The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Trevor on May 26, 2008, 08:10:35 AM
-
yet they can be seen from the surface of the earth.
-
You'll have to show me them sometime.
-
But would you believe any such pictures posted?
-
Probably not. There is very little that would convince me of it, if at all. But that's keeping an open mind of course and not being fallacious.
-
You could invest in a decent telescope, and look up windows of visibility.
-
A telescope would do little to discern if it's an actual satellite or a stratellite.
-
A telescope would do little to discern if it's an actual satellite or a stratellite.
You don't think the big gas filled bag would give it away?
-
A telescope would do little to discern if it's an actual satellite or a stratellite.
You don't think the big gas filled bag would give it away?
It didn't give you away...
-
Damn, Ski, you are on fire today.
-
A telescope would do little to discern if it's an actual satellite or a stratellite.
You don't think the big gas filled bag would give it away?
It didn't give you away...
ski FTW!
-
Hurrah! Another win for FE!
-
You don't think the big gas filled bag would give it away?
You're very closed-minded, and possibly dense.
-
*Bows for the public*
-
You don't think the big gas filled bag would give it away?
You're very closed-minded, and possibly dense.
Better than being so open minded your brain falls out.
-
I'd claim being as closed-minded and fallacious as you is probably not as good as understanding probabilities. But that's my subjective opinion.
-
You don't think the big gas filled bag would give it away?
You're very closed-minded, and possibly dense.
Better than being so open minded your brain falls out.
??? Like going so fast you can't catch yourself? I must be too open minded to get that one.
-
I'd claim being as closed-minded and fallacious as you is probably not as good as understanding probabilities. But that's my subjective opinion.
And being so open minded must make you such easy prey to snake oil salesmen.
Like the one who sold you FET.
-
No one sold Divito FET. He got it free in his cereal box.
-
But he paid for the cereal box....
-
His mum bought it for him
-
A telescope would do little to discern if it's an actual satellite or a stratellite.
Aside from previous comments pointing out the fact that a telescope should be able to see the fact that the stratellite is supported by a balloon, let's assume for a second that it IS somehow a balloon despite being shaped exactly like the constantly changing space station. ISS is a very fast moving object in the sky when it's straight over your head. It moves about 1.5 degrees per second at the peak of its pass. Assuming it were really 300 kilometers away as described by NASA, then that correlates to about 8 kilometers per second - orbital velocity. Assuming, however, that it is actually a tiny balloon only 20 kilometers straight up (as that would be the height of a stratellite), then that 1.5 degree per second motion (which you can easily measure for yourself with a telescope) still correlates to a velocity of 1,919 km/hr. How is an unaerodynamic structure like the ISS able to fly at that high a velocity without being ripped to shreds by extreme aerodynamic forces (20km is still easily low enough in the atmosphere to experience extreme atmospheric heating)? How is it able to maintain that velocity with no sign of any engine emissions whatsoever? And best of all, how is it able to show up at exactly the right time and place as predicted by its supposed orbital elements? Even if someone wanted to fake it by using a stratellite drone shaped like a space station, figured out a way to magically keep it intact, and figured out a way to get it going fast enough with no sign of engine emissions, any given flight path it could take would only produce a path that would match predictions based on the published ISS orbit for one very specific location. Anyone else nearby looking up would see the "stratellite ISS" appear in totally the wrong place, and others farther away wouldn't see it at all. The fakers would have to magically know ahead of time who was going to be trying to observe the ISS, as well as where and when exactly they would be observing it. If two observers planned to look for it during the same predicted pass from locations separated by a few miles there'd be no way to adequately fake it for both observers simultaneously. Therefore, it is impossible to adequately fake the ISS and shuttle using "stratellites," even for naked eye observers.
-
A telescope would do little to discern if it's an actual satellite or a stratellite.
You don't think the big gas filled bag would give it away?
It didn't give you away...
lol nice one, but really keep on topic ;D
-
Problem is that in FE theory satellites are possible.
-
Problem is that in FE theory satellites are possible.
Really?? I thought NASA was spending all its time and money on photoshop and big computers. How did they have enough leftover to actually figure out how to launch satellites into an impossible FE orbit?
-
I just found out recently that they actually dont have a reason why they are impossible. They may be able to orbit if they can get in contact with the universal accelerator.
-
Which is not possible.
-
Sometimes you gotta wish certain people were around, like a natural predator to something.
In this case a natural predator to flat earthers. Who thinks a couple of guided bombs would do.
-
Sometimes you gotta wish certain people were around, like a natural predator to something.
In this case a natural predator to flat earthers. Who thinks a couple of guided bombs would do.
Yeah. Hell yah. Lets bomb things. Woohoo!
We have the bomb, take that, things. Woohoo!!!
Yeah, godammit, yeah!
-
Which is not possible.
Why not? Ive been told it is.
-
How much fuel must a rocket carry to get that high?
-
My pet Fafnir likes to be fed trolls, so which of you RE's will go first hmmm.
-
How much fuel must a rocket carry to get that high?
I missed it, how high are we talking?
-
How much fuel must a rocket carry to get that high?
I missed it, how high are we talking?
To get out of Earth's supposed "gravitational pull" I would assume.
-
Are we talking a complete orbital ejection or just enough to get us out to the moon?
-
My pet Fafnir likes to be fed trolls, so which of you RE's will go first hmmm.
Aren't you a troll?
