Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - mrparty

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity and the Formation of the Earth
« on: July 04, 2015, 12:40:38 PM »
Well, although the gravity may be miniscule, it still works. There are many hundreds of trillions of dust particles that all gravitate toward each other. And as it forms some kind of a rock, the gravity gets more powerful and brings more dust\rocks in, and that goes until it makes a planet. Remembert though, this took a VERY long time, so of course that "miniscule" gravity still did something. And, since the dust was in orbit around the sun, it wasn't pulled into the sun. I'm not the best at explaining things so if you need any more clarification, just point out the part you are having trouble with and I'll try my best to explain better.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Shows the Earth is Flat
« on: June 08, 2015, 08:58:09 PM »
The Earth contains a lot of heavy elements - an iron interior and lots of other heavy elements. Stars are made mainly of the lightest elements - hydrogen and helium. Other planets are mostly gaseous.

Isn't it obvious? The heavy stuff falls to the bottom of the universe, making a flat, heavy plain.

Also, the Earth contains a lot of water. Scientists say this was transported to the Earth by comets. Ha! There's loads of the stuff! A far simpler, and therefore more likely explaination, is that water just falls to the bottom and sits on the surface of the Earth.

I don't understand why we have made up such a complicated model of the universe, when the truth is so simple and obvious - the Earth is the floor of the universe.

hhmmmm... small universe.

So how come hydrogen and helium on earth don't just float up and make stars?

3
CONCAVE EARTH IS TRUTH AND IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVEN IT YOUR A SHILL
Uh-oh, this guy found his way back to the forums it seems.

Now back to the regularly scheduled nonsense, brought to you by the Flat Earth Society Forums...

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is the Earth really flat?
« on: April 10, 2015, 04:47:50 PM »
Hey! Where is "Earth is a mobius strip"?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'm confused
« on: April 10, 2015, 04:44:33 PM »
They think it's like a coin. Circular, but not sperical.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« on: April 07, 2015, 07:48:22 AM »
The entire flat and dual earth "theories" are assumed. The only evidence the give are just more assumptions. All the while they try to refute concrete evidence of a round earth.

7
If memory serves Jrowe recently stated the moon is visible as it is heated by aether whirlpools to high enough temps to glow. I am curious to see how it is heated to be fully visible, then quickly cooled and then quickly reheated, by his aether. All the while always happening when astronomers say it will and in the same manner each time.

Bear in mind aether is just space, and doesn't interact with matter.

i've replied to that statement before, stop repeating bs. if you are seriously saying space has no effect on matter, you are blind. matter exists in space, that is a fact. it's like resting items on a blanket: move the blanket, those items move.
in addition, the round earth explanation for gravity is the movement of space. i'm glad you agree gravity is bs.

well first off, you have it backwards. Its matter that affects spacetime, not the other way around. Secondly, everything that has mass, has gravity, but only very large things like planets have noticeable gravity. This gravity in turn bends spacetime. Therefore, the moons gravity also bends spacetime, but by no means would create a whirlpool. This is because the way spacetime is bent doesnt change unless the object gains or loses mass.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is round, final evidence
« on: April 05, 2015, 06:44:44 PM »
Jrowe, you are trying to call everyone else out on making assumptions/ Assertions, but that is all you seem capable of doing. The only things you seem to cite is observations, and even then those observations are only the things that result from the scource (lets use whirlpools) and not the actual scource itself.

Its like saying "the sun and moon are floating in the sky, so there must be whirlpools keeping them up there"

Your not actually observing the whirlpools themselves, but only the things that could be a result of it. And your evidence for them is just more "second hand" observations, which dont count as a scource.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is round, final evidence
« on: April 05, 2015, 03:54:21 PM »
You cant crush someone thats too stubbon to change their way of thinking. For all we know, Jrowe will tell us that we need to read his (imaginary) post that explains the whole thing.

if you think the post is imaginary, that says a lot about your intellectual ability. the post i refer to is currently the 'last post' linked to in the information repository, and i always give the page and basic location to refer to.

the stubborn person here is logicalkiller, who i have blocked for refusing to engage in any form of intellectual discusson whatsoever. i suspect he's only coming here to troll and waste everyone's time, he's clearly no doctor of physics like he claims.
as he is blocked i have no desire to read his post, but he's either linking to a refuted argument or video, or blabbing on about something pointless. he apparently thinks he alone is so superior and intelligent that he can destroy a forum and movement that has existed for years in one post, and that he alone is the first person who has thought to make that argument.
pathetic, really.

