Explain why space flight is not possible.

How did we get a rover to mars? and how did we land on the moon? If mars and the moon are orbiting earth, what would happen to the rover and the astronauts when the moon and mars dip below the horizon? How did we get pictures of a round earth? Why are all the other planets and the sun round? Why are you stupid? The ancient Greek sailors saw that the earth is round when they viewed a curved horizon on the ocean. Why don't you see that too? Blindness? Why could Magellan sail around the earth and end up where he started? Why, if you look over an ocean or a great lake or whatever, can't you see the city or trees or hills on the other side? Why don't you listen to science? Please reply as soon as you can. My young mind and heart are close to breaking at the thought of such ignorance in the world today.

i don't see a curved horizon on the ocean when i look at it, and lapu lapu killed magellan in the philippine islands.

just sayin

How did we get a rover to mars? and how did we land on the moon?

Most FE's here believe these never happened. They believe that photos sent back have been faked in order to keep up the charade that is space exploration.

Quote from: NotStupid on January 13, 2013, 05:25:30 PM

How did we get a rover to mars? and how did we land on the moon?

Most FE's here believe these never happened. They believe that photos sent back have been faked in order to keep up the charade that is space exploration.

Yet they fail to explain the objects left behind on the moon, the most observable of which is a reflector array.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment

Last time I posted this in a thread, some guy came along and just said "There is nothing man-made on the moon." (seriously...)  After that, the thread was abandoned.  This is something that can be tested without attempting to fly into space, however successfully bouncing a laser off the array would prove that space flight is possible, since it had to get up there somehow.  I doubt anyone will come to try to refute this evidence with anything more than another baseless claim.

Quote from: Berstram Jones on January 13, 2013, 05:39:33 PM

Quote from: NotStupid on January 13, 2013, 05:25:30 PM

How did we get a rover to mars? and how did we land on the moon?

Most FE's here believe these never happened. They believe that photos sent back have been faked in order to keep up the charade that is space exploration.

Yet they fail to explain the objects left behind on the moon, the most observable of which is a reflector array.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment

Last time I posted this in a thread, some guy came along and just said "There is nothing man-made on the moon." (seriously...)  After that, the thread was abandoned.  This is something that can be tested without attempting to fly into space, however successfully bouncing a laser off the array would prove that space flight is possible, since it had to get up there somehow.  I doubt anyone will come to try to refute this evidence with anything more than another baseless claim.

Yes, indeed it is great evidence (which is likely why it is ignored). I too have been waiting for an explanation for this. "There is nothing man-made on the moon." is a ridiculous statement to make without even being willing to give this a try.

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?

Newton wrote some questionable books on divinity. Should all his observations and equations be thrown out because of this?  It's mind boggling that so many people have this black or white mentality when it comes to science. Darwin said he belived whales evolved from bears. Does this error invalidate the entire theory of evolution? Of course not. We aren't cherry picking what astronomers say, we are just separating the facts from the errors.

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.

So... if the Earth is moving upwards at an accelerating rate, why doesn't the Earth's surface just smack into skydivers? (Yes, the universe is expanding at 74.3 km/s per megaparsec.)

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:06:36 AM

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.

So... if the Earth is moving upwards at an accelerating rate, why doesn't the Earth's surface just smack into skydivers? (Yes, the universe is expanding at 74.3 km/s per megaparsec.)

...it does, eventually.  Else they'd just stay in the air.

Acceleration is indiscernable from gravity, for the purposes of physics. 

...it does, eventually.  Else they'd just stay in the air.

Acceleration is indiscernable from gravity, for the purposes of physics.

What I meant was at full speed.

Acceleration is indiscernable from gravity, for the purposes of physics.

Actually, that pretty much only works in a text book.  The equivalence principle only applies in a homogenous gravitational field and when tidal forces can be ignored.  Measurable variations in g show that the earth is not a homogenous gravitational field and celestial gravitational influences from the sun and moon (among other sources) are tidal forces that cannot be ignored.  In other words, the equivalence principle does not apply to the earth as a whole.

Quote from: Pencil Sharpener on January 16, 2013, 05:48:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:06:36 AM

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.

So... if the Earth is moving upwards at an accelerating rate, why doesn't the Earth's surface just smack into skydivers? (Yes, the universe is expanding at 74.3 km/s per megaparsec.)

...it does, eventually.  Else they'd just stay in the air.

Acceleration is indiscernable from gravity, for the purposes of physics.

Acceleration due to gravity decreases at higher altitudes, as we are debating in another thread (pretty one-sided with Thork's poor performance though). 

Quote from: Tintagel on January 16, 2013, 06:08:35 PM

...it does, eventually.  Else they'd just stay in the air.

Acceleration is indiscernable from gravity, for the purposes of physics.

What I meant was at full speed.

It does, when the chute fails to open.

Quote from: Tintagel on January 16, 2013, 06:08:35 PM

Quote from: Pencil Sharpener on January 16, 2013, 05:48:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:06:36 AM

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.

So... if the Earth is moving upwards at an accelerating rate, why doesn't the Earth's surface just smack into skydivers? (Yes, the universe is expanding at 74.3 km/s per megaparsec.)

...it does, eventually.  Else they'd just stay in the air.

Acceleration is indiscernable from gravity, for the purposes of physics.

Acceleration due to gravity decreases at higher altitudes, as we are debating in another thread (pretty one-sided with Thork's poor performance though).

This is true, and seems to be an effect of UA.

Quote from: drhead on January 16, 2013, 08:31:46 PM

Quote from: Tintagel on January 16, 2013, 06:08:35 PM

Quote from: Pencil Sharpener on January 16, 2013, 05:48:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:06:36 AM

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.