-
How much fuel must a rocket carry to get that high?
I missed it, how high are we talking?
Say, 3,000 miles.
-
Are we talking a complete orbital ejection or just enough to get us out to the moon?
I belive it would be the same for RE belivers. As once we escape earth's atmosphere our velocity from escaping should allow us to continue on and with no air resistance and little gravitanial pull it should take roughly the same amount so either works. But this is for RE people who are wrong.
-
My pet Fafnir likes to be fed trolls, so which of you RE's will go first hmmm.
Aren't you a troll?
But my dragon likes RE trolls. ;)
-
How much fuel must a rocket carry to get that high?
I missed it, how high are we talking?
Say, 3,000 miles.
well lets see 3000 miles is not enough to get out of the earths gravitational pull. The moon is roughly 240,000 miles from earth and it hasnt escaped yet. The thing about gravity its not about distance its about speed.
-
Except this discussion is about the FE.
-
ok now im really confused....not that it takes much.
-
How much fuel must a rocket carry to get that high?
I missed it, how high are we talking?
Say, 3,000 miles.
well lets see 3000 miles is not enough to get out of the earths gravitational pull. The moon is roughly 240,000 miles from earth and it hasnt escaped yet. The thing about gravity its not about distance its about speed.
INcorrect, The RE theory, which is clearly wrong, claims that graivty is affected by both distance and speed. If a photon wized past a black hole it's path would turn, yet it could still escape. If it was closer it would be sucked in this limit is called the point of no return.
-
Agreed to a point. Its speed has to be great enough for its distance away from that blackhole to escape.
-
ok now im really confused....not that it takes much.
How much fuel would you have to put in a rocket to get it to continuously accelerate faster than 9.8m/s^2 for 3000 miles?
-
Straight up or at an angle?
-
Straight up or at an angle?
You choose.
-
Straight up or at an angle?
You choose.
It would need to be straight up in this case, but the math will be the same either way.
-
Not necessarily, A rocket going up at an angle would spend more time in the atmosphere. As such it would encounter more drag than one going straight up. Whats the zero fuel weight of the rocket?
-
Not necessarily, A rocket going up at an angle would spend more time in the atmosphere. As such it would encounter more drag than one going straight up. Whats the zero fuel weight of the rocket?
That's part of the problem. You have to calculate how much fuel you'd need to get there. To do that you have to know how big the rocket is. If the fuel outweighs the rocket, you'd have to do it again and make a bigger rocket. It would be a very large rocket, I can tell you that much.
-
The point is there is a mathematical equation to compute when given the proper variables.
-
Certainly. And it would lead to a rocket roughly the size of New Hampshire, I'm sure.
-
So were is the debate here? ??? Im lost again.
-
How much fuel must a rocket carry to get that high?
I missed it, how high are we talking?
Say, 3,000 miles.
It is infeasible to go to the sun or moon.
-
Ahhh. Now I see. I agree in the FET it would be a huge rocket. But in the RET it is much more feasible.
-
Phew....
-
If satellites cannot exist, then how does the sun and moon travel in a circular path above the earth? And, what, in FE theory, explains the energy of the sun and moon to do so?
-
DE
-
If satellites cannot exist, then how does the sun and moon travel in a circular path above the earth? And, what, in FE theory, explains the energy of the sun and moon to do so?
UE
and check the FAQ before Fafnir eats you...
-
Hahaha, FANTASTIC!
Two different answers!
This stuff is great! I must give the FES credit for spending such a large amount of time and energy to trying to prove the world is flat, but then 2 people don't even have the same answer when asked 1 question. This would not happen in RE. Hehehe, very nice. I'm sure you can convince many people of your theories.
-
A telescope would do little to discern if it's an actual satellite or a stratellite.
Aside from previous comments pointing out the fact that a telescope should be able to see the fact that the stratellite is supported by a balloon, let's assume for a second that it IS somehow a balloon despite being shaped exactly like the constantly changing space station. ISS is a very fast moving object in the sky when it's straight over your head. It moves about 1.5 degrees per second at the peak of its pass. Assuming it were really 300 kilometers away as described by NASA, then that correlates to about 8 kilometers per second - orbital velocity. Assuming, however, that it is actually a tiny balloon only 20 kilometers straight up (as that would be the height of a stratellite), then that 1.5 degree per second motion (which you can easily measure for yourself with a telescope) still correlates to a velocity of 1,919 km/hr. How is an unaerodynamic structure like the ISS able to fly at that high a velocity without being ripped to shreds by extreme aerodynamic forces (20km is still easily low enough in the atmosphere to experience extreme atmospheric heating)? How is it able to maintain that velocity with no sign of any engine emissions whatsoever? And best of all, how is it able to show up at exactly the right time and place as predicted by its supposed orbital elements? Even if someone wanted to fake it by using a stratellite drone shaped like a space station, figured out a way to magically keep it intact, and figured out a way to get it going fast enough with no sign of engine emissions, any given flight path it could take would only produce a path that would match predictions based on the published ISS orbit for one very specific location. Anyone else nearby looking up would see the "stratellite ISS" appear in totally the wrong place, and others farther away wouldn't see it at all. The fakers would have to magically know ahead of time who was going to be trying to observe the ISS, as well as where and when exactly they would be observing it. If two observers planned to look for it during the same predicted pass from locations separated by a few miles there'd be no way to adequately fake it for both observers simultaneously. Therefore, it is impossible to adequately fake the ISS and shuttle using "stratellites," even for naked eye observers.
