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 - SSSavio

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Flat Earth General / Re: International Space Station - FE'rs please explain
« on: February 13, 2014, 01:39:51 AM »
There's no such thing like "Zero G". People on the ISS enjoy close to the same gravitational pull than the people on earth. The Zero G kind like effect is due to the fact that they are falling, but circling around the earth so fast that they mantain an orbit.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Space debris
« on: September 13, 2011, 07:57:54 AM »
LoL, Thork has no idea about depth of field

here no one has ideas of nothig. it seems this way.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« on: August 05, 2011, 12:38:02 AM »
Thanks, yeah I'm really hoping for some attention from FE believers, I don't want my hour of typing to be in vain. Let's not let this thread die!

I have really bad news for you... maybe you do not understand well the nature if this place.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidence for globe-orbiting satellites
« on: August 04, 2011, 12:57:25 AM »
Quote
If there are still any doubters (I suspect this is about three of you), I shall direct you here: http://earthnow.usgs.gov/earthnow.html

First of all, the stream ends as soon as the craft finishes passing over America. For all I know the craft is zipping back across the US again, rather than around the world, and they play the next footage backwards.

Great Post, nothing to say about. Anyway, let's assume that this is an hoax, and this stuffs is taken by planes or "stratellites" (so dumb, but let's assume this).

One question rise to my mind: why? Why do the hoax perpetually continues to run such experiments? The world is commonly believed as a sphere, why do organizations continue to produce data that cannot make their theory stornger but only weaker? Why producing billions of images of the earth and give it to other people, it's only augmenting the risk that the hoax is discovered faster!

5
Flat Earth General / Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« on: August 01, 2011, 06:30:41 AM »






But i think japan is also part of the conspiracy.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Atlantis and ISS in broad daylight
« on: July 19, 2011, 01:42:30 AM »


The final mission of the space shuttle, captured 1.25 hours after sunrise. Tracked with an 8" LX200 Classic Schmidt-Cassegrain @ f/10 using Brent Boshart's Satellite Tracker software. Recorded with a modified Samsung SDC-435. 1/500 sec exposure, AGC off. This is the raw video with no edits other than trimming.

7
Stop replying to the stupid troll named Tom Bishop. He is always trolling, and never supporting his claims with evidence. He can only claims other is wrong, newton was wrong, einstein was wrong, tesla was wrong, EVERYONE.

And he cannot prove nothing on the FE theory, he is the only one that know the real truth, so believe or avoid answering his trolling posts.

Maybe can be interesting to have a debate between Tom and Stephen Hawking, i m pretty sure that tom will be eaten alive by the genius of stephen hawking. Only problem is that hawking does not give a fuck of what tom is saying.

8
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: On the notion of Debian
« on: July 01, 2011, 03:14:04 AM »
A mac user trying to run linux, this is incredibly stupid but also funny
Who is that? ???

the OP, the one that starts the thread...

9
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: On the notion of Debian
« on: June 30, 2011, 05:29:37 AM »
A mac user trying to run linux, this is incredibly stupid but also funny

10
Do the FES boards support any math writing applications such as LaTeX or jsMath? - and if not, why?

I'm just curious because i intend on using them if the site supports it.

Thanks.

Man, just give up. It is a waste of your time, you look well prepared, you can use Latex or jsMath for something better than try to convince people that can barely sum two integers.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: What do you believe?
« on: June 22, 2011, 02:02:25 AM »
Evolution happened? Were you there 250 million years ago to observe change? Evolution is a bible of atheism and was never proven. Big Bang was also never proven. Saying God created our universe is not a cop-out. Big Bang is more of a cop out for the lack of any scientific evidence. You blame religion? The biggest religion on earth is science! Why cause science proved nothing and yet everyone believes in it, lol

We don't have to be there to know it happened. Observe the difference between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_God. In particular, notice how nothing in the evidence for God article is actually evidence for God. Why is that? Because there isn't any. That article on evolution only scratches the surface, by the way. I know that God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive, but it is an interesting scenario. The Big Bang has evidence. Let me repeat that so even you can understand. Both the Big Bang and evolution are well supported by evidence. Science has proved many things beyond reasonable doubt, including evolution. Science is not a religion.

