore a completely different pressure suit. Skydivers like to have a nice and loose outer layer that flaps around in the wind. The extra drag gives them a bit of extra stability and control.
What extra drag and stability is this at 128,000 feet?
That's what I'm taking about. I've showed you what a pressurised suit looks like. Deny it all you want. The fact is, this is what would happen to a suit as it approached a near vacuum. There's no getting away from it.
The jump is fake just like Kittingers. The simply reality is no helium balloon is going to take a man and capsule up to that height, first of all.
The balloon on it's own could maybe make it before popping.
Secondly, no human is going to survive that height no matter what suit they are in, in any craft of space suit. It's just not going to happen, ever.
People need to do a little bit of serious thinking as to how they manage to survive living at sea level pressure under 15 psi of pressure to understand why the body is not going to survive altitude or deep sea diving. I'm not talking about a few hundred meter dives, I'm talking about deep sea, no matter what the suit is.
It requires people to start to open up their rational minds and to stop believing in the utter fantasies thought up by hollywood producers.
The lies are kicking you hard in the face, constantly. When is the time gonna come when people say, " that's it, I'm sick of being kicked in the face"...?
The space ruse is exactly that. Nonsense. The high altitude helium stuff, is fantasy.
The deep sea trenches that humans supposedly go down to in oceans, are fantasy. It's simply hollywood productions, or similar film making nonsense.
The flat screen or box in your living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens or wherever, are hypnotic tools to keep your mind focused on the fantasy that is given out.
There's a reason why people are called ACTORS.
All you are watching, are fantasies being acted out by people paid to deliver it to your psyche. The ones that do it better are the best paid. It's as simple as that.
There's nothing wrong with living out that fantasy world they give you, just don't pretend you know what reality is when you start stating that the fantasy is actual fact.
I have seen positive proof that the brightest minds can easily be fooled. People who use scientific jargon they have studied and memorised and regurgitated to all who listen. They do this with their chests puffed out. They believe what they are saying. They are oblivious to the truth because the truth comes in a plain package. Science does not deal in plain packages, because it's no fun if it's too logical and easy to actually see the truth. It has to be packed in fancy wrapping, then tied and wrapped again till the package is so bulked it will take someone a long long time to get to the reality of what's inside of that.
It's called finding reality by removing truths protective layers.
-
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
-
I have seen positive proof that the brightest minds can easily be fooled. People who use scientific jargon they have studied and memorised and regurgitated to all who listen. They do this with their chests puffed out. They believe what they are saying. They are oblivious to the truth because the truth comes in a plain package. Science does not deal in plain packages, because it's no fun if it's too logical and easy to actually see the truth. It has to be packed in fancy wrapping, then tied and wrapped again till the package is so bulked it will take someone a long long time to get to the reality of what's inside of that.
You don't half talk some shite.
You sound like a 13 year old who thinks he's special because he thinks he's discovered some profound truth that nobody else has seen. That feeling doesn't last. Presumably it goes for you every time you walk away from the computer screen and reality bites.
-
I have seen positive proof that the brightest minds can easily be fooled. People who use scientific jargon they have studied and memorised and regurgitated to all who listen. They do this with their chests puffed out. They believe what they are saying. They are oblivious to the truth because the truth comes in a plain package. Science does not deal in plain packages, because it's no fun if it's too logical and easy to actually see the truth. It has to be packed in fancy wrapping, then tied and wrapped again till the package is so bulked it will take someone a long long time to get to the reality of what's inside of that.
You don't half talk some shite.
You sound like a 13 year old who thinks he's special because he thinks he's discovered some profound truth that nobody else has seen. That feeling doesn't last. Presumably it goes for you every time you walk away from the computer screen and reality bites.
And yet here you are trying to stifle my thoughts....and failing miserably, I might add.
You should be concentrating on your science, Jimmy rather than trying your damnest to take on a 13 year old. Am I bothering you?
-
Go to 3:54 and observe his suit. Watch the video from that point on and learn from what I've been trying to tell you.
Now go and look at Baumgartners video again. He is NOT under any pressure because it's fake.
(http://#)
That's Mark Shuttleworth, not Felix Baumgartner. Felix wore a completely different pressure suit. Skydivers like to have a nice and loose outer layer that flaps around in the wind. The extra drag gives them a bit of extra stability and control.
