The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Pointland32 on June 26, 2008, 04:27:12 PM

Title: Space Travel
Post by: Pointland32 on June 26, 2008, 04:27:12 PM
According to FE, why is space travel impossible? Which law of physics prevents anyone reaching higher and higher altitudes?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Snaaaaake on June 26, 2008, 04:27:50 PM
I was just about to post this. Early bird gets the worm?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2008, 04:29:02 PM
sustained space travel is impossible because the earth's orbit does not exist
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Snaaaaake on June 26, 2008, 04:33:52 PM
And your proof is where...?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2008, 04:35:15 PM
And your proof is where...?

I don't need to prove a negative. The existence of orbit is beyond human experience. Since you believe in something none of us have ever experienced, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that earth orbit indeed exists as advertised.

The burden of proof would also be on you if you believed in other things beyond human experience such as fairies, ghosts, or a higher being.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Snaaaaake on June 26, 2008, 04:40:22 PM
And your proof is where...?

I don't need proof. The existence of orbit is beyond human experience. Since you believe in something none of us have ever experienced, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that earth orbit indeed exists as advertised.

The burden of proof would also be on you if you believed in other things beyond human experience such as fairies, ghosts, or a higher being.

Your authority doesn't make it not exist. There is orbit, maybe because, I don't know, we've been on space vacations. FAIL Tom. You really must think humans are stupid to believe that we've never been to space. Are you one of those crazy old guys who people never listen to?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2008, 04:41:49 PM
Quote
Your authority doesn't make it not exist. There is orbit, maybe because, I don't know, we've been on space vacations. FAIL Tom. You really must think humans are stupid to believe that we've never been to space. Are you one of those crazy old guys who people never listen to?

Let me know when you prove your claim that the earth's orbit exists.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Snaaaaake on June 26, 2008, 04:43:48 PM
20-30 years from now they should be down to 1 million dollars. If I can't afford it then give it another 10 years and it should be $500,000. Are you young enough to live that long?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2008, 04:46:22 PM
Let me know when you prove your claim that the earth's orbit exists.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: The Creep on June 26, 2008, 04:51:23 PM
I don't need to prove a negative. The existence of orbit is beyond human experience. Since you believe in something none of us have ever experienced, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that earth orbit indeed exists as advertised.

The burden of proof would also be on you if you believed in other things beyond human experience such as fairies, ghosts, or a higher being.

Tom wouldnt the hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists who are not affiliated with NASA or the "conspiracy" that claim this to be true be proof enough?

Not to mention they have more current ways of studying said orbit than whatever quack wrote that book that you always reference from the 1800's.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Snaaaaake on June 26, 2008, 04:52:16 PM
20-30 years from now they should be down to 1 million dollars. If I can't afford it then give it another 10 years and it should be $500,000. Are you young enough to live that long?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2008, 04:54:02 PM
Quote
Tom wouldnt the hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists who are not affiliated with NASA or the "conspiracy" that claim this to be true be proof enough?

I don't know of any scientist sending things into earth orbit who is not affiliated with a government contractor or space agency.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Snaaaaake on June 26, 2008, 04:54:58 PM
Well then find someone who does.  ??? You should be able to do that if you love your theory so much.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: The Creep on June 26, 2008, 04:56:51 PM
I dont think they would necessarily need to send things into orbit to verify it exists.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2008, 04:59:49 PM
I dont think they would necessarily need to send things into orbit to verify it exists.

How would they verify that it exists then?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Penispoop agogo on June 26, 2008, 05:03:52 PM
Space travel is impossible because it existing would enable us to prove conclusively that the earth is flat or not, it will never be possible no matter how long this forum stays on the Internet, no matter what happens in the world
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: The Creep on June 26, 2008, 05:04:51 PM
I dont know Tom, youre making me dizzy.

The Earth is round.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Pointland32 on June 26, 2008, 06:19:46 PM
Space travel is impossible because it existing would enable us to prove conclusively that the earth is flat or not, it will never be possible no matter how long this forum stays on the Internet, no matter what happens in the world
I don't know what to say.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Penispoop agogo on June 26, 2008, 06:23:28 PM
Space travel is impossible because it existing would enable us to prove conclusively that the earth is flat or not, it will never be possible no matter how long this forum stays on the Internet, no matter what happens in the world
I don't know what to say.

neither do i, but i do know that no matter what happens space flight will be impossible to a flat earther despite any evidence or new developments over the course of human history, if it exists then the whole argument can be settled
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: markjo on June 26, 2008, 06:25:47 PM
I was just about to post this. Early bird gets the worm?

