Sustained Spaceflight is possible under FET

After reviewing the basics of FET (but discounting the majority of the theories simply because they have not yet been confirmed)  I realized that sustained spaceflight is possible with a constantly upward moving flat earth.  The spacecrafts would simply require constant upward thrust, which could be possible (although conspiracy may have concealed the existence of this technology).  "Orbits" would follow a similar path to the sun and the moon.
  Obviously this would change the Conspiracy significantly, however this is not a problem because so little is known about the conspiracy it can be anything.  

I believe the conspiracy developed like this:

Earth was believed to be round until the first unmanned object with a camera is sent into space.  The true thrust capabilities of the craft is concealed, as it is not yet confirmed.  It is able to briefly take pictures of Flat Earth before it is destroyed (as it was designed to orbit Round Earth, not fly above Flat Earth)

These findings are reported to government heads, and the failure is covered up.

The decision is made: the public should not be informed of this revelation until the laws of science in general have been edited to conform to these new findings.

It is soon also discovered that the original craft has the ability to maintain a constant distance between itself and Flat Earth, achieving something similar to a Round Earth orbit.

All spacecraft are designed with a concealed vertical thruster to allow them to travel straight upwards above flat earth.

Manned missions into space occur, but the pictures taken during them are faked in order to not shock the world population.

Moon landings are achieved, but they photos are edited to resemble what would the moon was normally percieved to look like.



I believe this Conspiracy to be more likely for several reasons:

1.It has a clear purpose: to not shock the public with the revelation that the Earth is flat until science has been sufficiently re-written to accomodate that.
2.  It is not so grand in scheme, as the majority of spaceflights are now legitimate.  This makes the conspiracy much easier to manage
3.Because it is not so grand, it is much less costly to those involved.



Furthermore, since FET's explanatory theories have not been confirmed, when the truth is revealed the scientists working behind the Conspiracy's veil will reveal exactly which theories were correct and which were not (and alternative explanations for the theories that are not.)

It isn't 'sustained' if you need constant external energy to accelerate away. Satellites in orbit are 'sustained' because they don't do anything. They just orbit. A spacecraft with constant thrust would run out of fuel after no time at all.

It isn't 'sustained' if you need constant external energy to accelerate away. Satellites in orbit are 'sustained' because they don't do anything. They just orbit. A spacecraft with constant thrust would run out of fuel after no time at all.

As far as we know it would, but if we are saying there is a conspiracy there's a possibility that some sort of energy source exists that would allow this admittedly exhaustive flight style to work.

Also, even satellites aren't exactly "sustained" by your definition (talking from a RET perspective now).  They almost all fall eventually after their hydrozine stores run out and they can't correct their orbits.  HOWEVER, you do make a good point in saying that RE orbits can be sustained for far longer than these FET theory ones could with current tech.

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 15, 2010, 08:54:32 PM

It isn't 'sustained' if you need constant external energy to accelerate away. Satellites in orbit are 'sustained' because they don't do anything. They just orbit. A spacecraft with constant thrust would run out of fuel after no time at all.

As far as we know it would, but if we are saying there is a conspiracy there's a possibility that some sort of energy source exists that would allow this admittedly exhaustive flight style to work.

Also, even satellites aren't exactly "sustained" by your definition (talking from a RET perspective now).  They almost all fall eventually after their hydrozine stores run out and they can't correct their orbits.  HOWEVER, you do make a good point in saying that RE orbits can be sustained for far longer than these FET theory ones could with current tech.

No, as far as we know, nothing can power an engine to constantly accelerate for such a long time. It's similar to the 'going at the speed of light' paradox. Nothing can push you there because the stored energy would weigh more than what it is pushing, meaning you need more energy, which weighs more. Can't be done.

Quote from: jtelroy on February 15, 2010, 09:01:51 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 15, 2010, 08:54:32 PM

It isn't 'sustained' if you need constant external energy to accelerate away. Satellites in orbit are 'sustained' because they don't do anything. They just orbit. A spacecraft with constant thrust would run out of fuel after no time at all.