While LogicalKiller does seem like a bit of a troll at times, he at least backs up his claims with grounded, scientific evidence.

as does every flat earther here. refusing to accept evidence doesn't stop it being there.

Yes, well I feel like round Earthers have much more conclusive evidence like photographs, videos, and studies and experiments that can be repeated by anyone.

photographs can be faked, as can videos, and both can be misleading. studies and experiments are often based either on presupposition, or have multiple explanations.

Actually we now know that photos from Moon COULDN'T HAVE BEEN FAKED.

Exactly. Usually we can tell if photos and videos are faked or not. In this case, the moon landing photos and videos can be seen as authentic, because there is nothing in them that would be from a faked video/photo. It also helps that they come from a trusted source like NASA.

'usually'. you've refuted yourself.
nasa are known to develop and used advaced technology, and the moon photos exist in a different environment, tells would be different. in addition, nasa is far from a reliable source: they had kennedy's promise spurring them on when it comes to the moon landing, and were given billions of dollars. if they turned and announced that actually space travel was impossible, they would be ruined.
they are not remotely reliable.

Do you realize that realistically faking those photos and videos would be harder than actually going to space and taking them? And besides, I'm having a hard time believing that alll those people that are in on this conspiracy and still are able to keep that secret.

do you have any more than assertion?
in addition, under flat earth theory, travel into space is essentially impossible. you would run into the problems of the aetheric whirlpools, which (to an observer on earth) would seem to trap the rocket. after being paid billions and given a challenge, nasa and all such agencies would not admit failure. this is all the more true now people believe it's possible.
not everyone does keep the secret, you just need to look up nasa whistleblowers, you just choose to laugh at the people who deny the moon landing. think about it, would you actually believe anyone who says the moon landing isn't possible?

Yes, I have evidence. We have sent people into space and retrieved photos and videos from them. These could not have been faked because we didn't have the technology at the time to fake it. There are satellites over the moon that can see the flags from the moon missions. I can see satellites go by from the surface of the earth. (I saw the ISS go by last night)

And how do the aetheric whirlpools affect the rocket? Would they just make it explode, or would they force it back down to earth?

nasa are well known for their technological innovations, it takes a lot to say we don't have the technology to fake such photos at the best of times, but all the more in that case. there are many things that can move through the sky, that are not satellites.

aetheric whirlpools, being aether in thicker densities, will push the rockets down with more force than the thinner aether at the level of the earth.

So about the aetheric whirlpools, they will force the rocket to crash, right?

And the technology NASA was building was rocket technology for the most part. Not camera and special effects technology. Special effects didnt really get good until recent years. Especially not to match the quality of the moon landings.

not necessarily crash, it's just impossible to get high.
nasa inveted many forms of technology, i suggest you do your research.


What evidence do you have for aetheric whirlpools, and at what altitude are they at?

And anyway, if all these rockets crashed or the crews were forced to either make an emergency landing or bail, people would know. Rocket launches were widely publicized events.

 Just curious, do you believe that spaceflight is absolutely impossible, or just that we do not have the technology to do it yet?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 05, 2015, 11:21:35 AM »
Well, there is still some light passing through the atmosphere of the earth, so it dimly lights the moon to be dark reddish in color. Has nothing to do with heated metal.

do you feel like actually responding to the points i've made rather than repeating the same, obviously untrue explanation?

