The International Space Station

FET FAQ:

"Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites cannot orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites. However, temporary space-flight is possible."

Wikipedia:

"The International Space Station (ISS) is an internationally developed research facility that is being assembled in low Earth orbit. On-orbit construction of the station began in 1998 and is scheduled for completion by late 2011. The station is expected to remain in operation until at least 2015, and likely 2020. With a greater mass than that of any previous space station, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye, and is by far the largest artificial satellite that has ever orbited Earth.
-
The station is maintained at an orbit between 278 km (173 mi) and 460 km (286 mi) altitude, and travels at an average speed of 27,743.8 km/h (17,239.2 mph), completing 15.7 orbits per day."






OK, so FE'ers believe that the ISS can not exist and is therefore part of the conspiracy along with other claimed satellites. Yet there are numerous videos of the ISS, ranging from astronauts playing around (and doing experiments) with zero gravity and docking videos filmed from approaching space shuttles. The purpose of this thread is to show the most compelling video evidence that the ISS really exists, and to challenge the FE'ers to explain how the zero gravity videos are made if they really are hoaxes.

At first, take a look at this video:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">International Space Station Tour (Part I) (especially the part at 6:40 where he shows the view from the window)

Then you can analyze these videos:

Videos showing sustained (not temporal) zero gravitation:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Life in the Space Station (aka. playing with zero gravity)
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ISS crew playing seriously
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Astronaut demos drinking coffee in space
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Saturday Morning Science (aka. zero gravity experiments with water and other 'stuff' onboard the ISS)


Videos showing space shuttles docking to the ISS:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">STS-123 Endeavour RPM and Docking
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">STS-117 - ATLANTIS - ISS DOCKING (INSIDE SPACE SHUTTLE)
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">STS-116/ISS Docking


Now, a serious question for the FE'ers: do you really believe all of these videos are hoaxes? If so, how are the zero gravity videos made, especially the " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">four part 35 min tour video? How about the docking videos?

Oh, and if you wish to observe the ISS yourself, ie. with your own eyes, go to this page and see when you can observe it the next time in your region (you can insert your exact coordinates aswell).

I'm really excited to see your explenations for the "playing with zero g" videos, aswell as for the "zero g experiments" video!

(Just to note: at 9,81 m/s² of "Universal Acceleration" for 35 minutes the Flat Earth would have moved a distance of ½at² = ½(9,81 m/s²)(35*60 s)² = 21 631 000 meters = 21 631 kilometers. The claimed orbital altitude of the ISS is from 278 km to 460 km, ie. the ISS would have crashed back to Earth on avarage (21 631 km)/[(278 km + 460 km)/2] = 58.6 times during shooting the tour video, if the ISS would exhibit zero gravity effects because of "direct freefall" from outer space from the claimed orbital altitude)

(Just to note: at 9,81 m/s² of "Universal Acceleration" for 35 minutes the Flat Earth would have moved a distance of ½at² = ½(9,81 m/s²)(35*60 s)² = 21 631 000 meters = 21 631 kilometers. The claimed orbital altitude of the ISS is from 278 km to 460 km, ie. the ISS would have crashed back to Earth on avarage (21 631 km)/[(278 km + 460 km)/2] = 58.6 times during shooting the tour video, if the ISS would exhibit zero gravity effects because of "direct freefall" from outer space from the claimed orbital altitude)

You have just pointed out why satellites are not believed to exist. Yay!

Quote from: whatnot on July 12, 2010, 07:34:13 AM

(Just to note: at 9,81 m/s² of "Universal Acceleration" for 35 minutes the Flat Earth would have moved a distance of ½at² = ½(9,81 m/s²)(35*60 s)² = 21 631 000 meters = 21 631 kilometers. The claimed orbital altitude of the ISS is from 278 km to 460 km, ie. the ISS would have crashed back to Earth on avarage (21 631 km)/[(278 km + 460 km)/2] = 58.6 times during shooting the tour video, if the ISS would exhibit zero gravity effects because of "direct freefall" from outer space from the claimed orbital altitude)

You have just pointed out why satellites are not believed to exist. Yay!

