Sputnik

  • 16 Replies
  • 3595 Views
Sputnik
« on: October 01, 2008, 09:02:08 AM »
In 1957 The russians launched a satellite that broadcast a signal that anyone with a short-wave reciever could hear if they were in the broadcast area of the satellite... How could the radio signal be heard everywhere around the world if the earth is flat?
I've never personally experienced Disney World, either. Most of what we know about anything depends on taking somebody else's word for it.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Sputnik
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2008, 10:13:04 AM »
Simply stating that something happened doesn't mean it actually did.

Considering that sustained space flight is impossible it seems that this was faked (possibly with the use of a pseudollite).

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Sputnik
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2008, 11:43:52 AM »
Simply stating that something happened doesn't mean it actually did.

Considering that sustained space flight is impossible it seems that this was faked (possibly with the use of a pseudollite).

Yes, it *is* impossible, but only for the privileged few.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17837
Re: Sputnik
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2008, 11:46:34 AM »
Quote
Yes, it *is* impossible, but only for the privileged few.

If sustained space travel is so possible then you should be able to demonstrate it for us.

Re: Sputnik
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2008, 11:52:13 AM »
he didn't say hop on board my car ill do it he said few will ever get to at the current time but just because you cant doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Sputnik
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2008, 11:53:42 AM »
Considering that sustained space flight is impossible it seems that this was faked (possibly with the use of a pseudollite).
Sputnik didn't have a sustained flight. It was only 3 months long.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17837
Re: Sputnik
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2008, 12:01:44 PM »
he didn't say hop on board my car ill do it he said few will ever get to at the current time but just because you cant doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

If he can't demonstrate it for us, how does that prove it's possible?

Re: Sputnik
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2008, 12:05:26 PM »
do you think atoms are real tom, or are they a conspiracy because you have not proved them yourself? explain to me why YOU must provide the evidence for yourself and not trust the rest of the world? after all it would be kind of a financial toll if every did every experiment for themselves.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17837
Re: Sputnik
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2008, 12:16:42 PM »
Quote
do you think atoms are real tom, or are they a conspiracy because you have not proved them yourself?

I've never seen an atom. There's no evidence that sub atomic particles exist. Matter could very well exist as as something else other than what Atomic Theory predicts. Look at the wave theory of matter, for example.

Quote
explain to me why YOU must provide the evidence for yourself and not trust the rest of the world?

Singularity must provide evidence because it is his claim. He's the one claiming that sustained space travel is possible. The burden is on him to prove it to us.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2008, 03:18:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Sputnik
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2008, 12:19:11 PM »
he didn't say hop on board my car ill do it he said few will ever get to at the current time but just because you cant doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

If he can't demonstrate it for us, how does that prove it's possible?

If it's not possible, how does the sun do it? It's been travelling in space for years!! Thousands of years at least,as this has been observed (unless you believe a fresh new sun drops from heaven every morning,circles the Earth and falls off the edge of the Earth at night). surely with the UA model, in theory all you need to do is clear the Earth to the point that you can be affected by the UA, and are accelerating along with the Earth? Maybe (if you believe less in the "Earth shields us from the UA" theory,and more in the "the underbelly of the Earth/moon/sun/other planets are made of different material to us and thus affected by UA" theory) get yourself some material which is affected by it from the underside of the Earth, or from the moon?

So actually Tom, you're wrong. Even you can't deny that the Sun is clearly showing evidence that space travel is possible for an object.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2008, 12:21:23 PM by Munky Fidget »

Re: Sputnik
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2008, 12:38:08 PM »
Quote
do you think atoms are real tom, or are they a conspiracy because you have not proved them yourself?

I've never seen an atom. There's no evidence that sub atomic particles exist. Matter could very sell exist as as something else other than Atomic Theory predicts. Look at the wave theory of matter, for example.

Quote
explain to me why YOU must provide the evidence for yourself and not trust the rest of the world?

Singularity must provide evidence because it is his claim. He's the one claiming that sustained space travel is possible. The burden is on him to prove it to us.

so are you saying that you dont trust the word of anyone???

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Sputnik
« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2008, 01:08:27 PM »
Quote
Yes, it *is* impossible, but only for the privileged few.

If sustained space travel is so possible then you should be able to demonstrate it for us.

OK, I was originally making an attempt at humor.

Obviously I cannot actually, personally, demonstrate space flight.  Instead I have been force to make a judgment, based on the evidence available to me, that space flight is probably possible.

Most recently this evidence includes observing the ISS several times and reading about other people's observations, and amateur pictures, of the ISS from around the world. 