The paragraph. Simple. Tested. Trusted.
Please use it someday in the near future.
-
Oh and if DE/UE causes the circular path of the sun and moon, how is it not possible that it would do the same for man made satellites? And please, don't tell me that we don't have enough power to get one high enough. You only need to get to about 150-160km to orbit. Rockets can easily do that. pfft!
-
The problem is, we arent talking about orbiting on a RE. They have said that you have to get really high up, based on nothing but speculation. If we can build a rocket big enough to get this high, we somehow magically contact the UE and the get a fuel free upwards acceleration of 9.8ms^2 the same as the earth. So we cant just kind of hang there, we dont even need to orbit. But we can orbit around the same point the sun/moon do (im still not sure what they are orbiting around, and how this gets weaker/stronger to vary the circumference of the orbit to give us the seasons).
-
The paragraph. Simple. Tested. Trusted.
Please use it someday in the near future.
If that's the only criticism you can make of my argument then I'm pretty satisfied.
-
Two different answers!
In case you have not noticed, 'Doctor Leina' is a troll.
2 people don't even have the same answer when asked 1 question. This would not happen in RE.
So, the gravity of the Earth is caused by the Earth spinning really, really fast? Wow, that is good to know.
-
Two different answers!
In case you have not noticed, 'Doctor Leina' is a troll.
2 people don't even have the same answer when asked 1 question. This would not happen in RE.
So, the gravity of the Earth is caused by the Earth spinning really, really fast? Wow, that is good to know.
No, Gravity is caused by the mass of the earth. That is why gravity is less on the moon (IE smaller than earth) and its greater on Jupiter (IE bigger than earth)
-
2 people don't even have the same answer when asked 1 question. This would not happen in RE.
So, the gravity of the Earth is caused by the Earth spinning really, really fast? Wow, that is good to know.
No, Gravity is caused by the mass of the earth. That is why gravity is less on the moon (IE smaller than earth) and its greater on Jupiter (IE bigger than earth)
What!?! How can that be? I thought that if I asked 2 RE'ers 1 question, I would only get one answer? :-\
-
2 people don't even have the same answer when asked 1 question. This would not happen in RE.
So, the gravity of the Earth is caused by the Earth spinning really, really fast? Wow, that is good to know.
No, Gravity is caused by the mass of the earth. That is why gravity is less on the moon (IE smaller than earth) and its greater on Jupiter (IE bigger than earth)
What!?! How can that be? I thought that if I asked 2 RE'er 1 question, I would only get one answer? :-\
Funny, because only 1 person answered your question.
-
Answers from two different RE'ers:
1:
the gravity we experience of Earth is a result of the Earth spinning at an extremely high speed.
2:
Gravity is caused by the mass of the earth.
I suspect, I can even find a third explanation.
-
Earth is round.
-
Typical RE'er; When you beat them, they act like 5 year olds.
-
Sorry it was late and went to bed. My answer is correct. I'm not sure where the spinning one is from. Think of it like a big bouncy ball. If the ball was wet and you spun it really really fast what happens. All the water is spun off...outward. So that can't be the explanation of gravity.
-
Sorry it was late and went to bed. My answer is correct.
Actually, it is not. Gravity does not exist, except in your head.
-
Actually....the upward motion of the flat earth causing 1g downward force doesn't exist. Only in your head.
-
It doesn't exist in his head either.
You are right to point out it would be a 1g upward force.
-
Actually....the upward motion of the flat earth causing 1g downward force doesn't exist. Only in your head.
Gravity is exactly the same thing in both the RE and FE: A fictitious force.
-
He didn't say gravity. He said upward motion of the flat earth. And he's right to satiristically point out it is an upward force.
-
Answers from two different RE'ers:
1:
the gravity we experience of Earth is a result of the Earth spinning at an extremely high speed.
2:
Gravity is caused by the mass of the earth.
I suspect, I can even find a third explanation.
No1. WRONG. Who ever said that doesn't know what they are talking about.
No2. CORRECT!
So you see, you are wrong, sir!
I would like to know the name of the FLAT EARTH scientist(s) and the reports/studies done by them showing the earth being flat. Are there any flat earth scientists?
-
No1. WRONG. Who ever said that doesn't know what they are talking about.
No2. CORRECT!
So? You said no two RE'ers have different answers to the same question. I have provided two answers to the same question. I can even provide more.
No.2 is not correct.
So you see, you are wrong, sir!
Yes, you are wrong, sir, on all three accounts.
-
ok now im really confused....not that it takes much.
How much fuel would you have to put in a rocket to get it to continuously accelerate faster than 9.8m/s^2 for 3000 miles?
You know Ski....I got to thinking about this part of the debate today. And I think my initial response was still correct but may be alot less fuel than I originally thought. Look at it this way, the twin Pratt&Whitney powerplants that propel an F-15 generate approx 50,000 lbs of thrust combined. The F-15 is one of the few aircraft that can accelerate in a vertical climb. And the only thing restricting that climb is the amount of air flowing into the engines the higher it gets. The aircraft was already traveling at 9.8m/s^2 when it was at rest on the ground statically. After take off its still traveling at 9.8m/s^2 vertically, if it wasn't the earth would come up to meet it at the exact point it lifted off the surface of the earth. So when the jet climbs into the vertical and begins to accelerate, is already continuously accelerating faster than 9.8m/s^2 and the only limiting factor to that continuous acceleration is running out of oxygen at higher altitudes. The F-15's fuel capacity (depending on version and whether or not its carrying external tanks) is only about 13,000 lbs of fuel or roughly 1900 gallons. Which isnt that much. So depending on the rockets thrust to weight ratio it would not take a rocket the size of New Hampshire to get 3000 miles into space.
