-
This guy doesn't seem to think so.
(https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:47827ebd84d9405088d372f2b55afa0c/800.jpeg)
The daredevil/limo driver has been called a little bit of everything over his career — eccentric, quirky, foolhardy. Doesn't bother him. He believes what he believes, including that the Earth is flat. He knows this thought is a conundrum, given that he's about to launch himself into the atmosphere.
Down the road, he's intending to build a rocket that takes him to space, so he can snap a picture and see with his own eyes.
"I don't believe in science," said Hughes, whose main sponsor for the rocket is Research Flat Earth. "I know about aerodynamics and fluid dynamics and how things move through the air, about the certain size of rocket nozzles, and thrust. But that's not science, that's just a formula. There's no difference between science and science fiction."
-
I was reading this story this morning. He might destroy FES by confirming that the space is real. But then again, is FES going to believe this guy?
-
Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther? Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.
-
I was thinking once about a "Flat Earth Live from Space 24/7" Live feed, from when some flat earthers launch a rocket up to orbit and make their own feed.
Such would be expensive but a cool project.
-
I just want sceptimatic's input on this
-
I just want sceptimatic's input on this
Do they got something against rockets?
-
I just want sceptimatic's input on this
Do they got something against rockets?
You...must be new here. See the technology and science forum for a 55 page answer to that question
-
I just want sceptimatic's input on this
Do they got something against rockets?
You...must be new here. See the technology and science forum for a 55 page answer to that question
Won't read through all that, they seemed to wonder how a space rocket accelerates (which they can figure out for themselves) and the rest can't be understood without picking up the context from the other many pages.
-
People will do some crazy shit for their 15 minutes...
I hope, when the time comes, and he is in need of a team of doctors to scrape him up and put him back together, that he can find some physicians who DO believe in science!
-
People will do some crazy shit for their 15 minutes...
I hope, when the time comes, and he is in need of a team of doctors to scrape him up and put him back together, that he can find some physicians who DO believe in science!
Launching a rocket is not science?
Does that change because a FEer is doing it?
-
People will do some crazy shit for their 15 minutes...
I hope, when the time comes, and he is in need of a team of doctors to scrape him up and put him back together, that he can find some physicians who DO believe in science!
Launching a rocket is not science?
Does that change because a FEer is doing it?
Science is science, and rocket propulsion is certainly science...
This guy? He is nothing more than ballast!
-
Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther? Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.
You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.
-
I just want sceptimatic's input on this
Do they got something against rockets?
Some moon hoaxers in general, and a few FEer's in particular, claim that rockets can't work in space because they need to push against the atmosphere.
-
I just want sceptimatic's input on this
Do they got something against rockets?
Some moon hoaxers in general, and a few FEer's in particular, claim that rockets can't work in space because they need to push against the atmosphere.
Basically Newton's laws of motion denial? Hm, well there is some form of denial for almost every known concept.
-
I just want sceptimatic's input on this
Do they got something against rockets?
Some moon hoaxers in general, and a few FEer's in particular, claim that rockets can't work in space because they need to push against the atmosphere.
Basically Newton's laws of motion denial? Hm, well there is some form of denial for almost every known concept.
Not so much a denial of Newton as just not understanding where the relevant force pairing occurs.
-
Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther? Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.
You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.
But then he won't be a flat earther, so flat earthers won't believe him because all non-flat earthers are part of the conspiracy against flat earthers.
So Logkical!
-
He plans to reach height of 550 meters.
He will see nothing from there.
It is easier to take elevator in Burj Khalifa in Dubai, 828 meters, and still see nothing.
They say he doesn't believe in science.
First, science is not there to believe, it is there for facts and knowledge.
Second, how can he be rocket SCIENTIST if he doesn't believe in science. He can be "rocket priest".
-
No FE supporter is going to believe in him if he confirms a round earth, but if he confirms a flat earth, everyone of you will go apeshit.
Remember kids: Don't thrust anyone unless it helps you confirm your beliefs
-
Try
Is a Flat Earth Rocket Scientist an oxymoron?
That seems the obvious answer.
-
Am I missing something?
They did say 1800 feet right?
Commercial airplanes fly a lot higher than that.
-
Am I missing something?
They did say 1800 feet right?
Commercial airplanes fly a lot higher than that.
Prove it.
-
Am I missing something?
They did say 1800 feet right?
Commercial airplanes fly a lot higher than that.
Prove it.
Prove what? That "Commercial airplanes fly a lot higher than 1800 feet."
Because the reference states On the morning of the launch, Hughes will heat about 70 gallons of water in a stainless steel tank and then blast off between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. He plans to go about a mile — reaching an altitude of about 1,800 feet — before pulling two parachutes.
So we hardly need to prove that!
-
He plans to reach height of 550 meters.
lol, really? Why doesn't he just climb a mountain?
-
I just want sceptimatic's input on this
What would you like?
-
I just want sceptimatic's input on this
Do they got something against rockets?
Some moon hoaxers in general, and a few FEer's in particular, claim that rockets can't work in space because they need to push against the atmosphere.
This should be a given. It should appeal to anybody's basic logic and senses.
-
I just want sceptimatic's input on this
Do they got something against rockets?
Some moon hoaxers in general, and a few FEer's in particular, claim that rockets can't work in space because they need to push against the atmosphere.
Basically Newton's laws of motion denial? Hm, well there is some form of denial for almost every known concept.
It's not a denial of the law of action/reaction, it's in how it's used in fictional space vacuums. That's the issue.
-
Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther? Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.
You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.
But then he won't be a flat earther, so flat earthers won't believe him because all non-flat earthers are part of the conspiracy against flat earthers.
So Logkical!
It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.
-
I just want sceptimatic's input on this
Do they got something against rockets?
Some moon hoaxers in general, and a few FEer's in particular, claim that rockets can't work in space because they need to push against the atmosphere.
This should be a given. It should appeal to anybody's basic logic and senses.
Really?
What's this rocket pushing against at 100 km altitude (at 3:47 in the video)?
At 100 km, the air density is about 1/2,200,000 that at sea-level.
You are stark starin' bonkers if you claim that the rocket is accelerating by "pushing" on that!
Launch & Landing of 25th SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket with Thaicom 8
Of course, anything that you can't understand is obviously faked and part of da conspiracy!
You haven't the slightest idea about the properties (or lack thereof) of a vacuum!