What extra drag and stability is this at 128,000 feet?
*sigh* Once he jumps, he's not going to be at 128,000 feet for very long, is he?
That's what I'm taking about. I've showed you what a pressurised suit looks like. Deny it all you want. The fact is, this is what would happen to a suit as it approached a near vacuum. There's no getting away from it.
I'm not denying what a pressure suit looks like. All I'm saying is that Felix's suit was designed to have an extra, loose layer on top of the rigid, pressurized layer. You are the one who is denying this possibility.
Secondly, no human is going to survive that height no matter what suit they are in, in any craft of space suit. It's just not going to happen, ever.
Enen in a suit specifically designed to keep him alive at just such an altitude?
People need to do a little bit of serious thinking as to how they manage to survive living at sea level pressure under 15 psi of pressure to understand why the body is not going to survive altitude or deep sea diving. I'm not talking about a few hundred meter dives, I'm talking about deep sea, no matter what the suit is.
There is a huge difference between going into a low pressure environment (very high altitude) and a high pressure environment (deep sea). Please stay on topic.
-
Go to 3:54 and observe his suit. Watch the video from that point on and learn from what I've been trying to tell you.
Now go and look at Baumgartners video again. He is NOT under any pressure because it's fake.
(http://#)
That's Mark Shuttleworth, not Felix Baumgartner. Felix wore a completely different pressure suit. Skydivers like to have a nice and loose outer layer that flaps around in the wind. The extra drag gives them a bit of extra stability and control.
What extra drag and stability is this at 128,000 feet?
*sigh* Once he jumps, he's not going to be at 128,000 feet for very long, is he?
Who cares about the jump. It's getting there. Can't you grasp this?
That's what I'm taking about. I've showed you what a pressurised suit looks like. Deny it all you want. The fact is, this is what would happen to a suit as it approached a near vacuum. There's no getting away from it.
I'm not denying what a pressure suit looks like. All I'm saying is that Felix's suit was designed to have an extra, loose layer on top of the rigid, pressurized layer. You are the one who is denying this possibility.
And what I am saying is, look at his movement in that suit. It is not pressurised at all. He is not under any pressure. It's like he is inside a simple suit with all movement, just like someone would be at sea level.
Secondly, no human is going to survive that height no matter what suit they are in, in any craft of space suit. It's just not going to happen, ever.
Enen in a suit specifically designed to keep him alive at just such an altitude?
There is no suit designed to keep anyone alive that that altitude. It's fake. It's a blatant fake. The footage alone should tell anyone that it's fake. The denial is epidemic with people because they refuse to allow themselves to divert from the fantasy given out as real.
People need to do a little bit of serious thinking as to how they manage to survive living at sea level pressure under 15 psi of pressure to understand why the body is not going to survive altitude or deep sea diving. I'm not talking about a few hundred meter dives, I'm talking about deep sea, no matter what the suit is.
There is a huge difference between going into a low pressure environment (very high altitude) and a high pressure environment (deep sea). Please stay on topic.
Yes, there is a huge difference in terms of opposite pressures but the same thing applies to both. It's impossible for humans to survive.
-
I'm not denying what a pressure suit looks like. All I'm saying is that Felix's suit was designed to have an extra, loose layer on top of the rigid, pressurized layer. You are the one who is denying this possibility.
And what I am saying is, look at his movement in that suit. It is not pressurised at all. He is not under any pressure. It's like he is inside a simple suit with all movement, just like someone would be at sea level.
How should his movements look?
Secondly, no human is going to survive that height no matter what suit they are in, in any craft of space suit. It's just not going to happen, ever.
Enen in a suit specifically designed to keep him alive at just such an altitude?
There is no suit designed to keep anyone alive that that altitude. It's fake. It's a blatant fake. The footage alone should tell anyone that it's fake. The denial is epidemic with people because they refuse to allow themselves to divert from the fantasy given out as real.
High altitude pressure suits have been around since at least the 1930s. Are you saying that in over 80 years of development, no one has yet been able to develop a high altitude pressure suit that that works at 128,000 feet? And you have the nerve to say that I'm living in denial?
People need to do a little bit of serious thinking as to how they manage to survive living at sea level pressure under 15 psi of pressure to understand why the body is not going to survive altitude or deep sea diving. I'm not talking about a few hundred meter dives, I'm talking about deep sea, no matter what the suit is.
