The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Kingcosmo7 on October 28, 2008, 12:15:19 PM

Title: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Kingcosmo7 on October 28, 2008, 12:15:19 PM
How come you can only see Mercury and Venus during the day?
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 12:16:49 PM
Same reason as in RET.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Kingcosmo7 on October 28, 2008, 12:19:24 PM
Same reason as in RET.

Because Mercury and Venus orbit the sun closer then Earth does?
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 12:20:15 PM
Same reason as in RET.

Because Mercury and Venus orbit the sun closer then Earth does?

Because they orbit it very closely.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Kingcosmo7 on October 28, 2008, 12:21:39 PM
Same reason as in RET.

Because Mercury and Venus orbit the sun closer then Earth does?

Because they orbit it very closely.

So Mercury and Venus are the only planets that orbit the sun? that makes no sense!
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 12:23:02 PM
So Mercury and Venus are the only planets that orbit the sun? that makes no sense!

Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all orbit the Sun as well. So do most comets, asteroids and meteoroids.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Kingcosmo7 on October 28, 2008, 12:24:22 PM
So Mercury and Venus are the only planets that orbit the sun? that makes no sense!

Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all orbit the Sun as well. So do most comets, asteroids and meteoroids.

That still doesn't explain why you can't see Venus or Mercury at night
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 12:24:59 PM
So Mercury and Venus are the only planets that orbit the sun? that makes no sense!

Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all orbit the Sun as well. So do most comets, asteroids and meteoroids.

That still doesn't explain why you can't see Venus or Mercury at night

Mercury and Venus have very small orbital radii, so they don't get far away enough from the Sun to be visible at night.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: C-Ray on October 28, 2008, 12:25:53 PM
as does the moon?  LOL...too funny...
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 12:26:52 PM
as does the moon?  LOL...too funny...

 ???
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Kingcosmo7 on October 28, 2008, 12:27:36 PM
as does the moon?  LOL...too funny...

Um...The moon can be seen during the day...
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: C-Ray on October 28, 2008, 12:29:06 PM
as does the moon?  LOL...too funny...

Um...The moon can be seen during the day...

What does that have to do with anything?

@ Osama: what the hell does  ??? mean?
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 12:31:21 PM
as does the moon?  LOL...too funny...

Um...The moon can be seen during the day...

What does that have to do with anything?

@ Osama: what the hell does  ??? mean?

I don't understand your point.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: C-Ray on October 28, 2008, 12:32:31 PM
as does the moon?  LOL...too funny...

Um...The moon can be seen during the day...

What does that have to do with anything?

@ Osama: what the hell does  ??? mean?

I don't understand your point.

Do the planets orbit the sun and moon, or just the sun?  How far apart are the sun and moon?
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 12:34:56 PM
Do the planets orbit the sun and moon, or just the sun?  How far apart are the sun and moon?

I'm not certain, they probably orbit the Sun though. Their observed motions would have to be applied to the Flat Earth model to determine exactly what they orbit.

The distance between the Sun and Moon varies; when there is a solar eclipse they are no more than a few kilometres apart, and when the moon is full they are about 20 megametres apart.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: markjo on October 28, 2008, 07:27:13 PM
The distance between the Sun and Moon varies; when there is a solar eclipse they are no more than a few kilometres apart, and when the moon is full they are about 20 megametres apart.

Don't you find it rather odd that the sun and moon could come within a few kilometers of each other and yet seem to have no gravitational influence on each other's orbit?  It's a wonder that they don't actually crash into each other.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 28, 2008, 07:28:12 PM
Don't you find it rather odd that the sun and moon could come within a few kilometers of each other and yet seem to have no gravitational influence on each other's orbit?  It's a wonder that they don't actually crash into each other.

They do gravitate towards each other, but they aren't close to each other for long enough to collide.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: markjo on October 28, 2008, 09:32:58 PM
Don't you find it rather odd that the sun and moon could come within a few kilometers of each other and yet seem to have no gravitational influence on each other's orbit?  It's a wonder that they don't actually crash into each other.

They do gravitate towards each other, but they aren't close to each other for long enough to collide.

