« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Rowbotham's style of logic

  • 91 Replies
  • 18277 Views
*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17687
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #60 on: July 26, 2011, 05:37:00 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2011, 06:53:36 PM
Quote
Quote
The Stratellite is a concept that has undergone several years of research and development, and is not yet commercially available; Sanswire, with its partner TAO Technologies, anticipates its current testing sequence to include the launch of a Stratellite into the stratosphere.

how can Garmon, tomtom and the other GPS companies have access to these when they are not available yet.

Blimps and helium balloons have been available for a very long time. Perhaps that Stratellite™​ brand satratellite is not yet available, but high altitude dirigibles have been available for many decades.

The device in that wiki article is talking about the a certain Sanswire product called Stratellite, not stratellites.
The IEEE database also has quite a few articles on easily realized stratellites.  Its been years since I dug through it though, so I'll leave that to any interested parties.
Logged
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #61 on: July 26, 2011, 07:58:58 AM »
Quote from: Roundy on July 25, 2011, 08:28:16 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 23, 2011, 01:49:34 PM
Quote from: Roundy on July 22, 2011, 01:23:07 PM
I think Tom ditched another topic.

I've answered your questions. A stratellite would just look like a pale nearly imperceptible dot in the night sky. There are plenty of little dots in the night sky. Look up at the sky. There are too many dots to count. You can't know which are which.

Quote from: Roundy on July 20, 2011, 11:26:54 AM
Tom, What part of a telescope don't you understand?

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/06/ufo_weather_balloon_caught_in.php

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbarchive/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1613090/page/4/view/collapsed/sb/6/o/all/fpart/1

http://www.ufonv.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1110

That's assuming that the balloon has strings hanging down from them as to make them easily identifiable. Without the string the balloon looks perfectly spherical.
Logged
*

Roundy

  • 131
  • Sit and Spin
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #62 on: July 26, 2011, 08:01:29 AM »


tom, have you ever tried looked for one though a telescope? if no, don't tell me what they look like, as i actually have seen one.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #63 on: July 26, 2011, 08:04:57 AM »
Quote from: Roundy on July 26, 2011, 08:01:29 AM


tom, have you ever tried looked for one though a telescope? if no, don't tell me what they look like, as i actually have seen one.

Yeah, but how far up in the sky is that? That balloon is maybe a couple hundred feet in the air. At 100,000 feet in the air the detail of the balloon is lost even to a telescope.

Look at one of your earlier balloon-through-a-telescope links:



http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ffc/?n=balloon2004

Quote
"The Balloon is around 100,000 feet in the atmosphere."

As you can see, the balloon looks like a little blip. There is nowhere near the amount of detail in your image. The only way you can tell it's a balloon is the line running down the middle. If the manufacturer did not include that line it would look like any other blip or spec in the night sky.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2011, 08:13:31 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

Roundy

  • 131
  • Sit and Spin
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #64 on: July 26, 2011, 08:10:13 AM »
Quote from: Roundy on July 26, 2011, 08:01:29 AM
tom, have you ever tried looked for one though a telescope? if no, don't tell me what they look like, as i actually have seen one.
Logged
*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #65 on: July 26, 2011, 08:26:23 AM »
Project Echo was a hybrid helium balloon / satellite relay system that was placed into a 944 mile to 1,048 mile orbit (4 984 320 Feet to 5 533 440 Feet).  The balloons were
Quote
conspicuously visible to the unaided eye over all of the Earth
.

Now if that was just one balloon at a MUCH higher altitude (about 1/3 of the way to the sun in FET) do you not think it more than likely that the numerous lower altitude balloons (with larger gasbags since they are actually carrying more equipment to keep them geostationary) would be just as visible at the much lower altitudes that you are proposing?  Remember Echo 1 and 2 were visible during the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_satellite and in plenty of other searches

Berny
Sure TB will have something idiotic to say involving conspiracies


Logged
Quote from: markjo on August 18, 2011, 10:31:34 AM
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #66 on: July 26, 2011, 08:36:11 PM »
Quote from: berny_74 on July 26, 2011, 08:26:23 AM
Project Echo was a hybrid helium balloon / satellite relay system that was placed into a 944 mile to 1,048 mile orbit (4 984 320 Feet to 5 533 440 Feet).  The balloons were
Quote
conspicuously visible to the unaided eye over all of the Earth
.