EDIT: And religion is a cop-out. Personal incredulity is not a reason to believe that something was caused by, or is overseen by, a higher power.

Religion: I don't know, so I guess it was that thar god.
Science: Well, the distribution of cosmic background radiation, abundance of light elements, the expansion of space, distribution of galaxies, and the observation that the universe was, indeed, hotter in the past, leads us to conclude that the universe was once is a very dense state, and subsequently expanded very rapidly.

Guess which one is probably right.

Everything revolves around evidence. God has none. I can't stress that enough. In fact, there has never been any case of any supposed supernatural force that, when examined critically, has not been shown to actually be a natural event.

P.S. I hate you.


I don't give a shit if you hate me. You are just another leftist scumbag, and a science geek. Evolution is a leftist communist idea designed to reject a creator. And Big Bang, well that's just pathetic! An explosion caused the creation of a universe and a perfect life sustaining planet like earth. Sorry but this is not science, this is bull shit. Scientists claim that everything happens by chance, that nothing is created for a purpose, everything is accidental. The existence of our earth is an accident. The air we breathe, the water we drink to sustain our lives, the animal kingdom, the beauty of deserts, plains and oceans, all big accident, life is just a random thing, well you can shove your science up your ass because I don't believe in accidents. Everything has a purpose and a specific design. Human body and the complexity of it is the main prove of an intelligent design (God) How can an accident or big explosion in space, cause such wonderful harmony and precision (the human life) Go sell your stories to Karl Marx my boy, oh wait he died and went to hell. LOL

Prove to me Evolution ever happened, prove to me God doesn't exist. You can't. Atheism is your religion this is why you get angry when anyone challenges it. You are not basing your claims on real evidence or solid proof, you are basing it based on your displeasure toward God and his creation, you hate God so you embrace evolution and atheism. What is a religion? It is a strong belief in something without actual evidence. Isn't this what evolution and atheism is? A belief without any evidence nor real proof!

Can you prove that God actually exists? We don't claim anything, there is no god's evidence anywhere, so God does not exists until YOU prove this. Try really hard and waste all your life behind your god research, have fun.

I have a question: we can never reach the speed of light, dunno why, but assume this  thing. When we are approaching the speed of light, for what reason the earth does not collapse under this huge acceleration? And take in consideration the space in what the earth is in: is it infinite? we are accelerating and moving so fast that i think we have moved out of the known universe, still we does not approach anything? Other earths? Other... stuffs?? Dunno. Are we alone in the universe? Why?

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why can't I see everest.
« on: June 20, 2011, 05:04:12 AM »
in b4 atmospheric distortion/blurryness or whatever

13
Flat Earth General / Re: so from what I've come to understand...
« on: May 30, 2011, 10:19:02 AM »
okay, yes, if RET is false, then millions ARE under the effect of indoctrination,

however, I have yet so see ANY evidence that gives the impression of a flat earth, other than, "look around you, doesn't the earth look flat?" which as we all know doesn't hold any water

the burden of proof lies on the presenter, as we all know.
Burden of proof doesn't really work here, seeing as how we're in their territory.

It also doesn't work because the burden of proof is actually on the RE'ers, not the FE'ers.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Burden+of+Proof

    Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

    A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

    A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

    You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, government contractors can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

    The burden is on you to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

    If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

    In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

    Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

    The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.

so you do not claim the earth is flat. because if you claim it, you have to prove it. burden of proof. burden of proof is on RE side and FE side. still RET looks more credible to me.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: so from what I've come to understand...
« on: May 30, 2011, 02:48:35 AM »
EG, what evidence is turning people into FE'ers? Is it bendy light, which has less evidence than gravity, could it be moonshrimp, which has less evidence than God, or is it the faked space program, which is about as possible as a giant conspiracy that tens of thousands of people work for, yet none of them have leaked even the tiniest bit of information?