But that is the true explination. It has nothing to do with metal in the moon, or aether. Just how the sun's light behaves when it goes through the atmosphere.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is round, final evidence
« on: April 05, 2015, 11:17:54 AM »
You cant crush someone thats too stubbon to change their way of thinking. For all we know, Jrowe will tell us that we need to read his (imaginary) post that explains the whole thing.

if you think the post is imaginary, that says a lot about your intellectual ability. the post i refer to is currently the 'last post' linked to in the information repository, and i always give the page and basic location to refer to.

the stubborn person here is logicalkiller, who i have blocked for refusing to engage in any form of intellectual discusson whatsoever. i suspect he's only coming here to troll and waste everyone's time, he's clearly no doctor of physics like he claims.
as he is blocked i have no desire to read his post, but he's either linking to a refuted argument or video, or blabbing on about something pointless. he apparently thinks he alone is so superior and intelligent that he can destroy a forum and movement that has existed for years in one post, and that he alone is the first person who has thought to make that argument.
pathetic, really.

While LogicalKiller does seem like a bit of a troll at times, he at least backs up his claims with grounded, scientific evidence.

as does every flat earther here. refusing to accept evidence doesn't stop it being there.

Yes, well I feel like round Earthers have much more conclusive evidence like photographs, videos, and studies and experiments that can be repeated by anyone.

photographs can be faked, as can videos, and both can be misleading. studies and experiments are often based either on presupposition, or have multiple explanations.

Actually we now know that photos from Moon COULDN'T HAVE BEEN FAKED.

Exactly. Usually we can tell if photos and videos are faked or not. In this case, the moon landing photos and videos can be seen as authentic, because there is nothing in them that would be from a faked video/photo. It also helps that they come from a trusted source like NASA.

'usually'. you've refuted yourself.
nasa are known to develop and used advaced technology, and the moon photos exist in a different environment, tells would be different. in addition, nasa is far from a reliable source: they had kennedy's promise spurring them on when it comes to the moon landing, and were given billions of dollars. if they turned and announced that actually space travel was impossible, they would be ruined.
they are not remotely reliable.

Do you realize that realistically faking those photos and videos would be harder than actually going to space and taking them? And besides, I'm having a hard time believing that alll those people that are in on this conspiracy and still are able to keep that secret.

do you have any more than assertion?
in addition, under flat earth theory, travel into space is essentially impossible. you would run into the problems of the aetheric whirlpools, which (to an observer on earth) would seem to trap the rocket. after being paid billions and given a challenge, nasa and all such agencies would not admit failure. this is all the more true now people believe it's possible.
not everyone does keep the secret, you just need to look up nasa whistleblowers, you just choose to laugh at the people who deny the moon landing. think about it, would you actually believe anyone who says the moon landing isn't possible?

Yes, I have evidence. We have sent people into space and retrieved photos and videos from them. These could not have been faked because we didn't have the technology at the time to fake it. There are satellites over the moon that can see the flags from the moon missions. I can see satellites go by from the surface of the earth. (I saw the ISS go by last night)

And how do the aetheric whirlpools affect the rocket? Would they just make it explode, or would they force it back down to earth?

nasa are well known for their technological innovations, it takes a lot to say we don't have the technology to fake such photos at the best of times, but all the more in that case. there are many things that can move through the sky, that are not satellites.

aetheric whirlpools, being aether in thicker densities, will push the rockets down with more force than the thinner aether at the level of the earth.

So about the aetheric whirlpools, they will force the rocket to crash, right?

And the technology NASA was building was rocket technology for the most part. Not camera and special effects technology. Special effects didnt really get good until recent years. Especially not to match the quality of the moon landings.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 05, 2015, 11:10:37 AM »
Well, there is still some light passing through the atmosphere of the earth, so it dimly lights the moon to be dark reddish in color. Has nothing to do with heated metal.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is round, final evidence
« on: April 05, 2015, 10:15:35 AM »
You cant crush someone thats too stubbon to change their way of thinking. For all we know, Jrowe will tell us that we need to read his (imaginary) post that explains the whole thing.

if you think the post is imaginary, that says a lot about your intellectual ability. the post i refer to is currently the 'last post' linked to in the information repository, and i always give the page and basic location to refer to.

the stubborn person here is logicalkiller, who i have blocked for refusing to engage in any form of intellectual discusson whatsoever. i suspect he's only coming here to troll and waste everyone's time, he's clearly no doctor of physics like he claims.
as he is blocked i have no desire to read his post, but he's either linking to a refuted argument or video, or blabbing on about something pointless. he apparently thinks he alone is so superior and intelligent that he can destroy a forum and movement that has existed for years in one post, and that he alone is the first person who has thought to make that argument.
pathetic, really.