But look what happened to the early worm. 
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Pointland32 on June 26, 2008, 06:27:57 PM
The problem is that an FEer can deny anything sat at their computer.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: dyno on June 26, 2008, 06:40:06 PM
sustained space travel is impossible because the earth's orbit does not exist

Sustained space flight does not require Earth's orbit with your FE.

Sustained flight is possible in orbit around the Sun/Moon/Shadow object. These bodies orbit each other don't they? Theoretically at least.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Parsifal on June 26, 2008, 07:42:48 PM
The Earth (and by necessity, the Sun, Moon, stars and other celestial bodies) are accelerating at 9.8 m s-2. One cannot orbit an accelerating body without one's own source of propulsion. Since we do not have enough fuel to sustain such an acceleration for an extended period of time, sustained space travel is impossible.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Penispoop agogo on June 26, 2008, 08:11:44 PM
Some FE scientist (don't exist) should probably just launch something small past our atmosphere into the supposed orbit range,track it to see if it falls back to the earth
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2008, 08:20:20 PM
Some FE scientist (don't exist) should probably just launch something small past our atmosphere into the supposed orbit range,track it to see if it falls back to the earth

Donate 50 million dollars to fund the endeavor and we'll talk.

From http://express.howstuffworks.com/wq-satellite.htm :

Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Penispoop agogo on June 26, 2008, 08:45:39 PM
Some FE scientist (don't exist) should probably just launch something small past our atmosphere into the supposed orbit range,track it to see if it falls back to the earth

Donate 50 million dollars to fund the endeavor and we'll talk.

From http://express.howstuffworks.com/wq-satellite.htm :

    "A satellite launch can cost anywhere between $50 million and $400 million"

you know what "small" means don't you?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 26, 2008, 08:50:36 PM
sustained space travel is impossible because the earth's orbit does not exist

Sustained space flight does not require Earth's orbit with your FE.

Sustained flight is possible in orbit around the Sun/Moon/Shadow object. These bodies orbit each other don't they? Theoretically at least.

I commented somewhere that theoretically one could get close enough to the heavenly bodies to interact with their observed gravitation. However, getting that close would be implausible using our known physics.
Title: This is Idiotic
Post by: darkmatter on June 26, 2008, 09:37:05 PM
I apparently am really bored and had to see this for myself.

Here's what I love the most. IF the people in the FE group REALLY BELIEVE this stuff, (and I think a lot of them fake it for kicks), then they are speaking from no acquired knowledge, studies, or expertise of their own.

There are numerous ways you can tell that the Earth is round.
1. We've been to space.
2. We've looked at the Earth from the moon, both manned and unmanned
3. Scientists mathematically can show the world is round, and have been able to for a few hundred years.
4. We've been to other planets (using robots, etc)
5. We now have jets that can go into sub orbit and you can see the arch of the Earth.
6. There are people right now is a space station above the Earth


I could go on, and I could get real scientific, but people being there seems proof enough. I doubt that EVERY photo of space and Earth has been doctored, faked, or somehow created. Also, your being right would mean hundreds of thousands of scientists are somehow lying to us, or just really bored and pulling our chain, and for no legitimate reason.

And you have no scientists on your side. So proving it to you would be impossible anyway. Don't pretend to have a stance with legitimacy behind it, and then just throw away or dismiss other's research because it couldn't possible be true. The person who posted that space travel is beyond our physics is clearly disillusioned, and I am sure has a degree in waste management, or no high school degree.

If I had lots of cash, I would love to just shoot your leaders ass into space for the fun of it. It would be worth it truly. I am sure he'd get back and continue to lie to you, just because he could. It's a power trip. Some people will believe anything.

And if you argue that all of science is wrong, then you have no opposition, because now there is no reason. If a scientist says the earth is round, and here is an equation, you can't just say " no, I'm sorry that's not right now way." You need to check it and prove it wrong. That is science, always testing. Simply saying the Earth is Flat is not science, it is stupidity.

One thing that is kind of annoying though, your lack of connection between science and technology. Technology is highly reliant upon science. Without Einstein's equation, there would be no cell phones and other devices. Computers couldn't possibly work, and even if the wright brothers hated science, there is still mathematics behind lift. So it is connected, even if you pretend it's not. This means that science does exist, and can be right. It also means things can be proven with mathematics. 