-
Except the aircraft is not producing lift in the required direction when it is traveling upwards.
-
Which means what exactly? We arent talking about lift we are talking thrust to weight ratios.
-
If the wings are not pointed in the right direction, they don't help you out. Which is what you were alluding to in your post.
-
It took the Saturn V eight minutes and two stages to get to 115 miles altitude.
-
Negative, we were saying that it would take an enormous amount of fuel to continually accelerate a rocket into space. After further thought I am saying it wouldn't. Look at it this way. My legs can propel me faster than 9.8m/s^2 for a brief period of time. So the fact of the matter is as long as the thrust to weight ratio is good it wouldn't take an enormously large amount of fuel to get a rocket to do the same thing. Say the rocket was the size of the original Saturn V. I would have to find some numbers on that thing but I bet the amount of fuel required to accelerate that rocket to 3000 miles off the ground would not be as much as I originally thought. Because the rocket is already traveling at 9.8m/s^2. The Saturn V doesnt have wings therefore no lift. Its all about the thrust produced by the engines.
-
It took the Saturn V eight minutes and two stages to get to 115 miles altitude.
Yes but it wasnt climbing vertically.
-
Because the rocket is already traveling at 9.8m/s^2.
???
-
Because the rocket is already traveling at 9.8m/s^2.
???
Isn't everything on the surface of the flat earth traveling at 9.8m/s^2?
-
Yes. ???
-
And it's accelerating at 3 megawatts
-
Ski asked this question.
How much fuel would you have to put in a rocket to get it to continuously accelerate faster than 9.8m/s^2 for 3000 miles?
The answer actually becomes, depending on how long you want to accelerate. Because its already going faster than 9.8m/s^2 the instant it leaves the ground.
-
The answer actually becomes, depending on how long you want to accelerate. Because its already going faster than 9.8m/s^2 the instant it leaves the ground.
Right, that is due to the thrust... :-\
-
ffs people use the right units, you look like a bunch of idiots.
-
The answer actually becomes, depending on how long you want to accelerate. Because its already going faster than 9.8m/s^2 the instant it leaves the ground.
Right, that is due to the thrust... :-\
Okayyyyy....all I am saying is that it would take alot less fuel than I orginally thought to lauch a rocket 3000 miles straight up. In FET.
-
And now that I think about it even more it would take the exact same amount of fuel in RET as it would in FET
-
Only because you don't realize what you are saying. You are saying that in order for a rocket to attain an acceleration of 10m/s^2, it would only have to produce an acceleration of 0.2m/s^2. Since it is already going 9.8m/s^2 sitting on the ground.
-
Only because you don't realize what you are saying. You are saying that in order for a rocket to attain an acceleration of 10m/s^2, it would only have to produce an acceleration of 0.2m/s^2. Since it is already going 9.8m/s^2 sitting on the ground.
He asked how much fuel it would take to accelerate continuously faster than 9.8m/s^2. If thats your argument then Im changing mine. It doesnt have to to climb 3000 miles straight up. Right?
-
whew boy.
-
So we all agree then. It is feasible in FET to launch a rocket to 3000 miles straight up without the rocket having to be the size of New Hampshire.
-
He asked how much fuel it would take to accelerate continuously faster than 9.8m/s^2. If thats your argument then Im changing mine.
Was that not the argument?
It doesnt have to to climb 3000 miles straight up. Right?
Wrong. :-\
-
He asked how much fuel it would take to accelerate continuously faster than 9.8m/s^2. If thats your argument then Im changing mine.
Was that not the argument?
It doesnt have to to climb 3000 miles straight up. Right?
Wrong. :-\
Part one, thats what he said not me. Well I kind of did at first but then i thought about it more.
Part two, why?
-
Part one, thats what he said not me. Well I kind of did at first but then i thought about it more.
So you realize your argument was stupid?
Part two, why?
Because, you would have to go up...3,000 miles.
-
Part one, thats what he said not me. Well I kind of did at first but then i thought about it more.
So you realize your argument was stupid?
Part two, why?
Because, you would have to go up...3,000 miles.
Dude your answers are so confusing you've lost the jist of the original debate. Ski asked how much fuel it would take to launch a rocket 3000 miles straight up. Originally I thought it take a huge amount. After further review I've come to realize it would take the same amount in FET as it would in RET plain and simple. Making it extremely feasible in either theory.
-
Except there is no escape velocity in FE. So, no, it would not be the same.
-
I am afraid it would. Can you not jump faster than the earth is accelerating? Can you not shoot a bullet into the air and have it climb almost 1 mile before its stops and the earth starts to come up to meet it? Cannot an aircraft climb in the vertical and still accelerate? What magical barrier would prevent a rocket with the right thrust to weight ratio from climbing to 3000 miles straight up?
-
ack.
-
Can you not jump faster than the earth is accelerating?
Yes.
Can you not shoot a bullet into the air and have it climb almost 1 mile before its stops and the earth starts to come up to meet it?
