How "satellites" works.

Quote from: Alonewarrior on February 06, 2013, 11:10:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 10:40:40 AM

Quote from: Alonewarrior on February 06, 2013, 10:23:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 10:11:07 AM

Alone warrior:
You can have the radio on in your car at 80 mph right? ..You could also have the radio on in your car doing 80 mph before the invention of fake satellites, so what do you mean by the ships movement?

That's because these are broadcast signals that can reach anyone within a small area. The problem with your diagram is that your ships supposedly send beamed signals to a spherical shell where the beam is then supposed to bounce off at the appropriate angle to be received by the targeted node. The farther away the "ionosphere" is from the ship, the more likely it is that even a slight unpredicted movement of the ship would cause the beam to miss by an upwards of several miles.

You also completely ignored the whole sun problem involving the "ionosphere".

I believe the sun is around the Ionosphere. Exactly where I don't know. Just the same as I don;t know how far up the Ionosphere is.
Oh and I don't need to be told that it's at a certain height because nobody actually knows.Yet you will  argue that you do.

The sun is either inside this sphere or outside it. If it's inside the sphere then there would be constant signal disruption due to the sun's rays hitting the receivers it's directly overhead, and from the energy being bounced off the sphere to the rest of the world. If it's outside the sphere then it isn't possible to bounce those radio waves off the sphere to send them to the rest of the world because the waves wouldn't encounter anything to bounce off of.

If you are unable to determine how far up the "ionosphere" is, then how are you able to accurately bounce signals off of it and to other parts of the world? The distance at which the sphere is from the transmitting point is directly related to the location where the signal will ultimately end up. Knowing the specific degree of curvature of the sphere is also required to know the angle with which the beam must be transmitted to accurately hit the receiving tower.

Also, if such a sphere with the reflective capabilities as the ionosphere existed, determining an estimated height of such a thing should be simple. They should be able to aim a transmitter directly upwards and make adjustments until it receives its own transmission, then time how long it takes for a signal to be transmitted and then received. Knowing that in a non-vacuum the speed of light is roughly 2/3 c (c = ~300 million meters/second), the total time for the signal to be transmitted and received can be divided by two and multiplied by 2/3 c to estimate how high up the sphere is.

I don't believe signals can go outside our protective layer, they just bounce off.
There is many many layers leading up to the top of our protective layer, which could be much larger than any 200 miles or so.
That's my belief anyway.
I'm not saying it's correct but it's my guess, just like a spinning wobbling bulging Earth is other peoples guesses.

If the signals do not escape this sphere, but rather bounce off of them then that would mean that the sun must be inside the sphere for its energy to be received by us. But with that being the case and the sun emitting the radiation it does, your antennas immediately lose all value because the sun's radio waves overpower the weaker waves that our antennas emit. It's like having two people in front of you, one is whispering quietly to you and the other his screaming his lungs off and neither is able to change the loudness of their voice; you wouldn't be able to understand what the whispering person was saying because they would be overpowered by the screaming person. The whispering person represents our antennas with their capable output, and the screaming person represents the sun with its capable output.

In this model with the sphere only reflecting the radio waves the sun cannot possibly be outside of the sphere, otherwise the twice yearly interference we experience during the equinoxes wouldn't exist, and this model gives no reason to believe that the sun wouldn't produce overpowering radio signals.

What do the number of layers have to do with measuring the distance to the top of the ionosphere? The same concept still applies to the given situation. If it's not possible to measure to the top of the ionosphere to find the exact distance back down to Earth then your antennas that reflect those signals back to us wouldn't be able to be properly tuned to interact with other antennas, making them worthless.

You need to clear your mind from the spoon fed physics you have been given to even try to understand any of it in a rational way.
You are just deciding that the Sun will do this and that, yet in reality, all you do is see the light and feel the heat of the Sun and nothing else, as you and I  don't really know it's make up to determine what it causes in terms of interference to this Earth.

You need to clear your mind from the spoon fed physics you have been given to even try to understand any of it in a rational way.
You are just deciding that the Sun will do this and that, yet in reality, all you do is see the light and feel the heat of the Sun and nothing else, as you and I  don't really know it's make up to determine what it causes in terms of interference to this Earth.