Really I don't care what you think this is a fun exercise in reading about stupid people. So carry on and have fun, and I hope that you are all kidding. If not, one of you aspire to be an astronaut so you can get behind NASA's secret doors and reveal the true NASA. At least that would be fun, and somewhat scientific.
 
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2008, 09:44:59 PM
Quote
you know what "small" means don't you?

It doesn't matter how large the payload is. The rocket is the expensive part.

Those "low cost" 50 million dollar launches are launching a satellite a little bigger than a Rubix Cube

(http://www.utias-sfl.net/nanosatellites/CanX3/canx3-labeled.png)
Title: Re: This is Idiotic
Post by: Ski on June 26, 2008, 09:50:29 PM
There are numerous ways you can tell that the Earth is round.
1. We've been to space.
2. We've looked at the Earth from the moon, both manned and unmanned
3. Scientists mathematically can show the world is round, and have been able to for a few hundred years.
4. We've been to other planets (using robots, etc)
5. We now have jets that can go into sub orbit and you can see the arch of the Earth.
6. There are people right now is a space station above the Earth

1. NASA has been to space.
2. We have not.
3. Please provide this equation.
4. We have not.
5. They see the arc of the disc or the area of the disc currently lit by the sun. Is there a large McDonalds visible from sub-orbit? Is that the arch of the earth?
6. There are not.

Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: darkmatter on June 26, 2008, 10:10:03 PM
Since you asked here are a few equations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Additionally some basic observations you could make which provide more logical conclusions than a mysterious dark shadow thing that casts shadows on the moon.


And to your reply:
1. NASA has, so you admit they have. Well, no argument there then. Even if you believe the moon landing was faked, prove the mars lander isn't currently on mars.
2. There are pictures of the earth from the moon. I am a photographer and use cameras all the time. Arguments against most of the photo fakes are weak, and inaccurate. Not accounting for reflections, film stocks, apertures, and lens distortion. 
3. See above
4. We have sent a robot to mars. He is happily there right now proving there probably was water there. Your saying it is not there does not make it so. And it is ridiculous to assume it's a huge NASA game. There would have to be too many people involved, and it would never work.
5. Umm..McDonalds sucks anyway? I'm a burger king man myself
6. There is, and they've been working on various things for the last few weeks. You probably missed it in the news. I think one guy even did a downlink to some tv shows to say hi and float around and shit. Even with our best gravity simulation (the parabola zero G planes, which I have been on), the longest we can simulate zero g is 30 seconds or so. It would be impossible to do a live broadcast, uncut to a live audience with that technology and fake it well. Especially using things like props or water being thrown around to show the zero g effect. I make movies too, this would be nearly impossible to do live with the best cg.

Again, your arguments are simply "No it's not". I mean, that's a great argument, because how would anyone counter it? "Yes they are!" Ultimately it provides protection from flawed logic.   
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 26, 2008, 10:38:02 PM
1. NASA has, so you admit they have. Well, no argument there then. Even if you believe the moon landing was faked, prove the mars lander isn't currently on mars.
2. There are pictures of the earth from the moon. I am a photographer and use cameras all the time. Arguments against most of the photo fakes are weak, and inaccurate. Not accounting for reflections, film stocks, apertures, and lens distortion. 
3. See above
4. We have sent a robot to mars. He is happily there right now proving there probably was water there. Your saying it is not there does not make it so. And it is ridiculous to assume it's a huge NASA game. There would have to be too many people involved, and it would never work.
5. Umm..McDonalds sucks anyway? I'm a burger king man myself
6. There is, and they've been working on various things for the last few weeks. You probably missed it in the news. I think one guy even did a downlink to some tv shows to say hi and float around and shit. Even with our best gravity simulation (the parabola zero G planes, which I have been on), the longest we can simulate zero g is 30 seconds or so. It would be impossible to do a live broadcast, uncut to a live audience with that technology and fake it well. Especially using things like props or water being thrown around to show the zero g effect. I make movies too, this would be nearly impossible to do live with the best cg.

Again, your arguments are simply "No it's not". I mean, that's a great argument, because how would anyone counter it? "Yes they are!" Ultimately it provides protection from flawed logic.   


