121

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Properties that the Earth shares with a Round Earth

« on: February 09, 2018, 11:50:49 AM »

Again, the definition of 'flat' I am using is 'best represented as a plane'.

What criteria determine 'best represented as...' ?

That is a really good question. It's very subjective, isn't it? For me, my romanticism decides that.

If the very definition of a term is subjective, doesn't that render it somewhat meaningless in the sense that it loses the power to communicate anything?

I find myself coming back to my earlier question - is there anything you don't believe is flat?

122

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Properties that the Earth shares with a Round Earth

« on: February 08, 2018, 03:24:18 PM »

Do you also believe that basketballs and soccer balls, say, are flat?

Yes

Which further shows you are not using the common definition of flat.

Again, the definition of 'flat' I am using is 'best represented as a plane'. If you aren't going to try to understand my position when you argue against it, I cannot help you here.

What criteria determine 'best represented as...' ?

123

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Properties that the Earth shares with a Round Earth

« on: February 08, 2018, 12:41:10 PM »

The flat Earth is flat, but has the properties of a sphere. Everything works as described by science, it's just also flat. That's not a statement of what I consider objective fact, that's just my belief, I don't think it's possible to have an objective fact.

Do you also believe that basketballs and soccer balls, say, are flat?

Yes

Okay, great !  How about... coins, dice, elephants?

Now that's a bit more of a stretch. I'm not quite sure, but at the moment I'm leaning towards yes.

Okay! So if those are yesses, are there any things don't you believe are flat?

124

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Properties that the Earth shares with a Round Earth

« on: February 08, 2018, 12:30:07 PM »

The flat Earth is flat, but has the properties of a sphere. Everything works as described by science, it's just also flat. That's not a statement of what I consider objective fact, that's just my belief, I don't think it's possible to have an objective fact.

Do you also believe that basketballs and soccer balls, say, are flat?

Yes

Okay, great !  How about... eggs, coins, dice, elephants?

125

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Properties that the Earth shares with a Round Earth

« on: February 08, 2018, 11:31:27 AM »

Okay.  So what's your physical idea of how the flat earth is shaped?  How the sun and moon are placed?  How solar and lunar eclipses work?

In short, how do you think it works?

The flat Earth is flat, but has the properties of a sphere. Everything works as described by science, it's just also flat. That's not a statement of what I consider objective fact, that's just my belief, I don't think it's possible to have an objective fact.

Do you also believe that basketballs and soccer balls, say, are flat?

126

Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX: The Latest

« on: February 07, 2018, 03:30:45 PM »

Which bit do you think is too hard?

Getting a fairing both secure enough and airtight enough to let the car survive, and still be able to jettison it. Like I'd already made clear several times over. Reading isn't your strong suit is it?

Why do you think that would be too hard?

I'm not sure how you think this helps your case. A valid point from a 'boiled frog' is still a valid point. Argue the point, not the man or frog.

Reading really isn't your strong suit huh?
If you put a frog in boiling water, it'll jump out. But put it in cold water and crank the heat up, it won't notice until it dies.
They raised the heat with dribbles of bullshit, until now you buy even this, and you only buy it because they acclimatized you to it. Judge it on its own terms.

My point, which I didn't hide, is that you should argue with what I'm saying rather than my frog-like status (or my reading ability).

127

Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX: The Latest

« on: February 07, 2018, 03:18:15 PM »

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

The chamber wasn't on the side, it was on the top. Did you watch the launch? I wouldn't think it would be airtight but rather would be allowed to depressurise as the rocket gained altitude.

How feasible? Well it's been done hundreds of times for the launch of satellites, so presumably not that difficult.

Great, that just makes it even harder to get rid of the covering. And depressurising will still exert a lot of friction given the rate of it, even if air and heat can't get back in. Which it can, but whatever.
No it hasn't been done hundreds of times for the launch of satellites, and the fact you need to refer to that clinches it.

1. Build rocket.
2. Put car on top.
3. Put fairing round car.
4. Launch rocket.
5. When rocket high enough, jettison fairing, like so:



Which bit do you think is too hard?

You're a boiled frog. You get fed the lie over and over and you know that if you compare it to what you know, it's nonsense, so you have to compare it to all the middle steps they've given you as they've turned the temperature up. Look at that, you just do it without even thinking.

I'm not sure how you think this helps your case. A valid point from a 'boiled frog' is still a valid point. Argue the point, not the man or frog.