You can feel free to answer my question too Tom.

Thomas Baron leaked NASA's fraudulence.

He and his family were subsequently murdered.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Thomas+Baron+Silenced+for+Attempting+to+Expose+the+Truth

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/baron.html

Tom, the things you claim in that wiki are truly bullshits. We can say that all the forum is about bullshits, arguably, but that post is an incredible mistification of the reality. And it does not prove anything about Nasa went or not into space.

15
I agree that just because something is old does not make it false. Nor does it make it true. It does not make it anything, except old. But I wonder, James, which worldview do you suppose came first?
I know I'm not James, but the flat earth worldview is ancient in its origins.  Almost every religion known to exist suggest a flat earth.

This does not make you wonder? You and other Fet Believers are stucked in this theory originated billions years ago. I'm ok with middle ages, people were ignorant, there was no instruments, you can just see and try to develop theory, people had very rough strumentation and knwledges. But now, come on, there are so many innovations you can't count that help people understanding of nature, and you just ignore all of this stuff.

It's just like... working to achieve a new Obscurantism, back to middle ages again.
Like I said, Truth has no expiration date.  But clearly it should be obvious to you that this theory did not originate billions of years ago.  Even flat earth theory 100 years ago had wildly different implications and basis than modern theory.

You re wrong man. Truth has no expiration date, i know, but no one knows the truth, here we are talking about theories and yes, theories have expiration dates, because every theory stands until someone prove it wrong. Even Relativity, yeah it is really cool but really destroy precedent theory and today we know that this theory looks still cool but we know something is missing or could be wrong.
Hate to say it, but Irrelevant.  No one has proven it wrong;  people are saying its wrong because its old.

You are really saying no one proves it is wrong? Or just you dont wanna accept it is wrong. I think that you FEB either cannot prove RET is wrong so it is true? So we have two theories clearly in opposition and either are true. I'm shocked.

Anyway, i dont want to distract you from your work on dinosaurs, i just wait for it.

16
I agree that just because something is old does not make it false. Nor does it make it true. It does not make it anything, except old. But I wonder, James, which worldview do you suppose came first?
I know I'm not James, but the flat earth worldview is ancient in its origins.  Almost every religion known to exist suggest a flat earth.

This does not make you wonder? You and other Fet Believers are stucked in this theory originated billions years ago. I'm ok with middle ages, people were ignorant, there was no instruments, you can just see and try to develop theory, people had very rough strumentation and knwledges. But now, come on, there are so many innovations you can't count that help people understanding of nature, and you just ignore all of this stuff.

It's just like... working to achieve a new Obscurantism, back to middle ages again.
Like I said, Truth has no expiration date.  But clearly it should be obvious to you that this theory did not originate billions of years ago.  Even flat earth theory 100 years ago had wildly different implications and basis than modern theory.

You re wrong man. Truth has no expiration date, i know, but no one knows the truth, here we are talking about theories and yes, theories have expiration dates, because every theory stands until someone prove it wrong. Even Relativity, yeah it is really cool but really destroy precedent theory and today we know that this theory looks still cool but we know something is missing or could be wrong.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Incredible Shrinking Disc (ISD) Theory
« on: May 26, 2011, 03:22:42 AM »

Answers to the questions you claim we can't answer:
1) UA is generated by Dark Energy. Yes, dark energy is, indeed, scientifically accepted. We aren't making it up.
2) 'Up', as a direction, is subjective. In RET, a Chinese man's 'up' is different from an American's 'up'.
3) You clearly haven't lurked as much as you imply. Thork and I answered this question yesterday. It was also answered a few days ago. And about a week ago. Ad infinitum.
4) Who suggested that there is nothing beyond the solar system?

As for the point about the theory being inconsistent, please refer to number 3. You aren't unique. You aren't smarter than everyone else here. Until you have a better understanding of the theory, you will not be able to find holes in it beyond that which everyone points out when they come here for the first time.

Ok, not this shit AGAIN. You can't just take theories originated elsewhere and throw it in your "FE Theory" to cover holes here and there. Dark Energy implies GRAVITY. Oh man this FE theory really is a mess.