1. Going to space is not hard. Staying there is difficult. The Mars lander could not reach Mars.
2. I am not a photographer but can show you how to easily fake a photo. I made a picture of the space station in another thread. It was very convincing. Even an "expert" astronomer was convinced.
3. I saw a bunch of basic equations that assuming the earth was spherical would provide area, volume and radii of the earth. I did not see any proof the earth was round.
4. We did not send a robot to Mars. It is not alleged to be sentient, nor happy, unless you know something I don't.
5. Good for you.
6. What evidence do you have that the "live feed" is a live feed from a spacecraft as opposed to a manufactured and produced segment later shown on tv?

Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Parsifal on June 26, 2008, 10:45:31 PM
Again, your arguments are simply "No it's not". I mean, that's a great argument, because how would anyone counter it? "Yes they are!" Ultimately it provides protection from flawed logic.

Almost as great an argument as "We have sent a robot to mars."
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: dyno on June 26, 2008, 11:18:32 PM
The Earth (and by necessity, the Sun, Moon, stars and other celestial bodies) are accelerating at 9.8 m s-2. One cannot orbit an accelerating body without one's own source of propulsion. Since we do not have enough fuel to sustain such an acceleration for an extended period of time, sustained space travel is impossible.

The Sun/Moon/SO etc in a FE are propelled by the UA? Orbit could be achieved around these objects on the same plane. The UA would accelerate them as well once the satellite reached this zone.
You don't need sustained propulsion.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 26, 2008, 11:28:10 PM
You would need sustained propulsion to reach this area, which is roughly 3000 mi away from earth. Good luck.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: dyno on June 26, 2008, 11:32:43 PM
Is the FE belief that the UA influence starts and stops at a discrete boundary? or that the interference from the Earth fades gradually?

I think the most logical would be a gradual increase in influence until the total affect was felt at some point <3000miles.

A method of propulsion wouldn't need the same thrust all the way up there.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 26, 2008, 11:34:30 PM
Perhaps. It's still a long way to go while trying to keep ahead of the earth. I can't imagine a method to enable it using known methods, but I agree that the theory seems sound.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Parsifal on June 26, 2008, 11:41:19 PM
What would be the point of it, anyway? Why go to all the effort of finding ways of getting tens of thousands of Newtons of thrust for however long it takes to get way out there?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 26, 2008, 11:44:17 PM
Perhaps they'd like to set foot on the moon. What good it would do, I don't know. Pardon the pun, but it would take an astronomical amount of propellant to get there.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Parsifal on June 26, 2008, 11:50:50 PM
Perhaps they'd like to set foot on the moon. What good it would do, I don't know. Pardon the pun, but it would take an astronomical amount of propellant to get there.

If Flat Earth theory is correct, the moon is a globe (or perhaps a disc that always faces the Earth) that is constantly accelerated by the UA, in the same direction as the Earth. One would feel completely weightless upon it, then, because one would be propelled by the UA in the same way as the moon itself. Taking even one step on the moon would cause you to start rising upwards indefinitely - there would be no downward force to pull you back onto the moon. Again, what is the point of it all?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: dyno on June 26, 2008, 11:56:21 PM
No, gravitation still occurs in FE. I believe that is the mechanism that prevents the Sun and Moon from flying apart.

Large quantities of propellant? Please. The FE conspiracy theory evidently has access to unlimited funds. It's simply a matter of scale. The Earth isn't short of rocket fuel.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 26, 2008, 11:58:41 PM
If Flat Earth theory is correct, the moon is a globe (or perhaps a disc that always faces the Earth) that is constantly accelerated by the UA, in the same direction as the Earth. One would feel completely weightless upon it, then, because one would be propelled by the UA in the same way as the moon itself. Taking even one step on the moon would cause you to start rising upwards indefinitely - there would be no downward force to pull you back onto the moon. Again, what is the point of it all?

I'm not sure this is completely correct.
On the upward side (for lack of a better term) of the moon, I think a phenomena very much like earth's would produce the same effect as earth's "gravity", as the moon accelerates upward at 9.8m/s^2.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 27, 2008, 12:08:42 AM
Large quantities of propellant? Please. The FE conspiracy theory evidently has access to unlimited funds. It's simply a matter of scale. The Earth isn't short of rocket fuel.

I don't think you get how large the rocket would be. It would be the size of New Hampshire.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Parsifal on June 27, 2008, 12:10:47 AM
I'm not sure this is completely correct.
On the upward side (for lack of a better term) of the moon, I think a phenomena very much like earth's would produce the same effect as earth's "gravity", as the moon accelerates upward at 9.8m/s^2.