It isn't spoon-fed physics, though, that's the thing. The theories that have been proposed to the scientific community and then have been tested and retested multiple times leads to overwhelming evidence from a wide array of unrelated scientists to back these theories. Have you heard of the scientific method? From what I've read, it seems that your grasp on how the scientific community operates is lacking. In science when a theory is brought forth with a set of ideas about how something works it has to be tested. These tests are then done by the group that proposed the theory, and when finished they publish their results for other scientists to view and retest themselves. Each other group of scientists will retest the experiments to determine if they come to the same result that the original study had. If it does, then they are accepted as a currently valid theory, acceptable until evidence comes about to show that the theory doesn't hold. If instead the other scientists replicate the experiment and they don't return the same results, the theory will be looked at and reworked to try to understand what went wrong. When these tweeks occur, the experiment process repeats to see if it holds in this set of circumstances. If it does, then it goes on to the rest of the world.

I think you're believing that science just proposes a theory without experiments to back it up with evidence, and just says that their theory is true. I'm sorry, but that's not the case. Anytime a scientist has attempted to forge his results to fit his theory, and is caught, he loses all credibility for future propositions and no one will trust his results from any forthcoming experiments. Science is really just trial by error, they work to fit the pieces together to better understand how this world works. The key here is that scientists don't seek to PROVE a theory, they seek to DISPROVE a theory, and if they can't through extensive experimentation, that's when it comes into place.

I repeat, scientists don't seek to PROVE a theory, they seek to DISPROVE a theory.

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 01, 2013, 03:01:24 PM

well i admier your effort. it must have taken you quite a while, whaterver it is.

Which part didn't you understand?

The whole damn picture makes no sense.

I repeat, scientists don't seek to PROVE a theory, they seek to DISPROVE a theory.

And that is exactly why you can't FORCE scientific principles into a mold in order to prove your hypothesis.  It either works or it doesn't.  Sceptimatic, you lack ANY understanding of the scientific method.  Instead of a testable, verifiable Scientific Method, you rely on the Sceptimatic Method which can be summed up like this...I think it is, therefore it is.  For you the mere IDEA of possible implies proof that it not only is possible, but IS.

The scientific method asks a question.  Makes an assumption and seeks to disprove that assumption.  If the physical properties of life, the universe, and everything don't allow for the assumption then the assumption is wrong.  Further more was it is decided that your assumption can not be disproved you allow your work to be reviewed by others and they can carry out their own experiments to disprove your assumptions.

Another problem you have that prevents you from being in involved in ANY serious discussion is your blatant refusal to accept proof simply because you don't understand it.  OR you simply claim that the proof is a lie.  That's personal incredulity.

I don't expect the idea of logical fallacies to mean anything to you for a couple of reasons.  1.  Your blatant disregard of them implies that you don't really acknowledge the idea of a fallacy in the first place (see above.  If I think it's possible, it must be).  You commit these logical fallacies in almost every post you make.

And 2, I have expect you to turn the idea of a fallacies around and imply it's just a construct used to limit those with an "open mind."

Quote from: Dr.Nor on February 01, 2013, 03:11:12 PM

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 01, 2013, 03:01:24 PM

well i admier your effort. it must have taken you quite a while, whaterver it is.

Which part didn't you understand?

The whole damn picture makes no sense.

I will defend your right to criticize my piece of art to my death, but please exercise good manners.

Quote from: Alonewarrior on February 06, 2013, 01:45:23 PM

I repeat, scientists don't seek to PROVE a theory, they seek to DISPROVE a theory.

And that is exactly why you can't FORCE scientific principles into a mold in order to prove your hypothesis.  It either works or it doesn't.  Sceptimatic, you lack ANY understanding of the scientific method.  Instead of a testable, verifiable Scientific Method, you rely on the Sceptimatic Method which can be summed up like this...I think it is, therefore it is.  For you the mere IDEA of possible implies proof that it not only is possible, but IS.