-
It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It has everything to do with the flat-earthers claim is hiding the "true shape of the earth"!
If it weren't for that, evidence, like this, of a rotating Globe would be readily accepted.(https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-galleries/2017/total_solar_eclipse/eclipse_epc_2017233.gif)
From EPIC during August 21 Eclipse.
But that would destroy your little pancake planet in one fell swoop, so have to declare it a fake - you can't allow yourself any other option.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.
Utter garbage, like everything you say.
You have a bagful of fantasies that explain nothing expect others to believe you.
It's tough for you that all the things designed by "so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth" from motor vehicles through to the most sophisticated supersonic aircraft work!
And your fantasies have never lead to anything useful. "By their fruits, ye shall know them" and your theories have nothing!
So, do you know who I'd believe? Sure, I'd believe those whose theories work.
And do you know something?
There are a lot of similarities in the theory of jet engines and the theory of rockets. They both develop their thrust by action-reaction.
A rocket engine works best in a vacuum and, apart from the need for oxygen as an oxidiser a jet engine would work in a vacuum.
-
I just want sceptimatic's input on this
Do they got something against rockets?
Some moon hoaxers in general, and a few FEer's in particular, claim that rockets can't work in space because they need to push against the atmosphere.
This should be a given. It should appeal to anybody's basic logic and senses.
Really?
What's this rocket pushing against at 100 km altitude (at 3:47 in the video)?
At 100 km, the air density is about 1/2,200,000 that at sea-level.
You are stark starin' bonkers if you claim that the rocket is accelerating by "pushing" on that!
Launch & Landing of 25th SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket with Thaicom 8
Of course, anything that you can't understand is obviously faked and part of da conspiracy!
You haven't the slightest idea about the properties (or lack thereof) of a vacuum!
It's not pushing against anything because it's not at that height for s start and is not a real rocket.
Try again with something else.
-
It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It has everything to do with the flat-earthers claim is hiding the "true shape of the earth"!
If it weren't for that, evidence, like this, of a rotating Globe would be readily accepted.(https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-galleries/2017/total_solar_eclipse/eclipse_epc_2017233.gif)
From EPIC during August 21 Eclipse.
But that would destroy your little pancake planet in one fell swoop, so have to declare it a fake - you can't allow yourself any other option.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.
Utter garbage, like everything you say.
You have a bagful of fantasies that explain nothing expect others to believe you.
It's tough for you that all the things designed by "so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth" from motor vehicles through to the most sophisticated supersonic aircraft work!
And your fantasies have never lead to anything useful. "By their fruits, ye shall know them" and your theories have nothing!
So, do you know who I'd believe? Sure, I'd believe those whose theories work.
I know who you believe, Rabinoz. I'm 99.9% sure you'll never believe anything other than what the feeders feed you. You're ravenous in readiness for it, so i'm under no illusions whatsoever about your stance.
And do you know something?
There are a lot of similarities in the theory of jet engines and the theory of rockets. They both develop their thrust by action-reaction.
A rocket engine works best in a vacuum and, apart from the need for oxygen as an oxidiser a jet engine would work in a vacuum.
The mere fact that you think a rocket engine can work better or work at all in a vacuum tells me more about your inability to actually think for yourself or even dare to.
You will not deviate from your set selection of books and stuff you class as your comfort blankets.
The mere fact you believe there's a vacuum that people can go in when it's been shown quite clearly the distress it causes a person who simply gets put under low pressure in a suit in a chamber at some facility.
The fact that you could strip down a rocket and wonder just where this kick arse reaction to burning action could possibly come from inside of it.
Absolutely crazy but here you are happily spewing it out.
-
Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther? Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.
You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.
But then he won't be a flat earther, so flat earthers won't believe him because all non-flat earthers are part of the conspiracy against flat earthers.
So Logkical!
It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.
Dude...
You are seriously brain injured. Get help immediately!
-
I will happily except a flat earth if he crashes into the sky dome.
-
Cannot be unseen
(http://www.adonisthemovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DRUS04-28-10-2.jpg)
-
I will happily accept a flat earth if he crashes into the sky dome.
I was getting worried that he might collide with the sun, which sandokhan claims is only about 10-15 km high.
Some even say the the sun is just a few kilometers distant from earth. Proof: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun « on: February 10, 2008, 12:28:26 AM »
There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers (or even less) in the background.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png)
But he's safe enough, 1800 ft is only about 550 m.
-
Saw a video of his supposed first flight.
Shows him being interviewed.
Cut to rocket taking off and flying.
Cut to parachute deploying.
Cut to rocket and chute falling.
Cut to his team pulling him out.
Probably fake, but like big foot and ghosts
It's fun to think what if...
BTW tomorrows flight is canceled.
-
BTW tomorrows flight is canceled.
Hughes claimed the Bureau of Land Management said he couldn't launch his rocket as planned Saturday in Amboy. He claimed the federal agency had given him verbal permission more than a year ago, pending approval from the Federal Aviation Administration.
Dang! Claiming something is true doesn't mean it's true? Who expected that?
-
Try
Is a Flat Earth Rocket Scientist an oxymoron?
That seems the obvious answer.
An Oxrymoron is described as "two words of opposite meaning."
"Flat Earth" and "Scientist" are just that.
-
Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther? Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.
You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.
But then he won't be a flat earther, so flat earthers won't believe him because all non-flat earthers are part of the conspiracy against flat earthers.
So Logkical!
It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.
You just... kinda broke me. I have been typing and deleting this message for a few minutes at this point, because I do not know exactly how to handle your absurdity of a message. You have made the point that nothing can be trusted, including the experts of their fields, the scientific method in general, and the acceptances of masses. You have called the scientific process religious, as if it were something based in faith, not a process that depletes the need for faith-based thinking. You have implied that flat earth "science" is to be trusted, but have not explained the scientific processes that verify the earth is flat and that neither use peer-review nor experts.
It seems that you have a lot of skepticism for the intentions of the Big Brothers (NASA, Government in general, experts, etc.) of your world. I understand the scrutiny you must put these groups through in order to gain their trust, and often times you find stories that verify that they are, in fact, corrupt in many ways. Experts in the pharmaceutical industries create studies to boost sales, governments falsify votes, and NASA landed on the moon in 1969 ;)... but, if you start to deny everything that every expert says because some have lied for personal gain, then you must deny all that you take in because it is equally as fallible, including the flat earth theories discussed on this site by "experts".