Perhaps. But you have to remember, as the moon rotates (and it would need to, in order to keep the same side facing the Earth all the time), the acceleration would shift in direction, so you would never be able to find a spot to walk on for any extended period of time.

And even if gravitation does still exist, the moon would be too small at such a short distance to provide noticeable attraction.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 27, 2008, 12:16:53 AM
I'm saying that the upwards acceleration of the moon would leave you with the same sensation as felt here on earth if you were on the "top". You would be accelerated upward by the moon below you at one g.

That it also has it's own gravitation based on energy/mass is likely, but I agree it would probably be insufficient to keep you firmly on the "lower" side facing the earth.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: dyno on June 27, 2008, 12:24:39 AM
Large quantities of propellant? Please. The FE conspiracy theory evidently has access to unlimited funds. It's simply a matter of scale. The Earth isn't short of rocket fuel.

I don't think you get how large the rocket would be. It would be the size of New Hampshire.

Only on those calculations that assumed the influence of the UA terminated at a discrete boundary. Remember the delta V of the satellite relative to the Earth is 0 at 3000miles. In fact it needs to be otherwise it will keep going right?

What is the mass of the Moon? at 32 miles in diameter unless it is composed of neutron star matter, the Shadow Object requires an immense mass to keep the moon from drifting away.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Parsifal on June 27, 2008, 01:09:45 AM
I'm saying that the upwards acceleration of the moon would leave you with the same sensation as felt here on earth if you were on the "top". You would be accelerated upward by the moon below you at one g.

This is true, but such a landing would have to be very short. In just one hour, you would be standing on a slope inclined at nearly (http://i27.tinypic.com/2d1pslk.png) radians. Unless you want to design the moon lander to be able to take off from such an angle (requiring either a rocket with a variable axis of thrust, or (http://i26.tinypic.com/ff2qyr.png) times more thrust), that's not a very good situation to be in.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: ghazwozza on June 27, 2008, 05:38:55 AM
Large quantities of propellant? Please. The FE conspiracy theory evidently has access to unlimited funds. It's simply a matter of scale. The Earth isn't short of rocket fuel.

I don't think you get how large the rocket would be. It would be the size of New Hampshire.

Proof?

sustained space travel is impossible because the earth's orbit does not exist

You're already assuming that the Earth isn't round. If the Earth is round, then it is possible to orbit it.
What wonderful circular logic!

RE: "Space travel proves the Earth is round"
FE: "Your evidence must somehow be flawed"
RE: "How do you know?"
FE: "Because space travel is impossible"
RE: "Why?"
FE: "Because the Earth is flat"
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: uglykidjoe on June 27, 2008, 06:56:00 AM
Pardon me because I'm new here and perhaps not up on all the various in-theories and accepted arguments.  But how does linking the ability to conduct space travel and the world being round become a more reasonable argument than saying that the world is flat because space travel is impossible? 
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 27, 2008, 07:46:34 AM
This is true, but such a landing would have to be very short. In just one hour, you would be standing on a slope inclined at nearly (http://i27.tinypic.com/2d1pslk.png) radians. Unless you want to design the moon lander to be able to take off from such an angle (requiring either a rocket with a variable axis of thrust, or (http://i26.tinypic.com/ff2qyr.png) times more thrust), that's not a very good situation to be in.

I agree the idea is completely unfeasible. I only said the theory seems sound as a hypothetical. The massive amounts of energy to get a vehicle to this distance would be staggering.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: markjo on June 27, 2008, 07:49:36 AM
Pardon me because I'm new here and perhaps not up on all the various in-theories and accepted arguments.  But how does linking the ability to conduct space travel and the world being round become a more reasonable argument than saying that the world is flat because space travel is impossible? 

Because if you can travel in outer space, then you can actually see that the earth is indeed round.  Therefore space travel must be impossible in a flat earth universe (no matter how lame the reason), otherwise it shatters their whole "reality" of the earth being flat.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 27, 2008, 07:52:06 AM
I think I've stated that I believe man has been to space.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: ghazwozza on June 27, 2008, 07:54:50 AM
Pardon me because I'm new here and perhaps not up on all the various in-theories and accepted arguments.  But how does linking the ability to conduct space travel and the world being round become a more reasonable argument than saying that the world is flat because space travel is impossible? 