There is a huge difference between going into a low pressure environment (very high altitude) and a high pressure environment (deep sea). Please stay on topic.
Yes, there is a huge difference in terms of opposite pressures but the same thing applies to both. It's impossible for humans to survive.
When diving into the deep ocean, the suit is closer to a man shaped submarine. When flying into the near vacuum of space, the suit is closer to a man shaped space capsule. Seriously, why do you have such a hard time believing in technology that has been in constant development for the better part of a century? It's like saying that you couldn't survive in a high speed train because the wind would be too great and you would suffocate.
-
How should his movements look?
Very restricted.
High altitude pressure suits have been around since at least the 1930s. Are you saying that in over 80 years of development, no one has yet been able to develop a high altitude pressure suit that that works at 128,000 feet? And you have the nerve to say that I'm living in denial?
Who was flying at high altitude in the 1930's?
No one has developed a high altitude suit that works at 128,000 feet because nobody has ever been that high and never will.
When diving into the deep ocean, the suit is closer to a man shaped submarine. When flying into the near vacuum of space, the suit is closer to a man shaped space capsule. Seriously, why do you have such a hard time believing in technology that has been in constant development for the better part of a century? It's like saying that you couldn't survive in a high speed train because the wind would be too great and you would suffocate.
Men can survive in pressure suits and sensible pressures. It's action and reaction in equal measure no matter what you are doing.
Actually if a train could go fast enough, you would suffocate. You would be constricted.
Go and look at a pilot training facility in a centrifuge to see what happens when there's a pressure build up.
It's a shame that people cannot grasp this stuff and simply go with the nonsense spouted off by supposed experts.
-
How should his movements look?
Very restricted.
Why?
High altitude pressure suits have been around since at least the 1930s. Are you saying that in over 80 years of development, no one has yet been able to develop a high altitude pressure suit that that works at 128,000 feet? And you have the nerve to say that I'm living in denial?
Who was flying at high altitude in the 1930's?
Wiley Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley_Post#Pressure_suit), for one.
When diving into the deep ocean, the suit is closer to a man shaped submarine. When flying into the near vacuum of space, the suit is closer to a man shaped space capsule. Seriously, why do you have such a hard time believing in technology that has been in constant development for the better part of a century? It's like saying that you couldn't survive in a high speed train because the wind would be too great and you would suffocate.
Men can survive in pressure suits and sensible pressures. It's action and reaction in equal measure no matter what you are doing.
Hmmm.... Does this mean that we're making progress? I suppose that the only thing left is to figure out what could be considered "sensible pressures".
Actually if a train could go fast enough, you would suffocate. You would be constricted.
Go and look at a pilot training facility in a centrifuge to see what happens when there's a pressure build up.
It's a shame that people cannot grasp this stuff and simply go with the nonsense spouted off by supposed experts.
It's also a shame that you can't grasp the difference between speed and acceleration. ::)
-
How should his movements look?
Very restricted.
Why?
High altitude pressure suits have been around since at least the 1930s. Are you saying that in over 80 years of development, no one has yet been able to develop a high altitude pressure suit that that works at 128,000 feet? And you have the nerve to say that I'm living in denial?
Who was flying at high altitude in the 1930's?
Wiley Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley_Post#Pressure_suit), for one.
When diving into the deep ocean, the suit is closer to a man shaped submarine. When flying into the near vacuum of space, the suit is closer to a man shaped space capsule. Seriously, why do you have such a hard time believing in technology that has been in constant development for the better part of a century? It's like saying that you couldn't survive in a high speed train because the wind would be too great and you would suffocate.
Men can survive in pressure suits and sensible pressures. It's action and reaction in equal measure no matter what you are doing.
Hmmm.... Does this mean that we're making progress? I suppose that the only thing left is to figure out what could be considered "sensible pressures".
Actually if a train could go fast enough, you would suffocate. You would be constricted.
Go and look at a pilot training facility in a centrifuge to see what happens when there's a pressure build up.
It's a shame that people cannot grasp this stuff and simply go with the nonsense spouted off by supposed experts.
It's also a shame that you can't grasp the difference between speed and acceleration. ::)
Asking me why he would be restricted? Are you kidding me or what?
