Explain why space flight is not possible.

So far, whenever someone has said that sustained space flight is impossible here, they have said nothing to back up their claims.  Even the FAQ:

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites cannot orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites. However, temporary space-flight is possible.

Now, I'm going to go ahead and put it out there that these satellites do exist, since I can and have observed them with my own eyes, and you can too if you know where to look:
http://www.heavens-above.com/
According to our Round Earth theory, satellites stay in place due to orbiting at a high enough speed where the centripetal force cancels out gravity.  Now I'm sure you're wondering how this accounts for satellites in geosynchronous orbit.  GEO satellites are 22,236 mi above Earth.  As you may know, acceleration due to gravity is lessened the further away you are from Earth.  I punched this into Wolfram Alpha and had it do the math for me:
gravitational acceleration | 22236 miles
total field | 0.22428 m/s[sup]2[/sup]  (meters per second squared)
angular deviation from local vertical | 0.02713°  (degrees)
down component | 0.22428 m/s[sup]2[/sup]  (meters per second squared)
west component | 0 m/s[sup]2[/sup]  (meters per second squared)
south component | 1.1×10[sup]-4[/sup] m/s[sup]2[/sup]  (meters per second squared)
(based on EGM2008 12th order model; at specified altitude above natural elevation)
Now, this 0.22428 m/s² acceleration happens to be exactly the force that would be exerted on the satellite by centripetal force from orbiting around Earth once a day (thus appearing in the same place to ground observers). 

I am not sure about your definition of sustained space flight, but this meets my two criteria:

• Is in space.
• Will stay there for a good bit.

Now, the most important part of this is that it works only with a round Earth.  There is no way to get centripetal force for something hovering above Earth in circles, and the existence of geosynchronous earth orbit satellites would require that the satellite be perfectly still under a flat Earth.  This would be impossible, since that 0.22428 m/s² would not be being counteracted by anything, and the satellite would either fall to the ground or be pulled by gravity towards something else.  I'd say the latter, since under your theory the satellite would be 19,000 miles above the stars.

Since I have made my case, please show me yours.  Show me what undeniable proof you have that sustained space flight is impossible.

I don't see undeniable proof that sustained spaceflight is possible in your post.

space travel is possible, but according to the FAQ not sustained.
I believe that the same force that keeps the sun, moon, and other celestial objects to circle the Earth,
causes the same to satellites. Eventually satellites will fall to Earth, so the "flight" is not sustained.

I don't see undeniable proof that sustained spaceflight is possible in your post.

Show me where I said I had undeniable proof.  I did not say that since on this forum, 'undeniable' does not exist.  I'm asking YOU for YOUR proof.

Sustained space travel is impossible because the earth is accelerating upwards. This means that a rocket will eventually run out of fuel and the earth will catch up to it.

For evidence of this upwards acceleration get up on a chair and watch the surface of the earth carefully while walking off the edge of the seat. You will see that the earth rises up to you. There is nothing visible bringing you down. You are being pinned to the earth's surface by its upwards movement. You do not see "graviton particles" or a "bending of space" pulling you to the ground. Those explanations are entirely invisible and undetectable. The only direct observation is that the earth rose upwards to you.

Therefore by Argument from Parsimony, we must conclude that the earth is accelerating upwards.

it could be equaly said that you are moving down to the ground? how could you tell the difference?

it could be equaly said that you are moving down to the ground? how could you tell the difference?

If we were moving to the ground and being pulled by something it would require a cause, such as invisible puller particles or a bending of space as proposed by Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. However, no one has discovered any such mechanism and they yet remain entirely hypothetical.

Whatever is pushing the earth is beneath it and does not need to be invisible or undetectable. We do not need to image an entirely new branch of physics to cause a push, as we need to do for a pull. The physics for pushing other particles already exists. We can push particles in labs in many different ways. The physics for pulling particles is entirely speculative.

This is why the upwards acceleration of the earth is concluded on basis of Parsimony. It's a matter of something we can see: a direct observation of an upwardly moving earth keeping us pinned to the surface via mechanical action, versus something we cannot see: something invisible pulling us to the ground beyond knowledge of physical science.

so you admit that you could not tell the difference from your perspective? what about the fact that with UA you have to invent a almost infinite energy source to create the constant acceleration?

Who says the acceleration will continue indefinitely? I say the energy will eventually deplete and all life on earth will come to an end.

but where does the energy come from in the 1st place because it must be an immense energy source.

Upward acceleration is likely part of the Big Bang and was present at the beginning of the universe.

that's saying where it came from not what it is.

Upward acceleration is likely part of the Big Bang and was present at the beginning of the universe.

