CubeSat

  • 203 Replies
  • 28585 Views
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #30 on: December 08, 2011, 06:39:21 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.

No, it's absolutely true.

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.  ;D

No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #31 on: December 08, 2011, 08:59:36 PM »
No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.
No.  Orbit can exist in other ways, true, but not over Earth.  These are atomic forces, and do not apply.  Hence, "unless you suggest the Earth is an atom."  By the way, atoms are spheres (or close, at least).

Your point simply makes no sense in the context.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #32 on: December 08, 2011, 09:09:27 PM »
No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.
No.  Orbit can exist in other ways, true, but not over Earth.  These are atomic forces, and do not apply.  Hence, "unless you suggest the Earth is an atom."  By the way, atoms are spheres (or close, at least).

Your point simply makes no sense in the context.

Sure it does.  It shows that orbit can refer to a curved path not caused by gravity, the very antithesis of the point of the post quoted.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2011, 09:14:37 PM »
No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.
No.  Orbit can exist in other ways, true, but not over Earth.  These are atomic forces, and do not apply.  Hence, "unless you suggest the Earth is an atom."  By the way, atoms are spheres (or close, at least).

Your point simply makes no sense in the context.

Sure it does.  It shows that orbit can refer to a curved path not caused by gravity, the very antithesis of the point of the post quoted.
Of course, but the point is, that doesn't explain the orbit of CubeSat.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #34 on: December 08, 2011, 09:36:09 PM »
No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.

Yes, congratulations, you successfully pointed out the semantic flaw in the statement "orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path." But by focusing on this error, you are distracting from the issue at hand, which is celestial orbit. The person who made the error was hardly using distraction because his narrow definition of "orbit" does fit the issue at hand.

I don't understand how you can't see this, unless you ARE in fact claiming that Earth works like an atom, in which case you're saying Earth orbit is possible, which would render all of FET's valiant attempts to craft alternate explanations for "fake" orbit pointless. And it puts you back at square one: You now have to concoct a whole new set of theories to deny all the science that says Earth is nothing like an atom, satellites are nothing like electrons, etcetera, AND you'd need to explain all over again how Earth can be flat in such a system, considering that the nucleus of any atom is also spherical!  Are you sure you want to do this?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 09:37:49 PM by zarg »
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2011, 09:42:22 PM »
No.  If you'll notice, the claim was made that in physics, orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path.  Please note that the atom (and the electrons that orbit it) is indeed a part of physics.  We have now successfully defended the notion that other types of orbit than ones caused by gravity exist in physics.  So the point was moot.  Obviously if anybody was attempting distraction in the preceding exchange, it was the person who falsely claimed that all orbits are caused by gravity.

Yes, congratulations, you successfully pointed out the semantic flaw in the statement "orbit is defined as a gravitationally curved path." But by focusing on this error, you are distracting from the issue at hand, which is celestial orbit. The person who made the error was hardly using distraction because his narrow definition of "orbit" does fit the issue at hand.

It was a semantic point to start with, and hence inherently worthless in debate.  That it was entirely wrong just makes it worse.

Quote
I don't understand how you can't see this, unless you ARE in fact claiming that Earth works like an atom, in which case you're saying Earth orbit is possible, which would render all of FET's valiant attempts to craft alternate explanations for "fake" orbit pointless. And it puts you back at square one: You now have to concoct a whole new set of theories to deny all the science that says Earth is nothing like an atom, satellites are nothing like electrons, etcetera, AND you'd need to explain all over again how Earth can be flat in such a system, considering that the nucleus of any atom is also spherical!  Are you sure you want to do this?

I am not saying the Earth behaves like an atom (in fact, we're not talking about the Earth at all here).  I am simply pointing out that as orbits don't have to be gravitational to still be orbits, the kind of orbit witnessed in Flat Earth Theory doesn't necessarily have to be gravitational in nature, either.  It was a silly argument, and if you feel my rebuttal was overly semantic, you can feel free to just disregard it from here on out and move on to what you deem to be the important things in this debate.

Sure it does.  It shows that orbit can refer to a curved path not caused by gravity, the very antithesis of the point of the post quoted.
Of course, but the point is, that doesn't explain the orbit of CubeSat.

Irrelevant.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2011, 09:57:56 PM »
Of course, but the point is, that doesn't explain the orbit of CubeSat.

Irrelevant.
Oh, the irony.

Okay, so we've settled that you're completely right as always; so how does CubeSat orbit the Earth?

