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 - Space Tourist

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: James' Ideas on the Sun and Moon
« on: June 21, 2010, 09:41:58 AM »
I can confidently reveal to you that the force which suspends the iron core of the Moon is that which is known as the Photoelectric Suspension effect.

One little problem with that... the moon doesnt have an iron core...

3
Yeah, flying "sideways" is basically happens with spaceflight. All you have to do is go "sideways" the same amount as you fall down, and you are in orbit.

But on the FE side of things, some people think that the earth is an infinite plane, in which case this would be impossible. Possible on the disc model.

The Disk model falls on its face becouse the of the shape of the orbits when layed on a flat map of a round earth a LEO orbit makes a sign wave just like the area lit by the sun...

4
The picture I posted was in response to this:

As I understand it, it is possible but not practical because of the enormous fuel weight that would be required.

Taking large amounts of fuel with you would certainly make it possible to reach space, I don't see why that aspect is impossible. Depending on which model you ascribe to you may even be able to enter into an orbit as well (if earth is not an infinite plane).

So our space vehicles should be able to reach sufficient altitude for whatever force holds the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies aloft to take over. Why do you believe this is not possible?

I am going to have to agree with this.  Orbit may be possible in FET.  All you have to do is get out of the protective bubble that is the earth.  I am surprised I havent thought of this before.  

One problem though....Even if they get to orbit they still have to fake the 0 G's seen on multiple videos.  So the question becomes why put a vehicle in orbit and then fake the 0G's.  Could be the Astronauts are not in on the whole thing like previously thought.  Oh wait I had a brain wave.

The shuttle blasts off from Kennedy, reaches and altitude that the UA begins to effect it keeping it aloft.  The shuttle is inverted almost all of its flight so with minor correction could be put in a decent that would be 0 G as it falls back to earth the entire time its up there.  Then as it begin to enter back in the  protective bubble the shuttle rights itself and then speeds its way back to Kennedy.

Although if all this were true....it would take a huge chunk of money out of the cash cow that is NASA.
                   

would it not be possible to enter space by not flying upwards but by flying sideways off the side of the earth thus being out of the way of our accelerating earth?

You mean like this...


And this...

Oh wait....

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Is the conspiracy losing its power?
« on: June 21, 2010, 09:11:17 AM »
American space travel was the product of a Cold War. American needed to demonstrate to the world with its faux space missions that it possessed the technology necessary to rain ICBMs down upon its enemies at the push of a button.

Now that America is the world's only existing super power there really isn't a need to invest heavily in space propaganda.

It is true. It is most likely that NASA is now converting many of it's funds into research and development so that it can make products that it can further sell for profit. Examples of them doing this is in the past are Velcro, Teflon, and Tang.

Just to correct you NASA didnt invent Tang
Teflon is a trademark of the DuPont corp
And any and all patents held by NASA are FREE for public and private use by US law
just saying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_%28drink%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Is the universe flat?
« on: June 14, 2010, 02:11:53 AM »
fun fact the universe is flat

space only curves around massive objects 

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Maps/Earth Proves a Round Earth
« on: June 14, 2010, 02:06:32 AM »
Your opinion may be that it is a current photo; my opinion is that it is an older one.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?

What?  That it's not a current photo?  Yes, apparently it was placed on a website in 2008 with no other information about when it was taken.
from the right mount top you used to be able to see in to the base


here is one from a Russian spy satellite this one was taken in the 60s or so iirc

and here is one from a private imaging group

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Pictures of the Earth
« on: June 14, 2010, 01:59:28 AM »
im bored
ok here is the big one in the CG the atmosphere is WAY to thick

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth
« on: May 27, 2010, 09:11:07 PM »
But that is dependant on the amount of rotation on either gyro. Even a good INS will be prone to a malfunction. Idk much about this topic but I can say that if you have a malfunction and one rotation is less than the other then you will get drift. Also there is no self correction in the gyro. Unless Ive heard otherwise.

Also for all of FES I see that everyone spells plane "plain" Its plane. And strait is spelled straight.

Most INS have more then 2 more like 4 to 6 in high end ones so there is backups
but in a simple one with 2 or 3 it will tell you if there is a failure
other issue is you could use a ring laser gyro which has a VERY low failure rate and higher accuracy

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth
« on: May 27, 2010, 09:03:17 AM »
you know what a gyro is right ?
and angular momentum?

ANY movement that deviates from a strait line will make the gyro react

And you know that mechanical gyros are prone to drifting, don't you?
yes in random directions
soo it would avg out
also learn more about INS systems fully self contained ones have very little drift

Very little drift is not the same as no drift.  Also, seeing as friction can not be totally ignored, it would seem that (at least some of) the gyro's drift should be based on the direction of rotation.

A good INS will have more then one gyro rotating in different directions :D there by nulling the drift :p

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth
« on: May 26, 2010, 08:27:32 PM »
you know what a gyro is right ?
and angular momentum?