Now if that was just one balloon at a MUCH higher altitude (about 1/3 of the way to the sun in FET) do you not think it more than likely that the numerous lower altitude balloons (with larger gasbags since they are actually carrying more equipment to keep them geostationary) would be just as visible at the much lower altitudes that you are proposing?  Remember Echo 1 and 2 were visible during the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_satellite and in plenty of other searches

Berny
Sure TB will have something idiotic to say involving conspiracies

Seeing as the atmosphere does not extend to 944 miles your claims of someone placing a helium balloon there is dubious.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #67 on: July 26, 2011, 08:43:12 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:36:11 PM
Seeing as the atmosphere does not extend to 944 miles your claims of someone placing a helium balloon there is dubious.

It might seem that way if you were to assume that the helium was the mechanism for getting the balloon up to 944+ miles.  That would not be a safe assumption to make.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #68 on: July 26, 2011, 08:52:46 PM »
Quote from: markjo on July 26, 2011, 08:43:12 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:36:11 PM
Seeing as the atmosphere does not extend to 944 miles your claims of someone placing a helium balloon there is dubious.

It might seem that way if you were to assume that the helium was the mechanism for getting the balloon up to 944+ miles.  That would not be a safe assumption to make.

If it was put into earth orbit via rocket then it is a satellite, and therefore does not exist.
Logged
?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #69 on: July 27, 2011, 06:30:42 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:52:46 PM
Quote from: markjo on July 26, 2011, 08:43:12 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:36:11 PM
Seeing as the atmosphere does not extend to 944 miles your claims of someone placing a helium balloon there is dubious.

It might seem that way if you were to assume that the helium was the mechanism for getting the balloon up to 944+ miles.  That would not be a safe assumption to make.

If it was put into earth orbit via rocket then it is a satellite, and therefore does not exist.

So Tom's "logic" is: if it contradicts my theory, it doesn't exist?
Neat way of sidestepping evidence of a round earth, every time some is presented, just say it doesn't exist.  ::)
Logged
Quote from: John Davis on January 11, 2012, 07:39:16 AM
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #70 on: July 27, 2011, 06:39:43 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:52:46 PM
Quote from: markjo on July 26, 2011, 08:43:12 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:36:11 PM
Seeing as the atmosphere does not extend to 944 miles your claims of someone placing a helium balloon there is dubious.

It might seem that way if you were to assume that the helium was the mechanism for getting the balloon up to 944+ miles.  That would not be a safe assumption to make.

If it was put into earth orbit via rocket then it is a satellite, and therefore does not exist.

Are you saying that a rocket could not lift a helium balloon 944 miles?  ???
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Roundy

  • 131
  • Sit and Spin
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #71 on: July 27, 2011, 07:54:52 AM »
Quote from: Roundy on July 26, 2011, 08:10:13 AM
tom, have you ever tried looked for one though a telescope? if no, don't tell me what they look like, as i actually have seen one.
Logged
*

Roundy

  • 131
  • Sit and Spin
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #72 on: July 29, 2011, 08:39:27 AM »
i feel like tom has left us again. cant wait for his response.
Logged
?

Thork

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #73 on: July 29, 2011, 08:58:53 AM »
Quote from: markjo on July 27, 2011, 06:39:43 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:52:46 PM
Quote from: markjo on July 26, 2011, 08:43:12 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:36:11 PM
Seeing as the atmosphere does not extend to 944 miles your claims of someone placing a helium balloon there is dubious.

It might seem that way if you were to assume that the helium was the mechanism for getting the balloon up to 944+ miles.  That would not be a safe assumption to make.

If it was put into earth orbit via rocket then it is a satellite, and therefore does not exist.

Are you saying that a rocket could not lift a helium balloon 944 miles?  ???

Quote from: Roundy on July 29, 2011, 08:39:27 AM
i feel like tom has left us again. cant wait for his response.
My suspicion is that Tom feels he is wasting his time.
Satellites apparently inhabit the thermosphere and 400 miles would be a long way up for one. The ISS for example is a high altitude satellite at 350 miles above earth. Hubble at 380 miles above earth. So we are led to believe.
A balloon is not going to get to 944miles or maintain integrity or height. It won't. No way, no how, ever ever ever. Anything claiming it does is false. Why?
Because the pressure is so low that same balloon is going to expand until it pops unless you make it out of something very sturdy. Once you do that, the skin is not lighter than the
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.
at orbit height. So it is not going to rise up there or stay up there. It will fall like a brick. It will also burn up due to the temps in the thermosphere as it falls.

RErs are now bringing nonsense theories that are beyond contempt. It is no wonder Tom has gone to another thread where the grass is a little less brown.


Logged
*

Roundy

  • 131
  • Sit and Spin
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #74 on: July 29, 2011, 09:08:34 AM »
mine was a simple yes or no answer, soooooo.
Logged
?