So how would we still be accelerating?

indeed you could say why arent we accelerating side ways?  but still need an answer to what force is accelerating us upwards.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:32:12 AM

Upward acceleration is likely part of the Big Bang and was present at the beginning of the universe.

So how would we still be accelerating?

The Big Bang is still occurring.

Astronomers agree that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

indeed you could say why arent we accelerating side ways?  but still need an answer to what force is accelerating us upwards.

If we were accelerating "side ways," then "side ways" would be "up".

Quote from: rorius on January 13, 2013, 11:37:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:32:12 AM

Upward acceleration is likely part of the Big Bang and was present at the beginning of the universe.

So how would we still be accelerating?

The Big Bang is still occurring.

Astronomers agree that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

Oh, interesting- so the universe is expanding, and it seems the rate of expansion is increasing. Tell me, how do Astronomers know this?

yes but the same astronomers you are using to help you hear also say the earth is round? you cant cherry pick from astronomers when you want then dismiss them when you don't agree with them. why cant a space ship that reaches the right altitude be affected by ua just like all other celestial bodies are?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:40:24 AM

Quote from: rorius on January 13, 2013, 11:37:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:32:12 AM

Upward acceleration is likely part of the Big Bang and was present at the beginning of the universe.

So how would we still be accelerating?

The Big Bang is still occurring.

Astronomers agree that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

Oh, interesting- so the universe is expanding, and it seems the rate of expansion is increasing. Tell me, how do Astronomers know this?

second that tom. how do they know? what method do they use to determine this?

Quote from: rorius on January 13, 2013, 11:44:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:40:24 AM

Quote from: rorius on January 13, 2013, 11:37:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:32:12 AM

Upward acceleration is likely part of the Big Bang and was present at the beginning of the universe.

So how would we still be accelerating?

The Big Bang is still occurring.

Astronomers agree that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

Oh, interesting- so the universe is expanding, and it seems the rate of expansion is increasing. Tell me, how do Astronomers know this?

second that tom. how do they know? what method do they use to determine this?

Why don't you read the article?

that explains the acceleration is their but not how they discovered it. how did they discover it? i know one way they do it i just want your opinion on how they did it?

any answers to my thoughts

 why cant a space ship that reaches the right altitude be affected by ua just like all other celestial bodies are

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 13, 2013, 11:46:56 AM

Quote from: rorius on January 13, 2013, 11:44:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:40:24 AM

Quote from: rorius on January 13, 2013, 11:37:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:32:12 AM

Upward acceleration is likely part of the Big Bang and was present at the beginning of the universe.

So how would we still be accelerating?

The Big Bang is still occurring.

Astronomers agree that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

Oh, interesting- so the universe is expanding, and it seems the rate of expansion is increasing. Tell me, how do Astronomers know this?

second that tom. how do they know? what method do they use to determine this?

Why don't you read the article?

Do you mean the article that says that astromomers used space based telescopes for their observations?

lol you spoiled it for me! but yeah tom face palm for you. 

Why don't you read the article?

Ok let's see... Appears to indicate it's something to do with "red shift"? Could you explain for me what this is?

if i remember rightly alos FE dsnt believe in Doppler shift in light. i cant remember the thread but their was a pretty long argument about how it dsnt really exist.

Do you mean the article that says that astromomers used space based telescopes for their observations?

The accelerating universe was discovered in the 20th century, before space-based telescopes.

that may be true im not sure. any links to research? are you referring to the two Americans using the radio telescope and accidently discovered Cosmic background radiation?

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2013, 11:54:52 AM

Do you mean the article that says that astromomers used space based telescopes for their observations?

The accelerating universe was discovered in the 20th century, before space-based telescopes.

Ok- to do this, astronomers observed light from celestial bodies many, many light years away & saw that EM waves were becoming longer- or "reddening", hence red-shift.

According to FET, the stars are 3000 miles away.

You don't need a space telescope to observe this, but it is rather amusing that the wiki article does mention it.

tom you cant us astronomers in this argument astronomers can tell if a object is 3000 miles away instead of a trillion miles away.

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2013, 11:54:52 AM

Do you mean the article that says that astromomers used space based telescopes for their observations?

The accelerating universe was discovered in the 20th century, before space-based telescopes.

No.  Read your own link.  The expanding universe was discovered before space based telescopes.  The accelerating universe wasn't proposed until 1998.

so astronomers can tell the universe is expanding according to tom but dnt notice the earth dsnt orbit the sun. or the sun is 3000 miles away and the planets are a few miles across?


also couldn't a space ship once at a certain altitude be affected by ua just like all other celestial bodies in the FE model? thus making space flight possible? my question seems to be being ignored. im trying not to make a new thread for it considering it fits quite well in this one.