I also subscribe to Sky satellite television, which requires a dish to be pointed to a specific part of the sky.  This has been the case for 5 years.  I know the dish is highly directional because it was moved by a strong gust of wind last year and require re-alignment.  I know of no other technologies which can maintain an object is one part of the sky (with strong jet-streams) for 5+ years.

Please feel free to provide any explanation for the above, citing specific examples of current craft which match the attributes I have described, in terms of speed and endurance.


I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42432
Re: Sputnik
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2008, 01:24:39 PM »
Quote
Yes, it *is* impossible, but only for the privileged few.

If sustained space travel is so possible then you should be able to demonstrate it for us.

OK, I was originally making an attempt at humor.

Obviously I cannot actually, personally, demonstrate space flight.  Instead I have been force to make a judgment, based on the evidence available to me, that space flight is probably possible.

Most recently this evidence includes observing the ISS several times and reading about other people's observations, and amateur pictures, of the ISS from around the world. 

I also subscribe to Sky satellite television, which requires a dish to be pointed to a specific part of the sky.  This has been the case for 5 years.  I know the dish is highly directional because it was moved by a strong gust of wind last year and require re-alignment.  I know of no other technologies which can maintain an object is one part of the sky (with strong jet-streams) for 5+ years.

Please feel free to provide any explanation for the above, citing specific examples of current craft which match the attributes I have described, in terms of speed and endurance.

FE'ers will generally invoke high flying pseudolites or very tall (and very distant) towers as the source of your "satellite" tv.  Of course since these providers are a necessary part of the conspiracy, it would be difficult to find any public acknowledgment or documentation of these technologies.
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.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Sputnik
« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2008, 01:58:38 PM »
Quote
Yes, it *is* impossible, but only for the privileged few.

If sustained space travel is so possible then you should be able to demonstrate it for us.

OK, I was originally making an attempt at humor.

Obviously I cannot actually, personally, demonstrate space flight.  Instead I have been force to make a judgment, based on the evidence available to me, that space flight is probably possible.

Most recently this evidence includes observing the ISS several times and reading about other people's observations, and amateur pictures, of the ISS from around the world. 

I also subscribe to Sky satellite television, which requires a dish to be pointed to a specific part of the sky.  This has been the case for 5 years.  I know the dish is highly directional because it was moved by a strong gust of wind last year and require re-alignment.  I know of no other technologies which can maintain an object is one part of the sky (with strong jet-streams) for 5+ years.

Please feel free to provide any explanation for the above, citing specific examples of current craft which match the attributes I have described, in terms of speed and endurance.

FE'ers will generally invoke high flying pseudolites or very tall (and very distant) towers as the source of your "satellite" tv.  Of course since these providers are a necessary part of the conspiracy, it would be difficult to find any public acknowledgment or documentation of these technologies.

Very very tall towers, which we've never seen or heard about.  Squadrons of "Pseudolites" which we've never seen.   The evidence is non-existent.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a massive gulf between the "must see it first hand" mentality and the "make it up as you go along" mentality.  In short, there is no coherent argument.

It would be better for FEers to just say "we just don't know how people in Europe can point a dish to one part of the sky and receive satellite television".

I know this is pretty obvious to some of you, but it still fascinates me (for some reason or other).




I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Sputnik
« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2008, 02:29:39 PM »
he didn't say hop on board my car ill do it he said few will ever get to at the current time but just because you cant doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

If he can't demonstrate it for us, how does that prove it's possible?

Even if he did demonstrate it, and brought back pictures, would that prove it to you?  I don't see how it would since you would just use the faked picture/video argument right?

In other words, how does one prove this to you in a manner that you would not call fake, or a lie?

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Sputnik
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2008, 03:15:11 PM »
Singularity must provide evidence because it is his claim. He's the one claiming that sustained space travel is possible. The burden is on him to prove it to us.
1. All I said was that Sputnik didn't have a sustained orbit.
2. NASA made the claim and proved it, but you dismissed their evidence because it didn't fit your preconceived notion of the world.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Sputnik
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2008, 06:14:37 PM »
Quote
do you think atoms are real tom, or are they a conspiracy because you have not proved them yourself?

I've never seen an atom. There's no evidence that sub atomic particles exist. Matter could very well exist as as something else other than what Atomic Theory predicts. Look at the wave theory of matter, for example.

Quote
explain to me why YOU must provide the evidence for yourself and not trust the rest of the world?

Singularity must provide evidence because it is his claim. He's the one claiming that sustained space travel is possible. The burden is on him to prove it to us.
the rutherford experiment
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/meis/Rutherford.htm
an vir