Thork

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #75 on: July 29, 2011, 09:22:35 AM »
Quote from: Roundy on July 29, 2011, 09:08:34 AM
mine was a simple yes or no answer, soooooo.
Yes.
I'm sure he has. No he hasn't see balloons at 1000 miles up, because they can't get up there without popping or falling. So neither have you.
Logged
*

Roundy

  • 131
  • Sit and Spin
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #76 on: July 29, 2011, 09:38:18 AM »
Quote from: Thork on July 29, 2011, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: Roundy on July 29, 2011, 09:08:34 AM
mine was a simple yes or no answer, soooooo.
Yes.
I'm sure he has. No he hasn't see balloons at 1000 miles up, because they can't get up there without popping or falling. So neither have you.

when did i say i saw one at 1000 miles?

http://www.hobbyspace.com/NearSpace/index.html
Quote
Weather balloons routinely go to 27km (~90k ft). Scientific balloons go to 42 km (137k ft or 26mi) and remain at high altitudes for several days. The world record altitude reached by an unmanned balloon is 51.82km (170k ft or 32.2mi).

Logged
?

Thork

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #77 on: July 29, 2011, 09:54:10 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: berny_74 on July 26, 2011, 08:26:23 AM
Project Echo was a hybrid helium balloon / satellite relay system that was placed into a 944 mile to 1,048 mile orbit (4 984 320 Feet to 5 533 440 Feet).  The balloons were
Quote
conspicuously visible to the unaided eye over all of the Earth
.

Now if that was just one balloon at a MUCH higher altitude (about 1/3 of the way to the sun in FET) do you not think it more than likely that the numerous lower altitude balloons (with larger gasbags since they are actually carrying more equipment to keep them geostationary) would be just as visible at the much lower altitudes that you are proposing?  Remember Echo 1 and 2 were visible during the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_satellite and in plenty of other searches

Berny
Sure TB will have something idiotic to say involving conspiracies

Seeing as the atmosphere does not extend to 944 miles your claims of someone placing a helium balloon there is dubious.

Quote from: Roundy on July 29, 2011, 09:38:18 AM
when did i say i saw one at 1000 miles?
Tom was responding to the comments above.
Logged
*

Roundy

  • 131
  • Sit and Spin
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #78 on: July 29, 2011, 10:02:38 AM »
Quote from: Thork on July 29, 2011, 09:54:10 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2011, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: berny_74 on July 26, 2011, 08:26:23 AM
Project Echo was a hybrid helium balloon / satellite relay system that was placed into a 944 mile to 1,048 mile orbit (4 984 320 Feet to 5 533 440 Feet).  The balloons were
Quote
conspicuously visible to the unaided eye over all of the Earth
.

Now if that was just one balloon at a MUCH higher altitude (about 1/3 of the way to the sun in FET) do you not think it more than likely that the numerous lower altitude balloons (with larger gasbags since they are actually carrying more equipment to keep them geostationary) would be just as visible at the much lower altitudes that you are proposing?  Remember Echo 1 and 2 were visible during the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_satellite and in plenty of other searches

Berny
Sure TB will have something idiotic to say involving conspiracies

Seeing as the atmosphere does not extend to 944 miles your claims of someone placing a helium balloon there is dubious.

Quote from: Roundy on July 29, 2011, 09:38:18 AM
when did i say i saw one at 1000 miles?
Tom was responding to the comments above.

What are you talking about? Tom and I are (well I am, Tom is ignoring it) having a debate on whither or not you can see a weather balloon with a telescope. I am talking about a normal balloon, around 25 miles in the air.

Now on the other hand, Markjo, Berny and Tom are having a different debate on a 944+ mile balloon which i am not a part of. stop trying to combine them.

so here is my question for Tom again:

Quote from: Roundy on July 26, 2011, 08:01:29 AM
tom, have you ever tried looked for one though a telescope? if no, don't tell me what they look like, as i actually have seen one.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 10:04:40 AM by Roundy »
Logged
*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #79 on: July 29, 2011, 04:12:36 PM »
Quote from: Thork on July 29, 2011, 08:58:53 AM
RErs are now bringing nonsense theories that are beyond contempt. It is no wonder Tom has gone to another thread where the grass is a little less brown.

Although you might pan Project Echo - it doesn't matter since it has occurred.  There are many web pages online about it - many of it discussing the effects of the material (a type of mylar) and its effect as a solar sail.  Also as the first communication satellite. 
Quote from: http://www.smecc.org/john_pierce___echoredo.htm
"BALLOON SATELLITE ORBITS; DELAYED MESSAGE HERALDS NEW COMMUNICATIONS ERA" said a page 1 headline of the New York Times of August 13, 1960, the morning after the Echo I communication satellite was launched. The heading of story by John W. Finney was, "PRESIDENT HEARD, His Talk Spans U. S.-Object Glitters in Sky Like a Star." In President Eisenhower’s recorded message, transmitted from a Jet Propulsion Laboratory antenna at Goldstone California to a Bell Laboratories ground station at Crawford’s Hill, New Jersey by reflection of a microwave signal from the 100 foot balloon satellite, he described the satellite as "one more significant step in the United States program of space research and exploration."