As far as we know it would, but if we are saying there is a conspiracy there's a possibility that some sort of energy source exists that would allow this admittedly exhaustive flight style to work.

Also, even satellites aren't exactly "sustained" by your definition (talking from a RET perspective now).  They almost all fall eventually after their hydrozine stores run out and they can't correct their orbits.  HOWEVER, you do make a good point in saying that RE orbits can be sustained for far longer than these FET theory ones could with current tech.

No, as far as we know, nothing can power an engine to constantly accelerate for such a long time. It's similar to the 'going at the speed of light' paradox. Nothing can push you there because the stored energy would weigh more than what it is pushing, meaning you need more energy, which weighs more. Can't be done.

Don't get me wrong, your science is totally right.

However, I think the situation I gave is more believable than the standard FET conspiracy, and the slim possibility that some weird sort of alternate energy form we don't know about (like, I don't know, something that harnesses Dark Energy or something... I have no idea) that would make this sort of "sustained" spaceflight possible makes it a valid theory, at least when compared to standard FET.

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 15, 2010, 09:09:52 PM

Quote from: jtelroy on February 15, 2010, 09:01:51 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 15, 2010, 08:54:32 PM

It isn't 'sustained' if you need constant external energy to accelerate away. Satellites in orbit are 'sustained' because they don't do anything. They just orbit. A spacecraft with constant thrust would run out of fuel after no time at all.

As far as we know it would, but if we are saying there is a conspiracy there's a possibility that some sort of energy source exists that would allow this admittedly exhaustive flight style to work.

Also, even satellites aren't exactly "sustained" by your definition (talking from a RET perspective now).  They almost all fall eventually after their hydrozine stores run out and they can't correct their orbits.  HOWEVER, you do make a good point in saying that RE orbits can be sustained for far longer than these FET theory ones could with current tech.

No, as far as we know, nothing can power an engine to constantly accelerate for such a long time. It's similar to the 'going at the speed of light' paradox. Nothing can push you there because the stored energy would weigh more than what it is pushing, meaning you need more energy, which weighs more. Can't be done.

Don't get me wrong, your science is totally right.

However, I think the situation I gave is more believable than the standard FET conspiracy, and the slim possibility that some weird sort of alternate energy form we don't know about (like, I don't know, something that harnesses Dark Energy or something... I have no idea) that would make this sort of "sustained" spaceflight possible makes it a valid theory, at least when compared to standard FET.

In that sense, wouldn't the RET be more believable than any FET?

Quote from: jtelroy on February 15, 2010, 09:13:53 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 15, 2010, 09:09:52 PM

Quote from: jtelroy on February 15, 2010, 09:01:51 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 15, 2010, 08:54:32 PM

It isn't 'sustained' if you need constant external energy to accelerate away. Satellites in orbit are 'sustained' because they don't do anything. They just orbit. A spacecraft with constant thrust would run out of fuel after no time at all.

As far as we know it would, but if we are saying there is a conspiracy there's a possibility that some sort of energy source exists that would allow this admittedly exhaustive flight style to work.

Also, even satellites aren't exactly "sustained" by your definition (talking from a RET perspective now).  They almost all fall eventually after their hydrozine stores run out and they can't correct their orbits.  HOWEVER, you do make a good point in saying that RE orbits can be sustained for far longer than these FET theory ones could with current tech.

No, as far as we know, nothing can power an engine to constantly accelerate for such a long time. It's similar to the 'going at the speed of light' paradox. Nothing can push you there because the stored energy would weigh more than what it is pushing, meaning you need more energy, which weighs more. Can't be done.

Don't get me wrong, your science is totally right.

However, I think the situation I gave is more believable than the standard FET conspiracy, and the slim possibility that some weird sort of alternate energy form we don't know about (like, I don't know, something that harnesses Dark Energy or something... I have no idea) that would make this sort of "sustained" spaceflight possible makes it a valid theory, at least when compared to standard FET.

In that sense, wouldn't the RET be more believable than any FET?

Only if you haven't already made up your mind that RET must be wrong.