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2011, 10:04:53 PM »
It was a semantic point to start with,

No it wasn't. "iwanttobelieve" claimed that "orbit" was possible in FET, and he was discussing celestial bodies. LinearPlane's point was that he was wrong because orbit requires gravity. Other types of "orbit" such as atomic were not mentioned because they were irrelevant to the discussion.


I am not saying the Earth behaves like an atom (in fact, we're not talking about the Earth at all here).  I am simply pointing out that as orbits don't have to be gravitational to still be orbits, the kind of orbit witnessed in Flat Earth Theory doesn't necessarily have to be gravitational in nature, either.

Yes, so what I said applies. If FET is willing to concede that true, spherical orbit is possible then why go through all the trouble of claiming satellites are frauds and the sun and moon don't orbit and all that nonsense?

We already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites: gravity. You in fact make yourself even less credible by saying that Earth neither has gravity nor behaves like an atom. You are instead claiming that orbit can operate on another, completely unknown method for which there is no observed precedent -- yet another dubious theory to add to your "universal acceleration" and "bendy light" and so forth. You'd be much better off either a) accepting gravity or b) just sticking with your original claim that celestial orbit is impossible.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2011, 10:15:37 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.
Original quote, let's not forget.

Let me jazz it up a bit:

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, when discussing orbit around the Earth, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space.
Remarkable how easy it was to fix that, wasn't it?  Certainly, I wouldn't have noticed this distinction unless I was looking for something ridiculous to argue about.


I will ask you once again:  How can CubeSat orbit the Earth?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #39 on: December 08, 2011, 10:22:30 PM »
It was a semantic point to start with,

No it wasn't. "iwanttobelieve" claimed that "orbit" was possible in FET, and he was discussing celestial bodies. LinearPlane's point was that he was wrong because orbit requires gravity. Other types of "orbit" such as atomic were not mentioned because they were irrelevant to the discussion.

The point, again, is that orbit does not require gravity.  The claim was that orbit requires gravity.  It's narrow-minded to assume that this is the case, particularly when it can be so easily shown to not be the case.

Quote
I am not saying the Earth behaves like an atom (in fact, we're not talking about the Earth at all here).  I am simply pointing out that as orbits don't have to be gravitational to still be orbits, the kind of orbit witnessed in Flat Earth Theory doesn't necessarily have to be gravitational in nature, either.

Yes, so what I said applies. If FET is willing to concede that true, spherical orbit is possible then why go through all the trouble of claiming satellites are frauds and the sun and moon don't orbit and all that nonsense?

We already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites: gravity. You in fact make yourself even less credible by saying that Earth neither has gravity nor behaves like an atom. You are instead claiming that orbit can operate on another, completely unknown method for which there is no observed precedent -- yet another dubious theory to add to your "universal acceleration" and "bendy light" and so forth. You'd be much better off either a) accepting gravity or b) just sticking with your original claim that celestial orbit is impossible.

What observed precedent was there for the behavior of the atom before its properties were discovered less than two centuries ago?  All theories have to start somewhere.  This does nothing to weaken my point in the slightest.

Okay, so we've settled that you're completely right as always; so how does CubeSat orbit the Earth?

The prevailing theory seems to be aetheric eddification.

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

We are not discussing orbit around the Earth.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #40 on: December 08, 2011, 11:12:16 PM »
We are not discussing orbit around the Earth.

Yes we are. I am discussing orbit around Earth; El Cid is discussing orbit around Earth. LinearPlane was discussing orbit around Earth when he posted this thread, iwanttobelieve was discussing orbit around Earth when he claimed it was possible in FET, and then LinearPlane was still discussing orbit around Earth when he replied to that.  The only person who is not discussing orbit around Earth is you. Hence, you are accused of distraction techniques and evasiveness.


What observed precedent was there for the behavior of the atom before its properties were discovered less than two centuries ago?  All theories have to start somewhere.  This does nothing to weaken my point in the slightest.

As I said: We already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites: gravity. Atoms, yes, had a totally new theory applied to them when they were discovered, and, that theory was backed by evidence. Earth, believe it or not, is not a new discovery. Gravity has been the accepted explanation for a long time, and now you are proposing that it is wrong and replacing it with something pulled from your imagination for which there is no evidence. You see the difference?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #41 on: December 09, 2011, 04:08:41 AM »
We are not discussing orbit around the Earth.

Yes we are. I am discussing orbit around Earth; El Cid is discussing orbit around Earth. LinearPlane was discussing orbit around Earth when he posted this thread, iwanttobelieve was discussing orbit around Earth when he claimed it was possible in FET, and then LinearPlane was still discussing orbit around Earth when he replied to that.  The only person who is not discussing orbit around Earth is you. Hence, you are accused of distraction techniques and evasiveness.