Space travel is impossible in FET. So, if we can show that space travel is possible (and has happenned) then we disprove FET.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: uglykidjoe on June 27, 2008, 08:05:55 AM
Space travel is impossible in FET. So, if we can show that space travel is possible (and has happenned) then we disprove FET.

Thanks for enlightening me, it makes sense.  Considering that this would apparently be damning evidence against the FET, and would seem like a relatively simple thing to prove or disprove, I wonder why this isn't the single focus of the RET crowd.  Why spend time arguing about the location of the poles or the ice wall when this would seem to shatter the whole theory relatively quickly and conclusively?  Is it really that hard to prove?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Parsifal on June 27, 2008, 08:08:38 AM
Is it really that hard to prove?

Yes, if it never happened.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: MadDogX on June 27, 2008, 08:10:33 AM
Space travel is impossible in FET. So, if we can show that space travel is possible (and has happenned) then we disprove FET.

Thanks for enlightening me, it makes sense.  Considering that this would apparently be damning evidence against the FET, and would seem like a relatively simple thing to prove or disprove, I wonder why this isn't the single focus of the RET crowd.  Why spend time arguing about the location of the poles or the ice wall when this would seem to shatter the whole theory relatively quickly and conclusively?  Is it really that hard to prove?


Actually, evidence of space travel already exists in abundance - only the FE'ers claim this evidence to be fake. So it is not the job of the RE'ers to prove that space travel has occurred, it is up to the FE'ers to prove that all the evidence for it is fake. I'd really love to see a FE'er "debunk" every single NASA picture and video in existance.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 27, 2008, 08:12:03 AM
Space travel is impossible in FET. So, if we can show that space travel is possible (and has happenned) then we disprove FET.

Space travel is not impossible. Sustained space flight is impossible. I have no doubt man has gone beyond the atmoplane into space. I simply don't believe orbital mechanics will work on the flat earth.
Tom recently theorized that the shuttle could perhaps use "skipping stone" techniques to glide across the atmoplane. I don't know that this is true, but the idea has floated around in aviation circles for sixty some odd years, and the orbiter does have the flat surfaces necessary for this technique. It was food for thought.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: uglykidjoe on June 27, 2008, 08:14:00 AM
Actually, evidence of space travel already exists in abundance - only the FE'ers claim this evidence to be fake. So it is not the job of the RE'ers to prove that space travel has occurred, it is up to the FE'ers to prove that all the evidence for it is fake. I'd really love to see a FE'er "debunk" every single NASA picture and video in existance.

Actually, I think ski did a reasonable job of making the case for reasonable doubt in another thread with a picture he, himself, faked, which was then taken as convincing fact by a self-proclaimed astronomer.  Considering he did the job in 5 minutes, his point that NASA with a much larger budget, and an axe to grind, could be far more convincing.  Whether or not I agree with FET, his point was well made. 
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: MadDogX on June 27, 2008, 08:20:23 AM
Actually, evidence of space travel already exists in abundance - only the FE'ers claim this evidence to be fake. So it is not the job of the RE'ers to prove that space travel has occurred, it is up to the FE'ers to prove that all the evidence for it is fake. I'd really love to see a FE'er "debunk" every single NASA picture and video in existance.

Actually, I think ski did a reasonable job of making the case for reasonable doubt in another thread with a picture he, himself, faked, which was then taken as convincing fact by a self-proclaimed astronomer.  Considering he did the job in 5 minutes, his point that NASA with a much larger budget, and an axe to grind, could be far more convincing.  Whether or not I agree with FET, his point was well made. 


The fact that imagery can be faked is not proof that it is indeed fake. Almost every kind of picture can be photoshopped. That does not mean that there are conspiracies all around us. It is still down to the FE'ers to prove that all this evidence for space travel has been faked.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 27, 2008, 08:23:24 AM
It's physically impossible for sustained space travel. If you're going to claim otherwise, I'd think the burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: deepdriller on June 27, 2008, 08:25:50 AM
so here is a simple question, if I go to the mcdonald observatory in west texas, and look at the face of the moon, why can I see the remnants of "space" craft?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: MadDogX on June 27, 2008, 08:26:19 AM
It's physically impossible for sustained space travel. If you're going to claim otherwise, I'd think the burden of proof is on you.