ANY movement that deviates from a strait line will make the gyro react

And you know that mechanical gyros are prone to drifting, don't you?
yes in random directions
soo it would avg out
also learn more about INS systems fully self contained ones have very little drift

12
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth
« on: May 26, 2010, 07:58:04 PM »
Well, here's how it works. To travel in a straight line over great distances you need some way to navigate that you are traveling in a straight line. Whatever method you use in FET will result in a curve around the center pole (I think it's the North but I've been told it could be either), so you will end up tracing a path parallel to the Equator, which is a big circle around the center. In this way, FET actually seems plausible. But of course it raises hundreds of other problems, which have no answer because the world is a (virtual) sphere.

Analog INS with a mechanical gyro will plot a perfectly strait line.

I'm gonna be honest I have no idea what that is. If that can plot a straight line for a pilot to follow good. /debate

you know what a gyro is right ?
and angular momentum?

ANY movement that deviates from a strait line will make the gyro react


/forum
space flight is real

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth
« on: May 26, 2010, 07:40:01 PM »
Well, here's how it works. To travel in a straight line over great distances you need some way to navigate that you are traveling in a straight line. Whatever method you use in FET will result in a curve around the center pole (I think it's the North but I've been told it could be either), so you will end up tracing a path parallel to the Equator, which is a big circle around the center. In this way, FET actually seems plausible. But of course it raises hundreds of other problems, which have no answer because the world is a (virtual) sphere.

Analog INS with a mechanical gyro will plot a perfectly strait line.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: To all Flat Earthers.
« on: May 26, 2010, 07:34:43 PM »
1) Splicing, agian
2) Green screen.

1) Splicing?  Splicing from what?  30-second clips of weightlessness?  No.  I told you once, that scene could only have been filmed in space; you can't fit that set into a plane/container.

2)  Green screen is impossible.  Do you understand the concept of greenscreen?  SOMEONE had to film what would later replace the green screen.  Fool.

This was filmed in space.  Any more rebuttals?
1. Yes splicing 30 second clips.

2. they would use a projected space computer generated animation. Duh. Poopy.

CGI still looks like CGI
there are shots longer then 2min

15
Ok for the last time NASA has one of the smallest budgets in DC.
Over 1/2 US tax dollars go to Defense spending, there are DoD contractors that make more a year then what NASA gets.
If the motivation is money.... well they picked the wrong thing to make a conspiracy about.
Please note NASAs budget and then look at the left hand side.

NASA gets ~18Billion a year
Lets compare that to another part of the US gov't
The DoJ gets 19.5Billion and if you compare that to the combined Defense spending... lol at 635Billion....
IMO Fake/illegal wars would be a better conspiracy TON more money to be made off of that :D

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Foucault Pendulum...
« on: May 26, 2010, 02:57:34 AM »
Aluminum Pendulum now what?
cant be magnets becouse Alu isnt magnetic...

Accidentally or not, google Foucault currents.

Only works with high speeds with alu the weight would have to be spinning at high rpm think 1000+ RPM.
Oh and you can do this at home with any heavy weight and some string sooo yea..

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature
« on: May 26, 2010, 02:51:44 AM »
sure in a vacuum
You for got to account for atmospheric lensing and any boundary layer interactions
also depending on what compass point that was taken from Toronto is at high lat. if it was taken east west then the curve is less then then if it was north south...

You lose.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: What else does the conspiracy cover up?
« on: May 26, 2010, 02:32:25 AM »
Have you?

I have and i can clearly make it out :D
HAVE YOU?
Also there is a great shot of the ISS and Shuttle transiting the sun :D

http://www.axilone.com/legault/
Because every amateur astronomer in the world is in on it right?

Also there goes the spot/flood light bs lol.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Foucault Pendulum...
« on: May 25, 2010, 07:26:34 PM »
Aluminum Pendulum now what?
cant be magnets becouse Alu isnt magnetic...

20
Have you seen NASA's Budget? Its TINY compared to well every other branch of the gov't.
There are DoD think tanks that make more then NASA. If you want to make money in DC there is a LOT better ways.
Hell Congresses budget is bigger. IMO if you want a Conspiracy thats out to make money go after the career politicians. There rolling in 10x the money NASA is.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Mythbusters
« on: May 25, 2010, 07:05:35 AM »
Looks like it should to me.
Again this is one of the things people get wrong. There is no air on the moon. Light from the sun doesnt work the same way it does on the earth.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Mythbusters
« on: May 25, 2010, 12:41:42 AM »
Uhm, Bishop. None of your sources think that NASA has faked space flight, only the moon landing (which they probably think they faked because they wanted to be first). Even if they did fake the moon landing, how do you explain sattelite images?

He cant just like DirectTV, XM, and HAMSats, its all "The Conspiracy" Because ever DirectTV install tech, HAM, and XM owner in on it...   ::)

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Faked Space Flight?
« on: May 24, 2010, 09:47:50 PM »
It's called CGI.