How do you pick and choose what experts to follow? Are you pragmatically agnostic in life altogether and just don't truly believe in anything, or do you just denounce science because it has a funny way of providing uncomfortable truths (we are primates, we are animals, the world was not made for humans, but that humans evolved to be, the world is round, there has not been any proof of a heaven or other afterlife stories, the universe is expansive relative to us, gravity is real and a bitch, I could probably go on, but you get the point... ... ... right...)?
-
**UPDATE**
A man who believes Earth is flat, and was ready to launch himself from a rocket in California on Saturday afternoon to prove it, has canceled his plans. At least for now.
Not having the required federal permits plus mechanical problems with his "motorhome/rocket launcher" forced self-taught rocket scientist "Mad" Mike Hughes to put his experiment on hold.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) "told me they would not allow me to do the event ... at least not at that location," Hughes said in a YouTube announcement, amid international attention over his plans to launch into the 'atmosflat.'
The conspiracy strikes again. >:(
-
From a different thread:
How can one prove the earth is not a globe by going 1,800 feet high? Planes fly 30,000 feet high, why can't he just go and buy himself a plane ticket instead of building a $20,000 dollar rocket.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/24/a-flat-earthers-plan-to-launch-himself-in-a-homemade-rocket-just-hit-a-speed-bump/?utm_term=.7dcb4ef0bd46
You have to crawl before you walk.
He has bigger ideas, but has to get the basics working before proceeding. It's almost like doing science...
Let's try this experiment and see if the results are what we expect.
Did they match?
- Yes.
-- Cool!
-- Next step.
- No.
-- Bummer!
-- What didn't match? Why? Make changes to the part of the [idea|mechanism] that didn't work.
-- Did it work now?
--- Etc.
-
Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther? Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.
You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.
I don't think he really is a flat earther. He's just using the lunacy to promote the attempt and raise funds from gullible people who believe him to be their saviour. From an article in the Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/a-man-is-about-to-launch-himself-in-his-homemade-rocket-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat-20171122-gzqrgr.html (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/a-man-is-about-to-launch-himself-in-his-homemade-rocket-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat-20171122-gzqrgr.html)
Hughes only recently converted to flat-Eartherism, after struggling for months to raise funds for his follow-up flight over the Mojave.
It was originally scheduled for early 2016 in a Kickstarter campaign - "From Garage to Outer Space!" - that mentioned nothing about illuminati astronauts, and was themed after a NASCAR event.
"We want to do this and basically thumb our noses at all these billionaires trying to do this," Hughes said, standing in his Apple Valley, California, living room, which he had plastered with drawings of his rockets.
"They have not put a man in space yet," Hughes said. "There are 20 different space agencies here in America, and I'm the last person that's put a man in a rocket and launched it."
He compared himself to Evel Knievel, as he promised to launch himself from a California racetrack - the first step on his steam-powered leap toward space.
The Kickstarter [link in article] raised $US310 of its $US150,000 goal.
Hughes made other pitches, including a plan to fly over Texas in a "SkyLimo." But he complained to Ars Technica last year about the difficulty of funding his dreams on a chauffeur's meager salary.
A year later, he called into a flat-earth community web show to announce he had become a recent convert.
"We were kind of looking for a new sponsors for this. And I'm a believer in the flat Earth," Hughes said. "I researched it for several months."
The host sounded impressed. Hughes had actually flown in a rocket, he noted, whereas astronauts were merely paid actors performing in front of a CGI globe.
"John Glenn and Neil Armstrong are Freemasons," Hughes agreed. "Once you understand that, you understand the roots of the deception."
The host talked of "Elon Musk's fake reality," and Hughes talked of "anti-Christ, Illuminati stuff." After half an hour of this, the host told his 300-some listeners to back Hughes' exploration of space.
-
"We want to do this and basically thumb our noses at all these billionaires trying to do this," Hughes said, standing in his Apple Valley, California, living room, which he had plastered with drawings of his rockets.
"They have not put a man in space yet," Hughes said.
Actually, Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne did put 2 men into space (100,000+ meters), although just briefly.
-
Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther? Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.
You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.
But then he won't be a flat earther, so flat earthers won't believe him because all non-flat earthers are part of the conspiracy against flat earthers.
So Logkical!
It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.
You just... kinda broke me. I have been typing and deleting this message for a few minutes at this point, because I do not know exactly how to handle your absurdity of a message. You have made the point that nothing can be trusted, including the experts of their fields, the scientific method in general, and the acceptances of masses. You have called the scientific process religious, as if it were something based in faith, not a process that depletes the need for faith-based thinking. You have implied that flat earth "science" is to be trusted, but have not explained the scientific processes that verify the earth is flat and that neither use peer-review nor experts.
It seems that you have a lot of skepticism for the intentions of the Big Brothers (NASA, Government in general, experts, etc.) of your world. I understand the scrutiny you must put these groups through in order to gain their trust, and often times you find stories that verify that they are, in fact, corrupt in many ways. Experts in the pharmaceutical industries create studies to boost sales, governments falsify votes, and NASA landed on the moon in 1969 ;)... but, if you start to deny everything that every expert says because some have lied for personal gain, then you must deny all that you take in because it is equally as fallible, including the flat earth theories discussed on this site by "experts".
How do you pick and choose what experts to follow? Are you pragmatically agnostic in life altogether and just don't truly believe in anything, or do you just denounce science because it has a funny way of providing uncomfortable truths (we are primates, we are animals, the world was not made for humans, but that humans evolved to be, the world is round, there has not been any proof of a heaven or other afterlife stories, the universe is expansive relative to us, gravity is real and a bitch, I could probably go on, but you get the point... ... ... right...)?
It's very very simple for me.
This is how I work, so try and absorb it to understand the simple logical (my logic) way that I go about it.
To believe something outright where I do not require to question it, I must be able to verify it in a physical way so as to be comfortable with it as the most potential truth.
The stuff I'm arguing against and the stuff I'm arguing for have very little in terms of physical proof, so I have to revert to using my logical mind to see what has a potential better fit at this present time.
This is where I'm at now.
I'm not arguing my side and telling everyone it's all physically true. I'm telling them that my side is a much better fit than their side when looked at logically.
Naturally other people will tell me the very same thing from their side.