Wily post, indeed. ::)
Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.
-
This thread really exposes septic for what he is. He's just some guy who thinks he knows it all, his opinions aren't based on anything resembling fact and he argues like a child.
I mean he thinks the pressures at deep sea are something similar to what is experienced at high altitude. This is just blatant stupidity. It's completely worthless to waste time debating with this uneducated child.
Septic, for your own good, go to school and learn something.
-
Asking me why he would be restricted? Are you kidding me or what?
No, I'm not kidding. Why do you think that he should be more restricted than he was?
Wily post, indeed. ::)
You asked and I answered. Did you have anything to add or are you going to just dismiss him like you dismiss everything else that doesn't fit your little world view?
Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.
How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?
-
Asking me why he would be restricted? Are you kidding me or what?
No, I'm not kidding. Why do you think that he should be more restricted than he was?
Wily post, indeed. ::)
You asked and I answered. Did you have anything to add or are you going to just dismiss him like you dismiss everything else that doesn't fit your little world view?
Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.
How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?
I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?
-
Asking me why he would be restricted? Are you kidding me or what?
No, I'm not kidding. Why do you think that he should be more restricted than he was?
Wily post, indeed. ::)
You asked and I answered. Did you have anything to add or are you going to just dismiss him like you dismiss everything else that doesn't fit your little world view?
Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.
How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?
I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?
Just answer the question please.
-
Asking me why he would be restricted? Are you kidding me or what?
No, I'm not kidding. Why do you think that he should be more restricted than he was?
Wily post, indeed. ::)
You asked and I answered. Did you have anything to add or are you going to just dismiss him like you dismiss everything else that doesn't fit your little world view?
Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.
How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?
I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?
Just answer the question please.
I've already said I don't know. How about you tell me seeing as you obviously do know, then you can tell me the relevance of why it is what it is.
-
Asking me why he would be restricted? Are you kidding me or what?
No, I'm not kidding. Why do you think that he should be more restricted than he was?
Wily post, indeed. ::)
You asked and I answered. Did you have anything to add or are you going to just dismiss him like you dismiss everything else that doesn't fit your little world view?
Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.
How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?
I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?
Just answer the question please.
I've already said I don't know. How about you tell me seeing as you obviously do know, then you can tell me the relevance of why it is what it is.
So find out how to. It's what science is about.
-
Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.
How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?
I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?
I'll give you a hint, it isn't enough to rip them apart or suffocate them.
-
I can't participate in this anymore. Sceptimatic seems purposefully obtuse and there is no real discussion going on here.
-
I can't participate in this anymore. Sceptimatic seems purposefully obtuse and there is no real discussion going on here.
That's just his way. Frustration is natural, it's also what he counts on to win arguments. No one will blame you for taking a break at least, dealing with him is exhausting.
-
Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.
How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?
I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?
I'll give you a hint, it isn't enough to rip them apart or suffocate them.
I didn't think it would be at around 40,000 feet. I don't see people in pressure suits on passenger jets, so it's a little bit irrelevant isn't it?
-
Speed and acceleration I can grasp. It's you that can't understand how pressure works on the body during acceleration or at constant speed.
How much pressure are people under in a jet airliner flying at 600 mph and 40,000 feet high?
I don't know I'd have to look it up. What's the issue here?
I'll give you a hint, it isn't enough to rip them apart or suffocate them.
I didn't think it would be at around 40,000 feet. I don't see people in pressure suits on passenger jets, so it's a little bit irrelevant isn't it?
Passengers don't wear pressure suits because passenger jets have pressurized passenger cabins. Do you honestly think that the air pressure at 40,000 feet is conducive to breathing?
-
What extra drag and stability is this at 128,000 feet?
That's what I'm taking about. I've showed you what a pressurised suit looks like. Deny it all you want. The fact is, this is what would happen to a suit as it approached a near vacuum. There's no getting away from it.
The jump is fake just like Kittingers. The simply reality is no helium balloon is going to take a man and capsule up to that height, first of all.
The balloon on it's own could maybe make it before popping.
Secondly, no human is going to survive that height no matter what suit they are in, in any craft of space suit. It's just not going to happen, ever.