No. It does not stop.
Cannot an aircraft climb in the vertical and still accelerate?
Yes.
What magical barrier would prevent a rocket with the right thrust to weight ratio from climbing to 3000 miles straight up?
Fuel. That is what this is about, remember?
-
Explain to me how you are posting on the internet if satelites dont exist.
-
Ok Engy your simple "no" to the bullet one is confusing. What happens when I shoot a bullet straight up in the air?
And if the force of gravity in RET is exactly the same as the force applied by an accelerating flat earth why wouldnt the fuel required be exactly the same between the two?
-
Explain to me how you are posting on the internet if satelites dont exist.
Explain to me how far away you think a geosynchronous orbit is, then consider the speed of light, then explain to me how you think you are using satellite internet right now and not noticing the delay.
-
Ok Engy your simple "no" to the bullet one is confusing. What happens when I shoot a bullet straight up in the air?
It travels up until the Earth constantly accelerates to meet it.
-
Ok Engy your simple "no" to the bullet one is confusing. What happens when I shoot a bullet straight up in the air?
It accelerates as the gas from the propellant expands. Once it leaves the barrel, it stops accelerating (neglecting air resistance, because that will probably blow your mind). It continues on at a constant speed until the FE catches up to it.
And if the force of gravity in RET is exactly the same as the force applied by an accelerating flat earth why wouldnt the fuel required be exactly the same between the two?
No matter how fast you go, you can never outrun the accelerating FE.
-
Light and all other forms of wave energy travel at a constant speed in a consistant direction and are only affected by the presence of gravity... if satelites do not exist, then what is up there relaying or at least reflecting those signals???
-
Light and all other forms of wave energy travel at a constant speed in a consistant direction and are only affected by the presence of gravity... if satelites do not exist, then what is up there relaying or at least reflecting those signals???
What the hell are you talking about? And you didn't answer my question.
-
Just as the earth is trying to catch up to you, you have to catch the sun and moon accelerating away from you at 9.8m/s^2, so to get 3000 miles above the accelerating earth, you have to travel rather farther than 3000 miles.
-
Light and all other forms of wave energy travel at a constant speed in a consistant direction and are only affected by the presence of gravity... if satelites do not exist, then what is up there relaying or at least reflecting those signals???
Pseudolites and stratellites; as well as a combination of ground-based systems.
-
also tell me, an object travelling at 9.9m/s straight upwards still falls back to earth.
without the presence of gravity and if the earth only moves a 9.8 m/s, it is impossible for it to fall back to earth... yet it does.
-
Just as the earth is trying to catch up to you, you have to catch the sun and moon accelerating away from you at 9.8m/s^2, so to get 3000 miles above the accelerating earth, you have to travel rather farther than 3000 miles.
Depends on your FoR.
-
also tell me, an object travelling at 9.9m/s straight upwards still falls back to earth.
without the presence of gravity and if the earth only moves a 9.8 m/s, it is impossible for it to fall back to earth... yet it does.
The earth is not moving at 9.8m/s, it is accelerating at 9.8m/s^2.
-
also tell me, an object travelling at 9.9m/s straight upwards still falls back to earth.
without the presence of gravity and if the earth only moves a 9.8 m/s, it is impossible for it to fall back to earth... yet it does.
The earth is accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s.
Engy beat me. :(
-
Depends on your FoR.
True...
-
Suedolites and Stratalites would need a constant supply of fuel and thrust to stay at a constant distance above earth.... that is impossible
-
Ok Engy your simple "no" to the bullet one is confusing. What happens when I shoot a bullet straight up in the air?
It accelerates as the gas from the propellant expands. Once it leaves the barrel, it stops accelerating (neglecting air resistance, because that will probably blow your mind). It continues on at a constant speed until the FE catches up to it.
And if the force of gravity in RET is exactly the same as the force applied by an accelerating flat earth why wouldnt the fuel required be exactly the same between the two?
No matter how fast you go, you can never outrun the accelerating FE.
I understand air resistance. Im a flight engineer. I know all about drag. But anyway let me see if I got this straight. A .45 cal bullet leaves the barrel at 900 feet per second, and your saying it stays at that speed(never slowing) until the earth catches it? That doesnt make sense, the bullet is already traveling at the same speed as the earth (9.8m/s^2) and then it leaves the barrel it is now traveling at 9.8m/s^2 + 900 feet per second. So if it never slows down how does the earth catch it?
I'm not debating whether or not you can "outrun" the accelerating FE. All I am saying is the same amount of fuel would be required to reach an altitude of 3000 miles in FET as it would in RET.
-
Suedolites and Stratalites would need a constant supply of fuel and thrust to stay at a constant distance above earth.... that is impossible
How much upward thrust does a boat need to stay on the surface again? How about a submarine maintaining a certain depth?
-
Im a flight engineer.
I am NOT riding a plane you were involved with.
-
4500 flight hours and all my airplanes have made successful landings.
-
I understand air resistance. Im a flight engineer. I know all about drag. But anyway let me see if I got this straight. A .45 cal bullet leaves the barrel at 900 feet per second, and your saying it stays at that speed(never slowing) until the earth catches it? That doesnt make sense, the bullet is already traveling at the same speed as the earth (9.8m/s^2) and then it leaves the barrel it is now traveling at 9.8m/s^2 + 900 feet per second. So if it never slows down how does the earth catch it?