So find YOUR theory for UA, not other peoples theory that develop things assuming the earth is ROUND, orbiting around the SUN, using instruments and methods that you refuse.

So I destroy your first point.

Then... Second point is blind faith, we are going conveniently UP, why the UA does not just crush our ass off pulling the other way around, no one really knows, pure luck.

Point three... i have to lurk, so skip this for a moment.

Point four, you just accepted the evidence of a solar system, implying the system relying on the sun and not around the Earth, so i think we have a winner, finally.

To conclude, i can have "better understanding of the theory" if this theory EXISTS with matemathics and phisics proving that this stuff works, and not a faq of 100 lines explaining things pretending people believe that moon kills people or that dinosaurs go around within boats or the presence of a gigantic ice wall with snipers on.

18
I agree that just because something is old does not make it false. Nor does it make it true. It does not make it anything, except old. But I wonder, James, which worldview do you suppose came first?
I know I'm not James, but the flat earth worldview is ancient in its origins.  Almost every religion known to exist suggest a flat earth.

This does not make you wonder? You and other Fet Believers are stucked in this theory originated billions years ago. I'm ok with middle ages, people were ignorant, there was no instruments, you can just see and try to develop theory, people had very rough strumentation and knwledges. But now, come on, there are so many innovations you can't count that help people understanding of nature, and you just ignore all of this stuff.

It's just like... working to achieve a new Obscurantism, back to middle ages again.

19
Tom Bishop vision of the facts is really interesting. He does not believe in Nasa, a scientific organization that works with a scientific method, proving all the stuffs they ve done, carrying tons and tons of evidence, collaborating with so many people across the globe.

BUT he believes in some books written by some man during the middle age, he believes evidence of random stuffs found on the internet (like articles citing hoax or videos on youtube). If some random people continue to post shits on the web claiming donkeys are flying, then why not? And now we are seeing a bunch of random guyz on the internet claiming that dinosaurs are einstein-like minded, building boats to go conquer the world? Using paddles to move?

Are you serious?

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Incredible Shrinking Disc (ISD) Theory
« on: May 25, 2011, 06:08:46 AM »
Regarding the "dark energy" that FE guys have to use as a subsitute for gravity: It has been established in other threads that this energy can only accelerate the earth upwards and not the objects upon the erath, the reasoning being that the earths bulk "shields" them from the accelerative energy.
This leads to the conclusion that the energy must be applied equally across the whole base of an earth disc, otherwise it would tip over (this also enables us to conclude that the underside of an earth disc MUST be radially symmetrical to avoid the same effect... I dont remember any flat earthers working this out before, slackers!)
This would also mean, given the energy is sufficient to propel the immense mass of the earth, that at the very edge of the earth would be a line where the dark energy would come rushing upwards along the side of the disc with tremendous force, greater than the force found in earthquakes or volcanoes. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that this force would rip matter off the side of the disc, hurling it upwards at a far greater rate than the earth is moving (due to the smaller mass of debrided particles, they would be accelerated greater by the energy.)
This presents us with three phenomena that would occur. 1: The earths disc would be getting smaller and smaller as it was eroded away. 2: As the mass of the earth decreased, the rate of acceleration would increase and the force we experience as gravity would get stronger and stronger over time as the dark energy finds it progressively easier and easier to accelerate the earth as it gets lighter. 3: a huge stream of debris would be visible hurtling upwards from the edge.

Discuss.

The earth is infinite or not? I just dont grasp this concept, someone claims it is finite, others that is infinite. I don't care. I just don't understand this UA: what generates UA? Dunno. Why UA moves only "up"? Dunno. Why UA affects the earth only, not other stuff? Again, Dunno. What exists beyond the earth and solar system? Nothing?

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The movement of the Sun.
« on: May 24, 2011, 01:35:03 AM »
Also, on the subject of zetetics and evil of hypotheses:

  Celestial Gears (Bishop)

...are all "hypotheses" put forward by so-called Zetetists on this forum.   They are ideas (suggestions) that may explain phenomena, but none have been independently observed.

