Kennedy Space Center

Hello,

I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)

Thanks

My guess is that it will be bendy light combined with the NASA conspiracy, but lets watch.

You actually witness MECO?   Thats the point where the shuttle is in orbit and the only real proof of RET

Please provide calculations of the relative differences in altitude between Davie and Cape Canaveral (according to RE).

Hello,

I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)

Thanks

How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.

Please provide calculations of the relative differences in altitude between Davie and Cape Canaveral (according to RE).

You're the one that thinks it's not real, so you do the calculating, bub.

Quote from: Chini on November 11, 2009, 01:32:51 PM

Hello,

I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)

Thanks

How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.

so the stars are only a few miles up then?

Quote from: Nord on November 11, 2009, 05:36:49 PM

Quote from: Chini on November 11, 2009, 01:32:51 PM

Hello,

I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)

Thanks

How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.

so the stars are only a few miles up then?

never been that high, i don't know their distance. But i guess they are far less then most scientists state.

Quote from: Nord on November 11, 2009, 05:36:49 PM

Quote from: Chini on November 11, 2009, 01:32:51 PM

Hello,

I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)

Thanks

How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.

so the stars are only a few miles up then?

That is what a fair number of flat earthers claim.

so the stars are only a few miles up then?

Then planes would run into them.

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 11, 2009, 06:36:35 PM

so the stars are only a few miles up then?

Then planes would run into them.

or at least see a difference in size. Since this does not happen we know that they are farther than that.

Please provide calculations of the relative differences in altitude between Davie and Cape Canaveral (according to RE).

This is actually what I expected, but there is no actual hypothesis you can derive on the grounds of altitude, as I am currently 7 feet above sea level and Cape Canaveral is 1-3 feet at most, most likely near the one foot zone of that range.

Quote from: Chini on November 11, 2009, 01:32:51 PM

Hello,

I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)

Thanks

How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.

Actually, I can clearly see the rocket while it goes into space. I don't know If you have ever seen a shuttle launch, but even at the distance I am from Kennedy Space Center, watching a space shuttle go up is intense on your eyes, as it burns so brightly that it's almost painful to keep your eyes on it for so long. If you can see something like the International Space Station without any sort of fuel exhaust coming out of it, a space shuttle that's burning fuel like no tomorrow is incredibly visible.

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 11, 2009, 06:36:35 PM

Quote from: Nord on November 11, 2009, 05:36:49 PM

Quote from: Chini on November 11, 2009, 01:32:51 PM

Hello,

I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)

Thanks

How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.

so the stars are only a few miles up then?

never been that high, i don't know their distance. But i guess they are far less then most scientists state.

If you had the technology at your disposal to scan a close star (possibly in the Alpha Centauri solar system) and measured its mass, not only would you be able to measure the diameter of the planet, but also the distance. Unless FE'ers are implying that stars are about the size of a large city, then you could logically assume that they would look massive at such a short distance.

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 11, 2009, 06:36:35 PM

so the stars are only a few miles up then?

never been that high, i don't know their distance. But i guess they are far less then most scientists state.

Explain me then why it takes 2.56 seconds to a laser beam to travel from Earth to the Moon, then from the Moon to the Earth ?

Quote from: Nord on November 11, 2009, 07:37:28 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 11, 2009, 06:36:35 PM

so the stars are only a few miles up then?

never been that high, i don't know their distance. But i guess they are far less then most scientists state.

Explain me then why it takes 2.56 seconds to a laser beam to travel from Earth to the Moon, then from the Moon to the Earth ?

Honestly, at this point it just seems as if the majority of them are trolls, don't even bother. Well, I just stumbled upon this website to see if there was actually some sort of scientific reasoning behind the basis of a Flat Earth, but so far I haven't really been convinced. Oh well :/

Quote from: Johannes on November 11, 2009, 05:35:48 PM

Please provide calculations of the relative differences in altitude between Davie and Cape Canaveral (according to RE).

