Last night.....

....the weatherman told me the international space station would be cruising overhead. He gave me the exact location and exact time. So I went out to see it. And there it was. I had the aid of a telescope to see it. Yea, verily, it was a space station with no propulsion system to move it, yet it did. Nor did it fall, although it has the aerodynamics of a brick.

Please explain how this is possible.

It was a hologram.

It was a hologram.

Have you got anything to say which makes sense?

...a space station with no propulsion system to move it, yet it did. Nor did it fall, although it has the aerodynamics of a brick.
Please explain how this is possible.

Vacuum + Centripetal Force + Inertia.

The shuttle launches move the modules to a height where Earth's gravity isn't strong enough to pull it back down and releases it. Because it launched from a rotating surface, the shuttle and ISS have the same centripetal force as the Earth's surface during launch but after burns in orbit, the shuttle/ISS generate enough centripetal force to keep the ISS modules at a constant height. It doesn't slow down because it exists in a vacuum with no matter to generate friction.

But, knowing Flat-Earthers, they will claim that centripetal force is a hoax...

any Zetetic will tell you space travel is possible.
please ignore the very vocal minority that doesn't.

thank you, i have too seen the ISS with cheap binoculars, its pretty cool.

any Zetetic will tell you space travel is possible.
please ignore the very vocal minority that doesn't.

thank you, i have too seen the ISS with cheap binoculars, its pretty cool.

Honest question for you. 

You have often stated that there is no conspiracy, and even chided people for insulting NASA.  You obviously support NASA to an extent.  However, you also state that they are very wrong about much of what they "know" about the earth and the universe.  Is it not also insulting to state that all the scientists, engineers, and researchers are wrong/incompetent?  Also, how could they launch rockets, the shuttle, satellites, deep space probes, etc. etc. while not even having the basic shape of the earth correct?  How could people live on the space station for weeks and months at a time, orbiting the earth, and not be able to tell it's not round? 

How could NASA's calculations about escape and re-entry speeds and angles, orbit heights and speeds, etc., etc. all work?  How could all that work, while not revealing the shape of the earth?  How would all their study and research not have very quickly revealed that the earth was flat? 

iwanttobelieve may be sincere about his beliefs (although I have some doubts), but as far as I know, none of the FE'ers here agree with him about space travel.  And quite frankly, he should really stop pretending that they do.

iwanttobelieve may be sincere about his beliefs (although I have some doubts), but as far as I know, none of the FE'ers here agree with him about space travel.  And quite frankly, he should really stop pretending that they do.

Doesn't John Davis support the concept of space travel? Well, I should say he supported it until we explained to him that g would be constant regardless of distance from the plane of the FE.

That is true.  I forgot about John's theories.

yes, and even the FAQ states "limited" space travel is possible, so why wouldnt sustained? What exactly happens to the craft?

A Zetetic with a telescope knows that there is matter beyond our atmosphere.
This alone make space travel,  a possibility until determined otherwise.

We can not believe in something just because it is "convenient" and I think Rowbothan would agree.

yes, and even the FAQ states "limited" space travel is possible, so why wouldnt sustained? What exactly happens to the craft?

A Zetetic with a telescope knows that there is matter beyond our atmosphere.
This alone make space travel,  a possibility until determined otherwise.

We can not believe in something just because it is "convenient" and I think Rowbothan would agree.

It has nothing to do with convenience.  The belief that extended space travel is impossible (at least with current technology) is a deduction based on the idea that fuel would constantly need to be consumed to fight the UA at all times, as opposed to RET where the vessel can supposedly float in space.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 23, 2012, 04:37:48 PM

yes, and even the FAQ states "limited" space travel is possible, so why wouldnt sustained? What exactly happens to the craft?

A Zetetic with a telescope knows that there is matter beyond our atmosphere.
This alone make space travel,  a possibility until determined otherwise.

We can not believe in something just because it is "convenient" and I think Rowbothan would agree.

