Space Travel

  • 83 Replies
  • 8678 Views
?

darkmatter

Re: Space Travel
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2008, 10:10:03 PM »
Since you asked here are a few equations:

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

Additionally some basic observations you could make which provide more logical conclusions than a mysterious dark shadow thing that casts shadows on the moon.


And to your reply:
1. NASA has, so you admit they have. Well, no argument there then. Even if you believe the moon landing was faked, prove the mars lander isn't currently on mars.
2. There are pictures of the earth from the moon. I am a photographer and use cameras all the time. Arguments against most of the photo fakes are weak, and inaccurate. Not accounting for reflections, film stocks, apertures, and lens distortion. 
3. See above
4. We have sent a robot to mars. He is happily there right now proving there probably was water there. Your saying it is not there does not make it so. And it is ridiculous to assume it's a huge NASA game. There would have to be too many people involved, and it would never work.
5. Umm..McDonalds sucks anyway? I'm a burger king man myself
6. There is, and they've been working on various things for the last few weeks. You probably missed it in the news. I think one guy even did a downlink to some tv shows to say hi and float around and shit. Even with our best gravity simulation (the parabola zero G planes, which I have been on), the longest we can simulate zero g is 30 seconds or so. It would be impossible to do a live broadcast, uncut to a live audience with that technology and fake it well. Especially using things like props or water being thrown around to show the zero g effect. I make movies too, this would be nearly impossible to do live with the best cg.

Again, your arguments are simply "No it's not". I mean, that's a great argument, because how would anyone counter it? "Yes they are!" Ultimately it provides protection from flawed logic.   

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #31 on: June 26, 2008, 10:38:02 PM »
1. NASA has, so you admit they have. Well, no argument there then. Even if you believe the moon landing was faked, prove the mars lander isn't currently on mars.
2. There are pictures of the earth from the moon. I am a photographer and use cameras all the time. Arguments against most of the photo fakes are weak, and inaccurate. Not accounting for reflections, film stocks, apertures, and lens distortion. 
3. See above
4. We have sent a robot to mars. He is happily there right now proving there probably was water there. Your saying it is not there does not make it so. And it is ridiculous to assume it's a huge NASA game. There would have to be too many people involved, and it would never work.
5. Umm..McDonalds sucks anyway? I'm a burger king man myself
6. There is, and they've been working on various things for the last few weeks. You probably missed it in the news. I think one guy even did a downlink to some tv shows to say hi and float around and shit. Even with our best gravity simulation (the parabola zero G planes, which I have been on), the longest we can simulate zero g is 30 seconds or so. It would be impossible to do a live broadcast, uncut to a live audience with that technology and fake it well. Especially using things like props or water being thrown around to show the zero g effect. I make movies too, this would be nearly impossible to do live with the best cg.

Again, your arguments are simply "No it's not". I mean, that's a great argument, because how would anyone counter it? "Yes they are!" Ultimately it provides protection from flawed logic.   


1. Going to space is not hard. Staying there is difficult. The Mars lander could not reach Mars.
2. I am not a photographer but can show you how to easily fake a photo. I made a picture of the space station in another thread. It was very convincing. Even an "expert" astronomer was convinced.
3. I saw a bunch of basic equations that assuming the earth was spherical would provide area, volume and radii of the earth. I did not see any proof the earth was round.
4. We did not send a robot to Mars. It is not alleged to be sentient, nor happy, unless you know something I don't.
5. Good for you.
6. What evidence do you have that the "live feed" is a live feed from a spacecraft as opposed to a manufactured and produced segment later shown on tv?

"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2008, 10:45:31 PM »
Again, your arguments are simply "No it's not". I mean, that's a great argument, because how would anyone counter it? "Yes they are!" Ultimately it provides protection from flawed logic.

Almost as great an argument as "We have sent a robot to mars."
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #33 on: June 26, 2008, 11:18:32 PM »
The Earth (and by necessity, the Sun, Moon, stars and other celestial bodies) are accelerating at 9.8 m s-2. One cannot orbit an accelerating body without one's own source of propulsion. Since we do not have enough fuel to sustain such an acceleration for an extended period of time, sustained space travel is impossible.

