Re-Entering Earth's Atmosphere

The point is, the "horizon" thing that Rogherio presents would only be correct if the Earth were an infinite plane.  The horizon does not work like that.

Yes it does. Their FAQ says so. :roll:

What are you talking about?  In science somebody comes up with a new theory and then people assume that theory is true and attempt to disprove it.  If a theory is already accepted that's because it's already past the tests.  So nobody needs to disprove that the Earth is round.  If you are to question the theory that the Earth is flat you merely need to assume that it is indeed flat and then find an observation that cannot be explained in the context of that theory.  This observation about the re-entry of the space shuttle can be explained within the context of the flat Earth theory, therefore it does not prove the theory wrong.  That's how science works.

Well, so far you have not disproved the RE theory. So how/why would you possibly come up with another model when the current one is perfectly fine? Secondly, while the re-entry of the space shuttle may be explained by the FE "theory", it is certainly not explained by what you said earlier.

But this doesn't explain how we know that the substance that the shuttle is travelling in is changing.  If you think this is a legitimate argument you need to provide some kind of observational evidence that the speed of the space shuttle is faster before it starts "burning up".  You can't provide evidence that could have been easily doctored like photos or claims from NASA since the flat Earth theory clearly states that these are false - you need to provide some evidence that couldn't be faked.  Otherwise, while what you say may be true, it's clearly not disproving the assumption that the Earth is flat.

I really don't know what to make of this nonsense, but are you trying to state that I can't prove there isn't air outside of the atmosphere? If this is your argument, then you are just a sad little man. This isn't an argument.

Well, so far you have not disproved the RE theory. So how/why would you possibly come up with another model when the current one is perfectly fine? Secondly, while the re-entry of the space shuttle may be explained by the FE "theory", it is certainly not explained by what you said earlier.

Who says there can't be more than one model?

Quote

Well, so far you have not disproved the RE theory. So how/why would you possibly come up with another model when the current one is perfectly fine? Secondly, while the re-entry of the space shuttle may be explained by the FE "theory", it is certainly not explained by what you said earlier.

Who says there can't be more than one model?

Nobody. However you should distinguish between the likely one and the absurd one.

Nobody. However you should distinguish between the likely one and the absurd one.

Ok, which one is the likely one, and why?

Just read the rest of this website.

I hope you make the correct decision.

Just read the rest of this website.

I hope you make the correct decision.

How do you know that the Earth is round?

I dont, I think its flat.

Quote from: "Rogherio"

Just read the rest of this website.

I hope you make the correct decision.

How do you know that the Earth is round?

Because all evidence points to it, because it has been demonstrated, and because no consipiracy is required in order for it to be true.

Because all evidence points to it, because it has been demonstrated, and because no consipiracy is required in order for it to be true.

Care to share that evidence with us?

that cant be just pushed into the paper recycling bin with the words "Theories created by the conspiricy to make people believe the Earth is a globe" printed in big letters on the front?

Care to share that evidence with us?

Wikipedia and search engines are your friend. Common knowledge is not hard to come by.

that cant be just pushed into the paper recycling bin with the words "Theories created by the conspiricy to make people believe the Earth is a globe" printed in big letters on the front?

You must first demonstrate that there is a conspiracy before you can attribute something to it.

Jesus christ whats your problem with proving something else to be wrong before another theory can be correct?

ITS BALLS.

"Lift shouldn't exist because earoplanes aren't lighter than air"

[ Makes retard face ]


Unless you can prove that there definately is not a conspiricy then I'm dead certain that there is one.

"Lift shouldn't exist because earoplanes aren't lighter than air"

That makes no sense.

Exactly my point.

It doesn't make sense anymore but in the 1880's this is what scientists claimed because they refused to believe it until Wright managed it.

I'm pretty sure that birds aren't lighter than air?  Just out of curiosity, how the hell did they explain how they flew?  >.>

Haha,

I have absolutely no idea myself.

You'd think it would be kind of logical...

I'm pretty sure that birds aren't lighter than air?  Just out of curiosity, how the hell did they explain how they flew?  >.>

Birds were all part of a conspiracy that the government made to convince people that flying was possible. The government did it for the money and power.

Jesus christ whats your problem with proving something else to be wrong before another theory can be correct?

Swearing will not make your claims more credible. And you should learn to read correctly, I never said something else should be proven wrong. I said you have to prove that something exists before you can attribute another phenomenon to it.

If you'd want to say the the bermuda triangle phenomenons are caused by mermaids, you'd have to first demonstrate that mermaids exists in order for your explanation to be valid.