It has nothing to do with convenience.  The belief that extended space travel is impossible (at least with current technology) is a deduction based on the idea that fuel would constantly need to be consumed to fight the UA at all times, as opposed to RET where the vessel can supposedly float in space.

Technical correction: All objects in RET are falling.

....the weatherman told me the international space station would be cruising overhead. He gave me the exact location and exact time. So I went out to see it. And there it was. I had the aid of a telescope to see it. Yea, verily, it was a space station with no propulsion system to move it, yet it did. Nor did it fall, although it has the aerodynamics of a brick.

Please explain how this is possible.

For whatever reason you didn't attend grammer and High School for home schooling Astronaut Zach, your parents were either extremely lacking in educational skills, or purposely accomplished the feat of raising you as a blubbering and blithering idiot. 

It's a wonder you lived so long to know what a telescope is, let alone use it.

The phenomenon that keeps the space station up and moving is called gravity Astronaut Zach.

Your not expected to grasp or even understand the concept or meaning of gravity Astronaut Zach; just as I am equally lost and without a clue as to why you began your first sentence of this thread with an ellipsis absent of any prior reference.

Be careful out here Astronaut Zach.Don't hurt yourself.

Have you abandoned your "reality is an illusion  " shtick already, XinCasa?

....the weatherman told me the international space station would be cruising overhead. He gave me the exact location and exact time. So I went out to see it. And there it was. I had the aid of a telescope to see it. Yea, verily, it was a space station with no propulsion system to move it, yet it did. Nor did it fall, although it has the aerodynamics of a brick.

Please explain how this is possible.

While I'm not entirely convinced that one couldn't suspend something very high above the Earth, it doesn't seem very plausible.

it is caught in the same UA wake that the sun, moon and stars are.

So let me get this straight. The tv weather guy in the tv told you that the iss was going to pass overhead and you looked outside with a telescope and saw it? that is so neat

Quote from: Astronaut Zach on January 06, 2012, 08:39:22 AM

....the weatherman told me the international space station would be cruising overhead. He gave me the exact location and exact time. So I went out to see it. And there it was. I had the aid of a telescope to see it. Yea, verily, it was a space station with no propulsion system to move it, yet it did. Nor did it fall, although it has the aerodynamics of a brick.

Please explain how this is possible.

For whatever reason you didn't attend grammer and High School for home schooling Astronaut Zach, your parents were either extremely lacking in educational skills, or purposely accomplished the feat of raising you as a blubbering and blithering idiot. 

It's a wonder you lived so long to know what a telescope is, let alone use it.

The phenomenon that keeps the space station up and moving is called gravity Astronaut Zach.

Your not expected to grasp or even understand the concept or meaning of gravity Astronaut Zach; just as I am equally lost and without a clue as to why you began your first sentence of this thread with an ellipsis absent of any prior reference.

Be careful out here Astronaut Zach.Don't hurt yourself.

Wow what's up, grammar police?! There's nothing wrong with his grammar, aside from the opening ellipses, but who cares? There's no need for you to get your panties in such a twist. The appalling rudeness of your post prompted me to log back in after an extended hiatus, so you should be proud. I just felt an overwhelming urge to knock you off your high horse.

Astronaut Zach is hardly a "blubbering, blithering idiot", that description would be more accurately attributed to yourself, given your astonishing lack of social graces.

Alright guys, stop the flaming. Xin has already been warned, and it's just dragging the thread off topic.

it is caught in the same UA wake that the sun, moon and stars are.

UA has been disproved due to variations in g. Lurk moar.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 24, 2012, 06:22:35 AM

it is caught in the same UA wake that the sun, moon and stars are.

UA has been disproved due to variations in g. Lurk moar.

Well, if you are to believe the reports, all it proves -- or disproves -- is that their are variations in g.

Quote from: The Knowledge on April 24, 2012, 06:27:01 PM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on April 24, 2012, 06:22:35 AM

it is caught in the same UA wake that the sun, moon and stars are.