While LogicalKiller does seem like a bit of a troll at times, he at least backs up his claims with grounded, scientific evidence.

as does every flat earther here. refusing to accept evidence doesn't stop it being there.

Yes, well I feel like round Earthers have much more conclusive evidence like photographs, videos, and studies and experiments that can be repeated by anyone.

photographs can be faked, as can videos, and both can be misleading. studies and experiments are often based either on presupposition, or have multiple explanations.

Actually we now know that photos from Moon COULDN'T HAVE BEEN FAKED.

Exactly. Usually we can tell if photos and videos are faked or not. In this case, the moon landing photos and videos can be seen as authentic, because there is nothing in them that would be from a faked video/photo. It also helps that they come from a trusted source like NASA.

'usually'. you've refuted yourself.
nasa are known to develop and used advaced technology, and the moon photos exist in a different environment, tells would be different. in addition, nasa is far from a reliable source: they had kennedy's promise spurring them on when it comes to the moon landing, and were given billions of dollars. if they turned and announced that actually space travel was impossible, they would be ruined.
they are not remotely reliable.

Do you realize that realistically faking those photos and videos would be harder than actually going to space and taking them? And besides, I'm having a hard time believing that alll those people that are in on this conspiracy and still are able to keep that secret.

do you have any more than assertion?
in addition, under flat earth theory, travel into space is essentially impossible. you would run into the problems of the aetheric whirlpools, which (to an observer on earth) would seem to trap the rocket. after being paid billions and given a challenge, nasa and all such agencies would not admit failure. this is all the more true now people believe it's possible.
not everyone does keep the secret, you just need to look up nasa whistleblowers, you just choose to laugh at the people who deny the moon landing. think about it, would you actually believe anyone who says the moon landing isn't possible?

Yes, I have evidence. We have sent people into space and retrieved photos and videos from them. These could not have been faked because we didn't have the technology at the time to fake it. There are satellites over the moon that can see the flags from the moon missions. I can see satellites go by from the surface of the earth. (I saw the ISS go by last night)

And how do the aetheric whirlpools affect the rocket? Would they just make it explode, or would they force it back down to earth?

14
The Lounge / Happy Easter!
« on: April 05, 2015, 08:51:38 AM »
Happy Easter everybody! Hope everyone had a great weekend. God bless.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth is Flat: now what?
« on: April 05, 2015, 08:33:03 AM »
I would just imagine the Earth being flat. No aether, just pretty much the same other than some altered physics. I would like to believe that there could still be things like  space travel though.

Other than that I guess duel earth theory because thats just the one I know the most about.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is round, final evidence
« on: April 05, 2015, 08:24:44 AM »
You cant crush someone thats too stubbon to change their way of thinking. For all we know, Jrowe will tell us that we need to read his (imaginary) post that explains the whole thing.

if you think the post is imaginary, that says a lot about your intellectual ability. the post i refer to is currently the 'last post' linked to in the information repository, and i always give the page and basic location to refer to.

the stubborn person here is logicalkiller, who i have blocked for refusing to engage in any form of intellectual discusson whatsoever. i suspect he's only coming here to troll and waste everyone's time, he's clearly no doctor of physics like he claims.
as he is blocked i have no desire to read his post, but he's either linking to a refuted argument or video, or blabbing on about something pointless. he apparently thinks he alone is so superior and intelligent that he can destroy a forum and movement that has existed for years in one post, and that he alone is the first person who has thought to make that argument.
pathetic, really.

While LogicalKiller does seem like a bit of a troll at times, he at least backs up his claims with grounded, scientific evidence.

as does every flat earther here. refusing to accept evidence doesn't stop it being there.