I've observed the stars rotate above my head. Ergo, I can state emperically that the stars rotate above my head.

Reality actually favors FET on this matter. It takes a leap of imagination to look at the stars moving and say that the earth is moving. Clearly a case of disbelieving one's own eyes.

Actually it takes no such leap, all you have to think about is frictionless movement.  If you maintain the same speed it does not feel as though you are moving.  Think about an airplane, after you take off, if you were to throw a ball up in the air, it would fall back in your lap, not shoot to the back of the plane.  so as long as we are not accelerating, we wont feel movement.  Then its just a matter of perspective, its just as logical to believe that the planet is rotating.

There is also the Coriolis Effect: how FEB explain this phenomenon?

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The movement of the Sun.
« on: May 23, 2011, 07:31:52 AM »
Also, on the subject of zetetics and evil of hypotheses:

  Celestial Gears (Bishop)

...are all "hypotheses" put forward by so-called Zetetists on this forum.   They are ideas (suggestions) that may explain phenomena, but none have been independently observed.

I've observed the stars rotate above my head. Ergo, I can state emperically that the stars rotate above my head.

Reality actually favors FET on this matter. It takes a leap of imagination to look at the stars moving and say that the earth is moving. Clearly a case of disbelieving one's own eyes.

That is, INCORRECT. You see stars rotating above your head: why you conclude that stars rotate and not that stars stand still whyle YOU rotate?

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Dark Energy
« on: May 20, 2011, 08:22:41 AM »
In FE,  one of the theories is that Dark energy is continually propelling the universe and earth upwards at 9.18m/s.  But why does dark energy not effect me as a person?

Take this example,  In RE theory, gravity keeps me placed firmly on the earth, an it effects all portions of my body equally based on their mass.  If I stop controlling my neck muscles, my head will dangle, rather than sit upright.  If i raise my arm above my head, and then stop trying to hold it there, it will fall down towards me. 
 
For some reason however,  Dark energy in FE does not have this same effect.  It only moves the earth upwards, not the things on the earth, for instance, myself.  If dark energy was working on myself and the earth, i would feel no attraction towards it, as it would be accelerating my body up at the same rate that it would be accelerating the universe upwards.

My question is, what allows DE to pick and choose what atoms to work on and what atoms to ignore?   


It doesn't. Essentially, the Earth blocks UA from directly hitting us. Think of it like a large piece of debris in a hurricane (note: this analogy is, of course, not perfect, so let's not get pedantic). If you're hiding behind the debris, the wind isn't hitting you. However, as the debris is pushed by the wind, you get pushed with it. If you were to stick your arms out, say to guard your face against hitting a wall, the speed at which you are moving would be trying to push your arm back. Read up on the Equivalence Principle. There should be an article on it in the FAQ.

This is stupid. In a hurricane you are affected by the wind in the same way of the debris: simple to understand, you fly the same way around just like the debris.

I'm trying to think of a better way to explain it, and I'm failing. Like I said, read up on the Equivalence Principle. Also, it should be noted that UA doesn't push the entire universe. There's ether.

why DE does not push ether? why DE pushes only the things you like. how can DE discern what to push and what not to push, this is simple mind blowing for me.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Dark Energy
« on: May 17, 2011, 03:30:18 AM »
In FE,  one of the theories is that Dark energy is continually propelling the universe and earth upwards at 9.18m/s.  But why does dark energy not effect me as a person?

Take this example,  In RE theory, gravity keeps me placed firmly on the earth, an it effects all portions of my body equally based on their mass.  If I stop controlling my neck muscles, my head will dangle, rather than sit upright.  If i raise my arm above my head, and then stop trying to hold it there, it will fall down towards me. 
 
For some reason however,  Dark energy in FE does not have this same effect.  It only moves the earth upwards, not the things on the earth, for instance, myself.  If dark energy was working on myself and the earth, i would feel no attraction towards it, as it would be accelerating my body up at the same rate that it would be accelerating the universe upwards.