UA has been disproved due to variations in g. Lurk moar.

Well, if you are to believe the reports, all it proves -- or disproves -- is that their are variations in g[/].

Yes, there are variations in g by latitude. As you might then consider variations in g by latitude disproves the UA and the John Davis model altogether. Without the UA, FET falls.

Or, and again, if you believe the reports, the variation by latitude could be caused by some as yet undiscovered phenomenon. Just because something may be counterintuitive or even difficult to explain, does not immediately make it false.

Or, and again, if you believe the reports, the variation by latitude could be caused by some as yet undiscovered phenomenon. Just because something may be counterintuitive or even difficult to explain, does not immediately make it false.

Wrong. If FET doesn't explain the variation by latitude, then it's incomplete and therefore false. We have to go with the better RET since it more closely represents reality.

Quote from: Pongo on April 24, 2012, 11:09:32 PM

Or, and again, if you believe the reports, the variation by latitude could be caused by some as yet undiscovered phenomenon. Just because something may be counterintuitive or even difficult to explain, does not immediately make it false.

Wrong. If FET doesn't explain the variation by latitude, then it's incomplete and therefore false. We have to go with the better RET since it more closely represents reality.

Physics can't account for all the mass in the universe. It's incomplete and therefore false.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 24, 2012, 11:12:36 PM

Quote from: Pongo on April 24, 2012, 11:09:32 PM

Or, and again, if you believe the reports, the variation by latitude could be caused by some as yet undiscovered phenomenon. Just because something may be counterintuitive or even difficult to explain, does not immediately make it false.

Wrong. If FET doesn't explain the variation by latitude, then it's incomplete and therefore false. We have to go with the better RET since it more closely represents reality.

Physics can't account for all the mass in the universe. It's incomplete and therefore false.

Did you have a point? Physics is a study, not a theory.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 24, 2012, 11:12:36 PM

Quote from: Pongo on April 24, 2012, 11:09:32 PM

Or, and again, if you believe the reports, the variation by latitude could be caused by some as yet undiscovered phenomenon. Just because something may be counterintuitive or even difficult to explain, does not immediately make it false.

Wrong. If FET doesn't explain the variation by latitude, then it's incomplete and therefore false. We have to go with the better RET since it more closely represents reality.

Physics can't account for all the mass in the universe. It's incomplete and therefore false.

Failure to distinguish between wrong theories and theories being worked on to improve them causes Failpongo to fail. Failure to distinguish between physics dealing with known and measured data and physics dealing with largely unknown and extrapolated quantities such as the mass of the universe causes Failpongo to fail. Assumption that the mass of the universe is known and that physics is wrong does not allow for the possibility that our measurement of the mass of the universe is wrong and physics is correct. Either is possible. Hence physicists using this thing called "science" to find out what's going on.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 24, 2012, 11:12:36 PM

Quote from: Pongo on April 24, 2012, 11:09:32 PM

Or, and again, if you believe the reports, the variation by latitude could be caused by some as yet undiscovered phenomenon. Just because something may be counterintuitive or even difficult to explain, does not immediately make it false.

Wrong. If FET doesn't explain the variation by latitude, then it's incomplete and therefore false. We have to go with the better RET since it more closely represents reality.

Physics can't account for all the mass in the universe. It's incomplete and therefore false.

Neither can FET.  Therefore FET is incomplete and therefore false.

Markjo, that's kind of the point that I was trying to make.  Not the FET is false part, but the part about just because one aspect of something is incomplete, does not mean that it is false.  I find it dishonest that rather that call out CT for making a woefully wrong statement, you choose instead to address the post meant to turn his logical fallacy back on him.

Markjo, that's kind of the point that I was trying to make.  Not the FET is false part, but the part about just because one aspect of something is incomplete, does not mean that it is false.

Then perhaps you should have said that.