???  Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon isn't moving very much faster than the sun, is it?  As you said, the moon approaches to within a few kilometers of the sun.  Gravitation is believed to travel at or near c.  How is it possible for those two bodies not to be close enough for long enough to attract each other enough to cause a collision?  At the very least, the massive gravitational influence of the moon (on the order of a neutron star, if I'm not mistaken) should significantly affect the orbit of the far less massive sun, should it not?  That is unless the sun and moon can produce gravitation, but are immune to it's effects (which would be a serious load of crap, even for you).
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 12:57:48 AM
Don't you find it rather odd that the sun and moon could come within a few kilometers of each other and yet seem to have no gravitational influence on each other's orbit?  It's a wonder that they don't actually crash into each other.

They do gravitate towards each other, but they aren't close to each other for long enough to collide.

???  Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon isn't moving very much faster than the sun, is it?  As you said, the moon approaches to within a few kilometers of the sun.  Gravitation is believed to travel at or near c.  How is it possible for those two bodies not to be close enough for long enough to attract each other enough to cause a collision?  At the very least, the massive gravitational influence of the moon (on the order of a neutron star, if I'm not mistaken) should significantly affect the orbit of the far less massive sun, should it not?  That is unless the sun and moon can produce gravitation, but are immune to it's effects (which would be a serious load of crap, even for you).

The interaction of the Sun and Moon's magnetic fields at close range causes them to repel one another.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: markjo on October 29, 2008, 05:42:54 AM
The interaction of the Sun and Moon's magnetic fields at close range causes them to repel one another.

I didn't realize that the moon had a magnetic field.  Do you have any verifiable evidence to support that claim? 

It seems that magnetic repulsion should affect the sun's and/or moon's orbit as well.  Any thoughts as to why this is not observed?
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: MadDogX on October 29, 2008, 05:51:44 AM
The interaction of the Sun and Moon's magnetic fields at close range causes them to repel one another.

I didn't realize that the moon had a magnetic field.  Do you have any verifiable evidence to support that claim? 

It seems that magnetic repulsion should affect the sun's and/or moon's orbit as well.  Any thoughts as to why this is not observed?

Because it's complete cow dung?
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 09:48:45 AM
I didn't realize that the moon had a magnetic field.  Do you have any verifiable evidence to support that claim? 

The fact that it doesn't collide with the Sun.

It seems that magnetic repulsion should affect the sun's and/or moon's orbit as well.  Any thoughts as to why this is not observed?

It is. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: C-Ray on October 29, 2008, 11:17:47 AM
I didn't realize that the moon had a magnetic field.  Do you have any verifiable evidence to support that claim? 

The fact that it doesn't collide with the Sun.

It seems that magnetic repulsion should affect the sun's and/or moon's orbit as well.  Any thoughts as to why this is not observed?

It is. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration

Funny how the article you use says the rotation of the moon around the earth cause the libration.  Not it's close encounters with the sun...
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 11:52:43 AM
The interaction of the Sun and Moon's magnetic fields at close range causes them to repel one another.

The moon has no global magnetic field.

Prove it.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: C-Ray on October 29, 2008, 12:22:49 PM
The interaction of the Sun and Moon's magnetic fields at close range causes them to repel one another.

The moon has no global magnetic field.

Prove it.

Prove that it does.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 12:24:34 PM
The interaction of the Sun and Moon's magnetic fields at close range causes them to repel one another.

The moon has no global magnetic field.

Prove it.

Prove that it does.

FET requires it to. You can't disprove FET by saying that the moon has no magnetic field without proving that it doesn't have one.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 12:30:16 PM
The interaction of the Sun and Moon's magnetic fields at close range causes them to repel one another.

The moon has no global magnetic field.

Prove it.

Quote from: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061114_reiner_gamma.html
"The Moon presently has no global magnetic field similar to the Earth's. The observed fields [such as that at Reiner Gamma] are caused by permanent magnetization of parts of the lunar crust," said Lon Hood of the University of Arizona.

Quote from: http://www.nineplanets.org/luna.html
The Moon has no global magnetic field. But some of its surface rocks exhibit remanent magnetism indicating that there may have been a global magnetic field early in the Moon's history.