128

Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX: The Latest

« on: February 07, 2018, 02:53:19 PM »

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

The chamber wasn't on the side, it was on the top. Did you watch the launch? I wouldn't think it would be airtight but rather would be allowed to depressurise as the rocket gained altitude.

How feasible? Well it's been done hundreds of times for the launch of satellites, so presumably not that difficult.

129

Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX: The Latest

« on: February 07, 2018, 12:30:13 PM »

Seriously, it's a simple question.  I'm just asking for clarification on a claim you seem to be making.  Specifically what friction on the car are you talking about?

Literally everything it should be in contact with. Do you not know the definition of friction? I am not being vague here.

Umm...  Did you miss the part where the shroud protecting the car wasn't discarded until the rocket was above the atmosphere?  It happened just after the second stage burn started.

And if you want to ignore all the issues with an airtight covering that can be easily discarded without brushing past the car, go ahead. And have you ever heard of g-forces? It's hardly strapped to a chair.

I don't know if this will help you at all, but here's the sequence when the fairing surrounding the cargo bay was jettisoned. As you can see, it's well above the atmosphere by this point.

130

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bathroom break at 800Km/Hr

« on: February 07, 2018, 04:15:15 AM »

It's dishonest to say it doesn't look flat. It looks flat, but said flatness might be a result of any larger shape.

It doesn't look flat. The near and distinct horizon at sea is indicative of some curvature, at least.

131

Flat Earth General / Re: Orbital Mecanics

« on: February 07, 2018, 12:55:38 AM »

I was thinking of doing an online course on orbital mechanics.

Have you tried Kerbal?

132

Flat Earth General / Re: Is gravity weak force or strong force

« on: February 06, 2018, 02:35:40 PM »

Imagine two similar rings A and B. Radius of A is R₁ while B is R₂. Both A and B share the same center. Gravity force b/w A and B is F=GMm/ d^², where d = 0. Thus, would you be able to separate A and B?

Your formula only applies where the two bodies are entirely separate. That is, no part of body A is closer to the centre of gravity of body B than any part of body B, and vice-versa.

133

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Falcon Heavy First Test Flight

« on: February 06, 2018, 02:11:39 PM »

Live views of Starman:

134

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Falcon Heavy First Test Flight

« on: February 06, 2018, 01:19:02 PM »

That was pretty impressive. I was half-expecting a big fireworks show.

135

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Falcon Heavy First Test Flight

« on: February 06, 2018, 03:46:48 AM »

Planned for today 1:30pm ET US. http://www.spacex.com/webcast

Far from guaranteed to be a success. Should be interesting.

136

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity

« on: January 30, 2018, 01:11:27 PM »

Who says there are 24 GPS satellites and that they are equally spaced?  What about the 4 countries launching them?

GPS refers to the US system and currently has 31 satellites.

Some other satellite based navigation systems are:
GLONASS - Russia
Galileo - EU
BeiDou - China
NAVIC - India
QZSS - Japan
The last 3 have only regional coverage at present.

Compared here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation#Comparison_of_systems

137

Flat Earth General / Re: The Best proof of NASA lying of 2018

« on: January 29, 2018, 10:13:10 PM »

Live stream:

If this is a live stream, then where is the music from. I know that when I stream live events, the surrounding audio goes with the video. The music was added to the video, thus it is not a live stream, but a stream that has been edited with some type of video editor, in order to add the music!!!!

It's not live. I pointed this out earlier in the thread.

138

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: January 28, 2018, 03:46:29 PM »

Well after reading with an openmind satelites still don't make any sense whatsoever......
Nobody really understands the underlying forces that enables them to remain their respective orbits....lots of pseudo explanations, but hardly more than a hypothetical math contest.

Much more interresting is how those extremely unreliable rockets (my video) of the late fifties and early sixties were able to reach the exact altitude and speed and deploy the satelites in the preferred ''hot spot''.
No onboard computer technology.......so is there anyone who can remotely describe what happened after launch and how the whole trajectory and velocity was meticulously monitored and controled from that moment until deployment ? Because all rocket launch footage of that period give the impression they hardly control the very thing and one should be lucky it is going up in the skies.......let alone the exact altitude and velocity needed to deploy a satelite in the precise orbit......

So how do you explain the existence of satellites then?

139

Flat Earth General / Re: How Can the Earth Be Constantly Accelerating?

« on: January 28, 2018, 03:09:20 PM »

So, the Earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 upward, and so is the rest of the universe. In this accelerating reference frame, the speed of light is still 300,000,000 m/s. And, nothing can exceed this speed of light, according to FET. Here is the thing, though. So, if the universe were accelerating for 30612245, then that would mean that the Universe would be accelerating faster than the speed of light in a reference frame where it appears to not be. How would this be possible?

