Will Anyone Else Miss FET?

Why would it not be feasible?  the requirements for the effect desired are identical for both round earth and flat earth.  You rocket above the atmosphere, then fall back into it.  What's so unfeasable about that?

It is possible but in the long run a simulation will be much cheaper. Also, the logical progression from sub-orbital flights is orbital flights. For this reason it is more prudent to perfect simulation technology early on, keeping the orbital experience consistent with the sub-orbital experience.

No.  Experience in the pharmaceutical industry.  Experienced drug makers.

Knowing how to make a drug is no substitute for experience of taking the drug.

You've never studied aircraft design, have you?  Form absolutely follows function when the form is integral to the function.  Remember that Spaceship Two must be able to fly within the atmosphere.

How is this relevent? Remember that 'Spaceship Two' will never leave the ground.

How is this relevent? Remember that 'Spaceship Two' will never leave the ground.

Actually, Spaceship Two already has left the ground:

Let's not confuse Virgin's decoy planes with their spaceflight simulator.

Yes, let's not.

Yes, let's not.

That image is hosted by tripod.

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 06, 2011, 04:22:04 PM

Why would it not be feasible?  the requirements for the effect desired are identical for both round earth and flat earth.  You rocket above the atmosphere, then fall back into it.  What's so unfeasable about that?

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on January 26, 2011, 10:17:14 PM

It is possible but in the long run a simulation will be much cheaper. Also, the logical progression from sub-orbital flights is orbital flights. For this reason it is more prudent to perfect simulation technology early on, keeping the orbital experience consistent with the sub-orbital experience.

  How much cheaper exactly?
Actually, the next proposed step is site to site transportation.  It's expected that Spaceship 3 will be able to fly from London to Sydney in 2 hours.  Try faking that.

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 06, 2011, 03:58:47 PM

No.  Experience in the pharmaceutical industry.  Experienced drug makers.

Knowing how to make a drug is no substitute for experience of taking the drug.

How can you make a drug without knowing what its effects are?

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2011, 04:33:25 PM

You've never studied aircraft design, have you?  Form absolutely follows function when the form is integral to the function.  Remember that Spaceship Two must be able to fly within the atmosphere.

How is this relevent? Remember that 'Spaceship Two' will never leave the ground.

So they have a decoy plane.  How much more money would they really need to spend to put a real rocket in it and have people fly in it.  If people with binoculars and telescopes will be watching it launch from the ground, they're going to have to have something that launches, engages a rocket, disengage rocket, drift for a bit, reenter, and land safely.  Why not have people actually in it?

How much cheaper exactly?
Actually, the next proposed step is site to site transportation.  It's expected that Spaceship 3 will be able to fly from London to Sydney in 2 hours.  Try faking that.

Much cheaper. If this is true then the scheme is more elaborate than I first thought. I am beginning to suspect that the passengers themselves are in on the joke.

How can you make a drug without knowing what its effects are?

Easily. In the same way that you can make a sandwich without knowing what it will taste like. Now ask yourself: how can you know the effects of a drug without experiencing those effects?

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 07, 2011, 02:30:16 PM

How much cheaper exactly?
Actually, the next proposed step is site to site transportation.  It's expected that Spaceship 3 will be able to fly from London to Sydney in 2 hours.  Try faking that.

Much cheaper. If this is true then the scheme is more elaborate than I first thought. I am beginning to suspect that the passengers themselves are in on the joke.

Assuming it is a joke.

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 06, 2011, 03:58:47 PM

How can you make a drug without knowing what its effects are?

Easily. In the same way that you can make a sandwich without knowing what it will taste like. Now ask yourself: how can you know the effects of a drug without experiencing those effects?

Doesn't matter any more.  Drugs aren't needed when the passengers go along with the conspiracy.

Wow, what a thread! My favorite part was the speculation that certain airbags could be positioned against select veins in order to assist in the sensation of weightlessness, or whatever! Simply remarkable.

Yes, this one was a fun ride. The creative (yet deeply faulty) thinking in this thread was quite extraordinary

When confronted with insurmountable evidence against them, RErs often dismiss FE theories as jokes.

