The Canopy

Why would the UA be an obstacle any more than gravity in RET? Any rocket would already have momentum from the earth before launch. It would just need to accelerate upwards faster than g, in the same way that in RET it would need to exert a force greater than mg.

Rockets cannot climb 3000 miles without running out of fuel. Even in RET, rockets barely have enough fuel to reach earth orbit, 120 miles in altitude. Form there they use earth orbit to step into higher orbits.

Without the orbit of the earth to hang onto, a rocket could never leave the earth or reach the moon.

icbms hit altitudes way above 120 miles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile

midcourse phase: approx. 25 minutes—sub-orbital spaceflight in an elliptic flightpath; the flightpath is part of an ellipse with a vertical major axis; the apogee (halfway through the midcourse phase) is at an altitude of approximately 1,200 km (750 mi

They go into a partial earth orbit when they reach the minimum altitude (~120 miles). From there they ride along the earth's orbit, boosting themselves upwards bit by bit to conserve energy. Once in orbit the main engine does not have to be entirely responsible for supporting the craft, but only for the incremental height adjustments. This is how they allegedly reach such high altitudes.

Rockets cannot climb 3000 miles without running out of fuel. Even in RET, rockets barely have enough fuel to reach earth orbit, 120 miles in altitude. Form there they use earth orbit to step into higher orbits.

Without the orbit of the earth to hang onto, a rocket could never leave the earth or reach the moon.

At what point does the mechanism that allows the moon to hover above earth set in? Do you have any information to suggest that whatever makes celestial objects like the sun and moon "float" in an FE model wouldn't apply to a rocket at 100km+ altitude? It seems to me that even according to your own paradigm you do not have sufficient information on which to base such your statement. Am I wrong? If so, why?

At what point does the mechanism that allows the moon to hover above earth set in? Do you have any information to suggest that whatever makes celestial objects like the sun and moon "float" in an FE model wouldn't apply to a rocket at 100km+ altitude? It seems to me that even according to your own paradigm you do not have sufficient information on which to base such your statement. Am I wrong? If so, why?

What makes you think that a rocket has the same physical properties as the moon?

Quote from: jason_85 on April 20, 2013, 05:59:31 PM

At what point does the mechanism that allows the moon to hover above earth set in? Do you have any information to suggest that whatever makes celestial objects like the sun and moon "float" in an FE model wouldn't apply to a rocket at 100km+ altitude? It seems to me that even according to your own paradigm you do not have sufficient information on which to base such your statement. Am I wrong? If so, why?

What makes you think that a rocket has the same physical properties as the moon?

Nothing makes me think that. No sane person would ever think such a thing.

Since that question was obviously sarcastic, should I take it to mean that you don't want to answer my question?

Quote from: jason_85 on April 20, 2013, 05:59:31 PM

At what point does the mechanism that allows the moon to hover above earth set in? Do you have any information to suggest that whatever makes celestial objects like the sun and moon "float" in an FE model wouldn't apply to a rocket at 100km+ altitude? It seems to me that even according to your own paradigm you do not have sufficient information on which to base such your statement. Am I wrong? If so, why?

What makes you think that a rocket has the same physical properties as the moon?

What makes you think that it can't?

Are we seriously going to talk about the difference between a rocket and the moon now?

Are we seriously going to talk about the difference between a rocket and the moon now?

Right. A rocket is clearly different than the moon. Therefore it does not follow that they would behave the same way.

Quote from: jason_85 on April 20, 2013, 10:19:34 PM

Are we seriously going to talk about the difference between a rocket and the moon now?

Right. A rocket is clearly different than the moon. Therefore it does not follow that they would behave the same way.

A rocket is clearly different from the Moon in some ways and clearly the same in others. You should be explicit with your objections Tom, because there are clearly some inferences that can follow from Jason's assumption.

A rocket is clearly different than the moon. Therefore it does not follow that they would behave the same way.

Well done Tom.