The Sun/Moon/SO etc in a FE are propelled by the UA? Orbit could be achieved around these objects on the same plane. The UA would accelerate them as well once the satellite reached this zone.
You don't need sustained propulsion.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2008, 11:28:10 PM »
You would need sustained propulsion to reach this area, which is roughly 3000 mi away from earth. Good luck.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #35 on: June 26, 2008, 11:32:43 PM »
Is the FE belief that the UA influence starts and stops at a discrete boundary? or that the interference from the Earth fades gradually?

I think the most logical would be a gradual increase in influence until the total affect was felt at some point <3000miles.

A method of propulsion wouldn't need the same thrust all the way up there.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2008, 11:34:30 PM »
Perhaps. It's still a long way to go while trying to keep ahead of the earth. I can't imagine a method to enable it using known methods, but I agree that the theory seems sound.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2008, 11:41:19 PM »
What would be the point of it, anyway? Why go to all the effort of finding ways of getting tens of thousands of Newtons of thrust for however long it takes to get way out there?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2008, 11:44:17 PM »
Perhaps they'd like to set foot on the moon. What good it would do, I don't know. Pardon the pun, but it would take an astronomical amount of propellant to get there.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2008, 11:50:50 PM »
Perhaps they'd like to set foot on the moon. What good it would do, I don't know. Pardon the pun, but it would take an astronomical amount of propellant to get there.

If Flat Earth theory is correct, the moon is a globe (or perhaps a disc that always faces the Earth) that is constantly accelerated by the UA, in the same direction as the Earth. One would feel completely weightless upon it, then, because one would be propelled by the UA in the same way as the moon itself. Taking even one step on the moon would cause you to start rising upwards indefinitely - there would be no downward force to pull you back onto the moon. Again, what is the point of it all?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2008, 11:56:21 PM »
No, gravitation still occurs in FE. I believe that is the mechanism that prevents the Sun and Moon from flying apart.

Large quantities of propellant? Please. The FE conspiracy theory evidently has access to unlimited funds. It's simply a matter of scale. The Earth isn't short of rocket fuel.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2008, 11:58:41 PM »
If Flat Earth theory is correct, the moon is a globe (or perhaps a disc that always faces the Earth) that is constantly accelerated by the UA, in the same direction as the Earth. One would feel completely weightless upon it, then, because one would be propelled by the UA in the same way as the moon itself. Taking even one step on the moon would cause you to start rising upwards indefinitely - there would be no downward force to pull you back onto the moon. Again, what is the point of it all?

I'm not sure this is completely correct.
On the upward side (for lack of a better term) of the moon, I think a phenomena very much like earth's would produce the same effect as earth's "gravity", as the moon accelerates upward at 9.8m/s^2.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2008, 12:00:59 AM by Ski »
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #42 on: June 27, 2008, 12:08:42 AM »
Large quantities of propellant? Please. The FE conspiracy theory evidently has access to unlimited funds. It's simply a matter of scale. The Earth isn't short of rocket fuel.

I don't think you get how large the rocket would be. It would be the size of New Hampshire.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #43 on: June 27, 2008, 12:10:47 AM »
I'm not sure this is completely correct.
On the upward side (for lack of a better term) of the moon, I think a phenomena very much like earth's would produce the same effect as earth's "gravity", as the moon accelerates upward at 9.8m/s^2.

Perhaps. But you have to remember, as the moon rotates (and it would need to, in order to keep the same side facing the Earth all the time), the acceleration would shift in direction, so you would never be able to find a spot to walk on for any extended period of time.

And even if gravitation does still exist, the moon would be too small at such a short distance to provide noticeable attraction.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2008, 12:16:53 AM »
I'm saying that the upwards acceleration of the moon would leave you with the same sensation as felt here on earth if you were on the "top". You would be accelerated upward by the moon below you at one g.