People need to do a little bit of serious thinking as to how they manage to survive living at sea level pressure under 15 psi of pressure to understand why the body is not going to survive altitude or deep sea diving. I'm not talking about a few hundred meter dives, I'm talking about deep sea, no matter what the suit is.
It requires people to start to open up their rational minds and to stop believing in the utter fantasies thought up by hollywood producers.
The lies are kicking you hard in the face, constantly. When is the time gonna come when people say, " that's it, I'm sick of being kicked in the face"...?
The space ruse is exactly that. Nonsense. The high altitude helium stuff, is fantasy.
The deep sea trenches that humans supposedly go down to in oceans, are fantasy. It's simply hollywood productions, or similar film making nonsense.
The flat screen or box in your living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens or wherever, are hypnotic tools to keep your mind focused on the fantasy that is given out.
There's a reason why people are called ACTORS.
All you are watching, are fantasies being acted out by people paid to deliver it to your psyche. The ones that do it better are the best paid. It's as simple as that.
There's nothing wrong with living out that fantasy world they give you, just don't pretend you know what reality is when you start stating that the fantasy is actual fact.
I have seen positive proof that the brightest minds can easily be fooled. People who use scientific jargon they have studied and memorised and regurgitated to all who listen. They do this with their chests puffed out. They believe what they are saying. They are oblivious to the truth because the truth comes in a plain package. Science does not deal in plain packages, because it's no fun if it's too logical and easy to actually see the truth. It has to be packed in fancy wrapping, then tied and wrapped again till the package is so bulked it will take someone a long long time to get to the reality of what's inside of that.
It's called finding reality by removing truths protective layers.
I can only assume that you're simply trying to attain the magical number of 10,000 posts sceptimatic?
It's been a long time since—if ever—that I've read so much absolute bullshit in one single post as this meandering, nonsensical drivel.
Can you say that you truly believe the rubbish you spew endlessly on these forums? Or do you sit back, laughing smugly as a few people here attempt in vain to engage you in some sort of meaningful debate? If you are serious, then I can only say that I've never come across any alleged adult with such an almost non-existent understanding of even the very basic tenets of science.
Charles Darwin observed that "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge". Think about it.
-
Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.
-
Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.
Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?
-
Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.
Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?
Some can and some can't. That'd only be a criticism on the particular person you are debating with though and even then it doesn't matter. It doesn't make that information invalid.
-
Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.
Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?
Why shouldn't we be able to use a text book or Google? Why should we need to reinvent the rebuttal? Besides, it isn't as if we haven't suggested that you take a college level physics course where you can see for yourself, step-by-step, how so many of the things that you deny were discovered.
-
Can you rebut anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or Google?
I've asked you numerous times to let us know what reference books you consult for your data sceptimatic, but thus far you've refused. Why is that?
I often refer to Wiki and Google. Why? Because they both provide a plethora of resources where I can educate myself about astrophysics and astronomy, and rocket propulsion and mechanics, and geophysics and meteorology etc.
And why is it that you actually seem proud to say you never refer to Google or text books? Maybe you subscribe to the "ignorance is bliss" frame of mind, as the majority of your comments certainly support that truism LOL. There's none so blind as those who will not see.
In fact, if you were to refer to Google or Wiki occasionally, it might save you some of the personal ridicule that nearly all your responses elicit from other members here. Just a word from the wise my friend.
-
Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.
Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?
Some can and some can't. That'd only be a criticism on the particular person you are debating with though and even then it doesn't matter. It doesn't make that information invalid.
No it doesn't. It also doesn't make it valid either, or the person who uses it - an expert.
-
Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.
Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?
Why shouldn't we be able to use a text book or Google? Why should we need to reinvent the rebuttal? Besides, it isn't as if we haven't suggested that you take a college level physics course where you can see for yourself, step-by-step, how so many of the things that you deny were discovered.
I'm hardly going to take a college course on the things I'm going against, am I? Going to college is walking right back into the indoctrinated process I freed myself from. Come on, use your common sense.
-
Can you rebut anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or Google?
I've asked you numerous times to let us know what reference books you consult for your data sceptimatic, but thus far you've refused. Why is that?
I often refer to Wiki and Google. Why? Because they both provide a plethora of resources where I can educate myself about astrophysics and astronomy, and rocket propulsion and mechanics, and geophysics and meteorology etc.