Watch Space Cowboys. NASA was used as a consultant to provide the weightless effects for the movie.

Firstly, CGI will never be able to replace real footage.  Lunatic conspiracy theorists, such as yourself, often slave over footage like the footage I provided.  No CGI film is perfect.  

But let's assume that CGI really could explain 'fake' footage of space travel.

How do you explain the person in the film?  Simulation of space flight is impossible.  You cannot fool people into thinking they're actually in space; and don't site that stupid link you always do; those people were likely paid actors.


they have fooled people that they  were going into space! the show in britian "space cadets" did just that.

Very dumb people... you would be hard pressed to fool any one with an IQ over 30 with cheap tricks like that.
They set out to find people that didnt know any thing about spaceflight.
Quote
Audition process

In order for the hoax to stand a realistic chance of succeeding, the Cadets would have to remain unaware of the true nature of the show, even given any production mistakes and implausible explanations.

As such, a strict set of criteria were applied to filter out inappropriate applicants:

    * Eliminating anyone who had ever served in the armed forces, or who already had a significant interest in space travel or science fiction.
    * Psychological tests used to single out the highly suggestible and those who would conform to groupthink
    * Physiological tests to determine claustrophobia, including being in restraining jackets and trapped in a full lift
    * Being asked to dance blindfolded, without music, and with others watching, to gauge inhibition levels
    * Asking the candidates to nominate a friend or relative they trusted implicitly, to make a vital and important decision for them. These friends or relatives were contacted, and fully let in on the hoax, and given the final say of whether or not the Cadet should be included

The intention was to obtain a group of Cadets who were highly gullible, conformist, and ignorant about the show's subject matter; and also ideally suited to appearing in a Reality TV show (e.g. uninhibited extroverts, "wacky personalities", or characters otherwise able to capture the public's attention).
[edit] Prize

The first 2 are the big ones get people that dont know a space station from a gas station and your 2/3 of the way there.
2nd get people that are suggestible and easly give in to peer presser and you can get them to think any thing you want.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Government hiding facts about FE
« on: May 24, 2010, 08:35:20 PM »
Oh lets see... Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei come to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

Why would these men come to mind?  Neither were persecuted or ostracized for believing the earth to be a globe. 



Really?
Quote
When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
Sounds like Galileo was.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof of curvature
« on: May 24, 2010, 08:33:07 PM »
Errr, ok im just rambling off topic now. Could you please explain how this appearing to travel in a stright line but actually travelling in a circle works? How would a circumnavigation appear to an eyewitness on board?

You're actually traveling along a curve in RE too.  There is no "straight line" about it, except along a great circle like the equator (the only latitude where that's the case).

Funny thing about a sphere there is more then one "great circle" route...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle
Being all 3 Dimensional and all.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: To all Flat Earthers.
« on: May 24, 2010, 06:20:23 PM »
Here is how they do it for real. The biggest issue is the speeds and Gs pulling out of the dive not breaking the plane.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: To all Flat Earthers.
« on: May 24, 2010, 06:18:36 PM »
There is so much wrong with that i dont even know were to start....
but for one a 737 cant fly that high and you would need a VERY big hole some one if going to see it....

Why would anyone have to see it? There are tons of places that are totally off limit for people to see. And perhaps there could be more room on the flat earth for crust and flight zone.

I'm pretty sure the engine would stall if it dived THAT far.  

No but it would take a HELL of a lot space the pull out of... and it would break the wings off first a compressor stall is the last of your problems

28
Flat Earth General / Re: To all Flat Earthers.
« on: May 24, 2010, 06:15:56 PM »
There is so much wrong with that i dont even know were to start....
but for one a 737 cant fly that high and you would need a VERY big hole some one if going to see it....

Why would anyone have to see it? There are tons of places that are totally off limit for people to see. And perhaps there could be more room on the flat earth for crust and flight zone.

I dont think you know how big a hole it would have to be... AND who would dig it... and not say some thing.
Your hole has holes bigger then it. lol

29
Flat Earth General / Re: To all Flat Earthers.
« on: May 24, 2010, 06:08:45 PM »
There is so much wrong with that i dont even know were to start....
but for one a 737 cant fly that high and you would need a VERY big hole some one if going to see it....

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Faked Space Flight?
« on: May 24, 2010, 05:38:48 PM »
It's called CGI.

Watch Space Cowboys. NASA was used as a consultant to provide the weightless effects for the movie.

Firstly, CGI will never be able to replace real footage.  Lunatic conspiracy theorists, such as yourself, often slave over footage like the footage I provided.  No CGI film is perfect. 

But let's assume that CGI really could explain 'fake' footage of space travel.

How do you explain the person in the film?  Simulation of space flight is impossible.  You cannot fool people into thinking they're actually in space; and don't site that stupid link you always do; those people were likely paid actors.

Eh they could of just been very dumb it wouldnt surprise me one bit. From what i read they tried very hard to get the dumbest people they could find.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8