That it also has it's own gravitation based on energy/mass is likely, but I agree it would probably be insufficient to keep you firmly on the "lower" side facing the earth.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #45 on: June 27, 2008, 12:24:39 AM »
Large quantities of propellant? Please. The FE conspiracy theory evidently has access to unlimited funds. It's simply a matter of scale. The Earth isn't short of rocket fuel.

I don't think you get how large the rocket would be. It would be the size of New Hampshire.

Only on those calculations that assumed the influence of the UA terminated at a discrete boundary. Remember the delta V of the satellite relative to the Earth is 0 at 3000miles. In fact it needs to be otherwise it will keep going right?

What is the mass of the Moon? at 32 miles in diameter unless it is composed of neutron star matter, the Shadow Object requires an immense mass to keep the moon from drifting away.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #46 on: June 27, 2008, 01:09:45 AM »
I'm saying that the upwards acceleration of the moon would leave you with the same sensation as felt here on earth if you were on the "top". You would be accelerated upward by the moon below you at one g.

This is true, but such a landing would have to be very short. In just one hour, you would be standing on a slope inclined at nearly radians. Unless you want to design the moon lander to be able to take off from such an angle (requiring either a rocket with a variable axis of thrust, or times more thrust), that's not a very good situation to be in.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2008, 01:18:18 AM by Robosteve »
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Space Travel
« Reply #47 on: June 27, 2008, 05:38:55 AM »
Large quantities of propellant? Please. The FE conspiracy theory evidently has access to unlimited funds. It's simply a matter of scale. The Earth isn't short of rocket fuel.

I don't think you get how large the rocket would be. It would be the size of New Hampshire.

Proof?

sustained space travel is impossible because the earth's orbit does not exist

You're already assuming that the Earth isn't round. If the Earth is round, then it is possible to orbit it.
What wonderful circular logic!

RE: "Space travel proves the Earth is round"
FE: "Your evidence must somehow be flawed"
RE: "How do you know?"
FE: "Because space travel is impossible"
RE: "Why?"
FE: "Because the Earth is flat"

?

uglykidjoe

  • 57
  • Mmmm pastry!
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #48 on: June 27, 2008, 06:56:00 AM »
Pardon me because I'm new here and perhaps not up on all the various in-theories and accepted arguments.  But how does linking the ability to conduct space travel and the world being round become a more reasonable argument than saying that the world is flat because space travel is impossible? 
Well because of your immaturity and unnatural ignorance you have failed at another post.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2008, 07:46:34 AM »
This is true, but such a landing would have to be very short. In just one hour, you would be standing on a slope inclined at nearly radians. Unless you want to design the moon lander to be able to take off from such an angle (requiring either a rocket with a variable axis of thrust, or times more thrust), that's not a very good situation to be in.

I agree the idea is completely unfeasible. I only said the theory seems sound as a hypothetical. The massive amounts of energy to get a vehicle to this distance would be staggering.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40287
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #50 on: June 27, 2008, 07:49:36 AM »
Pardon me because I'm new here and perhaps not up on all the various in-theories and accepted arguments.  But how does linking the ability to conduct space travel and the world being round become a more reasonable argument than saying that the world is flat because space travel is impossible? 

Because if you can travel in outer space, then you can actually see that the earth is indeed round.  Therefore space travel must be impossible in a flat earth universe (no matter how lame the reason), otherwise it shatters their whole "reality" of the earth being flat.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #51 on: June 27, 2008, 07:52:06 AM »
I think I've stated that I believe man has been to space.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Space Travel
« Reply #52 on: June 27, 2008, 07:54:50 AM »
Pardon me because I'm new here and perhaps not up on all the various in-theories and accepted arguments.  But how does linking the ability to conduct space travel and the world being round become a more reasonable argument than saying that the world is flat because space travel is impossible? 

Space travel is impossible in FET. So, if we can show that space travel is possible (and has happenned) then we disprove FET.

?

uglykidjoe

  • 57
  • Mmmm pastry!
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #53 on: June 27, 2008, 08:05:55 AM »
Space travel is impossible in FET. So, if we can show that space travel is possible (and has happenned) then we disprove FET.