This is actually what I expected, but there is no actual hypothesis you can derive on the grounds of altitude, as I am currently 7 feet above sea level and Cape Canaveral is 1-3 feet at most, most likely near the one foot zone of that range.

Ok- so that is negligible. Do the calculations with the assumption of the earth being a sphere - you will be surprised to learn the conspiracy's explanation is bogus.

Quote from: Nord on November 11, 2009, 07:37:28 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 11, 2009, 06:36:35 PM

so the stars are only a few miles up then?

never been that high, i don't know their distance. But i guess they are far less then most scientists state.

Explain me then why it takes 2.56 seconds to a laser beam to travel from Earth to the Moon, then from the Moon to the Earth ?

The laser to the moon thing was actually a concept constructed by NASA itself to prove to the world that they really went to the moon.

"Look, we can bounce laser beams off of our mirrors with this special 1 quadrillion watt laser we built! That proves it once and for all!!"

"Here's a picture of a non-discript looking piece of equipment! More proof!!"

Quote from: basketguy15 on November 11, 2009, 08:40:30 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 11, 2009, 06:36:35 PM

so the stars are only a few miles up then?

Then planes would run into them.

or at least see a difference in size. Since this does not happen we know that they are farther than that.

The stars are a bit over 3000 miles in altitude above the earth. International flight only travel at an altitude of 5.5 miles miles in altitude above the earth.

If you had the technology at your disposal to scan a close star (possibly in the Alpha Centauri solar system) and measured its mass, not only would you be able to measure the diameter of the planet, but also the distance. Unless FE'ers are implying that stars are about the size of a large city, then you could logically assume that they would look massive at such a short distance.

You can't measure the mass of a star by looking at it.  

Nobody seriously disputes that shuttles land, we just dispute where they go, usually they disappear out of sght then splash down quietly in the ocean or glide into a remote airfield somewhere unhtil it's time for them to 're-enter' Earth's atmosphere.

You can't measure the mass of a star by looking at it.  

Bishop finally proves (again) that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It is possible to make inferences about a star's mass by observing it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 16, 2009, 01:52:13 AM

You can't measure the mass of a star by looking at it.  

Bishop finally proves (again) that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It is possible to make inferences about a star's mass by observing it.

Such as?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on November 16, 2009, 06:09:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 16, 2009, 01:52:13 AM

You can't measure the mass of a star by looking at it.  

Bishop finally proves (again) that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It is possible to make inferences about a star's mass by observing it.

Such as?

Hue and brightness coupled with the stars spectrum can give you the mass of the star.  Read a book sometime.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 16, 2009, 06:04:27 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on November 16, 2009, 06:09:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 16, 2009, 01:52:13 AM

You can't measure the mass of a star by looking at it.  

Bishop finally proves (again) that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It is possible to make inferences about a star's mass by observing it.

Such as?

Hue and brightness coupled with the stars spectrum can give you the mass of the star.  Read a book sometime.

No it cannot.

Also, how come has no RE'er done the math for the OC? Is it perhaps because the math contradicts what NASA claims???

No it cannot.

Yes it can. Just because you say its not true doesnt mean youre right. Eire Engineer is correct.

Quote from: Johannes on November 16, 2009, 07:03:00 PM

No it cannot.

Yes it can. Just because you say its not true doesnt mean youre right. Eire Engineer is correct.

And just because you say that Eire Engineer is correct, that means he is?

Think about it. How can the brightness and hue of a star possibly tell us its mass?

Quote from: Skeleton on November 16, 2009, 09:10:11 PM

Quote from: Johannes on November 16, 2009, 07:03:00 PM

No it cannot.

Yes it can. Just because you say its not true doesnt mean youre right. Eire Engineer is correct.

And just because you say that Eire Engineer is correct, that means he is?

Think about it. How can the brightness and hue of a star possibly tell us its mass?

Go and do some homework, Bishop, we're not going to spoon feed you. Read something other than Earth Not A Globe.

Quote from: Skeleton on November 16, 2009, 09:10:11 PM

Quote from: Johannes on November 16, 2009, 07:03:00 PM

No it cannot.