Composition law for velocities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_relativity
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel.html

140

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: January 28, 2018, 02:51:38 PM »

So gravity would ALWAYS overcome inertia, and the orbiting body would ALWAYS crash into whatever large mass it was orbiting.

Why? Gravity being a force and inertia being mass doesn't make this argument follow.

Yes it does.

If the inertia of a body is sufficient to overcome the gravity of the nearest mass then it will simply carry on moving until it reaches another mass with sufficient gravity to capture it.

For your mad fake orbits to work, the body must somehow overcome the gravity of the nearest mass, then impossibly turn round and return to this mass for no physical reason whatsoever, then somehow miss being captured again, and so on and so on, ad infinitum...

What does "overcome the gravity of the nearest mass" mean, precisely, and why would an orbiting body need to do that?

141

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: January 28, 2018, 01:37:08 PM »

An orbiting body will get faster as it goes towards whatever it's orbiting and slower as it goes away.

But, if the orbiting body is only under the influence of gravity and inertia, then it would be incapable of "going away".

Because gravity is an accelerative force, whilst inertia is not a force at all:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

So gravity would ALWAYS overcome inertia, and the orbiting body would ALWAYS crash into whatever large mass it was orbiting.

Why? Gravity being a force and inertia being mass doesn't make this argument follow.

142

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: January 28, 2018, 01:18:51 PM »

An orbiting body will get faster as it goes towards whatever it's orbiting and slower as it goes away. Over the course of an orbit its average speed won't change.

AH...

Here is the rub...

An artificial satellite is in a constant of "falling down..." NOT moving "towards..." or, "..."goes away..." You already agreed to this axiom.

Do you see your own free body diagram (which is inadequate by the way, but that is another subject).

Agreed, "falling down" is a misleading way of putting it. The point is that the body is in free fall, with one force acting on it.

143

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: January 28, 2018, 12:02:27 PM »

Is a comet increasing in acceleration when it approaches the Sun?

That is a simple yes or no question.

Yes.

If the answer is yes, why?

It is because of gravity, according to all you RE-tards.

You see, according to all of you, orbits are simply things in a constant state of falling down.

No other force necessary,according to you RE-tards.

In Newtonian mechanics, yes, pretty much.

What is the chair preventing the crash and burn of these satellites?

Their trajectories don't intersect with other bodies.

What is the force preventing these satellites from achieving ONE BILLION MPH?

An orbiting body will get faster as it goes towards whatever it's orbiting and slower as it goes away. Over the course of an orbit its average speed won't change.

Is there a free body diagram?

144

Flat Earth General / Re: Who is right Galileo or Newton?

« on: January 28, 2018, 10:17:57 AM »

Let in the video

The gravitational acceleration of earth = g_e
The gravitational acceleration of bowling ball =  g_bb
The gravitational acceleration of feather = g_f

Now according to Newton g_e> g_bb> g_f so the striking time of earth and bowling ball will less than the striking time of feather and earth if drop separately or at the same time.

As Boots has pointed out, g_bb = g_f = GM/r², where M = m_e, the mass of the earth.

However, g_e = Gm/r² where m is m_bb or m_f when ball or feather are dropped individually, or (m_bb + m_f) when they are dropped together as in the video. Note that in all these cases g_e is way way smaller than g_bb and g_f.

So I don't think Newton would ever have said that g_e > g_bb > g_f as it's not remotely correct. The above does mean that if the ball or feather were dropped individually and all other things were equal then the ball would hit the ground in an immeasurably smaller time since Gm_bb/r² > Gm_f/r². I suspect Galileo probably wouldn't have realised that, so in that sense Newton was slightly more right.

Of course, Einstein was even more right when he said, as Brian Cox points out in my favourite part of that video, that the ball and feather aren't falling, they are standing still. There is no force acting on them at all.

145

Flat Earth General / Re: Questioning The Entire Mainstream Narrative

« on: January 26, 2018, 04:47:12 AM »

    The Mainstream Narrative: Two particles headed opposite directions, both traveling at 93,000 miles per second. As they approach each other, the speed of one particles relative to the other is 186,000 miles per second (93,000  miles per second + 93,000 miles per second = 186,000 miles per second). Two particles headed opposite directions, both traveling at 186,000 miles per second. As they approach each other, the speed of one particles relative to the other is 186,000 miles per second (186,000 miles per second + 186,000 miles per second = 186,000 miles per second). Relative speed just suddenly breaks down when it hits light speed. How does that make any sense? 2+2=2

In the first case the relative speed would be 0.8c or about 150,000 miles per second. Relativistic effects don't just kick in at light speed. They apply at any speeds but are mostly way too small to notice.