How so, you just quoted a part of his text and then made a statement. Oh wait, I think I might quote an Obama speech followed by the statement that Santa exsists...

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:02:40 AM

Quote from: whatnot on July 12, 2010, 07:34:13 AM

(Just to note: at 9,81 m/s² of "Universal Acceleration" for 35 minutes the Flat Earth would have moved a distance of ½at² = ½(9,81 m/s²)(35*60 s)² = 21 631 000 meters = 21 631 kilometers. The claimed orbital altitude of the ISS is from 278 km to 460 km, ie. the ISS would have crashed back to Earth on avarage (21 631 km)/[(278 km + 460 km)/2] = 58.6 times during shooting the tour video, if the ISS would exhibit zero gravity effects because of "direct freefall" from outer space from the claimed orbital altitude)

You have just pointed out why satellites are not believed to exist. Yay!

How so, you just quoted a part of his text and then made a statement. Oh wait, I think I might quote an Obama speech followed by the statement that Santa exsists...

No, this is very relevant and covered by the FAQ. Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE. The part I quoted thoroughly explains why. Long story short: shit would crash and go boom.
Raver: I wrote you a PM. I encourage you to respond

Quote from: Raver on July 12, 2010, 08:32:03 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:02:40 AM

Quote from: whatnot on July 12, 2010, 07:34:13 AM

(Just to note: at 9,81 m/s² of "Universal Acceleration" for 35 minutes the Flat Earth would have moved a distance of ½at² = ½(9,81 m/s²)(35*60 s)² = 21 631 000 meters = 21 631 kilometers. The claimed orbital altitude of the ISS is from 278 km to 460 km, ie. the ISS would have crashed back to Earth on avarage (21 631 km)/[(278 km + 460 km)/2] = 58.6 times during shooting the tour video, if the ISS would exhibit zero gravity effects because of "direct freefall" from outer space from the claimed orbital altitude)

You have just pointed out why satellites are not believed to exist. Yay!

How so, you just quoted a part of his text and then made a statement. Oh wait, I think I might quote an Obama speech followed by the statement that Santa exsists...

No, this is very relevant and covered by the FAQ. Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE. The part I quoted thoroughly explains why. Long story short: shit would crash and go boom.
Raver: I wrote you a PM. I encourage you to respond

True, the problem however being that the vids don't show us any crashes.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:45:45 AM

Quote from: Raver on July 12, 2010, 08:32:03 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:02:40 AM

Quote from: whatnot on July 12, 2010, 07:34:13 AM

(Just to note: at 9,81 m/s² of "Universal Acceleration" for 35 minutes the Flat Earth would have moved a distance of ½at² = ½(9,81 m/s²)(35*60 s)² = 21 631 000 meters = 21 631 kilometers. The claimed orbital altitude of the ISS is from 278 km to 460 km, ie. the ISS would have crashed back to Earth on avarage (21 631 km)/[(278 km + 460 km)/2] = 58.6 times during shooting the tour video, if the ISS would exhibit zero gravity effects because of "direct freefall" from outer space from the claimed orbital altitude)

You have just pointed out why satellites are not believed to exist. Yay!

How so, you just quoted a part of his text and then made a statement. Oh wait, I think I might quote an Obama speech followed by the statement that Santa exsists...

No, this is very relevant and covered by the FAQ. Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE. The part I quoted thoroughly explains why. Long story short: shit would crash and go boom.
Raver: I wrote you a PM. I encourage you to respond

True, the problem however being that the vids don't show us any crashes.

Of course, the neat things about satellites is that you can see them for yourself. You can see the ISS pass overhead from most latitudes. You and a friend can even determine the height of an Iridium satellite by observing a flash from miles apart. There's no reason not to go see for yourself that FET is bogus. Reference: http://heavens-above.com/.

True, the problem however being that the vids don't show us any crashes.

