Mercury and Venus

Quote from: C-Ray on October 29, 2008, 12:52:51 PM

You always say this yet you fail to tell us how you can keep a stratellite aloft

Buoyancy. We have been through this.

and the second half of the question?

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 29, 2008, 12:54:45 PM

Quote from: C-Ray on October 29, 2008, 12:52:51 PM

You always say this yet you fail to tell us how you can keep a stratellite aloft

Buoyancy. We have been through this.

and the second half of the question?

You can't escape the atmoplane because it would require too much fuel to be economical.

Quote from: C-Ray on October 29, 2008, 12:22:49 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 29, 2008, 11:52:43 AM

Quote from: goldstein on October 29, 2008, 11:34:46 AM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 29, 2008, 12:57:48 AM

The interaction of the Sun and Moon's magnetic fields at close range causes them to repel one another.

The moon has no global magnetic field.

Prove it.

Prove that it does.

FET requires it to. You can't disprove FET by saying that the moon has no magnetic field without proving that it doesn't have one.

Your logic contradicts Zetetic beliefs:

ENAG:

None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may

Quote from: C-Ray on October 29, 2008, 12:56:34 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 29, 2008, 12:54:45 PM

Quote from: C-Ray on October 29, 2008, 12:52:51 PM

You always say this yet you fail to tell us how you can keep a stratellite aloft

Buoyancy. We have been through this.

and the second half of the question?

You can't escape the atmoplane because it would require too much fuel to be economical.

How can you say that when we know for a fact that the escape velocity reduces the higher you go?

How much fuel?

That depends on how you choose to exit the atmoplane. A lot more than in RE, anyway.

How can you say that when we know for a fact that the escape velocity reduces the higher you go?

We can't know that for a fact. Escape velocity cannot be measured directly.

Quote from: goldstein on October 29, 2008, 12:37:59 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 29, 2008, 12:30:16 PM

That isn't proof, that's just showing that others have made the same claim as you that it has no magnetic field. Is there any direct observational evidence that it doesn't have a magnetic field?

Yes, it was measured during the Apollo missions in the 60s and by the Lunar Prospector in the 90s.

I feel a conspiracy appeal coming...

You do know that sustained space flight is impossible with current technology according to FET, right?

Well if the moon is only 3000 miles in the sky, It shouldn't be THAT hard to reach it as soon as you get out of the magical (i use magic cuz i forgot what it is called) field which makes us unaffected by the dark energy which is accelerating us upwards.

Well if the moon is only 3000 miles in the sky, It shouldn't be THAT hard to reach it as soon as you get out of the magical (i use magic cuz i forgot what it is called) field which makes us unaffected by the dark energy which is accelerating us upwards.

It's getting away from the DEF that is the hard part.

And you know this how?

W = Fs

Ah we're mumbling again. What joy.

Work = Force *distance.

So?

So the force required to overcome the acceleration of the Earth is the weight of the spacecraft. This means that at a minimum, the amount of energy required to get a rocket into space is its mass, times g, times the thickness of the atmoplane. That's a lot of fuel.

Quote from: goldstein on October 29, 2008, 01:27:38 PM

Ah we're mumbling again. What joy.

Work = Force *distance.

So?

So the force required to overcome the acceleration of the Earth is the weight of the spacecraft. This means that at a minimum, the amount of energy required to get a rocket into space is its mass, times g, times the thickness of the atmoplane. That's a lot of fuel.

If we wanted to take a BIG RISK, I'm sure a nuclear-pulse rocket (NOT NUCLEAR POWERED!... nuclear PULSE) could do the trick. In RET we have the technology today to make one that can reach the nearest star in 40 years...only problem is getting it into space without it detonating on us.

or maybe an electoplasma rocket...but it needs to be in space for it to work...

Is it? How much fuel?

Even using a conservative estimate of 100 km for the thickness of the atmoplane and assuming 100% efficiency in terms of the conversion of the heat of combustion into kinetic energy, it would require 111 tonnes of hydrogen/oxygen fuel to elevate an object with the mass of a Saturn V rocket into space. That's not accounting for the fuel required to accelerate the fuel to be used ahead of it, either. If, as I suspect, the atmoplane is ten times that thick or more, it would require ten or more times that amount of fuel - again, this isn't accounting for the fuel required to move the fuel itself, which would make the calculation more complicated as the mass would vary with time.

Taking into account all the shortcomings of the calculation, I'd say we'd be looking at ten kilotonnes or more of fuel.

Quote from: goldstein on October 29, 2008, 01:04:19 PM

How much fuel?

That depends on how you choose to exit the atmoplane. A lot more than in RE, anyway.

Quote from: C-Ray on October 29, 2008, 01:12:46 PM

How can you say that when we know for a fact that the escape velocity reduces the higher you go?

We can't know that for a fact. Escape velocity cannot be measured directly.

FET states that for a fact as you increase altitude you are less affected by the acceleration of FE and more affected by the gravitational pull of the stars, sun and moon.  Hence the higher your altitude the lower the Escape Velocity becomes.  At some point you would be pulled into space by the shear gravitational effect of the moon, sun and stars.  FET uses this gravitational pull to explain the variation in "Real Earth" calls gravity.

Quote from: goldstein on October 29, 2008, 01:27:38 PM

Ah we're mumbling again. What joy.

Work = Force *distance.

So?

So the force required to overcome the acceleration of the Earth is the weight of the spacecraft. This means that at a minimum, the amount of energy required to get a rocket into space is its mass, times g, times the thickness of the atmoplane. That's a lot of fuel.

What about the substantial gravitational field generated by the moon itself?  If it's enough to bend light, helping a space craft along shouldn't be a problem.  If the moon is as dense as you claim it to be, then it seems that getting back to the FE would be the hard part.

111?
10000?

You're just plucking figures from the air again. Plus escape velocity decreases under a FE.

111 tonnes was a calculated figure, 10000 was an estimate based on that.

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 29, 2008, 01:29:06 PM

Quote from: goldstein on October 29, 2008, 01:27:38 PM

Ah we're mumbling again. What joy.

Work = Force *distance.

So?

So the force required to overcome the acceleration of the Earth is the weight of the spacecraft. This means that at a minimum, the amount of energy required to get a rocket into space is its mass, times g, times the thickness of the atmoplane. That's a lot of fuel.

What about the substantial gravitational field generated by the moon itself?  If it's enough to bend light, helping a space craft along shouldn't be a problem.  If the moon is as dense as you claim it to be, then it seems that getting back to the FE would be the hard part.

Couldn't you use lift to your advantage also?

Was it? I didn't see any calculations. So calculated 111 and then said "To hell with it, the answers probably 10000"

The answer would be more than ten times 111, easily. 10000 was an estimate. Even one kiloton of fuel would still be a lot, and I don't think that would get you to space with even the most lenient estimates of distance to travel.