The scientific method asks a question.  Makes an assumption and seeks to disprove that assumption.  If the physical properties of life, the universe, and everything don't allow for the assumption then the assumption is wrong.  Further more was it is decided that your assumption can not be disproved you allow your work to be reviewed by others and they can carry out their own experiments to disprove your assumptions.

Another problem you have that prevents you from being in involved in ANY serious discussion is your blatant refusal to accept proof simply because you don't understand it.  OR you simply claim that the proof is a lie.  That's personal incredulity.

I don't expect the idea of logical fallacies to mean anything to you for a couple of reasons.  1.  Your blatant disregard of them implies that you don't really acknowledge the idea of a fallacy in the first place (see above.  If I think it's possible, it must be).  You commit these logical fallacies in almost every post you make.

And 2, I have expect you to turn the idea of a fallacies around and imply it's just a construct used to limit those with an "open mind."

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Quote from: poser765 on February 06, 2013, 02:09:11 PM

Quote from: Alonewarrior on February 06, 2013, 01:45:23 PM

I repeat, scientists don't seek to PROVE a theory, they seek to DISPROVE a theory.

And that is exactly why you can't FORCE scientific principles into a mold in order to prove your hypothesis.  It either works or it doesn't.  Sceptimatic, you lack ANY understanding of the scientific method.  Instead of a testable, verifiable Scientific Method, you rely on the Sceptimatic Method which can be summed up like this...I think it is, therefore it is.  For you the mere IDEA of possible implies proof that it not only is possible, but IS.

The scientific method asks a question.  Makes an assumption and seeks to disprove that assumption.  If the physical properties of life, the universe, and everything don't allow for the assumption then the assumption is wrong.  Further more was it is decided that your assumption can not be disproved you allow your work to be reviewed by others and they can carry out their own experiments to disprove your assumptions.

Another problem you have that prevents you from being in involved in ANY serious discussion is your blatant refusal to accept proof simply because you don't understand it.  OR you simply claim that the proof is a lie.  That's personal incredulity.

I don't expect the idea of logical fallacies to mean anything to you for a couple of reasons.  1.  Your blatant disregard of them implies that you don't really acknowledge the idea of a fallacy in the first place (see above.  If I think it's possible, it must be).  You commit these logical fallacies in almost every post you make.

And 2, I have expect you to turn the idea of a fallacies around and imply it's just a construct used to limit those with an "open mind."

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Sir, I can no more discard reality than I could discard the notion that the sky is blue.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Quote from: poser765 on February 06, 2013, 02:09:11 PM

Quote from: Alonewarrior on February 06, 2013, 01:45:23 PM

I repeat, scientists don't seek to PROVE a theory, they seek to DISPROVE a theory.

And that is exactly why you can't FORCE scientific principles into a mold in order to prove your hypothesis.  It either works or it doesn't.  Sceptimatic, you lack ANY understanding of the scientific method.  Instead of a testable, verifiable Scientific Method, you rely on the Sceptimatic Method which can be summed up like this...I think it is, therefore it is.  For you the mere IDEA of possible implies proof that it not only is possible, but IS.

The scientific method asks a question.  Makes an assumption and seeks to disprove that assumption.  If the physical properties of life, the universe, and everything don't allow for the assumption then the assumption is wrong.  Further more was it is decided that your assumption can not be disproved you allow your work to be reviewed by others and they can carry out their own experiments to disprove your assumptions.

Another problem you have that prevents you from being in involved in ANY serious discussion is your blatant refusal to accept proof simply because you don't understand it.  OR you simply claim that the proof is a lie.  That's personal incredulity.

I don't expect the idea of logical fallacies to mean anything to you for a couple of reasons.  1.  Your blatant disregard of them implies that you don't really acknowledge the idea of a fallacy in the first place (see above.  If I think it's possible, it must be).  You commit these logical fallacies in almost every post you make.

And 2, I have expect you to turn the idea of a fallacies around and imply it's just a construct used to limit those with an "open mind."

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Sir, I can no more discard reality than I could discard the notion that the sky is blue.

Which is an excellent subject matter.
The sky is blue and we cannot see stars and anything other than the moon and the Sun and maybe one or two other planets that come into view in certain circumstances.
Now, most times we don't see the moon, yet we always see the Sun when the sky is blue, because it agitates the matter in the atmosphere.