The earth is not moving at 9.8m/s, it is accelerating at 9.8m/s^2.
-
That doesnt make sense, the bullet is already traveling at the same speed as the earth (9.8m/s^2) and then it leaves the barrel it is now traveling at 9.8m/s^2 + 900 feet per second. So if it never slows down how does the earth catch it?
Just to be clear... you do understand the difference between acceleration and velocity, don't you? ???
-
4500 flight hours and all my airplanes have made successful landings.
But there were at least a few close calls, right ;)
-
A .45 cal bullet leaves the barrel at 900 feet per second, and your saying it stays at that speed(never slowing) until the earth catches it?
Right.
That doesnt make sense, the bullet is already traveling at the same speed as the earth (9.8m/s^2)
That is not a speed.
and then it leaves the barrel it is now traveling at 9.8m/s^2 + 900 feet per second.
How do you add m/s^2 and f/s?
So if it never slows down how does the earth catch it?
Because the earth is accelerating!
All I am saying is the same amount of fuel would be required to reach an altitude of 3000 miles in FET as it would in RET.
I'm saying it would not.
-
That doesnt make sense, the bullet is already traveling at the same speed as the earth (9.8m/s^2) and then it leaves the barrel it is now traveling at 9.8m/s^2 + 900 feet per second. So if it never slows down how does the earth catch it?
Just to be clear... you do understand the difference between acceleration and velocity, don't you? ???
I guess not.
-
I'll say.
-
Ok so accelerating and velocity are not the same thing. Basically I worded the explanation wrong.
A bullet accelerates out of a barrel at 900 fps and then never slows why does the earth eventually meet up with it. It reaches escape velocity long enough to gain altitude and Engy says it never slows. ???
-
4500 flight hours and all my airplanes have made successful landings.
But there were at least a few close calls, right ;)
-
A bullet accelerates out of a barrel at 900 fps
That's not an acceleration.
and then never slows why does the earth eventually meet up with it.
Because the earth is F'ing accelerating!
-
4500 flight hours and all my airplanes have made successful landings.
But there were at least a few close calls, right ;)
Well that depends on what you call close calls. The only time when I was really nervous is when the left side gear tried to collapse on touch down. Oh and there was the brake fire I had once. But that one was on the ground so it doesnt really count to begin with. And neither were my fault. The brake fire was actually the pilots fault and the other was mechanical failure.
-
Im a flight engineer.
I am NOT riding a plane you were involved with.
-
Im a flight engineer.
I am NOT riding a plane you were involved with.
Well unless you are in or join the United States Marine Corps you wont have to.
-
A bullet accelerates out of a barrel at 900 fps
That's not an acceleration.
and then never slows why does the earth eventually meet up with it.
Because the earth is F'ing accelerating!
Holy shit!! I FINALLY GET THIS. Wow. I understand your theory now. No, seriously, for whatever reason I didnt get it. Now I understand why the FE'ers say you cant launch a rocket. Sorry guys I've been dense.
Seriously I get it now.
But what about in the horizontal. Why doesnt a bullet fall straight to the ground when fired horizontally. Wouldnt the acceleration of the earth immediately catch up to it considering its only 5 ft off the ground?
-
rules of engagement:
lose x men per day. end up short crew and lose x * y men per day.
draft defective flight engineers, causing you to lose z extra men per day.
x * y > z.
bingo, you were hired.
-
Why doesnt a bullet fall straight to the ground when fired horizontally. Wouldnt the acceleration of the earth immediately catch up to it considering its only 5 ft off the ground?
Holy shit. Please, tell me you are joking.
-
I've seen a lot of threads full of comedy win now.
But this one.... its almost as good as spinning earth gravity dude.
-
No because actually this is the basis of orbiting. I just told you I finally realize why you cant launch a rocket in FET. Im trying to understand. What about horizontally? What keeps a bullet in the air before the earth accelerates up to it?
-
Its upwards velocity.
-
But its upward velocity is extremely minimal compared to its distance traveled horizontally.
-
Now you are comparing velocity to distance? Good Lord.
-
rules of engagement:
lose x men per day. end up short crew and lose x * y men per day.
draft defective flight engineers, causing you to lose z extra men per day.
x * y > z.
bingo, you were hired.
-
Bullet physics 101:
The bullet, as it is traveling down the barrel, is being accelerated upwards by the barrel, since the barrel, stock and rifleman are being accelerated by the earth. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, it is no longer being accelerated and travels upwards at a constant velocity. It has a horizontal velocity that is of no importance here. The earth, still accelerating, must gain a velocity higher than that of the bullet in order to catch it. The time it will take can be found via:
t = sqrt(2*height/(9.8m/s^2))
-
So a bullet fired from a .22 caliber would hit the ground at the exact same time as a .50 cal round fired at the exact same moment at the exact same height?
-
Of course.
-
This is not unique to the flat earth, I might add...
(though the reasons would be slightly different)
-
Ok let me run some numbers and get back with you tomorrow. I got to hit the rack. 4 mile run tomorrow. See ya then.
-
I will be waiting with baited breath.
-
This thread wins
-
I dunno, it's failed to progress to greener pastures for a bit now.
In other news, RE'ers finally have a unifying theory. Not one of Newtonian and Quantum mechanics, but the great A = V = D. This should simplify the calculus in many physics equations.