Quote from: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573665_2/moon.html
The Moon has no global magnetic field as does Earth. Some lunar rocks are weakly magnetic, indicating that they solidified in the presence of a magnetic field.

Ad infinitum ad nauseum

That isn't proof, that's just showing that others have made the same claim as you that it has no magnetic field. Is there any direct observational evidence that it doesn't have a magnetic field?
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 12:44:29 PM
That isn't proof, that's just showing that others have made the same claim as you that it has no magnetic field. Is there any direct observational evidence that it doesn't have a magnetic field?

Yes, it was measured during the Apollo missions  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALSEP) in the 60s and by the Lunar Prospector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Prospector) in the 90s.

I feel a conspiracy appeal coming...

You do know that sustained space flight is impossible with current technology according to FET, right?
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: C-Ray on October 29, 2008, 12:52:51 PM
That isn't proof, that's just showing that others have made the same claim as you that it has no magnetic field. Is there any direct observational evidence that it doesn't have a magnetic field?

Yes, it was measured during the Apollo missions  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALSEP) in the 60s and by the Lunar Prospector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Prospector) in the 90s.

I feel a conspiracy appeal coming...

You do know that sustained space flight is impossible with current technology according to FET, right?

You always say this yet you fail to tell us how you can keep a stratellite aloft and yet you can't escape the "atmoplane" of flat earth even though we know the higher our altitude the lower the escape velocity actually becomes.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 12:54:45 PM
You always say this yet you fail to tell us how you can keep a stratellite aloft

Buoyancy. We have been through this.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: C-Ray on October 29, 2008, 12:56:34 PM
You always say this yet you fail to tell us how you can keep a stratellite aloft

Buoyancy. We have been through this.

and the second half of the question?
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 12:57:32 PM
You always say this yet you fail to tell us how you can keep a stratellite aloft

Buoyancy. We have been through this.

and the second half of the question?

You can't escape the atmoplane because it would require too much fuel to be economical.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on October 29, 2008, 01:11:03 PM
The interaction of the Sun and Moon's magnetic fields at close range causes them to repel one another.

The moon has no global magnetic field.

Prove it.

Prove that it does.

FET requires it to. You can't disprove FET by saying that the moon has no magnetic field without proving that it doesn't have one.

Your logic contradicts Zetetic beliefs:

ENAG:
Quote
None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: C-Ray on October 29, 2008, 01:12:46 PM
You always say this yet you fail to tell us how you can keep a stratellite aloft

Buoyancy. We have been through this.

and the second half of the question?

You can't escape the atmoplane because it would require too much fuel to be economical.

How can you say that when we know for a fact that the escape velocity reduces the higher you go?
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 01:14:27 PM
How much fuel?

That depends on how you choose to exit the atmoplane. A lot more than in RE, anyway.

How can you say that when we know for a fact that the escape velocity reduces the higher you go?

We can't know that for a fact. Escape velocity cannot be measured directly.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Kingcosmo7 on October 29, 2008, 01:15:31 PM
That isn't proof, that's just showing that others have made the same claim as you that it has no magnetic field. Is there any direct observational evidence that it doesn't have a magnetic field?

Yes, it was measured during the Apollo missions  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALSEP) in the 60s and by the Lunar Prospector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Prospector) in the 90s.

I feel a conspiracy appeal coming...

You do know that sustained space flight is impossible with current technology according to FET, right?

Well if the moon is only 3000 miles in the sky, It shouldn't be THAT hard to reach it as soon as you get out of the magical (i use magic cuz i forgot what it is called) field which makes us unaffected by the dark energy which is accelerating us upwards.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 01:17:08 PM
Well if the moon is only 3000 miles in the sky, It shouldn't be THAT hard to reach it as soon as you get out of the magical (i use magic cuz i forgot what it is called) field which makes us unaffected by the dark energy which is accelerating us upwards.

It's getting away from the DEF that is the hard part.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 01:21:28 PM
And you know this how?

W = Fs
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 01:29:06 PM
Ah we're mumbling again. What joy.

Work = Force *distance.

So?