"Lift shouldn't exist because earoplanes aren't lighter than air"

Where did you get that from?

It doesn't make sense anymore but in the 1880's this is what scientists claimed because they refused to believe it until Wright managed it.

I think you're living in your own world where you rewrite history.

1. Flight through lift was achieved as early as 1853.
2.The world's first wind tunnel was built in 1871, which was used to determine which wing shape generated the most lift. It was learnt then that lift-to-drag ratio could go as high as 5 to 1 with the correct wing configuration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_history


So your statment about scientists not beleiving in lift until 1880 is just bullshit that you made up.

Unless you can prove that there definately is not a conspiricy then I'm dead certain that there is one.

That's called fanaticism. By your logic, every theory becomes valid if you attribute it to something like aliens which existence can't be proven wrong. But if you really want to know if the conspiracy exists or not, that's pretty easy, there are several ways. A simple one would be to buy a moon rock and analyse it yourself.

Any way, since you make things up to back up your claims, there's no point in discussing with you.

If you'd want to say the the bermuda triangle phenomenons are caused by mermaids, you'd have to first demonstrate that mermaids exists in order for your explanation to be valid.

Actually, first you need to demonstrate that there is actually some sort of special phenomenon that happens in the Bermuda Triangle.  I recall beast talking about this a little while back, and said that the "Bermuda Triangle phenomenons" are nothing but the result of increased probability of incidents in that area because of the increased traffic there.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

If you'd want to say the the bermuda triangle phenomenons are caused by mermaids, you'd have to first demonstrate that mermaids exists in order for your explanation to be valid.

Actually, first you need to demonstrate that there is actually some sort of special phenomenon that happens in the Bermuda Triangle.  I recall beast talking about this a little while back, and said that the "Bermuda Triangle phenomenons" are nothing but the result of increased probability of incidents in that area because of the increased traffic there.

Well in any case, the existence of the phenomenon has to be demonstrated.
But  I always thought the triangle was a low traffic area  usually avoided.

Oh no, Josh got his dates wrong.

I'm sorry I don't know aviation history off by heart.

I should change my words to:

Before 1853 some scientists refused to believe that flight was possible if that object was not lighter than air.

It still gives the same point.

Some people refuse to think outside the "box"

Or outside the globe as I should say.

That's called fanaticism. By your logic, every theory becomes valid if you attribute it to something like aliens which existence can't be proven wrong. But if you really want to know if the conspiracy exists or not, that's pretty easy, there are several ways. A simple one would be to buy a moon rock and analyse it yourself.

Then why isn't when you say

You must first demonstrate that there is a conspiracy before you can attribute something to it.

"fanaticism"?

Surely it is of the same concept.

i.e.

I refuse to beleive something just because you can't definately prove it correct.

Such things are so all throughout science.

i.e the big bang, the nature of gravity, black holes and event lines, superstrings, different dimensions etc etc.

Quote

That's called fanaticism. By your logic, every theory becomes valid if you attribute it to something like aliens which existence can't be proven wrong. But if you really want to know if the conspiracy exists or not, that's pretty easy, there are several ways. A simple one would be to buy a moon rock and analyse it yourself.

Then why isn't when you say

Quote

You must first demonstrate that there is a conspiracy before you can attribute something to it.

"fanaticism"?

Surely it is of the same concept.

No, definitely not the same concept; you start from the premise that there must be a conspiracy hiding the true shape of the earth since nobody proved the non-existence of a conspiracy hiding the true shape of the earth.

Unless you can prove that there definately is not a conspiricy then I'm dead certain that there is one.

That's clearly illogical, since it's synonimous to saying "there must be a conspiracy behind the existence of AIR since nobody proved the non-existence of a conspiracy behind the existence of AIR"; phaseshifter only pointed out that you jump to a fanatical conclusion (the existence of a conspiracy) when you have not provided any arguments as to WHY there would be a conspiracy in the first place (i.e. are there any observations that lead you to believe in the existence of such a conspiracy?). Proving that there is a conspiracy before you can attribute something to it (what phaseshifter suggested) is not fanatical, it's simply logical (i.e. you prove that A exists --> draw conclusion B --> draw conclusion C -->..... --> draw conclusion X).

If you want the short explanation, notice how "Unless you can prove that there definately is not a conspiricy then I'm dead certain that there is one" is synonimous to "X is true because there is no proof that X is false", where X = conspiracy. This is a negative proof, therefore a logical fallacy by definition, therefore renders your argument invalid. End of story.