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 - Kingcosmo7

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Mercury and Venus
« 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?

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: OK. GPS for the last time!
« on: October 30, 2008, 12:24:26 PM »
The thing is, they dont see it. They just aquiring signal broadcast from something.

I can see it

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Mercury and Venus
« on: October 29, 2008, 01:37:56 PM »
or maybe an electoplasma rocket...but it needs to be in space for it to work...

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Mercury and Venus
« 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.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Mercury and Venus
« 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 in the 60s and by the 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.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evidence
« on: October 28, 2008, 03:27:32 PM »
your new here? well just giving you the heads up, its been concluded that there is not much scientific about FET. And if you ask me, personally I think the earth LOOKS ROUND FROM THE GROUND!

7
I don't think that The MSL will happen quite so soon but it would be pretty freakin cool.Did you know that it would actually be possible to make mars have air and a breathable atmosphere. they would do it by introducing plants and many types of gases into its atmosphere in order to replicate our own.

They have a serious lack of atmosphere to work with. The actual pressure on mars is not very great and there is little to no magneto-sphere. Without a magnetic shield the planet cannot contain an atmosphere. Everything ends up "blowing away". Or so they say. There are currently "pockets" of "atmosphere" in the southern hemisphere to my knowledge.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan_1.htm
This isn't true. Almost all celestial bodies have an atmosphere. Even the moon has one.

That is correct but i'm pretty sure the moon dosn't have one

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Mercury and Venus
« on: October 28, 2008, 12:27:36 PM »
as does the moon?  LOL...too funny...

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

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Mercury and Venus
« 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

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ships disappearing over horizon
« on: October 28, 2008, 12:23:40 PM »
No satellite orbits the Earth.

Oh so i guess the moon is in on the conspiracy too.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Mercury and Venus
« 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!

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Mercury and Venus
« on: October 28, 2008, 12:19:24 PM »
Same reason as in RET.

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

13
As far as man on the mars. I think the only hard part will be gravity. personally I think the rest will be easier then the moon landing. going 6 months with out gravity is what people in the space station. But IDK if they are going to stay there for long. (unless they are going to start building their base right then and there) so 6 + 6 equals a year with no gravity. now astronauts can get there G forces in every day by laying down on a spinning table that rotates for an hour. (that's one idea) But do you think the artificial gravity is possible?

actually scratch that...If they use electroplasma rockets (VASIMR [correct me if it is not called an elecrtoplasma rocket]), they should be able to reach Mars in a few weeks

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Mercury and Venus
« on: October 28, 2008, 12:15:19 PM »
How come you can only see Mercury and Venus during the day?

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: hurricanes
« on: October 24, 2008, 10:26:24 AM »
Satellites are not necessary to track hurricanes.

Then what IS used to find the intensity and position of a hurricane at all times?

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: mars, earth, and their orbits.
« on: October 24, 2008, 10:24:40 AM »
aren't we talking about mars here? not the sun.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: hurricanes
« on: October 23, 2008, 01:20:46 PM »
Eye-witness reports via instant communication.

You don't know much about hurricanes do you...?


Do you?

Look at the clouds...now tell me how big they are. oh need an over head view? sure just use an airplane...what? a HURRICANE?!?! well you will need satellite imaging, OH WAIT A MINUET! satellites don't exist! guess we'll use magic to get an over head view, and see how big it is.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: whats keeping us together?
« on: October 23, 2008, 01:10:24 PM »
ok, i'm going to leave my own thread now.

19
The Lounge / stupid statement
« on: October 22, 2008, 03:39:27 PM »
what was the most stupid statement you have ever heard on these forums?

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: clouds
« on: October 22, 2008, 02:31:46 PM »
Somewhere else.

well once they get to the edge of the earth don't they run out of room?

You are assuming that clouds keep going forever and ever. The cloud I see outside my window right now will not eventually appear in Beijing five days later. They continuously form and reform.

What about the ones that form near the ice wall?