He also ignored my most important question: how are the zero gravity expriments done if not onboard the ISS? Here are some more zero gravity experiments performed by NASA's astronaut dr. Donald Pettit (most of which are found in the " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">compilation video):

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spinning objects in zero gravity
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bouncing bolt (in zero gravity)
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Air bubble inside a water sphere (in...)
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gyroscopically stabilized CD players
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Repairing a watch (looks hard in zero g)
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Drinking (eating?) tea with chopsticks




Edit: link to compilation video added

Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE.

What flat earth scientists have tried to create sustained space flight?

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:45:45 AM

Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE.

What flat earth scientists have tried to create sustained space flight?

FE scientists understand the second law of thermodynamics.

Well if you would like to see something that RE scientists have put into orbit just follow the previous iss link. All you have to do is tell it your zip code and it will tell you when you can walk outside and see the iss for yourself.

Quote from: PanzerFan on July 12, 2010, 10:27:05 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:45:45 AM

Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE.

What flat earth scientists have tried to create sustained space flight?

FE scientists understand the second law of thermodynamics.

I don't think that they do.  I'm sorry, but what keeps the gravitational influence of the celestial bodies from causing them to crash into the flat earth again?

Quote from: PanzerFan on July 12, 2010, 10:27:05 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:45:45 AM

Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE.

What flat earth scientists have tried to create sustained space flight?

FE scientists understand the second law of thermodynamics.

FE scientists? Where? What are their names, what degrees they have, what works have they published in what scientific publications? Or did you mean home made "scientists" whom the default option is FE and who unsuccessfully try to force all things to FE model without any considerations to other possibilities?

Quote from: PanzerFan on July 12, 2010, 10:27:05 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:45:45 AM

Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE.

What flat earth scientists have tried to create sustained space flight?

FE scientists understand the second law of thermodynamics.

Please tell us how entropy prevents sustained space flight. How is that Venus can stay aloft but a satellite cannot?

Quote from: Johannes on July 12, 2010, 11:36:32 AM

Quote from: PanzerFan on July 12, 2010, 10:27:05 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:45:45 AM

Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE.

What flat earth scientists have tried to create sustained space flight?

FE scientists understand the second law of thermodynamics.

Please tell us how entropy prevents sustained space flight. How is that Venus can stay aloft but a satellite cannot?

Venus is being accelerated by dark energy. A satellite is not.

2nd law of thermodynamics prevents a a "perpetual accelerating rocketship"

Quote from: ClockTower on July 12, 2010, 12:23:40 PM

Quote from: Johannes on July 12, 2010, 11:36:32 AM

Quote from: PanzerFan on July 12, 2010, 10:27:05 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:45:45 AM

Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE.

What flat earth scientists have tried to create sustained space flight?

FE scientists understand the second law of thermodynamics.

Please tell us how entropy prevents sustained space flight. How is that Venus can stay aloft but a satellite cannot?

Venus is being accelerated by dark energy. A satellite is not.

2nd law of thermodynamics prevents a a "perpetual accelerating rocketship"

If Venus can be accelerated by dark energy, then why can't a satellite be similarly accelerated?

Quote from: Johannes on July 12, 2010, 12:48:40 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 12, 2010, 12:23:40 PM

Quote from: Johannes on July 12, 2010, 11:36:32 AM

Quote from: PanzerFan on July 12, 2010, 10:27:05 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:45:45 AM

Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE.

What flat earth scientists have tried to create sustained space flight?

FE scientists understand the second law of thermodynamics.

Please tell us how entropy prevents sustained space flight. How is that Venus can stay aloft but a satellite cannot?

Venus is being accelerated by dark energy. A satellite is not.

2nd law of thermodynamics prevents a a "perpetual accelerating rocketship"

If Venus can be accelerated by dark energy, then why can't a satellite be similarly accelerated?

Unknown.

Quote from: markjo on July 12, 2010, 12:51:31 PM

Quote from: Johannes on July 12, 2010, 12:48:40 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 12, 2010, 12:23:40 PM

Quote from: Johannes on July 12, 2010, 11:36:32 AM

Quote from: PanzerFan on July 12, 2010, 10:27:05 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:45:45 AM

Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE.

What flat earth scientists have tried to create sustained space flight?

FE scientists understand the second law of thermodynamics.