Going by that thought, why in the hell can people see anything on Earth from a supposed station in the blackness of space.
They look through a window and bang, there's an atmosphere blocking their way, just as it does ours from seeing much of space.
We cannot see the blackness of space, even though it should stand out from blue, so why do we see the blue oceans on Earth through a blue atmosphere.

Pathetic.

Quote from: poser765 on February 06, 2013, 03:51:48 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Quote from: poser765 on February 06, 2013, 02:09:11 PM

Quote from: Alonewarrior on February 06, 2013, 01:45:23 PM

I repeat, scientists don't seek to PROVE a theory, they seek to DISPROVE a theory.

And that is exactly why you can't FORCE scientific principles into a mold in order to prove your hypothesis.  It either works or it doesn't.  Sceptimatic, you lack ANY understanding of the scientific method.  Instead of a testable, verifiable Scientific Method, you rely on the Sceptimatic Method which can be summed up like this...I think it is, therefore it is.  For you the mere IDEA of possible implies proof that it not only is possible, but IS.

The scientific method asks a question.  Makes an assumption and seeks to disprove that assumption.  If the physical properties of life, the universe, and everything don't allow for the assumption then the assumption is wrong.  Further more was it is decided that your assumption can not be disproved you allow your work to be reviewed by others and they can carry out their own experiments to disprove your assumptions.

Another problem you have that prevents you from being in involved in ANY serious discussion is your blatant refusal to accept proof simply because you don't understand it.  OR you simply claim that the proof is a lie.  That's personal incredulity.

I don't expect the idea of logical fallacies to mean anything to you for a couple of reasons.  1.  Your blatant disregard of them implies that you don't really acknowledge the idea of a fallacy in the first place (see above.  If I think it's possible, it must be).  You commit these logical fallacies in almost every post you make.

And 2, I have expect you to turn the idea of a fallacies around and imply it's just a construct used to limit those with an "open mind."

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Sir, I can no more discard reality than I could discard the notion that the sky is blue.

Which is an excellent subject matter.
The sky is blue and we cannot see stars and anything other than the moon and the Sun and maybe one or two other planets that come into view in certain circumstances.
Now, most times we don't see the moon, yet we always see the Sun when the sky is blue, because it agitates the matter in the atmosphere.

Going by that thought, why in the hell can people see anything on Earth from a supposed station in the blackness of space.
They look through a window and bang, there's an atmosphere blocking their way, just as it does ours from seeing much of space.
We cannot see the blackness of space, even though it should stand out from blue, so why do we see the blue oceans on Earth through a blue atmosphere.

Pathetic.

I am hesitant to continue this discussion with you, because I honestly can't tell if you are serious or a troll.

My optimistic faith in humanity pleads that the latter is the case, but my more emotional side and your post history point to the former.

Now, with that said to respond to your assertions, I'll simply present a couple of questions that may help you.

Why can you see more stars in the countryside than you can in the city?

Why can you, while standing outside out night discern detail in a well lit room while looking through a window while not being able to make out detail OUTSIDE while looking out into the night from inside a well lit room?

Why do the stars progressively become visible as day transitions to night? Further, why does it even get progressively darker when day turns to night?

Pathetic.

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

I remember those! They all seemed so fake, like the numbers we found were shoehorned to fit the experiments we were doing. I can't believe that friction and degree of slope would actually determine the speed of the car down a ramp; it has to be the fact that we're accelerating upwards constantly at 32 feet/second. Get out of here with your stupid logic! 

But really, those experiments were fun and taught me a lot about how and why some things happen. Definitely enlightening to understand how gravity affects us all equally. And there's so much more out there to learn; I love life!

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcator_C-Mod

Alcator C-Mod is a tokamak, a magnetically confined nuclear fusion device, at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center. It is the tokamak with the highest magnetic field and highest plasma pressure in the world. It is one of the major fusion research facilities in the United States, together with DIII-D at General Atomics and NSTX at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 05:18:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

I'm not saying they wouldn't work. I'm saying that nobody has been in space to find out what physics works, it's all theory chosen as fact.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 05:37:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 05:18:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

I'm not saying they wouldn't work. I'm saying that nobody has been in space to find out what physics works, it's all theory chosen as fact.