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: lightning
« on: October 22, 2008, 01:06:43 PM »
shoulda went to google first before here...google's got all of the answers

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys03/alightnin/

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ships disappearing over horizon
« on: October 22, 2008, 12:56:35 PM »
I'm sure this queastin has beed asked many times, but I couldn't find any reasonal answer so I'll ask again. How do you explain the fact that ships clearly disapper over horizon? I guess everyone has already seen it, so you just can't deny it like everything else. And you can't explain it by saying that the ship is too far since it diseppears gradually...

Also I don't understand how you can actually belive in scientific theory like general relativity and yet belive in flat earth.

My last question is what makes you believe spaceflight and mainly satelites are impossible. Because if you suppose earth is sphere, it can be quite simply shown from Newton equations that body (i.e. satellite) can orbit the earth. You can see photos, videos of spaceflights, you can even see satellites with your own eye, yet you rather believe that earth is  flat and that NASA is conspiracy? Sounds weird to me...

show me a satellite without using a teleschope, please. point it out for me in a picture taken by your digital camera.

Just look up at night, some nights you see stars soaring across the sky, WAY faster then an airplane, and they don't make sound or a tail like a shooting star. and if your REALLY LUCKY or if you just find out where you need to be at what time via the internet, you can see the ISS

oh that has alread been said :-[ i'm a baaaaaaaaad debater  :'(

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy?
« on: October 22, 2008, 12:55:28 PM »
This forum is weird. Breaking rules is probably okay if you have 4k+ posts, and if you are new and does not believe in FE you'll just get ignored. Who cares, i have like 10 posts so everything i say is not legit.


No, you refuse to read our posts and are almost as bad at debating as that King guy.

That's king COSMO KRAMER to you sr.!

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ships disappearing over horizon
« on: October 22, 2008, 12:54:36 PM »
I'm sure this queastin has beed asked many times, but I couldn't find any reasonal answer so I'll ask again. How do you explain the fact that ships clearly disapper over horizon? I guess everyone has already seen it, so you just can't deny it like everything else. And you can't explain it by saying that the ship is too far since it diseppears gradually...

Also I don't understand how you can actually belive in scientific theory like general relativity and yet belive in flat earth.

My last question is what makes you believe spaceflight and mainly satelites are impossible. Because if you suppose earth is sphere, it can be quite simply shown from Newton equations that body (i.e. satellite) can orbit the earth. You can see photos, videos of spaceflights, you can even see satellites with your own eye, yet you rather believe that earth is  flat and that NASA is conspiracy? Sounds weird to me...

show me a satellite without using a teleschope, please. point it out for me in a picture taken by your digital camera.

Just look up at night, some nights you see stars soaring across the sky, WAY faster then an airplane, and they don't make sound or a tail like a shooting star. and if your REALLY LUCKY or if you just find out where you need to be at what time via the internet, you can see the ISS

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy?
« on: October 22, 2008, 12:51:21 PM »

26
Flat Earth Q&A / lightning
« on: October 22, 2008, 12:50:19 PM »
on a FE, why does lightning go down? (excluding heat lightning of course)

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: hurricanes
« on: October 22, 2008, 12:48:48 PM »
Eye-witness reports via instant communication.

Then how can we know the eye size? there is only 1 vehicle in the world that can penetrate a hurricane and i doubt it follows it every where, even over the ocean.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / hurricanes
« on: October 22, 2008, 12:45:51 PM »
How are we able to track large hurricanes with out satellites?

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: wind
« on: October 21, 2008, 05:19:46 PM »
NO! SCOOBY DOO ON CARTOON NET WORK WAS WRONG!!!

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: clouds
« on: October 21, 2008, 03:41:18 PM »
They generally stay within the boundaries of Earth.

So then where do they go once they get to the edge? Do they just collect their until finally they precipitate?

The greater ice wall keeps the clouds (as well as the rest of the atmosphere) contained.

Lurk.  Read the FAQ.  Search.  Lurk some more.

So there is an enourmous amount of clouds building up next to the ice wall? and the FAQ don't say nothing about clouds

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11