Please tell us how entropy prevents sustained space flight. How is that Venus can stay aloft but a satellite cannot?

Venus is being accelerated by dark energy. A satellite is not.

2nd law of thermodynamics prevents a a "perpetual accelerating rocketship"

If Venus can be accelerated by dark energy, then why can't a satellite be similarly accelerated?

Unknown.

Then how do you know that it isn't being done?  What makes you think that the conspiracy, with all of its resources, hasn't figured out how to harness dark energy for their own sinister purposes?  After all,why do you suppose they call it dark energy?

Venus is being accelerated by dark energy. A satellite is not.

2nd law of thermodynamics prevents a a "perpetual accelerating rocketship"

How do you know that Venus is being accelerated by dark energy? How do you know that a satellite is not?

How does the 2nd Law prevent a perpetually accelerating rocket ship, but the UA does just that when the rocket ship sets on the FE?

Quote from: Johannes on July 12, 2010, 12:48:40 PM

Venus is being accelerated by dark energy. A satellite is not.

2nd law of thermodynamics prevents a a "perpetual accelerating rocketship"

How do you know that Venus is being accelerated by dark energy? How do you know that a satellite is not?

How does the 2nd Law prevent a perpetually accelerating rocket ship, but the UA does just that when the rocket ship sets on the FE?

Satellites fall back down to earth. That is how I know they are not being accelerated, or at least not accelerated enough.

UA will eventually run out.

Then how do you know that it isn't being done?  What makes you think that the conspiracy, with all of its resources, hasn't figured out how to harness dark energy for their own sinister purposes?  After all,why do you suppose they call it dark energy?

We aren't nearly as technically advanced to do something like that.

Have we ever been able to reverse-engineer something as simple a magnet? Can we create a device which shoots out magnetic photons to attract or repel objects? Have we harnessed the power of magnetic photons in the thousands years we've studied magnetism?

Modern science is actually incredibly primitive.

Quote from: markjo on July 12, 2010, 01:00:00 PM

Then how do you know that it isn't being done?  What makes you think that the conspiracy, with all of its resources, hasn't figured out how to harness dark energy for their own sinister purposes?  After all,why do you suppose they call it dark energy?

We aren't nearly as technically advanced to do something like that.

Have we ever been able to reverse-engineer something as simple a magnet? Can we create a device which shoots out magnetic photons to attract or repel objects? Have we harnessed the power of magnetic photons in the thousands years we've studied magnetism?

Modern science is actually incredibly primitive.

First of all, photons do not have a magnetic charge (they are electrically neutral).  Secondly, what does shooting photons (ever heard of a laser?) have to do with harnessing naturally occurring dark energy?

Quote from: ClockTower on July 12, 2010, 01:05:17 PM

Quote from: Johannes on July 12, 2010, 12:48:40 PM

Venus is being accelerated by dark energy. A satellite is not.

2nd law of thermodynamics prevents a a "perpetual accelerating rocketship"

How do you know that Venus is being accelerated by dark energy? How do you know that a satellite is not?

How does the 2nd Law prevent a perpetually accelerating rocket ship, but the UA does just that when the rocket ship sets on the FE?

Satellites fall back down to earth. That is how I know they are not being accelerated, or at least not accelerated enough.

UA will eventually run out.

So do tell us how you know that all Satellites fall back down to Earth. Do tell us how you know that the UA will eventually run out. How do you know that Venus is being accelerated by dark energy? How do you know that a satellite is not?

How does the 2nd Law prevent a perpetually accelerating rocket ship, but the UA does just that when the rocket ship sets on the FE?

Have we ever been able to reverse-engineer something as simple a magnet? Can we create a device which shoots out magnetic photons to attract or repel objects?

  Ever heard of electromagnets? It's a device which can generate magnetic field so yes, we can create a magnetic device. But I can't understand anything about your talk about magnetic photons for which there are no experimental evidence.

Quote from: Johannes on July 12, 2010, 01:14:33 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 12, 2010, 01:05:17 PM

Quote from: Johannes on July 12, 2010, 12:48:40 PM

Venus is being accelerated by dark energy. A satellite is not.