I'll always argue mine as if it's a truth against anyone who argues their side as if their side is a truth. It's a tit for tat measure and a way for me to tell anyone that I'm backing my logical side.
The entire truth of most things could be a hell of a lot different than what we all think.
The arguments against alternate theorists to the mainstream given, is arguments based on best guess scenarios and basically lies and misinformation with a hint of potential truth, depending on who's telling them.
All I can do is question them and decide what's worth accepting and what is worth arguing against.
And here I am.
-
Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther? Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.
You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.
But then he won't be a flat earther, so flat earthers won't believe him because all non-flat earthers are part of the conspiracy against flat earthers.
So Logkical!
It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.
You just... kinda broke me. I have been typing and deleting this message for a few minutes at this point, because I do not know exactly how to handle your absurdity of a message. You have made the point that nothing can be trusted, including the experts of their fields, the scientific method in general, and the acceptances of masses. You have called the scientific process religious, as if it were something based in faith, not a process that depletes the need for faith-based thinking. You have implied that flat earth "science" is to be trusted, but have not explained the scientific processes that verify the earth is flat and that neither use peer-review nor experts.
It seems that you have a lot of skepticism for the intentions of the Big Brothers (NASA, Government in general, experts, etc.) of your world. I understand the scrutiny you must put these groups through in order to gain their trust, and often times you find stories that verify that they are, in fact, corrupt in many ways. Experts in the pharmaceutical industries create studies to boost sales, governments falsify votes, and NASA landed on the moon in 1969 ;)... but, if you start to deny everything that every expert says because some have lied for personal gain, then you must deny all that you take in because it is equally as fallible, including the flat earth theories discussed on this site by "experts".
How do you pick and choose what experts to follow? Are you pragmatically agnostic in life altogether and just don't truly believe in anything, or do you just denounce science because it has a funny way of providing uncomfortable truths (we are primates, we are animals, the world was not made for humans, but that humans evolved to be, the world is round, there has not been any proof of a heaven or other afterlife stories, the universe is expansive relative to us, gravity is real and a bitch, I could probably go on, but you get the point... ... ... right...)?
It's very very simple for me.
This is how I work, so try and absorb it to understand the simple logical (my logic) way that I go about it.
To believe something outright where I do not require to question it, I must be able to verify it in a physical way so as to be comfortable with it as the most potential truth.
The stuff I'm arguing against and the stuff I'm arguing for have very little in terms of physical proof, so I have to revert to using my logical mind to see what has a potential better fit at this present time.
This is where I'm at now.
I'm not arguing my side and telling everyone it's all physically true. I'm telling them that my side is a much better fit than their side when looked at logically.
Naturally other people will tell me the very same thing from their side.
I'll always argue mine as if it's a truth against anyone who argues their side as if their side is a truth. It's a tit for tat measure and a way for me to tell anyone that I'm backing my logical side.
The entire truth of most things could be a hell of a lot different than what we all think.
The arguments against alternate theorists to the mainstream given, is arguments based on best guess scenarios and basically lies and misinformation with a hint of potential truth, depending on who's telling them.
All I can do is question them and decide what's worth accepting and what is worth arguing against.
And here I am.
Much as I think your way off beam, your really come over as quite honest and likeable with it. What you refer to as your logic is not very logical as you have a tendency to ignore obvious simple truths when they don't fit with your world view. I'm honestly not trying to be nasty or poke fun, but some of what you say is just not correct, nor how the world works.
Most FEers claim to have an open mind, but my observations of you don't really hold this out. Your beliefs on the laws of motion,which really are be beyond dispute, do not square with reality. The world is full on millions of vehicles and mechanisms which were all designed in line with these laws. Yet you have an issue with them, why? What evidence has convinced you that all the cars, planes, ships and other moving mechanisms have all been designed In error?
-
Much as I think your way off beam, your really come over as quite honest and likeable with it. What you refer to as your logic is not very logical as you have a tendency to ignore obvious simple truths when they don't fit with your world view. I'm honestly not trying to be nasty or poke fun, but some of what you say is just not correct, nor how the world works.
You've spent enough time trying to poke fun but you can carry on as long as you need, or you can throw in some relevant posts. It's your choice and it's not as if I'm new to this.
You think my logic is skewed because your logic is set out for you in how your world supposedly works.
Most FEers claim to have an open mind, but my observations of you don't really hold this out.
I used to believe in a spinning globe and then a stationary one and then looked into all versions of flat Earth and alternate Earth's. I'm currently at my own right now, so if that's closed minded then fair enough.
You stick to a globe (pun intended) and you have no mind to alter that thought, regardless.
So who's really closed minded?
Your beliefs on the laws of motion,which really are be beyond dispute, do not square with reality. The world is full on millions of vehicles and mechanisms which were all designed in line with these laws.
Tell me how they build vehicles using laws that I go against?
If it gravity then show me the gravity measure appliances they use and tell me what's happening for them to build the stuff.
Also apply the laws that you think I don't follow and let's see how they work against what I believe.
Yet you have an issue with them, why? What evidence has convinced you that all the cars, planes, ships and other moving mechanisms have all been designed In error?
I don't believe any real life vehicle is designed in error, on the whole, apart from bad designs which has no relevance to what we're talking about.
Why would I believe stuff is designed in error?
-
Why would you believe things are designed in error?
Because it's based on what you say.
You h as be issue with some of the very basic laws of motion.
What do you think those laws are used for?
They are used in calculations for designing a whole range of different types of vehicles and mechanisms. If there were some flaw do you not think it may have manifested itself in catastrophic failures? These laws don't just sit there, they are used every day by designers, engineers as and scientists.
What's your opinion on things like structural engineering or aircraft design? As the principles used in these fields along with a host of others run contrary to what you believe.
You also exhibit a very simple and naive view on many things you pronounce on while at the same time are unable to see your severe knowledge limitations. Part of intelligence is knowing when you don't know something. In all honesty how much do you really know about the physics and chemistry involved in jet propulsion?
-
Why would you believe things are designed in error?
Because it's based on what you say.
You h as be issue with some of the very basic laws of motion.
What do you think those laws are used for?
They are used in calculations for designing a whole range of different types of vehicles and mechanisms. If there were some flaw do you not think it may have manifested itself in catastrophic failures? These laws don't just sit there, they are used every day by designers, engineers as and scientists.
What's your opinion on things like structural engineering or aircraft design? As the principles used in these fields along with a host of others run contrary to what you believe.