Quote from: SeductaS on February 15, 2010, 09:19:19 PM

Quote from: jtelroy on February 15, 2010, 09:13:53 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 15, 2010, 09:09:52 PM

Quote from: jtelroy on February 15, 2010, 09:01:51 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 15, 2010, 08:54:32 PM

It isn't 'sustained' if you need constant external energy to accelerate away. Satellites in orbit are 'sustained' because they don't do anything. They just orbit. A spacecraft with constant thrust would run out of fuel after no time at all.

As far as we know it would, but if we are saying there is a conspiracy there's a possibility that some sort of energy source exists that would allow this admittedly exhaustive flight style to work.

Also, even satellites aren't exactly "sustained" by your definition (talking from a RET perspective now).  They almost all fall eventually after their hydrozine stores run out and they can't correct their orbits.  HOWEVER, you do make a good point in saying that RE orbits can be sustained for far longer than these FET theory ones could with current tech.

No, as far as we know, nothing can power an engine to constantly accelerate for such a long time. It's similar to the 'going at the speed of light' paradox. Nothing can push you there because the stored energy would weigh more than what it is pushing, meaning you need more energy, which weighs more. Can't be done.

Don't get me wrong, your science is totally right.

However, I think the situation I gave is more believable than the standard FET conspiracy, and the slim possibility that some weird sort of alternate energy form we don't know about (like, I don't know, something that harnesses Dark Energy or something... I have no idea) that would make this sort of "sustained" spaceflight possible makes it a valid theory, at least when compared to standard FET.

In that sense, wouldn't the RET be more believable than any FET?

Only if you haven't already made up your mind that RET must be wrong.

Yes, to both.  I really have no idea why I posted this.  I'm a RE'er, although my ambiguous posts such as this make that increasingly difficult to see.

I guess my intention was to provide FET with a more believable basis, albeit only slightly more believable. 

I believe that RET is more likely than both SFET (Standard Flat Earth Theory) and the section I have just created, which I am referring to as SF-FET (SpaceFlight FET... I don't know if explaining these acronyms is necessary but it makes me feel  better about myself haha)... but I guess I wanted to do something nice for the FE'ers by providing them a refined and more acceptable version of their theory.

Why can't satellites orbit in a circle above the surface of the earth like the sun and moon do in some magical way?

Why can't satellites orbit in a circle above the surface of the earth like the sun and moon do in some magical way?

I'm saying they can. The only problem is the amount of fuel it would take to provide that constant upward thrust (since FET states that FE is moving upwards into space, the objects above it would have to be moving upwards at the same speed...)

This is one of the best posts I've seen in a long time. Kudos to jtelroy for starting it.

This is one of the best posts I've seen in a long time. Kudos to jtelroy for starting it.

Thanks!

Although, one should take note of the fact that no FE'ers have stepped foot in this thread yet.

Typical.

You need to think about this: if space flight could be acheived, and they have done so, why would they lie about it? Why would they invent an elaborate spherical Earth myth if spaceflight was possible? The reasons you give don't seem sufficient to me - it just doesn't make sense.

You need to think about this: if space flight could be acheived, and they have done so, why would they lie about it? Why would they invent an elaborate spherical Earth myth if spaceflight was possible? The reasons you give don't seem sufficient to me - it just doesn't make sense.

There's no proof that they invented an elaborate spherical earth. That's where your imagination comes in.

You need to think about this: if space flight could be acheived, and they have done so, why would they lie about it? Why would they invent an elaborate spherical Earth myth if spaceflight was possible? The reasons you give don't seem sufficient to me - it just doesn't make sense.

The spherical earth myth was invented about 2000 years before space flight became a reality, remember?  Please try to keep up, Wilmore.

You need to think about this: if space flight could be acheived, and they have done so, why would they lie about it? Why would they invent an elaborate spherical Earth myth if spaceflight was possible? The reasons you give don't seem sufficient to me - it just doesn't make sense.

Because then the majority of generally accepted scientific perceptions would be wrong, and we would have no alternatives to fall back on.