You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.


Quote
What observed precedent was there for the behavior of the atom before its properties were discovered less than two centuries ago?  All theories have to start somewhere.  This does nothing to weaken my point in the slightest.

As I said: We already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites: gravity. Atoms, yes, had a totally new theory applied to them when they were discovered, and, that theory was backed by evidence. Earth, believe it or not, is not a new discovery. Gravity has been the accepted explanation for a long time, and now you are proposing that it is wrong and replacing it with something pulled from your imagination for which there is no evidence. You see the difference?

The fact that you already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites is irrelevant, since it obviously doesn't apply to a FE.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #42 on: December 09, 2011, 07:05:36 AM »
This thread has become a joke. I wish FET trollers would get a life and stop arguing for things they know aren't true and a cause they don't even believe in. Don't you have something better to do?
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #43 on: December 09, 2011, 01:05:29 PM »
This thread has become a joke. I wish FET trollers would get a life and stop arguing for things they know aren't true and a cause they don't even believe in. Don't you have something better to do?

A summary of the entire forum there.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #44 on: December 09, 2011, 01:40:40 PM »
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth. Conclusion: Either FET is wrong, or this thing is a fraud. If it's a fraud, you finally have an affordable means of proving so.


Quote
Quote
What observed precedent was there for the behavior of the atom before its properties were discovered less than two centuries ago?  All theories have to start somewhere.  This does nothing to weaken my point in the slightest.

As I said: We already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites: gravity. Atoms, yes, had a totally new theory applied to them when they were discovered, and, that theory was backed by evidence. Earth, believe it or not, is not a new discovery. Gravity has been the accepted explanation for a long time, and now you are proposing that it is wrong and replacing it with something pulled from your imagination for which there is no evidence. You see the difference?

The fact that you already have a theory that matches the behavior of orbital satellites is irrelevant, since it obviously doesn't apply to a FE.

You accept that gravity exists in other celestial bodies. If an orbit that exactly matches the behavior of gravitational orbit is witnessed around Earth, the logical conclusion is that Earth has gravity and is therefore a spherical celestial body like the others. You KNOW this is true, otherwise you wouldn't have spent so much effort claiming that Earth orbit is impossible. Now faced with the prospect of CubeSat, you're prepared to create a brand new, alternate "orbit" theory just so you can continue to deny the existence of gravity on Earth. It's pathetic.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #45 on: December 09, 2011, 02:45:35 PM »
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #46 on: December 09, 2011, 03:13:12 PM »
Its actually kind of interesting. If there are object orbiting at different heights around a central axis running through the North pole, then the force responsible for the orbit cannot be gravity. Gravity is a spherically symmetric force, this new force however is only cylindrically symmetric and so cannot be gravity. Another interesting bit to think about is what is the source of this force. With gravity you have mass, with electric forces you have charge; when we observe the space above the North pole, we don't see anything. What could be causing this new cylindrically symmetric force?
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #47 on: December 09, 2011, 03:23:24 PM »
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #48 on: December 09, 2011, 03:24:50 PM »
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification).  Do you understand that?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2011, 03:27:15 PM »
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification).  Do you understand that?
So orbit IS possible.  It's just caused by magic, not gravity.  Why didn't you just say so?  Why has everyone always said that orbit is impossible?  Why didn't you, when you first saw the thread, said, "Orbit is possible, but it's caused by magic, not gravity."

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #50 on: December 09, 2011, 03:34:03 PM »
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification).  Do you understand that?
So orbit IS possible.  It's just caused by magic, not gravity.  Why didn't you just say so?  Why has everyone always said that orbit is impossible?  Why didn't you, when you first saw the thread, said, "Orbit is possible, but it's caused by magic, not gravity."

Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ, and the only mentions of it I see in this thread is by REers... who have been corrected about their error by FEers.  Have you considered visiting www.rif.org?  It may change your life.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #51 on: December 09, 2011, 04:15:57 PM »
Yeah, orbit is possible. Earth round the Sun for instance.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #52 on: December 09, 2011, 04:49:34 PM »
Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ, and the only mentions of it I see in this thread is by REers... who have been corrected about their error by FEers.  Have you considered visiting www.rif.org?  It may change your life.

How ironic that you accuse of us not reading when I already posted the response to this "orbit is possible in FET" bullshit on the first page of this thread:

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.