You also exhibit a very simple and naive view on many things you pronounce on while at the same time are unable to see your severe knowledge limitations. Part of intelligence is knowing when you don't know something. In all honesty how much do you really know about the physics and chemistry involved in jet propulsion?
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
-
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
-
Why would you believe things are designed in error?
Because it's based on what you say.
You h as be issue with some of the very basic laws of motion.
What do you think those laws are used for?
They are used in calculations for designing a whole range of different types of vehicles and mechanisms. If there were some flaw do you not think it may have manifested itself in catastrophic failures? These laws don't just sit there, they are used every day by designers, engineers as and scientists.
What's your opinion on things like structural engineering or aircraft design? As the principles used in these fields along with a host of others run contrary to what you believe.
You also exhibit a very simple and naive view on many things you pronounce on while at the same time are unable to see your severe knowledge limitations. Part of intelligence is knowing when you don't know something. In all honesty how much do you really know about the physics and chemistry involved in jet propulsion?
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Every calculation that uses one of the following terms.
V as in velocity
A as in acceleration
G as in gravity.
And that's for starters....
-
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.
-
Why would you believe things are designed in error?
Because it's based on what you say.
You h as be issue with some of the very basic laws of motion.
What do you think those laws are used for?
They are used in calculations for designing a whole range of different types of vehicles and mechanisms. If there were some flaw do you not think it may have manifested itself in catastrophic failures? These laws don't just sit there, they are used every day by designers, engineers as and scientists.
What's your opinion on things like structural engineering or aircraft design? As the principles used in these fields along with a host of others run contrary to what you believe.
You also exhibit a very simple and naive view on many things you pronounce on while at the same time are unable to see your severe knowledge limitations. Part of intelligence is knowing when you don't know something. In all honesty how much do you really know about the physics and chemistry involved in jet propulsion?
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Every calculation that uses one of the following terms.
V as in velocity
A as in acceleration
G as in gravity.
And that's for starters....
Ok then, start building the stuff that you say I deny by using what you've shown me.
What tools do you need, or gauges or whatever?
-
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.
An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force; an object at rest tends to stay at rests unless acted on by an outside force.
-
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.
An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force; an object at rest tends to stay at rests unless acted on by an outside force.
No, that's inertia and is a different concept. Conservation of momentum simply means that, in an isolated system, the amount of energy in 2 or more objects before a collision is equal to the amount of energy after the collision.
It's like when the cue ball hits another ball on the pool table, the amount of energy in the cue ball before the collision is the same as the amount of energy in the cue ball plus the energy in the target ball after the collision. Depending on the type of collision, the cue ball can transfer all of its energy to the target ball, in which case the cue ball stops dead and the target ball zooms away at the same speed as the cue ball just before it hit. Another possibility is the cue ball will hit the target and and only transfer part of its energy, in which case both will move away but slower than the cue ball just before it hit.
-
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.
An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force; an object at rest tends to stay at rests unless acted on by an outside force.
No, that's inertia and is a different concept. Conservation of momentum simply means that, in an isolated system, the amount of energy in 2 or more objects before a collision is equal to the amount of energy after the collision.
It's like when the cue ball hits another ball on the pool table, the amount of energy in the cue ball before the collision is the same as the amount of energy in the cue ball plus the energy in the target ball after the collision. Depending on the type of collision, the cue ball can transfer all of its energy to the target ball, in which case the cue ball stops dead and the target ball zooms away at the same speed as the cue ball just before it hit. Another possibility is the cue ball will hit the target and and only transfer part of its energy, in which case both will move away but slower than the cue ball just before it hit.
Oops, my mistake. Scepti doesn't like inertia either, in my defense. Perhaps he can address your very straightforward explanation for conservation of momentum and also my explanation of inertia.
-
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.
Have you ever seen or played with a Newton's Cradle, classic example of conservation of momentum.
-
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.
An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force; an object at rest tends to stay at rests unless acted on by an outside force.
Therefore conservation of momentum does not exist and can be scrubbed from the words list as being a nonsense.
No object will ever stay in motion or gain motion unless it is acted upon by a force.
An object at rest is impossible and will never stay at rest.
However, this will work in the fictional space vacuum where there is absolutely nothing, we are told.
So we get back to it being nonsense.
I'll change that to inertia seeing as I saw markjo's post.
Anyway that's inertia wiped out.
-
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.
The momentum of an object is defined as the product of inertia x velocity.
For linear motion: The inertia is simply the mass of the object and the velocity is simply its linear velocity.
So conservation of momentum means that in a closed system, containing a number of objects,
the sum of the momenta of the individual objects remains constant.
A Simple!
A closed system is a number of objects with no external forces applied.
Sometimes negligibly small external forces or forces that cannot affect the motion are ignored to get a good approximation to what heppens.
Conservation of momentum applies to objects colliding or to a single object splitting apart, for example by a spring or an explosion.
-
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.
Have you ever seen or played with a Newton's Cradle, classic example of conservation of momentum.
Ok fair enough.
The conservation bit is a bit puzzling.
What exactly is the meaning behind it?
-
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.
The momentum of an object is defined as the product of inertia x velocity.
For linear motion: The inertia is simply the mass of the object and the velocity is simply its linear velocity.
So conservation of momentum means that in a closed system, containing a number of objects,
the sum of the momenta of the individual objects remains constant.
A Simple!
A closed system is a number of objects with no external forces applied.
Sometimes negligibly small external forces or forces that cannot affect the motion are ignored to get a good approximation to what heppens.
Conservation of momentum applies to objects colliding or to a single object splitting apart, for example by a spring or an explosion.
Let me see if I have this right in what you're trying to say.
Are you saying that conservation of momentum in it's real terms is momentum forever in a closed system?
Or am I not quite getting it?
-
An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force; an object at rest tends to stay at rests unless acted on by an outside force.
Therefore conservation of momentum does not exist and can be scrubbed from the words list as being a nonsense.
Incorrect! If no force is acting on an object, why would it slow down?
On earth, there is always "friction" (due contact with another object or air resistance), but "friction" is still a force so it does not nullify the principle.
Friction and air resistance can be included in the calculations and/or reduced to negligible proportions, as in the feather and ball in a low pressure chamber.
No object will ever stay in motion or gain motion unless it is acted upon by a force.
An object at rest is impossible and will never stay at rest.