No it isn't. There are vast quantities of hard evidence that space travel is possible. When I say space travel is possible, I base my statement on that evidence. When you say it's not possible, it's up to you to prove that the existing evidence is not valid. Otherwise you're doing nothing more than bleating feeble phrases.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: deepdriller on June 27, 2008, 08:27:16 AM
since its only 3000miles away I should be able to see the footprints right?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 27, 2008, 08:27:39 AM
You cannot see space craft or footprints. What they claim is that they can bounce laser light off reflectors on the moon. We've already discussed the observatory's financial ties to the bogeyman.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 27, 2008, 08:28:37 AM
No it isn't. There are vast quantities of hard evidence that space travel is possible. When I say space travel is possible, I base my statement on that evidence. When you say it's not possible, it's up to you to prove that the existing evidence is not valid. Otherwise you're doing nothing more than bleating feeble phrases.

I already said space travel was possible.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: MadDogX on June 27, 2008, 08:31:22 AM
No it isn't. There are vast quantities of hard evidence that space travel is possible. When I say space travel is possible, I base my statement on that evidence. When you say it's not possible, it's up to you to prove that the existing evidence is not valid. Otherwise you're doing nothing more than bleating feeble phrases.

I already said space travel was possible.


Semantics. What I mean is, there is an abundant amount of evidence proving that sustained space travel and even manned and unmanned flights to other celestial bodies in the solar system have taken place. If you claim that this is not the case, it's up to you to prove that all the evidence has been faked. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 27, 2008, 08:33:44 AM
I proved means, motive and opportunity. Sustained space flight violates physics. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: MadDogX on June 27, 2008, 08:42:00 AM
I proved means, motive and opportunity. Sustained space flight violates physics. Good luck with that.


Then you have still proved nothing, other than the fact that your attempts discussion are nothing but polemic. Not to mention that most of your argumentation and logic is based on fallacies.

I guess I should have read this forum more thouroughly before I registered to begin discussing. Judging by the arguments made by FE'ers, the flat Earth theory seems to be absolutely baseless - possibly even a weak attempt at baiting others into heated discussions. I see no more reason to participate here.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: ghazwozza on June 27, 2008, 08:46:49 AM
It's physically impossible for sustained space travel. If you're going to claim otherwise, I'd think the burden of proof is on you.

I proved means, motive and opportunity. Sustained space flight violates physics. Good luck with that.

Unsubstantiated claims requiring proof highlighted in red.

Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Parsifal on June 27, 2008, 08:57:35 AM
since its only 3000miles away I should be able to see the footprints right?

This post is a joke, right? If it were 3000 miles away, the Flat Earthers would be right and there would be no footprints. If there are footprints on it, the Round Earthers would be right and it would be a lot further away, so you wouldn't be able to see them.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: uglykidjoe on June 27, 2008, 08:58:21 AM
I guess I should have read this forum more thouroughly before I registered to begin discussing. Judging by the arguments made by FE'ers, the flat Earth theory seems to be absolutely baseless - possibly even a weak attempt at baiting others into heated discussions. I see no more reason to participate here.

I'm certainly not advocating this behavior, nor implying that its actually happening, but if it were, it would seem that the "baiting" of others into "heated discussions" is far from weak given the frequency and vociferousness of the REers' personal attacks and descents into meaningless hyperbole when trying to make a point.  It's too bad you're leaving though, every time you post, I get a craving for a nice, frosty tallboy.  Malt liquor is a man's drink!
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 27, 2008, 09:15:32 AM
It's physically impossible for sustained space travel. If you're going to claim otherwise, I'd think the burden of proof is on you.

I proved means, motive and opportunity. Sustained space flight violates physics. Good luck with that.

Unsubstantiated claims requiring proof highlighted in red.

I'd love to see the physics enabling sustained space flight above the flat earth.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: deepdriller on June 27, 2008, 09:31:21 AM
since its only 3000miles away I should be able to see the footprints right?

This post is a joke, right? If it were 3000 miles away, the Flat Earthers would be right and there would be no footprints. If there are footprints on it, the Round Earthers would be right and it would be a lot further away, so you wouldn't be able to see them.

What my point was you can see the landing sites of the lunar expidetions with a telescope, I have done some reading and it is impossible to see the lunar lander or the footprints on the moon, but you can look at the topography, and compare it to that of the lunar expidetions and verify that there has indeed been space travel, and men on the moon. 