Yes it can. Just because you say its not true doesnt mean youre right. Eire Engineer is correct.

And just because you say that Eire Engineer is correct, that means he is?

Think about it. How can the brightness and hue of a star possibly tell us its mass?

Measuring the mass of stars in binary systems is easy. Binary systems are sets of two or more stars in orbit about each other. By measuring the size of the orbit, the stars' orbital speeds, and their orbital periods, we can determine exactly what the masses of the stars are. We can take that knowledge and then apply it to similar stars not in multiple systems.

We also can easily measure the luminocity and temperature of any star. A plot of luminocity versus temperature for a set of stars is called a Hertsprung-Russel (H-R) diagram, and it turns out that most stars lie along a thin band in this diagram known as the main Sequence. Stars arrange themselves by mass on the Main Sequence, with massive stars being hotter and brighter than their small-mass bretheren. If a star falls on the Main Sequence, we therefore immediately know its mass.

In addition to these methods, we also have an excellent understanding of how stars work. Our models of stellar structure are excellent predictors of the properties and evolution of stars. As it turns out, the mass of a star determines its life history from day 1, for all times thereafter, not only when the star is on the Main Sequence. So actually, the position of a star on the H-R diagram is a good indicator of its mass, regardless of whether it's on the Main Sequence or not.

Measuring the mass of stars in binary systems is easy. Binary systems are sets of two or more stars in orbit about each other. By measuring the size of the orbit, the stars' orbital speeds, and their orbital periods, we can determine exactly what the masses of the stars are. We can take that knowledge and then apply it to similar stars not in multiple systems.

That is an assumption, not a fact. RE theory is 100% based on assumptions and no facts.

We also can easily measure the luminocity and temperature of any star. A plot of luminocity versus temperature for a set of stars is called a Hertsprung-Russel (H-R) diagram, and it turns out that most stars lie along a thin band in this diagram known as the main Sequence. Stars arrange themselves by mass on the Main Sequence, with massive stars being hotter and brighter than their small-mass bretheren. If a star falls on the Main Sequence, we therefore immediately know its mass.

No you don't, you have an irrelevant graph that has nothing to do with the mass of the planet. Your model is nothing more than assumptions, to find the truth you need to make quantitative measurements, not qualitative theories. The temperature of the planets is an assumption.

In addition to these methods, we also have an excellent understanding of how stars work. Our models of stellar structure are excellent predictors of the properties and evolution of stars. As it turns out, the mass of a star determines its life history from day 1, for all times thereafter, not only when the star is on the Main Sequence. So actually, the position of a star on the H-R diagram is a good indicator of its mass, regardless of whether it's on the Main Sequence or not.

Have you ever observed nuclear fusion? Have you ever seen an atom? Ever noticed that Quantum Mechanics is based on probabilities and assumptions to prevent the model from falling apart? We know absolutely nothing about stars. We have never observed a single one beyond wavelength. We know even less about the "atom"... after 100s of years chemists have failed in their original goal: making gold, and they have failed to describe the nature of matter as well!

Quote

Measuring the mass of stars in binary systems is easy. Binary systems are sets of two or more stars in orbit about each other. By measuring the size of the orbit, the stars' orbital speeds, and their orbital periods, we can determine exactly what the masses of the stars are. We can take that knowledge and then apply it to similar stars not in multiple systems.

That is an assumption, not a fact. RE theory is 100% based on assumptions and no facts.

The shape of the earth is a fact that has long since been established.  Astronomy is a different matter.

Have you ever observed nuclear fusion? Have you ever seen an atom? Ever noticed that Quantum Mechanics is based on probabilities and assumptions to prevent the model from falling apart? We know absolutely nothing about stars. We have never observed a single one beyond wavelength. We know even less about the "atom"... after 100s of years chemists have failed in their original goal: making gold, and they have failed to describe the nature of matter as well!

*sigh*

Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it has been achieved! There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth, in 1980) into gold. There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.