Yes, well I feel like round Earthers have much more conclusive evidence like photographs, videos, and studies and experiments that can be repeated by anyone.

photographs can be faked, as can videos, and both can be misleading. studies and experiments are often based either on presupposition, or have multiple explanations.

Actually we now know that photos from Moon COULDN'T HAVE BEEN FAKED.

Exactly. Usually we can tell if photos and videos are faked or not. In this case, the moon landing photos and videos can be seen as authentic, because there is nothing in them that would be from a faked video/photo. It also helps that they come from a trusted source like NASA.

'usually'. you've refuted yourself.
nasa are known to develop and used advaced technology, and the moon photos exist in a different environment, tells would be different. in addition, nasa is far from a reliable source: they had kennedy's promise spurring them on when it comes to the moon landing, and were given billions of dollars. if they turned and announced that actually space travel was impossible, they would be ruined.
they are not remotely reliable.

Do you realize that realistically faking those photos and videos would be harder than actually going to space and taking them? And besides, I'm having a hard time believing that alll those people that are in on this conspiracy and still are able to keep that secret.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: standards
« on: April 04, 2015, 09:48:14 PM »
Well for one, Round Earthers usually show trustworthy, scientific evidence for their claims, so I guess they just want Flat Earthers to show the same level of evidence of their theory. And we have satellites in space that show us that the earth is a sphere, so part of it might just be us wondering what the heck evidence you might have to go against that. We already have our evidence so you just need to show yours. (I know its an uphill battle, but thats just how it goes.)

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why believe in flat earth?
« on: April 04, 2015, 09:32:22 PM »
Maybe when he says there are "mountains of evidence", he means literal mountains filled with evidence for a flat earth. No doubt it was the round earth conspiritors who buried it there so that nobody could find out about it. So when he says there are "mountains of evidence" and "you just need to look for it", what he really means is "pick up a shovel and start digging".

Am I right, Jroa?

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is round, final evidence
« on: April 04, 2015, 05:33:27 PM »
You cant crush someone thats too stubbon to change their way of thinking. For all we know, Jrowe will tell us that we need to read his (imaginary) post that explains the whole thing.

if you think the post is imaginary, that says a lot about your intellectual ability. the post i refer to is currently the 'last post' linked to in the information repository, and i always give the page and basic location to refer to.

the stubborn person here is logicalkiller, who i have blocked for refusing to engage in any form of intellectual discusson whatsoever. i suspect he's only coming here to troll and waste everyone's time, he's clearly no doctor of physics like he claims.
as he is blocked i have no desire to read his post, but he's either linking to a refuted argument or video, or blabbing on about something pointless. he apparently thinks he alone is so superior and intelligent that he can destroy a forum and movement that has existed for years in one post, and that he alone is the first person who has thought to make that argument.
pathetic, really.

While LogicalKiller does seem like a bit of a troll at times, he at least backs up his claims with grounded, scientific evidence.

as does every flat earther here. refusing to accept evidence doesn't stop it being there.

Yes, well I feel like round Earthers have much more conclusive evidence like photographs, videos, and studies and experiments that can be repeated by anyone.

photographs can be faked, as can videos, and both can be misleading. studies and experiments are often based either on presupposition, or have multiple explanations.

Actually we now know that photos from Moon COULDN'T HAVE BEEN FAKED.
Why does the earth appears as about the size of the moon from earth. The earth is supposedly six times larger than the moon. Checkmate.


Well, for one, it does look bigger from the moon, and...

"Our Moon follows an elliptical path around the Earth, getting as close as 363,000 km and as far as 405,000 km.

This means the Earth would get bigger and smaller in the sky. As Earth is much larger than the Moon, it would take up 13 times as much area.

The Earth wouldn’t actually hang motionless in the sky. We see lunar libration from our perspective, which lets us peek around the corner of the Moon. But from the Moon, we’d see the Earth move back and forth in the sky over 27 days."