Your ideas seem to be close to Aristotelian physics, which Galileo (plus earlier Indian scientists) and Newton disproved by experiment.
Yes, there seem to be earlier Indian scientists that expressed the ideas of Newton's Laws of Motion, but Newton put them down in a clear concise form - and claimed the credit!
You might gather that in a lot of ways Isaac Newton was "not a nice man",
but he was brilliant in what he achieved, with the help of many others.
However, this will work in the fictional space vacuum where there is absolutely nothing, we are told.
Your calling space fictional means nothing at all. In any case, it all works to as close as we can observe in very low pressure chambers.
So we get back to it being nonsense.
I'll change that to inertia seeing as I saw markjo's post.
Anyway that's inertia wiped out.
OK, you wipe inertia from your mind and stick to your delusion.
-
Let me see if I have this right in what you're trying to say.
Are you saying that conservation of momentum in it's real terms is momentum forever in a closed system?
Or am I not quite getting it?
Yes, though the difficult thing to achieve is the "closed system".
In real life that is always a bit of an approximation. The "Law" is correct, but the application is often subject to small errors due to friction, air resistance or some effect of gravity (whatever its cause).
But in a very low-pressure chamber, air resistance can be reduced to virtually zero and friction can be reduced to a very low level.
The "closed system" can be as big or as small as we chose. In simple cases we might just look at two objects to see "what would happen if . . . ".
-
It’s true you can launch a rocket without any scientific background. I’m sure all of us have launched an Estes rocket at on time in our life. That didn’t take any background in rocket sciences.
But, when you are talking about designing a rocket from scratch. That’s a whole ‘nother ballgame! I’d sure like to see the design in detail. I’m guessing there is no detail in the design! I had to be a publicity stunt.
-
An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force; an object at rest tends to stay at rests unless acted on by an outside force.
Therefore conservation of momentum does not exist and can be scrubbed from the words list as being a nonsense.
Incorrect! If no force is acting on an object, why would it slow down?
You'll have to excuse scepti. He just can't wrap his brain around the concept of an idealized, friction free environment, even as just a thought experiment.
-
An object at rest is impossible and will never stay at rest.
Don't be obtuse. My car in the parking lot is functionally at rest. It's not going to move unless it is acted on by an outside force. Once it gets moving, friction is required to bring it back to rest. Unless you have another explanation...
However, this will work in the fictional space vacuum where there is absolutely nothing, we are told.
So we get back to it being nonsense.
And this is why I shouldn't have bothered engaging with you again. You believe that it is okay to use some baseless claim to support an argument, despite all of the actual physical evidence contradicting your claim. Space is a near vacuum. Some lunatic calling it nonsense doesn't actually alter the physical reality.
Anyway that's inertia wiped out.
Only in the privacy of your own mind, and built on a foundation of a deep misunderstanding of the world around you.
-
It’s true you can launch a rocket without any scientific background. I’m sure all of us have launched an Estes rocket at on time in our life. That didn’t take any background in rocket sciences.
But, when you are talking about designing a rocket from scratch. That’s a whole ‘nother ballgame! I’d sure like to see the design in detail. I’m guessing there is no detail in the design! I had to be a publicity stunt.
Agreed. I'd love to see the design specs and drawings.
-
So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.
Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.
What is it that I'm going against?
Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?
What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.
Have you ever seen or played with a Newton's Cradle, classic example of conservation of momentum.
Ok fair enough.
The conservation bit is a bit puzzling.
What exactly is the meaning behind it?
It simply means energy is being transferred from one moving body to another. It's not rocket science, that's another bucket of badgers.
-
Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther? Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.
You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.
But then he won't be a flat earther, so flat earthers won't believe him because all non-flat earthers are part of the conspiracy against flat earthers.
So Logkical!
It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.
You just... kinda broke me. I have been typing and deleting this message for a few minutes at this point, because I do not know exactly how to handle your absurdity of a message. You have made the point that nothing can be trusted, including the experts of their fields, the scientific method in general, and the acceptances of masses. You have called the scientific process religious, as if it were something based in faith, not a process that depletes the need for faith-based thinking. You have implied that flat earth "science" is to be trusted, but have not explained the scientific processes that verify the earth is flat and that neither use peer-review nor experts.
It seems that you have a lot of skepticism for the intentions of the Big Brothers (NASA, Government in general, experts, etc.) of your world. I understand the scrutiny you must put these groups through in order to gain their trust, and often times you find stories that verify that they are, in fact, corrupt in many ways. Experts in the pharmaceutical industries create studies to boost sales, governments falsify votes, and NASA landed on the moon in 1969 ;)... but, if you start to deny everything that every expert says because some have lied for personal gain, then you must deny all that you take in because it is equally as fallible, including the flat earth theories discussed on this site by "experts".
How do you pick and choose what experts to follow? Are you pragmatically agnostic in life altogether and just don't truly believe in anything, or do you just denounce science because it has a funny way of providing uncomfortable truths (we are primates, we are animals, the world was not made for humans, but that humans evolved to be, the world is round, there has not been any proof of a heaven or other afterlife stories, the universe is expansive relative to us, gravity is real and a bitch, I could probably go on, but you get the point... ... ... right...)?
It's very very simple for me.
This is how I work, so try and absorb it to understand the simple logical (my logic) way that I go about it.
To believe something outright where I do not require to question it, I must be able to verify it in a physical way so as to be comfortable with it as the most potential truth.
The stuff I'm arguing against and the stuff I'm arguing for have very little in terms of physical proof, so I have to revert to using my logical mind to see what has a potential better fit at this present time.
This is where I'm at now.
I'm not arguing my side and telling everyone it's all physically true. I'm telling them that my side is a much better fit than their side when looked at logically.
Naturally other people will tell me the very same thing from their side.
I'll always argue mine as if it's a truth against anyone who argues their side as if their side is a truth. It's a tit for tat measure and a way for me to tell anyone that I'm backing my logical side.
The entire truth of most things could be a hell of a lot different than what we all think.
The arguments against alternate theorists to the mainstream given, is arguments based on best guess scenarios and basically lies and misinformation with a hint of potential truth, depending on who's telling them.
All I can do is question them and decide what's worth accepting and what is worth arguing against.
And here I am.
So have you finally done the experiment that I recommended a couple years back that only requires you have a friend a few hundred miles away and a phone to prove the earth is round? I mean, since you only believe what you can prove.