If you had read the original articles (which I am fairly sure you didn't bother) project Echo was launched by a rocket.  The idea behind the satellite was not to put a balloon up to float lazily in the heavens but to use the reflective coating to redirect radio signals. 

The purpose I chose project echo was that it was visible at the extreme altitudes whereas the weather baloons TB and Roundy are talking about are significantly lower and a balloon with recieving / sending equipment for communications and GPS would be significantly larger than a weather balloon.

Berny
Logged
Quote from: markjo on August 18, 2011, 10:31:34 AM
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.
?

Thork

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #80 on: July 29, 2011, 04:19:15 PM »
A lovely piece of space race propaganda. Thank you Berny.
Logged
*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #81 on: July 29, 2011, 05:00:42 PM »
Quote from: Thork on July 29, 2011, 04:19:15 PM
A lovely piece of space race propaganda. Thank you Berny.


FE TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION

A great piece of evidence that proves me wrong. Must deny it as false. Damn you, Berny.
Logged
Quote from: Thork on August 17, 2011, 08:08:20 AM
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.
?

Thork

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #82 on: July 29, 2011, 05:04:44 PM »
I already stated the reasons why the project is so implausible. I received no rebuttal. Just a "it happened so there" post from Berny. I don't feel I need to add anything else.
Logged
*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #83 on: July 29, 2011, 05:25:47 PM »
Quote from: Thork on July 29, 2011, 05:04:44 PM
I already stated the reasons why the project is so implausible. I received no rebuttal. Just a "it happened so there" post from Berny. I don't feel I need to add anything else.

So your response is "it didnt happen, so there" to cancel out Bernys post? Unfortunately Bernys post contains an indication backing him up from a third party source, so all other things being equal, the balance of probability tips in his favour.
Logged
Quote from: Thork on August 17, 2011, 08:08:20 AM
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.
?

Thork

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #84 on: July 29, 2011, 05:47:05 PM »
My post contained a source suggesting orbit altitudes have only a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. No material is less dense than that, so no balloon is going to be more buoyant. As Berny's post is from the conspiracy at a time when the space race with the Russians was on, that's the source I wish to discount.
Logged
*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #85 on: July 29, 2011, 05:57:47 PM »
Quote from: Thork on July 29, 2011, 05:04:44 PM
I already stated the reasons why the project is so implausible. I received no rebuttal. Just a "it happened so there" post from Berny. I don't feel I need to add anything else.

I addressed your points.  There were 3. 1 - It can't rise up there. 2 It will pop - 3 it will be so heavy it will burn up. 

All I got was

Quote
Herp Derp Conspiracy

Berny
And that's after I found a newspaper article on it.

Logged
Quote from: markjo on August 18, 2011, 10:31:34 AM
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #86 on: July 29, 2011, 06:23:41 PM »
Quote from: Thork on July 29, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
My post contained a source suggesting orbit altitudes have only a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. No material is less dense than that, so no balloon is going to be more buoyant.

What does buoyancy have to do with the Echo satellites?  ???
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

Thork

Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #87 on: July 30, 2011, 12:31:09 AM »
Quote from: markjo on July 29, 2011, 06:23:41 PM
Quote from: Thork on July 29, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
My post contained a source suggesting orbit altitudes have only a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. No material is less dense than that, so no balloon is going to be more buoyant.

What does buoyancy have to do with the Echo satellites?  ???
Read the thread. You obviously haven't.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #88 on: July 30, 2011, 05:30:35 AM »
Quote from: Thork on July 30, 2011, 12:31:09 AM
Quote from: markjo on July 29, 2011, 06:23:41 PM
Quote from: Thork on July 29, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
My post contained a source suggesting orbit altitudes have only a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. No material is less dense than that, so no balloon is going to be more buoyant.

What does buoyancy have to do with the Echo satellites?  ???
Read the thread. You obviously haven't.
Do you mean the parts where you and Tom deliberately misrepresent the fact that the Echo satellites were balloons into suggesting that they stayed aloft via buoyancy?
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Roundy

  • 131
  • Sit and Spin
Re: Rowbotham's style of logic
« Reply #89 on: August 01, 2011, 02:58:42 PM »
*still waiting for Toms reply.*
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
« previous next »