So the force required to overcome the acceleration of the Earth is the weight of the spacecraft. This means that at a minimum, the amount of energy required to get a rocket into space is its mass, times g, times the thickness of the atmoplane. That's a lot of fuel.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Kingcosmo7 on October 29, 2008, 01:37:03 PM
Ah we're mumbling again. What joy.

Work = Force *distance.

So?

So the force required to overcome the acceleration of the Earth is the weight of the spacecraft. This means that at a minimum, the amount of energy required to get a rocket into space is its mass, times g, times the thickness of the atmoplane. That's a lot of fuel.

If we wanted to take a BIG RISK, I'm sure a nuclear-pulse rocket (NOT NUCLEAR POWERED!... nuclear PULSE) could do the trick. In RET we have the technology today to make one that can reach the nearest star in 40 years...only problem is getting it into space without it detonating on us.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Kingcosmo7 on October 29, 2008, 01:37:56 PM
or maybe an electoplasma rocket...but it needs to be in space for it to work...
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 01:53:03 PM
Is it? How much fuel?

Even using a conservative estimate of 100 km for the thickness of the atmoplane and assuming 100% efficiency in terms of the conversion of the heat of combustion into kinetic energy, it would require 111 tonnes of hydrogen/oxygen fuel to elevate an object with the mass of a Saturn V rocket into space. That's not accounting for the fuel required to accelerate the fuel to be used ahead of it, either. If, as I suspect, the atmoplane is ten times that thick or more, it would require ten or more times that amount of fuel - again, this isn't accounting for the fuel required to move the fuel itself, which would make the calculation more complicated as the mass would vary with time.

Taking into account all the shortcomings of the calculation, I'd say we'd be looking at ten kilotonnes or more of fuel.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: C-Ray on October 29, 2008, 02:10:50 PM
How much fuel?

That depends on how you choose to exit the atmoplane. A lot more than in RE, anyway.

How can you say that when we know for a fact that the escape velocity reduces the higher you go?

We can't know that for a fact. Escape velocity cannot be measured directly.

FET states that for a fact as you increase altitude you are less affected by the acceleration of FE and more affected by the gravitational pull of the stars, sun and moon.  Hence the higher your altitude the lower the Escape Velocity becomes.  At some point you would be pulled into space by the shear gravitational effect of the moon, sun and stars.  FET uses this gravitational pull to explain the variation in "Real Earth" calls gravity.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: markjo on October 29, 2008, 02:27:38 PM
Ah we're mumbling again. What joy.

Work = Force *distance.

So?

So the force required to overcome the acceleration of the Earth is the weight of the spacecraft. This means that at a minimum, the amount of energy required to get a rocket into space is its mass, times g, times the thickness of the atmoplane. That's a lot of fuel.

What about the substantial gravitational field generated by the moon itself?  If it's enough to bend light, helping a space craft along shouldn't be a problem.  If the moon is as dense as you claim it to be, then it seems that getting back to the FE would be the hard part.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 29, 2008, 05:52:07 PM
111?
10000?

You're just plucking figures from the air again. Plus escape velocity decreases under a FE.

111 tonnes was a calculated figure, 10000 was an estimate based on that.
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Kingcosmo7 on October 30, 2008, 12:31:26 PM
Ah we're mumbling again. What joy.

Work = Force *distance.

So?

So the force required to overcome the acceleration of the Earth is the weight of the spacecraft. This means that at a minimum, the amount of energy required to get a rocket into space is its mass, times g, times the thickness of the atmoplane. That's a lot of fuel.

What about the substantial gravitational field generated by the moon itself?  If it's enough to bend light, helping a space craft along shouldn't be a problem.  If the moon is as dense as you claim it to be, then it seems that getting back to the FE would be the hard part.

Couldn't you use lift to your advantage also?
Title: Re: Mercury and Venus
Post by: Parsifal on October 30, 2008, 04:23:30 PM
Was it? I didn't see any calculations. So calculated 111 and then said "To hell with it, the answers probably 10000" ???

The answer would be more than ten times 111, easily. 10000 was an estimate. Even one kiloton of fuel would still be a lot, and I don't think that would get you to space with even the most lenient estimates of distance to travel.