-
It’s true you can launch a rocket without any scientific background. I’m sure all of us have launched an Estes rocket at on time in our life. That didn’t take any background in rocket sciences.
But, when you are talking about designing a rocket from scratch. That’s a whole ‘nother ballgame! I’d sure like to see the design in detail. I’m guessing there is no detail in the design! I had to be a publicity stunt.
What about "Water Rockets"
or Mentos and Diet Coke Rockets....
-
So have you finally done the experiment that I recommended a couple years back that only requires you have a friend a few hundred miles away and a phone to prove the earth is round? I mean, since you only believe what you can prove.
Have you ever done that? I notice round eathers are quick to ask for experiments, and slow to do them themselves.
-
So have you finally done the experiment that I recommended a couple years back that only requires you have a friend a few hundred miles away and a phone to prove the earth is round? I mean, since you only believe what you can prove.
Have you ever done that? I notice round eathers are quick to ask for experiments, and slow to do them themselves.
I don't need to do specific experiments to at least show that no current flat earth model is anywhere correct.
So you come along with a flat earth that explains what I see with my own eyes and try again.
Those ancient Greeks had little more than their eyes and that seems to be where the Globe started.
-
So have you finally done the experiment that I recommended a couple years back that only requires you have a friend a few hundred miles away and a phone to prove the earth is round? I mean, since you only believe what you can prove.
Have you ever done that? I notice round eathers are quick to ask for experiments, and slow to do them themselves.
I've done plenty of experiments that, as a side effect, demonstrate beyond doubt that the earth is a rotating sphere. None were precise enough to tell if it's an ellipsoid (or reasonable facsimile thereof) instead of a perfect sphere (since the difference is subtle) but have no reason to doubt that it is.
So, what experiments have you done? What did they show?
-
Let me see if I have this right in what you're trying to say.
Are you saying that conservation of momentum in it's real terms is momentum forever in a closed system?
Or am I not quite getting it?
Yes, though the difficult thing to achieve is the "closed system".
In real life that is always a bit of an approximation. The "Law" is correct, but the application is often subject to small errors due to friction, air resistance or some effect of gravity (whatever its cause).
But in a very low-pressure chamber, air resistance can be reduced to virtually zero and friction can be reduced to a very low level.
The "closed system" can be as big or as small as we chose. In simple cases we might just look at two objects to see "what would happen if . . . ".
Picture this if you can.
Deep space with nothing as we are told.
A so called solid ball has been moved somehow in it, very slowly.
So here's the way it appears to me.
The ball was somehow pushed which is now moving forever unless it hits something but for this thought we will stick to the space we're told.
Now here's the key and I'd like an explanation.
If that ball is moving in space it has to be moving in a direction at a constant velocity forever because as I am told, this is conservation of the momentum that was apparently applied to the ball to get it underway.
In space as we are told there is no up nor down nor direction for anything in it so how can any object move in it?
No gravity, no matter and no direction and yet we can have something not only be moved in it but carry on moving within it.
How?
Because if there's no real rational answer, there's no real meaning of conservation of momentum and also no inertia.
-
You'll have to excuse scepti. He just can't wrap his brain around the concept of an idealized, friction free environment, even as just a thought experiment.
There's a very good reason for that. A frictionless environment cannot exist as an environment so why use it?
The only way to use it is for sci-fi and if that's what you want to use it for then state it and we can try and debate on the sci-fi by simply making up stuff.
Oh wait, mainstream science is already doing this.
-
In space as we are told there is no up nor down nor direction for anything in it so how can any object move in it?
No gravity, no matter and no direction and yet we can have something not only be moved in it but carry on moving within it.
How?
Why would the object not be able to move? Things move, once set moving, in space as well as on earth. There's no difference except that on earth there's typically a bunch of forces which will in time stop the object moving.
-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Picture this if you can.
Deep space with nothing as we are told.
A so called solid ball has been moved somehow in it, very slowly.
So here's the way it appears to me.
The ball was somehow pushed which is now moving forever unless it hits something but for this thought we will stick to the space we're told.
Now here's the key and I'd like an explanation.
If that ball is moving in space it has to be moving in a direction at a constant velocity forever because as I am told, this is conservation of the momentum that was apparently applied to the ball to get it underway.
Yes, if there really were no others forces involved.
Anywhere in the solar system, however, there is gravitation from the sun, planets and any other nearby objects.
The sun is so massive that, unless your ball is close to a planet it would be mainly affected by the gravitation of tne sun and would end up in an orbit around the sun, though probably a very elliptic one.
Your ball would then continue in this orbit, except in the very unlikely event of it striking some object.
In space as we are told there is no up nor down nor direction for anything in it so how can any object move in it?
No gravity, no matter and no direction and yet we can have something not only be moved in it but carry on moving within it.
How?
Down is just a term indicating the direction things will fall or hang and up is the opposite direction.
But, that does not mean that there are no directions in space, just that we need a different way to measure it.
In space navigation direction can be determined by star sights, as was done on the Apollo missions.
There may be little or no gravitation and no matter but there are still directions and your ball could still travel.
Because if there's no real rational answer, there's no real meaning of conservation of momentum and also no inertia.
Of course there are rational answers!
The reason that idealised "laws" are useful is that it let's us determine what will happen in any given situation.
The deviations from the ideal situation (friction, air resistance etc) can then be allowed for.
Then when it comes to the motion of satellites in High Earth Orbit, "air" resistance is so low that it can usually be ignored.
You might call all this illogical. There's nothing I can do about that. I'm just doing my poor best to say it how it is.
-
So have you finally done the experiment that I recommended a couple years back that only requires you have a friend a few hundred miles away and a phone to prove the earth is round? I mean, since you only believe what you can prove.
Have you ever done that? I notice round eathers are quick to ask for experiments, and slow to do them themselves.
How do you know we haven't done any experiments?
Mike
-
You'll have to excuse scepti. He just can't wrap his brain around the concept of an idealized, friction free environment, even as just a thought experiment.
There's a very good reason for that. A frictionless environment cannot exist as an environment so why use it?
The only way to use it is for sci-fi and if that's what you want to use it for then state it and we can try and debate on the sci-fi by simply making up stuff.
Oh wait, mainstream science is already doing this.
It's usually done this way because it's unnecessary to illustrate a concept.