-
Bullet physics 101:
The bullet, as it is traveling down the barrel, is being accelerated upwards by the barrel, since the barrel, stock and rifleman are being accelerated by the earth. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, it is no longer being accelerated and travels upwards at a constant velocity. It has a horizontal velocity that is of no importance here. The earth, still accelerating, must gain a velocity higher than that of the bullet in order to catch it. The time it will take can be found via:
t = sqrt(2*height/(9.8m/s^2))
All right man, I'm back. I'll give this website one thing. I've learned alot about why things work the way they do. My bullet analogy doesn't prove either theory. So lets try something with actual horizontal acceleration. Like a bottle rocket you shoot on the 4th. Why in FET does a rocket under power remain airborne, with no lift, until the rocket motor dies? Wouldn't the earth catch up to it like the does with the bullet?
-
Bullet physics 101:
The bullet, as it is traveling down the barrel, is being accelerated upwards by the barrel, since the barrel, stock and rifleman are being accelerated by the earth. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, it is no longer being accelerated and travels upwards at a constant velocity. It has a horizontal velocity that is of no importance here. The earth, still accelerating, must gain a velocity higher than that of the bullet in order to catch it. The time it will take can be found via:
t = sqrt(2*height/(9.8m/s^2))
All right man, I'm back. I'll give this website one thing. I've learned alot about why things work the way they do. My bullet analogy doesn't prove either theory. So lets try something with actual horizontal acceleration. Like a bottle rocket you shoot on the 4th. Why in FET does a rocket under power remain airborne, with no lift, until the rocket motor dies? Wouldn't the earth catch up to it like the does with the bullet?
What? ???
-
What? ???
Don't worry, the question is not for you.
-
What? ???
Don't worry, the question is not for you.
Good, because I can't imagine that the earth doesn't catch up with the rocket. If the acceleration is purely horizontal of course the earth will accelerate up to it.
If this does happen as you say it does though doesn't it kind of disprove gravity?
-
No I am saying with the proper thrust to weight ratio the rocket can remain airborne with out producing any lift ( IE like wings on an airplane) which would never work in FET.
-
Sorry buddy, but that won't work in RET either.
If you do it in a vacuum, it will drop the same rate as a rock. So will a feather, incidentally.
Lift is weird. Think about how an airplane can fly upside down, even though most people think lift is just the "bernoulli effect" (which should be pulling the plane down when it is upside down)
-
Sorry buddy, but that won't work in RET either.
If you do it in a vacuum, it will drop the same rate as a rock. So will a feather, incidentally.
Lift is weird. Think about how an airplane can fly upside down, even though most people think lift is just the "bernoulli effect" (which should be pulling the plane down when it is upside down)
Lift is not weird. Pilots counter act that by pointing the nose of the jet slightly up while inverted.
-
No I am saying with the proper thrust to weight ratio the rocket can remain airborne with out producing any lift ( IE like wings on an airplane) which would never work in FET.
What you're describing is physically impossible. To an observer on earth a rocket always travels in a parabola due to the earth's gravitational pull (in either model). Sooner or later the rocket is going to meet the earth.
-
Lift is wierd. A rocket in air will stay aloft much longer than it would in a vacuum.
-
Lift is wierd. A rocket in air will stay aloft much longer than it would in a vacuum.
Hmm...that would be an interesting test.
-
A classic demonstration for first time physics students:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/ClassMechanics/MonkeyHunter/MonkeyHunter.html
All objects acclerate downward at the same rate, whether they are moving or not.
-
All right man, I'm back. I'll give this website one thing. I've learned alot about why things work the way they do. My bullet analogy doesn't prove either theory. So lets try something with actual horizontal acceleration. Like a bottle rocket you shoot on the 4th. Why in FET does a rocket under power remain airborne, with no lift, until the rocket motor dies? Wouldn't the earth catch up to it like the does with the bullet?
So, how is that any different than the bullet?
-
Because the bottle rocket is accelerating until the rocket motors dies. Where as a bullet stops accelerating when it leaves the barrel.
-
So again, how is that any different? They would hit the ground at the same time.
-
Well?
-
So again, how is that any different? They would hit the ground at the same time.
only after the motor dies. IE the motor dieing = the bullet leaving the barrel. Then your correct it would be the exact same amount of time.
But if you will notice while the motor is burning the bottle rocket doesnt descend. The reason I didnt answer this is because because hes right without being in a an absolute vacuum I cannot say for certain that this theory is correct.
-
While we are on the subject of lift....
If it would take a rocket the size of New Hampshire to get up to 3000 miles because of the continually accelerating earth. Then how much lift do my wings need to generate to overcome the earth coming to meet me. With the earth constantly accelerating wouldn't I exponentially have to increase the lift my wings produce the longer I was in the air?
-
You're not really helping here.
-
Nobody asked you.....but why do you say that.
-
FET think:
The frame of reference is accelerating upwards.
Thus:
Everything within that frame of reference acts as if were experiencing gravity, which is handy really because it makes it indistinguishable from RET.
-
I keep coming back to this rocket fuel required to get to 3000 miles thing....
If a rocket can produce enough thrust to overcome earths acceleration then why do I need this HUGE amount of fuel to get it to 3000 miles. As the rocket climbs 2 things are happening 1. it is encountering less drag and 2. the fuel is burning off so the rocket is getting lighter. Both of which increase the thrust to weight ratio thereby causing the rocket to accelerate exponentially. I think i'm back to thinking the same amount of fuel would be required in FET and it would in RET.