On another thought, what about satellite images for the weather services?  There has to be satellites for us to get those images of the weather systems moving around the GLOBE, right, or do we just have the tin foil hat army in their black helicopters travel to the moon since its only 3000miles away and take those pictures and then edit out the ice wall at the edges and stretch the picture into a roundish shape.  I guess thats a logical explanation.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: uglykidjoe on June 27, 2008, 09:40:37 AM
On another thought, what about satellite images for the weather services?  There has to be satellites for us to get those images of the weather systems moving around the GLOBE, right, or do we just have the tin foil hat army in their black helicopters travel to the moon since its only 3000miles away and take those pictures and then edit out the ice wall at the edges and stretch the picture into a roundish shape.  I guess thats a logical explanation.

Not at all, it doesn't need to be anything so insidious as black helicopters.  Besides, with gas prices these days, I would imagine that black helicopters would be terribly inefficient.  Most weather tracking is done with a large network of terrestrial doppler radar sites.  In fact, in the midwestern US, access to one or more dedicated doppler radar sites is what local news channels use as the big selling point for their broadcast.  Apparently in tornado country, weather is serious business.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: NTheGreat on June 27, 2008, 09:55:06 AM
A small problem with the lack of  FE space travel is that it would cost a lot of money for NASA to keep faking it. Where people see NASA (or one of the other many agencies) launching a satellite, the group launching it is in reality not only paying for the materials and construction of the rocket, but also some kind of rapid recovery system to move the payload out of the way of the planet so it doesn't fall back to Earth, and an elaborate fleet of stratellites that will need plenty of maintenance and possibly fuel. Probes and observation satellites require mountains of fake images, possibly made to order in a matter of hours along with some kind of stratellite if the device is visible to average people (for example the HST). Each shuttle launch costs NASA twice the price, as the shuttle has to land somewhere and take off again for the return trip, if sustained space flight is impossible. And if it's carrying a satellite, then they'll have to put up a stratellite to represent it as well.

I really doubt the conspiracy is going to be making any money at all, you know.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: ghazwozza on June 27, 2008, 09:56:32 AM
It's physically impossible for sustained space travel. If you're going to claim otherwise, I'd think the burden of proof is on you.

I proved means, motive and opportunity. Sustained space flight violates physics. Good luck with that.

Unsubstantiated claims requiring proof highlighted in red.

I'd love to see the physics enabling sustained space flight above the flat earth.

Unsubstantiated assumptions highlighted in green.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 27, 2008, 10:04:08 AM
Is this anything like the assumption that space flight is possible because there is a round earth?
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Parsifal on June 27, 2008, 10:07:40 AM
Not at all, it doesn't need to be anything so insidious as black helicopters.  Besides, with gas prices these days, I would imagine that black helicopters would be terribly inefficient.

Helicopters tend to be quite inefficient in a vacuum anyway.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: ghazwozza on June 27, 2008, 10:19:03 AM
Is this anything like the assumption that space flight is possible because there is a round earth?

No, it's more like the assumption that space travel is possible becuase we have thousands of hours of footage from multiple sources, millions of photographs, independantly analysed moon rocks, mirrors on the moon, sightings of spacecraft from the ground, GPS, satellite phones, satellite telescopes, visible launchings and landings, satellite tracking websites etc. etc. etc.

In fact, I wouldn't so much call it an "assumption" as a "fact".
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Ski on June 27, 2008, 10:22:49 AM
Right. Well, you certainly have a lot of assumptions based on that post there.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Penispoop agogo on June 27, 2008, 10:29:51 AM
Right. Well, you certainly have a lot of assumptions based on that post there.

come on people, space flight will never be possible, this entire conversation is useless

FE hasn't yet created any better theories other than conspiracy and "suspicion", so until they do you're not going to get anything else out of them until they make up something that ties it together. But this will never happen so just accept it
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: ghazwozza on June 27, 2008, 10:36:23 AM
Right. Well, you certainly have a lot of assumptions based on that post there.

Such as? The assumption that it's not all one huge enormous conspiracy that nobody among the world's thousands of brightest minds has ever spotted and that all the world's space agencies are working together to decieve their respective governments and intelligence agencies?

I'd say I'm justified in making that assumption, at least until proven otherwise.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: markjo on June 27, 2008, 10:46:05 AM
Is it really that hard to prove?

Yes, if refuse to believe that it ever happened.

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Space Travel
Post by: Parsifal on June 27, 2008, 10:47:44 AM
Is it really that hard to prove?

Yes, if refuse to believe that it ever happened.

Fixed that for you.

How sweet.