Friction usually has a negligible effect on the magnitude of the result and thus isn't relevant to the concept at hand. As long as it's understood that it exists it isn't needed to understand the concept being discussed.
Mike
-
You'll have to excuse scepti. He just can't wrap his brain around the concept of an idealized, friction free environment, even as just a thought experiment.
There's a very good reason for that. A frictionless environment cannot exist as an environment so why use it?
The only way to use it is for sci-fi and if that's what you want to use it for then state it and we can try and debate on the sci-fi by simply making up stuff.
Oh wait, mainstream science is already doing this.
What about maglev trains, or substances that become frictionless at supercooled temperatures?
-
You'll have to excuse scepti. He just can't wrap his brain around the concept of an idealized, friction free environment, even as just a thought experiment.
There's a very good reason for that. A frictionless environment cannot exist as an environment so why use it?
Mostly because it makes it a lot easier to focus on the concept at hand if you don't have to worry about things like friction, wind, energy being radiated off into space, etc. Those other "real world" conditions can be added to the mix after you start to understand the basic concept.
-
Sceptimatic seems to be outnumbered about 100 to 1 on this site. That has got to suck. This site seems to be designed just to beat up on FE believers. Imagine if you went to a Round Earth Society page and about 95% were FE believers? Although I can’t agree with his position I can at least admire his tenacity! I think it is possible to feel empathy towards someone who is constantly demeaned as a human being. Will I ever be a FE believer? No. Will Sceptimatic ever be a RE believer? I’m fairly certain the answer is no. My post has zero significance to the OP’s question. I’m just trying to be the voice of reason. It has got to be a depressing existence to feel like everyone in the world is conspiring against you. This type of paranoia has got to be exhausting.
-
Sceptimatic seems to be outnumbered about 100 to 1 on this site. That has got to suck. This site seems to be designed just to beat up on FE believers. Imagine if you went to a Round Earth Society page and about 95% were FE believers? Although I can’t agree with his position I can at least admire his tenacity! I think it is possible to feel empathy towards someone who is constantly demeaned as a human being. Will I ever be a FE believer? No. Will Sceptimatic ever be a RE believer? I’m fairly certain the answer is no. My post has zero significance to the OP’s question. I’m just trying to be the voice of reason. It has got to be a depressing existence to feel like everyone in the world is conspiring against you. This type of paranoia has got to be exhausting.
What about those gullible types who swing by and read what Mr. S has to say? You’ve obviously heard of fake news, well Mr S is one source. What he puts out is so far off beam, coupled with his method that is so disingenuous, claiming to be free free thinking while all along being a narrow minded bigot. Scepticism has been at the forefront of science since the beginning. Science is not about trying to prove your ideas are right, it’s more about interrogating them trying to find the flaws and weak spots. Sceptimatic or sponge pants, is not free thinking, rather he’s steeped in conformation bias and not willing to put his claims up for scrutiny. The man is a fraud end off. I’ve asked him countless times if he has seen his magical molecules....and he has never answered the question. There is no conspiracy involved. The man makes outlandish claims and is incapable of any kind of self reflection.
-
I can’t argue with any of your observations Nightsky. Reality and logical thought process has never been a prerequisite for mans existence. But, I get the feeling his FE comrades sort of throw him to the wolves. I think we have to have to ask the same question to FE and RE folks the same question. What would convince you the the Earth is Flat or round? If either camp says nothing would convince me. Than the discussion is done. There is no point in continuing the conversation.
-
Sceptimatic seems to be outnumbered about 100 to 1 on this site. That has got to suck. This site seems to be designed just to beat up on FE believers. Imagine if you went to a Round Earth Society page and about 95% were FE believers? Although I can’t agree with his position I can at least admire his tenacity! I think it is possible to feel empathy towards someone who is constantly demeaned as a human being. Will I ever be a FE believer? No. Will Sceptimatic ever be a RE believer? I’m fairly certain the answer is no. My post has zero significance to the OP’s question. I’m just trying to be the voice of reason. It has got to be a depressing existence to feel like everyone in the world is conspiring against you. This type of paranoia has got to be exhausting.
scepti is an FE warrior.
-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sceptimatic or sponge pants, is not free thinking, rather he’s steeped in confirmation bias and not willing to put his claims up for scrutiny. The man is a fraud end off. I’ve asked him countless times if he has seen his magical molecules....and he has never answered the question. There is no conspiracy involved. The man makes outlandish claims and is incapable of any kind of self reflection.
Sure, I agree with all you say about Sceppy and his denpressure.
If, however, if you look into the beliefs of many flat earthers you will find that they consider UA as ridiculous (as do I) but they cannot accept Newtonian Gravitation because that would literally pull their flat earth apart.
So there are quite a number here and many FE YouTubers who simply claim that some things fall and some don't because of density and buoyancy.
What Sceppy has tried to do is make a logical framework that covers these claims.
His failing is that he has tried to do this purely from his own "thought experiments" without any referenice to real life.
So, I sympathise with him, but still think that his ideas are totally divorced from reality.
And then we have scepti is an FE warrior.
Looks like we have a Don Quixote aiming at his private windmills.
-
As I understand it, Mike Hughes is not necessarily a Flat Earther at the moment, but he will very likely become a true flat Earther after his next launch.
-
As I understand it, Mike Hughes is not necessarily a Flat Earther at the moment, but he will very likely become a true flat Earther after his next launch.
A bit like the key of the concerto that resulted when the piano fell down the coal mine.
"A flat minor."
Does this place feel like you're still "down the rabbit hole"? (https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6ajdikzppfjx0a/Alice%20in%20Wonderland.jpg?dl=1)
-
As I understand it, Mike Hughes is not necessarily a Flat Earther at the moment, but he will very likely become a true flat Earther after his next launch.
Color me surprised. Congratulations to Mr. Hughes for only the slightest of injuries after Saturday's launch.
I was fully expecting a more gruesome outcome.
-
I was thinking once about a "Flat Earth Live from Space 24/7" Live feed, from when some flat earthers launch a rocket up to orbit and make their own feed.
Such would be expensive but a cool project.
What is this rocket going to "orbit" if the earth is flat?
-
I was thinking once about a "Flat Earth Live from Space 24/7" Live feed, from when some flat earthers launch a rocket up to orbit and make their own feed.
Such would be expensive but a cool project.
What is this rocket going to "orbit" if the earth is flat?
Celestial gears?