CubeSat

Before you do anything, read the link below and learn exactly what CubeSat is, and why it contradicts FET.  It's easy to see, I think.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=citizen-satellites

I see no reason why it contradicts FET.

I see no reason why it contradicts FET.

Ditto.

I thought orbit is impossible in FET. 

the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Great, some more junk we have to avoid having our satellites hitting. Just what I needed.

the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

No, orbit is impossible in FET, because orbit depends on gravity, which cannot exist in FET because it would cause Earth to form itself into a sphere. The "orbit" of the sun and moon is an illusion caused by the way they move around above Flat Earth. They do this for unexplained reasons, which is fine because they are "mysteries".

A chunk of metal is not a "mystery".

Therefore, this chunk of metal disproves FET, unless it's a hoax. Now, why don't one of you flatters invest in one and then prove it's a hoax? Surely $100,000 is worth a step toward global enlightenment, yes?

edit: Excuse me, I suppose I mean planar enlightenment. Silly brainwashed me, didn't mean to let that slip out.

the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on December 07, 2011, 08:23:50 PM

the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.

False.  See the atom.

Quote from: LinearPlane on December 08, 2011, 08:26:38 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on December 07, 2011, 08:23:50 PM

the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.

False.  See the atom.

Semantics.

Quote from: LinearPlane on December 08, 2011, 08:26:38 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on December 07, 2011, 08:23:50 PM

the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

Incredibly HUGE fail.

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.

False.  See the atom.

False. See the sentence above.

Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.

Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.

Universal acceleration? LOL.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 08, 2011, 10:09:56 AM

Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.

Universal acceleration? LOL.

Universal acceleration is not a fundamental force and it is not even possible for such a force to exist. Acceleration is only possible to near speed of light velocities, once a physical object reaches this limit it will no longer accelerate but remain at a constant velocity. The object's mass will increase indefinitely, however. This is why FET is so silly. They can't even explain why we stick to the ground.

Strictly speaking the velocity would asymptotically the speed of light, once you get close enough you are, for all intents and purposes, moving at a constant velocity.

Quote from: LinearPlane on December 08, 2011, 11:24:55 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 08, 2011, 10:09:56 AM

Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.

Universal acceleration? LOL.

Universal acceleration is not a fundamental force and it is not even possible for such a force to exist. Acceleration is only possible to near speed of light velocities, once a physical object reaches this limit it will no longer accelerate but remain at a constant velocity. The object's mass will increase indefinitely, however. This is why FET is so silly. They can't even explain why we stick to the ground.

Not true at all. You forget relativity.

Roundy the Truthinessist just successfully used a distraction technique, whether it was intentional or not.

Other types of orbit are irrelevant. We are talking about celestial orbit, not atomic orbit. Celestial orbit is impossible in FET. Satellites prove celestial orbit and thus disprove FET. The existence of hobbyist satellites disprove the claim that satellites are lies concocted by The Conspiracy. Thus CubeSat disproves FET.

You must address this problem instead of derailing the thread toward a discussion about atoms.

Unless you now claim that Earth is an atom. 

You forget relativity.

Um, no, YOU forget relativity. Or, to be precise, you willfully deny it. In order for indefinite, constant acceleration (UA) to be possible, the theory of relativity must be false. The theory of relativity is an evil Round Earth conspiracy. Don't you remember?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 08, 2011, 12:37:18 PM

Quote from: LinearPlane on December 08, 2011, 11:24:55 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 08, 2011, 10:09:56 AM

Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.

Universal acceleration? LOL.

Universal acceleration is not a fundamental force and it is not even possible for such a force to exist. Acceleration is only possible to near speed of light velocities, once a physical object reaches this limit it will no longer accelerate but remain at a constant velocity. The object's mass will increase indefinitely, however. This is why FET is so silly. They can't even explain why we stick to the ground.

Not true at all. You forget relativity.

You obviously do not understand relativity. If relativity is true, universal acceleration is not. Pick one. If you don't understand why that is, try reading my post repeatedly until you do.

Quote from: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 01:15:26 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 08, 2011, 12:37:18 PM

Quote from: LinearPlane on December 08, 2011, 11:24:55 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 08, 2011, 10:09:56 AM

Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.

Universal acceleration? LOL.

Universal acceleration is not a fundamental force and it is not even possible for such a force to exist. Acceleration is only possible to near speed of light velocities, once a physical object reaches this limit it will no longer accelerate but remain at a constant velocity. The object's mass will increase indefinitely, however. This is why FET is so silly. They can't even explain why we stick to the ground.

Not true at all. You forget relativity.

You obviously do not understand relativity. If relativity is true, universal acceleration is not. Pick one. If you don't understand why that is, try reading my post repeatedly until you do.

By special relativity, one can accelerate forver at a constant rate and never reach 3.0X10⁸ m/s (I can't be bothered to find out how much that is in words).