And why is it that you actually seem proud to say you never refer to Google or text books? Maybe you subscribe to the "ignorance is bliss" frame of mind, as the majority of your comments certainly support that truism LOL. There's none so blind as those who will not see.
In fact, if you were to refer to Google or Wiki occasionally, it might save you some of the personal ridicule that nearly all your responses elicit from other members here. Just a word from the wise my friend.
The personal ridicule you speak of, to me, is so mild it's almost pleasant.
Looking up official lines is not going to help me find the truth. I have to rely on my own common sense and logic as well as my own experiments and findings.
-
Looking up official lines is not going to help me find the truth. I have to rely on my own common sense and logic as well as my own experiments and findings.
So I'll ask you again sceptimatic... exactly what texts or papers do you consider to be truthful in order to learn about the planet and our universe? You weren't born with that knowledge imprinted on your brain, so please name those books. We all need to refer to texts written by people smarter than ourselves, so can you also name a couple of people you trust to provide you with information?
Can you also provide a few brief details of the results of experiments you've carried out, or the types of experiments? Have they involved easily obtainable, cheap bits and pieces, or have you spent considerable funds of your own to purchase specialised equipment? And if so, what sort of equipment have you purchased?
Have the "findings" of any of your experiments been peer reviewed, and if so by whom? Have you had any of your research papers published in any journals?
-
So I'll ask you again sceptimatic... exactly what texts or papers do you consider to be truthful in order to learn about the planet and our universe?
There are no texts or papers that are truthful to learn about our planet or universe. This is not a planet and there is no known universe that we can see. Space is a figmkent of people's imaginations due to being told it is what it is, when everything is simply reflections and the Earth is a cell not a planet.
You weren't born with that knowledge imprinted on your brain, so please name those books. We all need to refer to texts written by people smarter than ourselves, so can you also name a couple of people you trust to provide you with information?
Wise heads and the ability to rationally think on what was told to me and explained to me. From that point I started to nibble away to be where I'm at now, destroying gravity, space and Earth being a rotating globe.
Can you also provide a few brief details of the results of experiments you've carried out, or the types of experiments?
I provided you with some, you mocked it, so just take it or leave it, it's no skin off my nose.
Have they involved easily obtainable, cheap bits and pieces, or have you spent considerable funds of your own to purchase specialised equipment? And if so, what sort of equipment have you purchased?
I've spend a reasonable amount of money doing experiments. Nothing the average person couldn't afford to do.
Have the "findings" of any of your experiments been peer reviewed, and if so by whom? Have you had any of your research papers published in any journals?
Yep, peer reviewed by some very good people who re scientists, who find them fantastic, so much so that some are actively doing experiments of their own to back up what I'm saying.
-
There are no texts or papers that are truthful to learn about our planet or universe. This is not a planet and there is no known universe that we can see. Space is a figmkent of people's imaginations due to being told it is what it is, when everything is simply reflections and the Earth is a cell not a planet.
Why do you think there are no texts that are truthful?
And..
Is there a test I can preform that would show that this...
everything is simply reflections and the Earth is a cell not a planet.
is true?
-
There are no texts or papers that are truthful to learn about our planet or universe.
So how precisely did you learn what you know about our planet? I learned from World book Encyclopedia, Scientific American (US), New Scientist (UK), Australasian Science, Philip Plait, Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, and Carl Sagan etc.
Can you name me a few of the texts and authors you trust?
Wise heads and the ability to rationally think on what was told to me and explained to me.
Can you tell me exactly who "told" you those things you learned, and/or "explained" how they worked?
I provided you with some, you mocked it, so just take it or leave it, it's no skin off my nose.
Nope; I don't recall you providing me with any of your research details other than the laser/2km flat ice experiment. I certainly did not mock this experiment—and in fact I'm still waiting to hear whether or not you've had any favourable comments from the scientists you sent your paper to. I note that you refer to experiments plural (some) so I'd be interested in just a generalised overview of any others you may have carried out.
I've spend a reasonable amount of money doing experiments. Nothing the average person couldn't afford to do.
What sort of equipment did you need to purchase? And what type of research required this equipment? Are we talking hundreds of dollars or thousands here?
Yep, peer reviewed by some very good people who are scientists, who find them fantastic, so much so that some are actively doing experiments of their own to back up what I'm saying.