My question is, what allows DE to pick and choose what atoms to work on and what atoms to ignore?   


It doesn't. Essentially, the Earth blocks UA from directly hitting us. Think of it like a large piece of debris in a hurricane (note: this analogy is, of course, not perfect, so let's not get pedantic). If you're hiding behind the debris, the wind isn't hitting you. However, as the debris is pushed by the wind, you get pushed with it. If you were to stick your arms out, say to guard your face against hitting a wall, the speed at which you are moving would be trying to push your arm back. Read up on the Equivalence Principle. There should be an article on it in the FAQ.

This is stupid. In a hurricane you are affected by the wind in the same way of the debris: simple to understand, you fly the same way around just like the debris.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to Prove that Orbit is Maintained
« on: July 22, 2010, 12:20:20 PM »
Mmm....where did they get this hologram technology?

It was developed in the 1930s by the Conspiracy, when they began to realise that the technology to go into space was mere decades away and they couldn't keep coming up with excuses to put it off or the private sector would get there first and discover the truth.

Proof or it did not happen.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to Prove that Orbit is Maintained
« on: July 22, 2010, 12:17:17 PM »
How does that prove they are looking at the same satellite?

Because they located at the same spot every second, every time and every day. You can track it too. Get the strumentation, follow the guides, track it.

No excuse. If you do not prove it is wrong, the giant amount of data prove that it is right.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to Prove that Orbit is Maintained
« on: July 22, 2010, 03:37:22 AM »
ISS is a series of pseudolites the conspiracy launches at various locations at various times of day to give the illusion of orbit.

The ISS is tracked and monitored every second, by millions amateur astronomers. Stop saying crazy things.
Prove that the ISS is monitored every second. And prove that the same ISS is being monitored by every observer.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/tracking/

http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25544

http://isstracker.com/

It just crossed New Zealand

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Did you know...
« on: July 21, 2010, 07:06:11 AM »
Quote
Can you give us the technical read outs of these Stratellites?  How do they stay up seemingly forever?  How are they refueled?  Who controls them and from where?  And ... How can I hack into one so I can crash it down into your front yard so you can prove to the world that they're real?

Stratellites can stay in continuous operation without maintenance for periods longer than 14 months at a time.

Quote
No, stratellites would require enough onboard power to move across the sky, and you just told us that ICBMs can't even do that.

Stratellites are typically solar powered.

Stratellite is a registered trademark of Sanswire Corp. and refers to their stratospheric communication platform which is currently in development.  Do you have any evidence that this product has been operationally deployed anywhere in the world?

While Sanswire may have a trademark over the term "Stratellite," high altitude communications balloons have been in operation for many decades. When TheEngineer was a member of these forums he personally attested of various government stratellite operations he knew about.

NASA has admitted that they are involved in the manufacture of $500-a-pop mini stratellites.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11911-nasa-develops-smart-weather-balloons-for-launch-sites.html

Quite a bargain compared to the tens of millions of dollars which goes into the average satellite.

Quote
Wow that was really not helpful, not even close to what I asked, and also impossible.
How does one stay aloft with only solar power in very low density atmosphere?  Have they invented ion drives?

Stratellites are filled with helium and made of strong material.

The link shows weather ballons. Why you have to troll on every possible topic. Why you dont have any data, any source, any math, any evidence of what you are saying. Please explain to us.

If your "society" have enough real members (i doubt it), you can buy a good telescope and see that the satellites are not ballons.
You can even buy a telescope and track the ISS, in this way you can end the debate if the earth is flat or not.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to Prove that Orbit is Maintained
« on: July 20, 2010, 12:26:09 AM »
ISS is a series of pseudolites the conspiracy launches at various locations at various times of day to give the illusion of orbit.

The ISS is tracked and monitored every second, by millions amateur astronomers. Stop saying crazy things.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How to Prove that Orbit is Maintained
« on: July 19, 2010, 11:16:45 AM »
If it is a hologram, where does this shuttle is going?



And do you think this is an Hologram? Huge work by NASA this time:


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8