(http://www.universetoday.com/115235/what-does-earth-look-like-from-the-moon/)

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would convince a FE'r?
« on: April 04, 2015, 04:43:45 PM »
Reverse psychology maybe? I dont think we have tried that yet.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is round, final evidence
« on: April 04, 2015, 04:37:55 PM »
You cant crush someone thats too stubbon to change their way of thinking. For all we know, Jrowe will tell us that we need to read his (imaginary) post that explains the whole thing.

if you think the post is imaginary, that says a lot about your intellectual ability. the post i refer to is currently the 'last post' linked to in the information repository, and i always give the page and basic location to refer to.

the stubborn person here is logicalkiller, who i have blocked for refusing to engage in any form of intellectual discusson whatsoever. i suspect he's only coming here to troll and waste everyone's time, he's clearly no doctor of physics like he claims.
as he is blocked i have no desire to read his post, but he's either linking to a refuted argument or video, or blabbing on about something pointless. he apparently thinks he alone is so superior and intelligent that he can destroy a forum and movement that has existed for years in one post, and that he alone is the first person who has thought to make that argument.
pathetic, really.

While LogicalKiller does seem like a bit of a troll at times, he at least backs up his claims with grounded, scientific evidence.

as does every flat earther here. refusing to accept evidence doesn't stop it being there.

Yes, well I feel like round Earthers have much more conclusive evidence like photographs, videos, and studies and experiments that can be repeated by anyone.

photographs can be faked, as can videos, and both can be misleading. studies and experiments are often based either on presupposition, or have multiple explanations.

Actually we now know that photos from Moon COULDN'T HAVE BEEN FAKED.

Exactly. Usually we can tell if photos and videos are faked or not. In this case, the moon landing photos and videos can be seen as authentic, because there is nothing in them that would be from a faked video/photo. It also helps that they come from a trusted source like NASA.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is round, final evidence
« on: April 04, 2015, 02:37:26 PM »
You cant crush someone thats too stubbon to change their way of thinking. For all we know, Jrowe will tell us that we need to read his (imaginary) post that explains the whole thing.

if you think the post is imaginary, that says a lot about your intellectual ability. the post i refer to is currently the 'last post' linked to in the information repository, and i always give the page and basic location to refer to.

the stubborn person here is logicalkiller, who i have blocked for refusing to engage in any form of intellectual discusson whatsoever. i suspect he's only coming here to troll and waste everyone's time, he's clearly no doctor of physics like he claims.
as he is blocked i have no desire to read his post, but he's either linking to a refuted argument or video, or blabbing on about something pointless. he apparently thinks he alone is so superior and intelligent that he can destroy a forum and movement that has existed for years in one post, and that he alone is the first person who has thought to make that argument.
pathetic, really.

While LogicalKiller does seem like a bit of a troll at times, he at least backs up his claims with grounded, scientific evidence.

as does every flat earther here. refusing to accept evidence doesn't stop it being there.

Yes, well I feel like round Earthers have much more conclusive evidence like photographs, videos, and studies and experiments that can be repeated by anyone.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is round, final evidence
« on: April 04, 2015, 02:11:04 PM »
You cant crush someone thats too stubbon to change their way of thinking. For all we know, Jrowe will tell us that we need to read his (imaginary) post that explains the whole thing.

if you think the post is imaginary, that says a lot about your intellectual ability. the post i refer to is currently the 'last post' linked to in the information repository, and i always give the page and basic location to refer to.

the stubborn person here is logicalkiller, who i have blocked for refusing to engage in any form of intellectual discusson whatsoever. i suspect he's only coming here to troll and waste everyone's time, he's clearly no doctor of physics like he claims.
as he is blocked i have no desire to read his post, but he's either linking to a refuted argument or video, or blabbing on about something pointless. he apparently thinks he alone is so superior and intelligent that he can destroy a forum and movement that has existed for years in one post, and that he alone is the first person who has thought to make that argument.
pathetic, really.

While LogicalKiller does seem like a bit of a troll at times, he at least backs up his claims with grounded, scientific evidence.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth is round, final evidence
« on: April 04, 2015, 01:32:28 PM »
You cant crush someone thats too stubbon to change their way of thinking. For all we know, Jrowe will tell us that we need to read his (imaginary) post that explains the whole thing.