Can you please give us the names of a few of those scientists—assuming they're well-known internationally in the field of geophysics. What countries are they carrying out their experiments in? Any in Australia?
(I understand commercial-in-confidence laws, but if they're world-renowned scientists, there shouldn't be any issues divulging their names at least. I'm more than sure they'd respect the legality of any confidentiality clauses you've imposed upon them.)
-
Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.
Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?
Some can and some can't. That'd only be a criticism on the particular person you are debating with though and even then it doesn't matter. It doesn't make that information invalid.
No it doesn't. It also doesn't make it valid either, or the person who uses it - an expert.
Citations do matter, believe or not.
-
Citations do matter, believe or not.
Not to sceptimatic they don't. I've asked him numerous times to cite references to support his claims (see my post above yours) but he repeatedly refuses to do so. My guess? He can't, because he simply doesn't have any. He simply plucks silly notions out of the air as the situation demands, with no attempt at all to back them up with any cold, hard facts.
I must've asked him a dozen times to define the units of measurement for his "denpressure", but he's unable to. How can one combine two dissimilar, unrelated entities—density and pressure—to form a third entity? It's like trying to make something by combining (say) velocity and temperature, but he can't see that. Is it a scalar or a vector quantity? sceptimatic can't even answer this very basic of questions.
And he can't post a citation to "denpressure" simply because there aren't any.
-
Citations do matter, believe or not.
Not to sceptimatic they don't. I've asked him numerous times to cite references to support his claims (see my post above yours) but he repeatedly refuses to do so. My guess? He can't, because he simply doesn't have any. He simply plucks silly notions out of the air as the situation demands, with no attempt at all to back them up with any cold, hard facts.
I must've asked him a dozen times to define the units of measurement for his "denpressure", but he's unable to. How can one combine two dissimilar, unrelated entities—density and pressure—to form a third entity? It's like trying to make something by combining (say) velocity and temperature, but he can't see that. Is it a scalar or a vector quantity? sceptimatic can't even answer this very basic of questions.
And he can't post a citation to "denpressure" simply because there aren't any.
Well I really don't expect a flat earther to have any citations but in the real world they do matter.
-
I'm hardly going to take a college course on the things I'm going against, am I? Going to college is walking right back into the indoctrinated process I freed myself from. Come on, use your common sense.
Being contrary just for the sake of being contrary is not common sense.
-
I provided you with some, you mocked it, so just take it or leave it, it's no skin off my nose.
No, you didn't. You've provided us with nothing but lies.
-
Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.
Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?
Some can and some can't. That'd only be a criticism on the particular person you are debating with though and even then it doesn't matter. It doesn't make that information invalid.
No it doesn't. It also doesn't make it valid either, or the person who uses it - an expert.
Citations do matter, believe or not.
It depends on the citations.
-
Ouch... Not one of your Flat Earthers come up with a even slightly logical answer - which answers a lot of questions for me, you think the earth is flat because you simply can't fathom the basic principles of physics or space. Did you people even go to school? as your arguments are that of an eight year old.
Can you rebutt anything without the aid of a ready at hand text book or google?
Some can and some can't. That'd only be a criticism on the particular person you are debating with though and even then it doesn't matter. It doesn't make that information invalid.
No it doesn't. It also doesn't make it valid either, or the person who uses it - an expert.
Citations do matter, believe or not.
It depends on the citations.
Yes, that's exactly why they matter.
-
Interesting that when pushed for actual answers to specific questions...
So how precisely did you learn what you know about our planet? I learned from World book Encyclopedia, Scientific American (US), New Scientist (UK), Australasian Science, Philip Plait, Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, and Carl Sagan etc.
Can you name me a few of the texts and authors you trust?
... that sceptimatic invariably avoids responding, and simply disappears from the thread. The guy is as weak as feline's urine LOL.
He also absolutely avoids any specific questions about defining his favourite "excuse" for anything to do with mass, force, pressure or gravity... his one-size-fits-all "denpressure".
—sceptimatic's scientific knowledge = oxymoron ;D
-
Hmmm...
So sceptimatic can't name any sources, texts, or authors he trusts?
Does this mean he's just making stuff up on an ad hoc basis? Which is a polite term for claiming he's full of BS.
C'mon sceptimatic; you've agreed that citations—some of them—do matter. So how about listing a few of your own?