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 08, 2011, 01:35:45 PM

Quote from: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 01:15:26 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 08, 2011, 12:37:18 PM

Quote from: LinearPlane on December 08, 2011, 11:24:55 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 08, 2011, 10:09:56 AM

Orbit can refer to any entrapped motion caused by one of the four fundamental forces. These are electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity.

The motion of an electron around an atom's nucleus is electromagnetic. The moon orbiting the earth is gravity.

Universal acceleration? LOL.

Universal acceleration is not a fundamental force and it is not even possible for such a force to exist. Acceleration is only possible to near speed of light velocities, once a physical object reaches this limit it will no longer accelerate but remain at a constant velocity. The object's mass will increase indefinitely, however. This is why FET is so silly. They can't even explain why we stick to the ground.

Not true at all. You forget relativity.

You obviously do not understand relativity. If relativity is true, universal acceleration is not. Pick one. If you don't understand why that is, try reading my post repeatedly until you do.

By special relativity, one can accelerate forver at a constant rate and never reach 3.0X10⁸ m/s (I can't be bothered to find out how much that is in words).

No, one cannot. Once an object approaches the speed of light all energy given to it increases its mass and increases its velocity at a severely reduced rate (The exact rate is not known, but it is a decimal point small enough to be considered null). Thus if UA did indeed exist, it would:

A: Have to be giving us an exponentially increasing amount of energy in order to get us anywhere near the speed of light.

B: Cause the earth to have been "stuck" just below the speed of light, accelerating us at a rate that would be considered null. Therefore our observable velocity would be constant and we would all float away.

C: Increase the earths mass proportional to the energy it gives us. UA would indeed make an infinite earth. An infinite earth with no life, since we would all be dead due to lack of gravity.

This thread is being derailed again. Let's go back to the issue at hand:

this chunk of metal disproves FET, unless it's a hoax. Now, why don't one of you flatters invest in one and then prove it's a hoax? Surely $100,000 is worth a step toward global enlightenment, yes?

Hmm, my bad.

Let me give you the most likely FE responses:

"How are we supposed to afford that? you should buy it."

"It would be modified by the conspiracy to send incorrect geological information."

"Looks like it was made in a preschooler's art class!"

"Logical fallacy! LOGICAL FALLACY!"

I think that covers most of them.

Hmm, my bad.

Let me give you the most likely FE responses:

"How are we supposed to afford that? you should buy it."
Thork

"It would be modified by the conspiracy to send incorrect geological information."
James

"Looks like it was made in a preschooler's art class!"
Tom

"Logical fallacy! LOGICAL FALLACY!"
Me

I think that covers most of them.

Did I guess correctly? Also, those satellites are not for 'civilians', unless the average civilian is able to spend 100,000 dollars on toys. They're for scientists, and they're used to conduct low-gravity experiments. They're compatible with FET.

Also, those satellites are not for 'civilians', unless the average civilian is able to spend 100,000 dollars on toys. They're for scientists, and they're used to conduct low-gravity experiments. They're compatible with FET.

Wrong on all counts.

They are for civilians. Did you not notice the heading, "Citizen Satellites"? $10,000 is not a big deal for a hobbyist. Countless computer and audiovisual enthusiasts have spent that much and more on their toys.

Even if they were only "for scientists" (and again I emphasize they are not), surely you are not saying every scientist is part of the conspiracy.

And they're for space missions, not mere atmospheric. They go into orbit, which is a direct contradiction of FET. They are in no way compatible.

Quote from: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 05:12:00 PM

Also, those satellites are not for 'civilians', unless the average civilian is able to spend 100,000 dollars on toys. They're for scientists, and they're used to conduct low-gravity experiments. They're compatible with FET.

Wrong on all counts.

They are for civilians. Did you not notice the heading, "Citizen Satellites"? $10,000 is not a big deal for a hobbyist. Countless computer and audiovisual enthusiasts have spent that much and more on their toys.

Even if they were only "for scientists" (and again I emphasize they are not), surely you are not saying every scientist is part of the conspiracy.

And they're for space missions, not mere atmospheric. They go into orbit, which is a direct contradiction of FET. They are in no way compatible.

Not 10,000 dollars, 100,000 dollars

Oh yes, well pardon me.

Again I ask, why doesn't the Flat Earth Society invest in one and demonstrate first-hand that satellites are frauds, and publically give credence to your claim that gravity doesn't exist and there is a conspiracy.

You are living in a world where everyone is brainwashed except for you. It's up to you to save the world. Are you seriously telling me that is not worth a $100,000 fundraiser?

Oh yes, well pardon me.

Again I ask, why doesn't the Flat Earth Society invest in one and demonstrate first-hand that satellites are frauds, and publically give credence to your claim that gravity doesn't exist and there is a conspiracy.

You are living in a world where everyone is brainwashed except for you. It's up to you to save the world. Are you seriously telling me that is not worth a $100,000 fundraiser?

Do  you have any suggestions as to how we could raise that money?

Why not start a thread to discuss that question with your fellow society members?

Why not start a thread to discuss that question with your fellow society members?

I will do just that in the secret forum. Good idea.