25
Its obviously just a conspiracy.  I mean, if it doesnt involve aether, its not true. Or they will just give aether a new property in order to say that its possible.  :)

26
If you go high enough and fast enough you should never fall over any horizon. You should go up until you disappear from sight.

But the Earth is round and gravity effects rockets, so orbiting space ships disappear below the horizon.  I recommend you do some research on the Newton's cannon thought experiment.
So if the rocket goes straight up wouldn't your gravity get weaker as it ascends. Making it easier the higher it gets. Or does gravity get stronger the higher you go?
Flying horizontally would mean fighting gravity much longer, thus using way more fuel.
Well from what I understand, you would have to go high enough to leave the planet's sphere of influence, which is very inneficient.

Gravity would be affecting the vertical velocity of the spacecraft more than the horizontal velocity, it would restrict vertical flight speed more than horizontal flight speed. Similar reason to why planes cant fly straight up but they can fly horizontally (I know there is lift involved with planes, but you get the idea). And rockets must make this "pitchover" maneuver so early because that is when there speed is low, so there wont be much aerodynamic stress on it.

This is a simple reason as to why the pitchover is more efficient than going straight up (And also the fastest way to orbit).
I could not really grasp what you are saying here.
Why is it a plane can fly thousands of kilometres low to the ground closer to your magnetic core, thus stronger gravity.
And a rocket is so piss weak it can not even go straight up. You would think every meter it goes up gravity would get weaker.
You guys are making out gravity gets stronger the higher you go.
The plane thing was just an analagy. And rockets are powerful enough to just go straight up, but that would waste a lot of fuel. Gravity limits the vertical speed much more, because the rocket is going completely against it. If we turn the rocket, however, there is still enough thrust to counteract gravity while at the same time you can build up speed in the horizontal. It is the fastest and most efficient way to orbit.

And no, to my knowledge, gravity does not get stronger the higher you go. The problem with going straight up is that the force of gravity doesnt drop off as quickly as you think. Remember: the moon, 239,000 miles up, is still affected by earths gravity enough that it remains in a stable orbit. This would mean that a rocket would still have to go far past the moon to escape Earth's gravity.

27
If you go high enough and fast enough you should never fall over any horizon. You should go up until you disappear from sight.

But the Earth is round and gravity effects rockets, so orbiting space ships disappear below the horizon.  I recommend you do some research on the Newton's cannon thought experiment.
So if the rocket goes straight up wouldn't your gravity get weaker as it ascends. Making it easier the higher it gets. Or does gravity get stronger the higher you go?
Flying horizontally would mean fighting gravity much longer, thus using way more fuel.
Well from what I understand, you would have to go high enough to leave the planet's sphere of influence, which is very inneficient.

Gravity would be affecting the vertical velocity of the spacecraft more than the horizontal velocity, it would restrict vertical flight speed more than horizontal flight speed. Similar reason to why planes cant fly straight up but they can fly horizontally (I know there is lift involved with planes, but you get the idea). And rockets must make this "pitchover" maneuver so early because that is when there speed is low, so there wont be much aerodynamic stress on it.

This is a simple reason as to why the pitchover is more efficient than going straight up (And also the fastest way to orbit).

28
Flat Earth General / Re: does space exist?
« on: April 02, 2015, 03:16:42 PM »
Yes actually, space exists. Most of the universe is empty space.

29

(and about that rocket just going straight up, it still cant get you into an orbit, only out of earth's sphere of influence. And by the way, I dont think we have any rockets that have enough fuel to do something like that.)
Pioneer, voyager..

Well, I meant manned spacecraft. And pioneer and voyager still got into orbit around earth before they shot out into space, didn't they?

30
A rocket just going straight up would be very inefficient. It can do it, but not without running out of fuel first. It has to do that (gravity) turn so that it picks enough horizontal speed to orbit.

(and about that rocket just going straight up, it still cant get you into an orbit, only out of earth's sphere of influence. And by the way, I dont think we have any rockets that have enough fuel to do something like that.)

Pages: [1]