So... if the Earth is moving upwards at an accelerating rate, why doesn't the Earth's surface just smack into skydivers? (Yes, the universe is expanding at 74.3 km/s per megaparsec.)

...it does, eventually.  Else they'd just stay in the air.

Acceleration is indiscernable from gravity, for the purposes of physics.

Acceleration due to gravity decreases at higher altitudes, as we are debating in another thread (pretty one-sided with Thork's poor performance though).

This is true, and seems to be an effect of UA.

That wouldn't be possible with UA.  If acceleration due to gravity was lower than at sea level, then that means that the ground UNDER the mountain is accelerating FASTER than the mountain itself.  That can't happen because the ground under the mountain would have to go THROUGH the mountain.  Matter can't clip into itself like that, and if it did, we'd notice.

Quote from: Tintagel on January 16, 2013, 10:25:31 PM

Quote from: drhead on January 16, 2013, 08:31:46 PM

Quote from: Tintagel on January 16, 2013, 06:08:35 PM

Quote from: Pencil Sharpener on January 16, 2013, 05:48:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:06:36 AM

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.

So... if the Earth is moving upwards at an accelerating rate, why doesn't the Earth's surface just smack into skydivers? (Yes, the universe is expanding at 74.3 km/s per megaparsec.)

...it does, eventually.  Else they'd just stay in the air.

Acceleration is indiscernable from gravity, for the purposes of physics.

Acceleration due to gravity decreases at higher altitudes, as we are debating in another thread (pretty one-sided with Thork's poor performance though).

This is true, and seems to be an effect of UA.

That wouldn't be possible with UA.  If acceleration due to gravity was lower than at sea level, then that means that the ground UNDER the mountain is accelerating FASTER than the mountain itself.  That can't happen because the ground under the mountain would have to go THROUGH the mountain.  Matter can't clip into itself like that, and if it did, we'd notice.

That's not what I meant.  I meant that it seems that the higher your altitude, the the inertia that keeps us held down on the earth lessens.    Outside of the atmosphere the UA pushes everything along, and the atmosphere seems to counter this, but its effectiveness diminishes with altitude.

That's not what I meant.  I meant that it seems that the higher your altitude, the the inertia that keeps us held down on the earth lessens.    Outside of the atmosphere the UA pushes everything along, and the atmosphere seems to counter this, but its effectiveness diminishes with altitude.

Hmmm...  Something about the atmoplane counters the effect of the UA.  I like it.  Being an RE'er, I don't necessarily agree with it, but do I like it.  This could be one of those rare breakthroughs in FE research that I've been hoping to see for a very long time now.  Keep up the good work, Tintagel. 

Quote from: drhead on January 17, 2013, 10:10:45 AM

Quote from: Tintagel on January 16, 2013, 10:25:31 PM

Quote from: drhead on January 16, 2013, 08:31:46 PM

Quote from: Tintagel on January 16, 2013, 06:08:35 PM

Quote from: Pencil Sharpener on January 16, 2013, 05:48:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:06:36 AM

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.

So... if the Earth is moving upwards at an accelerating rate, why doesn't the Earth's surface just smack into skydivers? (Yes, the universe is expanding at 74.3 km/s per megaparsec.)

...it does, eventually.  Else they'd just stay in the air.

Acceleration is indiscernable from gravity, for the purposes of physics.

Acceleration due to gravity decreases at higher altitudes, as we are debating in another thread (pretty one-sided with Thork's poor performance though).

This is true, and seems to be an effect of UA.

That wouldn't be possible with UA.  If acceleration due to gravity was lower than at sea level, then that means that the ground UNDER the mountain is accelerating FASTER than the mountain itself.  That can't happen because the ground under the mountain would have to go THROUGH the mountain.  Matter can't clip into itself like that, and if it did, we'd notice.

That's not what I meant.  I meant that it seems that the higher your altitude, the the inertia that keeps us held down on the earth lessens.    Outside of the atmosphere the UA pushes everything along, and the atmosphere seems to counter this, but its effectiveness diminishes with altitude.

It's an interesting idea, the force keeping us on the ground though is not just affected by altitude but also by latitude. It is stronger at the poles and weaker at the equator.

Quote from: drhead on January 17, 2013, 10:10:45 AM

Quote from: Tintagel on January 16, 2013, 10:25:31 PM

Quote from: drhead on January 16, 2013, 08:31:46 PM

Quote from: Tintagel on January 16, 2013, 06:08:35 PM

Quote from: Pencil Sharpener on January 16, 2013, 05:48:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2013, 11:06:36 AM

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.

So... if the Earth is moving upwards at an accelerating rate, why doesn't the Earth's surface just smack into skydivers? (Yes, the universe is expanding at 74.3 km/s per megaparsec.)

...it does, eventually.  Else they'd just stay in the air.

Acceleration is indiscernable from gravity, for the purposes of physics.

Acceleration due to gravity decreases at higher altitudes, as we are debating in another thread (pretty one-sided with Thork's poor performance though).

This is true, and seems to be an effect of UA.

That wouldn't be possible with UA.  If acceleration due to gravity was lower than at sea level, then that means that the ground UNDER the mountain is accelerating FASTER than the mountain itself.  That can't happen because the ground under the mountain would have to go THROUGH the mountain.  Matter can't clip into itself like that, and if it did, we'd notice.

That's not what I meant.  I meant that it seems that the higher your altitude, the the inertia that keeps us held down on the earth lessens.    Outside of the atmosphere the UA pushes everything along, and the atmosphere seems to counter this, but its effectiveness diminishes with altitude.

Unfortunately, this theory will never see mainstream acceptance since sustained space flight is possible under it, which would allow FET to be completely disproven.