Thanks for enlightening me, it makes sense.  Considering that this would apparently be damning evidence against the FET, and would seem like a relatively simple thing to prove or disprove, I wonder why this isn't the single focus of the RET crowd.  Why spend time arguing about the location of the poles or the ice wall when this would seem to shatter the whole theory relatively quickly and conclusively?  Is it really that hard to prove?
Well because of your immaturity and unnatural ignorance you have failed at another post.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #54 on: June 27, 2008, 08:08:38 AM »
Is it really that hard to prove?

Yes, if it never happened.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #55 on: June 27, 2008, 08:10:33 AM »
Space travel is impossible in FET. So, if we can show that space travel is possible (and has happenned) then we disprove FET.

Thanks for enlightening me, it makes sense.  Considering that this would apparently be damning evidence against the FET, and would seem like a relatively simple thing to prove or disprove, I wonder why this isn't the single focus of the RET crowd.  Why spend time arguing about the location of the poles or the ice wall when this would seem to shatter the whole theory relatively quickly and conclusively?  Is it really that hard to prove?


Actually, evidence of space travel already exists in abundance - only the FE'ers claim this evidence to be fake. So it is not the job of the RE'ers to prove that space travel has occurred, it is up to the FE'ers to prove that all the evidence for it is fake. I'd really love to see a FE'er "debunk" every single NASA picture and video in existance.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #56 on: June 27, 2008, 08:12:03 AM »
Space travel is impossible in FET. So, if we can show that space travel is possible (and has happenned) then we disprove FET.

Space travel is not impossible. Sustained space flight is impossible. I have no doubt man has gone beyond the atmoplane into space. I simply don't believe orbital mechanics will work on the flat earth.
Tom recently theorized that the shuttle could perhaps use "skipping stone" techniques to glide across the atmoplane. I don't know that this is true, but the idea has floated around in aviation circles for sixty some odd years, and the orbiter does have the flat surfaces necessary for this technique. It was food for thought.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

uglykidjoe

  • 57
  • Mmmm pastry!
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #57 on: June 27, 2008, 08:14:00 AM »
Actually, evidence of space travel already exists in abundance - only the FE'ers claim this evidence to be fake. So it is not the job of the RE'ers to prove that space travel has occurred, it is up to the FE'ers to prove that all the evidence for it is fake. I'd really love to see a FE'er "debunk" every single NASA picture and video in existance.

Actually, I think ski did a reasonable job of making the case for reasonable doubt in another thread with a picture he, himself, faked, which was then taken as convincing fact by a self-proclaimed astronomer.  Considering he did the job in 5 minutes, his point that NASA with a much larger budget, and an axe to grind, could be far more convincing.  Whether or not I agree with FET, his point was well made. 
Well because of your immaturity and unnatural ignorance you have failed at another post.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #58 on: June 27, 2008, 08:20:23 AM »
Actually, evidence of space travel already exists in abundance - only the FE'ers claim this evidence to be fake. So it is not the job of the RE'ers to prove that space travel has occurred, it is up to the FE'ers to prove that all the evidence for it is fake. I'd really love to see a FE'er "debunk" every single NASA picture and video in existance.

Actually, I think ski did a reasonable job of making the case for reasonable doubt in another thread with a picture he, himself, faked, which was then taken as convincing fact by a self-proclaimed astronomer.  Considering he did the job in 5 minutes, his point that NASA with a much larger budget, and an axe to grind, could be far more convincing.  Whether or not I agree with FET, his point was well made. 


The fact that imagery can be faked is not proof that it is indeed fake. Almost every kind of picture can be photoshopped. That does not mean that there are conspiracies all around us. It is still down to the FE'ers to prove that all this evidence for space travel has been faked.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Space Travel
« Reply #59 on: June 27, 2008, 08:23:24 AM »
It's physically impossible for sustained space travel. If you're going to claim otherwise, I'd think the burden of proof is on you.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."