2nd law of thermodynamics prevents a a "perpetual accelerating rocketship"

How do you know that Venus is being accelerated by dark energy? How do you know that a satellite is not?

How does the 2nd Law prevent a perpetually accelerating rocket ship, but the UA does just that when the rocket ship sets on the FE?

Satellites fall back down to earth. That is how I know they are not being accelerated, or at least not accelerated enough.

UA will eventually run out.

So do tell us how you know that all Satellites fall back down to Earth. Do tell us how you know that the UA will eventually run out. How do you know that Venus is being accelerated by dark energy? How do you know that a satellite is not?

How does the 2nd Law prevent a perpetually accelerating rocket ship, but the UA does just that when the rocket ship sets on the FE?

The conspiracy openly admits satellites fall back to earth.

No one has has observed Venus falling back towards earth.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 12, 2010, 01:18:22 PM

Have we ever been able to reverse-engineer something as simple a magnet? Can we create a device which shoots out magnetic photons to attract or repel objects?

  Ever heard of electromagnets? It's a device which can generate magnetic field so yes, we can create a magnetic device. But I can't understand anything about your talk about magnetic photons for which there are no experimental evidence.

How is an electromagnet a reverse engineered magnet???

Quote from: ClockTower on July 12, 2010, 01:41:10 PM

So do tell us how you know that all Satellites fall back down to Earth. Do tell us how you know that the UA will eventually run out. How do you know that Venus is being accelerated by dark energy? How do you know that a satellite is not?

How does the 2nd Law prevent a perpetually accelerating rocket ship, but the UA does just that when the rocket ship sets on the FE?

The conspiracy openly admits satellites fall back to earth.

No one has has observed Venus falling back towards earth.

So do tell us how you know that all Satellites fall back down to Earth. Do tell us how you know that the UA will eventually run out. How do you know that Venus is being accelerated by dark energy? How do you know that a satellite is not?

How does the 2nd Law prevent a perpetually accelerating rocket ship, but the UA does just that when the rocket ship sets on the FE?

Quote from: ClockTower on July 12, 2010, 12:23:40 PM

Quote from: Johannes on July 12, 2010, 11:36:32 AM

Quote from: PanzerFan on July 12, 2010, 10:27:05 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 12, 2010, 08:45:45 AM

Sustained space flight is not possible on a FE.

What flat earth scientists have tried to create sustained space flight?

FE scientists understand the second law of thermodynamics.

Please tell us how entropy prevents sustained space flight. How is that Venus can stay aloft but a satellite cannot?

Venus is being accelerated by dark energy. A satellite is not.

2nd law of thermodynamics prevents a a "perpetual accelerating rocketship"

You mean like the perpetual acceleration of the earth???
Where does this infinite source of energy coming from, and what is making it move???

Quote from: markjo on July 12, 2010, 01:00:00 PM

Then how do you know that it isn't being done?  What makes you think that the conspiracy, with all of its resources, hasn't figured out how to harness dark energy for their own sinister purposes?  After all,why do you suppose they call it dark energy?

We aren't nearly as technically advanced to do something like that.

Have we ever been able to reverse-engineer something as simple a magnet? Can we create a device which shoots out magnetic photons to attract or repel objects? Have we harnessed the power of magnetic photons in the thousands years we've studied magnetism?

Modern science is actually incredibly primitive.

What part of magnetism is simple? The orbital spin?
And exactly how would you reverse engineer a magnet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering

the fundamental concept would be the same regardless of what you do to create the magnetic field.
Namely that its a moving electric field. see maxwell.

Do tell us how you know that the UA will eventually run out.

How do you know the sun will one day run out?

Quote from: ClockTower on July 12, 2010, 01:41:10 PM

Do tell us how you know that the UA will eventually run out.

How do you know the sun will one day run out?

We estimate its available fuel reserves given its current ratio of helium to hydrogen. The Sun's primary fuel is hydrogen. Once used it becomes helium. While the Sun can fuse heavier elements, the resultant energy is much less, and won't last long.