See the bold part for the point you have still failed to address in favor of your semantic distraction techniques.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #53 on: December 09, 2011, 04:51:27 PM »
In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting

In FE, satellites don't exist.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: CubeSat
« Reply #54 on: December 09, 2011, 04:53:05 PM »
Some say yes, some say no.

However there's nothing substantial to replace them (the whole pseudolites-stratellites didn't give any proof whatsoever).
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #55 on: December 09, 2011, 04:54:15 PM »
Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ

From the FAQ:

Quote
satellites cannot orbit the Earth.
Quote
satellites do not exist.

Now please stop evading and explain CubeSat.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 04:55:46 PM by zarg »
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #56 on: December 09, 2011, 07:01:02 PM »
Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ

From the FAQ:

Quote
satellites cannot orbit the Earth.
Quote
satellites do not exist.

Now please stop evading and explain CubeSat.

Already done. Stop asking for more answers, you already have one.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #57 on: December 09, 2011, 07:57:11 PM »
You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification).  Do you understand that?
So orbit IS possible.  It's just caused by magic, not gravity.  Why didn't you just say so?  Why has everyone always said that orbit is impossible?  Why didn't you, when you first saw the thread, said, "Orbit is possible, but it's caused by magic, not gravity."

Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ, and the only mentions of it I see in this thread is by REers... who have been corrected about their error by FEers.  Have you considered visiting www.rif.org?  It may change your life.
We are not discussing orbit around the Earth.

Yes we are. I am discussing orbit around Earth; El Cid is discussing orbit around Earth. LinearPlane was discussing orbit around Earth when he posted this thread, iwanttobelieve was discussing orbit around Earth when he claimed it was possible in FET, and then LinearPlane was still discussing orbit around Earth when he replied to that.  The only person who is not discussing orbit around Earth is you. Hence, you are accused of distraction techniques and evasiveness.

You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #58 on: December 09, 2011, 09:05:42 PM »
Already done. Stop asking for more answers, you already have one.

The first third of this thread was wasted with irrelevant discussions about atoms and UA. Then, finally, you agreed to start a discussion in the "secret forum" about raising funds for CubeSat. I don't know if you were telling the truth, but if so, good job and I look forward to your results.

You seem to be of the opinion that it must be a hoax.  Roundy, though, has taken a different route: he refuses to give a direct answer, makes self-contradicting claims about whether Earth-orbiting satellites are possible in FET, and has wasted the latter two thirds of this thead evading the issue of CubeSat's implications.

So no, we haven't been given an answer.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: CubeSat
« Reply #59 on: December 09, 2011, 09:20:25 PM »
Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ, and the only mentions of it I see in this thread is by REers... who have been corrected about their error by FEers.  Have you considered visiting www.rif.org?  It may change your life.

How ironic that you accuse of us not reading when I already posted the response to this "orbit is possible in FET" bullshit on the first page of this thread:

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...

Already successfully debunked, thanks for playing.

From the FAQ:

Quote
satellites cannot orbit the Earth.
Quote
satellites do not exist.

The FAQ is just a starting point, meant to acquaint you with the basics of the theory; as such, it can't present the full diversity of FE opinion.  A growing number of us have rejected the notion that spaceflight is impossible, and with it the notion that satellites cannot be in orbit.

Now, as has been stated, they don't orbit the Earth.  They are orbiting a point in the center of the universe.  But they are orbiting something.

You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.

Incorrect.
You should really probably read the first post of this thread.  This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth.  Did you not know that?

In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification).  Do you understand that?
So orbit IS possible.  It's just caused by magic, not gravity.  Why didn't you just say so?  Why has everyone always said that orbit is impossible?  Why didn't you, when you first saw the thread, said, "Orbit is possible, but it's caused by magic, not gravity."

Who said orbit is impossible?  ???

It's certainly not in the FAQ, and the only mentions of it I see in this thread is by REers... who have been corrected about their error by FEers.  Have you considered visiting www.rif.org?  It may change your life.
We are not discussing orbit around the Earth.

Yes we are. I am discussing orbit around Earth; El Cid is discussing orbit around Earth. LinearPlane was discussing orbit around Earth when he posted this thread, iwanttobelieve was discussing orbit around Earth when he claimed it was possible in FET, and then LinearPlane was still discussing orbit around Earth when he replied to that.  The only person who is not discussing orbit around Earth is you. Hence, you are accused of distraction techniques and evasiveness.

You're all doing it wrong then.  Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.

I do hope I've made the distinction clear enough by now.  I don't know how many times I have to spell it out.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?