What would happen in schools?  We would have nothing to teach our children except that what we've thought we've known for over 2 millenia is wrong.  So my theory is that science is being quietly restructured behind the curtain so that when they come forward with the truth, there will be no chaos, no scrambling to discover answers, and nothing but a bump in the education system.

In other words, under my theory the conspiracy is an attempt to ease humanity into the truth rather than hide it away from them.

Too bad this is speculation only with no proof, no evidence and no sense.

Too bad this is speculation only with no proof, no evidence and no sense.

FET in general is speculation with no proof, no evidence, and no sense.

SF-FET is speculation with no proof, no evidence, and more sense than FET.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on February 18, 2010, 04:05:09 AM

Why can't satellites orbit in a circle above the surface of the earth like the sun and moon do in some magical way?

I'm saying they can. The only problem is the amount of fuel it would take to provide that constant upward thrust (since FET states that FE is moving upwards into space, the objects above it would have to be moving upwards at the same speed...)

If you started off from the earth, you'd move at the same speed as the earth for a while.

Because then the majority of generally accepted scientific perceptions would be wrong, and we would have no alternatives to fall back on.

What would happen in schools?  We would have nothing to teach our children except that what we've thought we've known for over 2 millenia is wrong.  So my theory is that science is being quietly restructured behind the curtain so that when they come forward with the truth, there will be no chaos, no scrambling to discover answers, and nothing but a bump in the education system.

In other words, under my theory the conspiracy is an attempt to ease humanity into the truth rather than hide it away from them.

Perhaps, but I find this unlikely. Whether or not the Earth is flat would make minimal difference to most people's day to day lives - it would only undermine the RE zealots. I just don't see why anyone would fake a space program when they could actually have one.

Quote from: jtelroy on February 18, 2010, 03:28:01 PM

Because then the majority of generally accepted scientific perceptions would be wrong, and we would have no alternatives to fall back on.

What would happen in schools?  We would have nothing to teach our children except that what we've thought we've known for over 2 millenia is wrong.  So my theory is that science is being quietly restructured behind the curtain so that when they come forward with the truth, there will be no chaos, no scrambling to discover answers, and nothing but a bump in the education system.

In other words, under my theory the conspiracy is an attempt to ease humanity into the truth rather than hide it away from them.

Perhaps, but I find this unlikely. Whether or not the Earth is flat would make minimal difference to most people's day to day lives - it would only undermine the RE zealots. I just don't see why anyone would fake a space program when they could actually have one.

It would make a big difference to my everyday life - I'd have to use Google Plane. Anyway, it's only orbit that's not possible under FET (assuming that satellites can't do the magic circle thing). There's no reason that you wouldn't be able to get into space, is there?

Getting there is possible, but staying there would be another thing.

Getting there is possible, but staying there would be another thing.

Why? Can't you do the same magic circle orbit thing that the sun does?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 19, 2010, 11:50:48 AM

Getting there is possible, but staying there would be another thing.

Why? Can't you do the same magic circle orbit thing that the sun does?

If you could figure out how, sure, but NASA obivously doesn't do that.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on February 19, 2010, 11:55:37 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 19, 2010, 11:50:48 AM

Getting there is possible, but staying there would be another thing.

Why? Can't you do the same magic circle orbit thing that the sun does?

If you could figure out how, sure, but NASA obivously doesn't do that.

No they don't need to resort to magic to make things happen =)

Quote from: Lord Xenu on February 19, 2010, 11:55:37 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 19, 2010, 11:50:48 AM

Getting there is possible, but staying there would be another thing.

Why? Can't you do the same magic circle orbit thing that the sun does?

If you could figure out how, sure, but NASA obivously doesn't do that.

  Why do you say that?

  Why do you say that?

If they do, why lie about ir?

Quote from: markjo on February 19, 2010, 01:23:50 PM

  Why do you say that?

If they do, why lie about ir?

Lie about what?

Well, if they're harnessing the power of the UA, then they're not acheiving spaceflight the way they claim to, and they're still lying about the nature of the sola system.

Perhaps the sustained space flight is real, but must be misrepresented in order to protect the RE conspiracy.  After all, both conspiracies are related, aren't they?