-
I think i'm back to thinking the same amount of fuel would be required in FET and it would in RET.
And that would be because in any practical sense, in this respect the effects of FET and RET are indistinguishable.
And that is because UA, the fudge they had to come up with to make it so, makes the effects the same, otherwise there would be another huge whole in FET.
-
I think i'm back to thinking the same amount of fuel would be required in FET and it would in RET.
And that would be because in any practical sense, in this respect the effects of FET and RET are indistinguishable.
And that is because UA, the fudge they had to come up with to make it so, makes the effects the same, otherwise there would be another huge whole in FET.
Well now wait. They have been saying that you cant achieve escape velocity in FET which there is in RET. So it can't be the same. If you want go back a couple of pages and see what they have been saying.
-
Just as the earth is trying to catch up to you, you have to catch the sun and moon accelerating away from you at 9.8m/s^2, so to get 3000 miles above the accelerating earth, you have to travel rather farther than 3000 miles.
No it wouldnt. My frame of reference never changes. The moon is always 3000 miles above me. That is until I climb in my rocket and start ascending toward it.
-
You are correct.
-
RET think:
There earth generates "gravity" equal to 9.8m/s/s/ acceleration.
Thus:
Everything on it acts as if were experiencing acceleration of 9.8m/s^2, which is handy really because it makes it indistinguishable from FET.
There you go...
-
You are correct.
I finally won one!!!!!
-
You're not really helping here.
Ooh, told.
-
So can we get back to the actual debate now?
-
No! Let\'s stay off topic so no one can ever poove the FE\'ers wrong!!1!!11
-
only after the motor dies. IE the motor dieing = the bullet leaving the barrel. Then your correct it would be the exact same amount of time.
Uh, no, it would hit the ground at the same time as the bullet, even while the motor is burning.
But if you will notice while the motor is burning the bottle rocket doesnt descend.
Uh, no.
-
Then how much lift do my wings need to generate to overcome the earth coming to meet me.
They would need to produce 9.8m/s^2 of acceleration.
With the earth constantly accelerating wouldn't I exponentially have to increase the lift my wings produce the longer I was in the air?
No.
-
Uh yes. Ive seen it. Bottle rockets are legal where Im from. I used to shoot them at my sister all the time. I can tell you from the time it left my hand till the time it went by her it was level, and didn't drop unit after the motor died and it exploded.
-
As the rocket climbs 2 things are happening 1. it is encountering less drag and 2. the fuel is burning off so the rocket is getting lighter.
You should start with a rocket of no dimension, for less drag, and no fuel.
-
Uh yes. Ive seen it. Bottle rockets are legal where Im from. I used to shoot them at my sister all the time. I can tell you from the time it left my hand till the time it went by her it was level, and didn't drop unit after the motor died and it exploded.
So you are telling me that an object, as long as it is accelerating horizontally, is not affected by 'gravity'? Or are you trying to tell me that rocket traveling horizontally produces lift? Or, please tell me that the rocket was actually pointed slightly upwards. I beg of you, please tell me the latter is true. Please restore some faith that I had in the aviation community. Please.
-
Uh yes. Ive seen it. Bottle rockets are legal where Im from. I used to shoot them at my sister all the time. I can tell you from the time it left my hand till the time it went by her it was level, and didn't drop unit after the motor died and it exploded.
So you are telling me that an object, as long as it is accelerating horizontally, is not affected by 'gravity'? Or are you trying to tell me that rocket traveling horizontally produces lift? Or, please tell me that the rocket was actually pointed slightly upwards. I beg of you, please tell me the latter is true. Please restore some faith that I had in the aviation community. Please.
More than likey its tilted upward a little. If I had to guess.
Restore your faith? A pilot that thinks the world is flat is questioning my aviation sense? If thats not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
-
More than likey its tilted upward a little. If I had to guess.
Great, at least that idiotic example of yours was put to rest.
Restore your faith? A pilot that thinks the world is flat is questioning my aviation sense? If thats not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
That's the pot calling the kettle ignorant.
-
More than likey its tilted upward a little. If I had to guess.
Great, at least that idiotic example of yours was put to rest.
Restore your faith? A pilot that thinks the world is flat is questioning my aviation sense? If thats not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
That's the pot calling the kettle ignorant.
What type rating do you have? Are we talking day VFR only here or what?
-
Instrument and high performance.
-
Any overwater stuff?
-
Lakes, that is all. I don't live near the ocean.
-
I'm telling you when you cross the pond, you have to use great circle nav. Which only works in FET in the northern hemisphere. If you were to head down south you would see there is no way for great circle nav to work the way it does in the southern hemisphere without the earth being a globe.
BTW just for the record, in Herk land we used multiple different methods for navigational aids prior to GPS. The Corps didn't see the need to upgrade us to GPS until recently. So its not my GPS lying to me or anything like that.
-
What is the point of this post? We were not discussing GC routes.
-
Would you like me to start a new one?
Im conceding the fact that I can't show a difference between gravity and UA.
-
Im conceding
That makes you a better man than most.
-
Would you like me to start a new one?
Im conceding the fact that I can't show a difference between gravity and UA.
You can.
Basically, you can measure the gravitational attraction of a Mountain/Hill/Chair/Person, in UA a mountain wouldn't exert a gravitational tug on things nearby.