And as others have pointed out, this isn't really a 'narrative', it's what's observed.

   The Mainstream Narrative would say, the relative speed would be limited in the case described, due to time dilation. Time dilation is another mainstream explanation, that no one on this forum could confirm with an experiment. Just another case of the majority believing the mainstream narrative as fact. "I saw it on https://www.nasa.gov/ it must be real!"

Do you think it's not real? What research have you done?

146

Flat Earth General / Re: Questioning The Entire Mainstream Narrative

« on: January 25, 2018, 03:10:45 PM »

    The Mainstream Narrative: Two particles headed opposite directions, both traveling at 93,000 miles per second. As they approach each other, the speed of one particles relative to the other is 186,000 miles per second (93,000  miles per second + 93,000 miles per second = 186,000 miles per second). Two particles headed opposite directions, both traveling at 186,000 miles per second. As they approach each other, the speed of one particles relative to the other is 186,000 miles per second (186,000 miles per second + 186,000 miles per second = 186,000 miles per second). Relative speed just suddenly breaks down when it hits light speed. How does that make any sense? 2+2=2

In the first case the relative speed would be 0.8c or about 150,000 miles per second. Relativistic effects don't just kick in at light speed. They apply at any speeds but are mostly way too small to notice.

And as others have pointed out, this isn't really a 'narrative', it's what's observed.

147

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET

« on: January 25, 2018, 03:49:00 AM »

Here is the entire book by Knight/Butler:

https://contraeducacao.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/who-built-the-moon_-knight-christopher.pdf

Do a search with the word astonishing, three occurrences, none of which match the quote.

The quote is from Dr. Farouk El-Baz. The website (quora) simply misplaced the names of the authors.

You're correct that the quote in your source doesn't appear verbatim in the pdf of the book you link. Parts of it do though:

p 31: "... when the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in midwinter, the [full] Moon is at its highest and brightest, and ..."
p 32: "... both [go down] at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes ..."

It's possible it was referring to a different edition but it's much more likely that the quora 'quote' was paraphrasing - note that it doesn't use quotation marks on this citation, whereas it does on the others.

Further, the quote about water vapour that the quora link ascribes to Dr. El-Baz is also ascribed to him elsewhere, for instance Cosmological Ice Ages, Henry Kroll, p177:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WbyM56LFkzsC&lpg=PA177&vq=baz&pg=PA177#v=onepage&q&f=false

Do you still maintain your source was wrong? If so, no worries, we can go back to my original question: Do you have a reliable source linking Dr. El-Baz to your quote?

148

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET

« on: January 25, 2018, 02:17:07 AM »

https://www.quora.com/Were-there-any-scientists-that-doubt-the-moon-to-be-natural

Okay, so from that source, your quote is from the book Who Built the Moon by Christopher Knight and Alan Bulter.

Your link cites Farouk El-Baz with the following quote:
"If water vapour is coming from the Moon’s interior is this serious. It means that there is a drastic distinction between the different phases of the lunar interior – that the interior is quite different from what we have seen on the surface."

I trust you won't associate Dr. El-Baz with your quote again.

149

Flat Earth General / Re: Questioning The Entire Mainstream Narrative

« on: January 25, 2018, 02:08:04 AM »

So is relative speed always true, or do we randomly make an exception for light speed?

Cern shoots two particles headed opposite directions, both traveling very very very close to the speed of light. As they approach each other, the speed of one particle relative to the other is going what speed?

Very very very close to the speed of light.

   Exactly, we ignore reality with the speed of light. Logically, the relative speed would be very, very, very close to double the speed of light. For some reason, we decided that is not the case. Science is like dark matter, it's whatever you want it to be. Light is really so predictable, think about the double slit experiment. What is the reason we just suddenly ignore reality when it comes to the speed of light?

Is that ignoring reality? Or would ignoring reality be insisting the relative speed is nearly double the speed of light when measurements indicate it isn't?

150

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET

« on: January 25, 2018, 01:55:59 AM »

However, some of the brightest minds have emitted not only wonder but also doubt towards these numbers.

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA

Do you have a reliable source linking Dr. El-Baz to that quote?