When confronted with insurmountable evidence against them, RErs often dismiss FE theories as jokes.

There is no evidence.  You're just making up an elaborate "what if" scenario.

I would like to see this evidence you speak of. I participated in much of this thread, yet saw no such thing. Only speculation on your part.

When confronted with insurmountable evidence against them, RErs often dismiss FE theories as jokes.

They do. It is quite saddening. 

I would like to see this evidence you speak of. I participated in much of this thread, yet saw no such thing. Only speculation on your part.

But irrefutable speculation deserves to be accepted as evidence, don't you think?

Quote from: silver on February 08, 2011, 07:34:32 AM

I would like to see this evidence you speak of. I participated in much of this thread, yet saw no such thing. Only speculation on your part.

But irrefutable speculation deserves to be accepted as evidence, don't you think?

Quite frankly . . no.

But irrefutable speculation deserves to be accepted as evidence, don't you think?

Irrefutable speculation?  Isn't that an oxymoron?

When confronted with insurmountable evidence against them, RErs often dismiss FE theories as jokes.

When confronted with insurmountable evidence against them, FEers often dismiss RE theories as conspiracies.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 08, 2011, 06:12:07 AM

When confronted with insurmountable evidence against them, RErs often dismiss FE theories as jokes.

They do. It is quite saddening. 

so you believe what he is saying EG?

You don't? 

Quote from: silver on February 08, 2011, 07:34:32 AM

I would like to see this evidence you speak of. I participated in much of this thread, yet saw no such thing. Only speculation on your part.

But irrefutable speculation deserves to be accepted as evidence, don't you think?

Your speculation changed every time I made a post.  Your fake space trip theory was repeatedly refuted to the point where you conceded that the passengers can't be fooled.

You guys ought to check out this part of Wikipedia on Denialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Orthodoxy_and_heterodoxy

Particularly:

It is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics in order to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy:

   1. Conspiracy theories — Dismissing the event by suggesting opponents have an ulterior motive for their position or are conspiracy theorists.
   2. Cherry picking — Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look like they base their ideas on weak research.
   3. False experts — Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility.
   4. Moving the goalpost — Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence.
   5. Other logical fallacies — Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.

Your speculation changed every time I made a post.

What? Where in this thread have I contradicted myself?

Your fake space trip theory was repeatedly refuted to the point where you conceded that the passengers can't be fooled.

Again, wrong. I stated that if Virgin's London-Sydney claim were true (and there is no evidence to suggest it is), then the passengers could possibly be Conspiracy operatives. Perhaps if you read my posts properly you'd find it easier to accept the obvious truths they reveal.

I find the idea of expecting to convince anybody that he or she is possibly a Denialist pretty amusing! I suppose the inevitable denial of this could be interpreted as further evidence, hmm? 

I find the idea of expecting to convince anybody that he or she is possibly a Denialist pretty amusing! I suppose the inevitable denial of this could be interpreted as further evidence, hmm? 

Likewise, resorting to accusations of 'denialism' could itself be interpreted as denialism. It's a two edged knife.

I will certainly miss FET.

If not for it, I would not of been able to recognize the beauty of the moon shrimp each night.

I'm more a fan of the moon lions

I'm more a fan of the moon lions

There are no lions on the moon. That was just ClockTower buckling under the pressure. Shortly after he PM'd me a full confession. I'll post it for you now if you like.

deer thork,

u n englshgentleman r oarsome. u made me c the wurld is flat. thnx so much.

Your admiring and evar loyal servant
CockTower.

He sent me the same thing...

Quote from: Beorn on February 10, 2011, 01:29:45 PM

I'm more a fan of the moon lions

There are no lions on the moon. That was just ClockTower buckling under the pressure. Shortly after he PM'd me a full confession. I'll post it for you now if you like.

Quote from: ClockTower

deer thork,

u n englshgentleman r oarsome. u made me c the wurld is flat. thnx so much.

Your admiring and evar loyal servant
CockTower.

Aren't those messages supposed to be private?