We have been to space though, it doesn't matter if you accept it or not.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 05:37:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 05:18:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

I'm not saying they wouldn't work. I'm saying that nobody has been in space to find out what physics works, it's all theory chosen as fact.

what mysterious force keeps rockets from reaching space?

My issue is with Nuclear atoms and neutrons Marko.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:20:10 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 05:37:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 05:18:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

I'm not saying they wouldn't work. I'm saying that nobody has been in space to find out what physics works, it's all theory chosen as fact.

We have been to space though, it doesn't matter if you accept it or not.

We haven't been to space and it doesn't matter if you accept that or not.

Quote from: Bollybill on February 08, 2013, 09:21:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:20:10 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 05:37:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 05:18:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

I'm not saying they wouldn't work. I'm saying that nobody has been in space to find out what physics works, it's all theory chosen as fact.

We have been to space though, it doesn't matter if you accept it or not.

We haven't been to space and it doesn't matter if you accept that or not.

W/e, we're both using circular logic so it doesn't matter what we're saying anyway.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:20:10 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 05:37:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 05:18:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

I'm not saying they wouldn't work. I'm saying that nobody has been in space to find out what physics works, it's all theory chosen as fact.

what mysterious force keeps rockets from reaching space?

The main one is simple and anything after that doesn't matter really...and that is, we don't have the capabilities to launch a rocket big enough to reach space for starters. We can't get into space by burning it's arse end.

Quote from: Bollybill on February 08, 2013, 09:21:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:20:10 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 05:37:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 05:18:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

I'm not saying they wouldn't work. I'm saying that nobody has been in space to find out what physics works, it's all theory chosen as fact.

We have been to space though, it doesn't matter if you accept it or not.

We haven't been to space and it doesn't matter if you accept that or not.

what proof do you have of this and why are you so passionate about it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:23:39 AM

Quote from: Bollybill on February 08, 2013, 09:21:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:20:10 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 05:37:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 05:18:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

I'm not saying they wouldn't work. I'm saying that nobody has been in space to find out what physics works, it's all theory chosen as fact.

We have been to space though, it doesn't matter if you accept it or not.

We haven't been to space and it doesn't matter if you accept that or not.

W/e, we're both using circular logic so it doesn't matter what we're saying anyway.

Correct. In the main it does not matter.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 09:22:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:20:10 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 05:37:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 05:18:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

I'm not saying they wouldn't work. I'm saying that nobody has been in space to find out what physics works, it's all theory chosen as fact.

what mysterious force keeps rockets from reaching space?

The main one is simple and anything after that doesn't matter really...and that is, we don't have the capabilities to launch a rocket big enough to reach space for starters. We can't get into space by burning it's arse end.

how do you know this for sure? I would love to hear.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:23:39 AM

Quote from: Bollybill on February 08, 2013, 09:21:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:20:10 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 05:37:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 05:18:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

I'm not saying they wouldn't work. I'm saying that nobody has been in space to find out what physics works, it's all theory chosen as fact.

We have been to space though, it doesn't matter if you accept it or not.

We haven't been to space and it doesn't matter if you accept that or not.

what proof do you have of this and why are you so passionate about it?

There used to be a kid at school who boasted that he had everything. He would come into school everyday and tell me about his new fishing rod, reel, bike, his dads new car and I would sit there gutted, wishing I had just some of the things he was getting.

One day, he came to school on an old bike and I asked him where his new one was...He told me it was stolen and is waiting for his parents to get him a new one to replace it.
Slowly I began to get suspicious and started questioning him about all of this stuff he has that I had never ever seen him with and he would say that he likes to keep them private so people don't try and steal them.
One day I went to his home and asked to see his rod.
His fishing rod, you filthy animals.  ...

He said it broke and was thrown away and slowly I began to see flaws in his boasts and it tuned out that he had lied all along and had nothing of what he said.
It's all a matter of either accepting or questioning and coming to your own conclusions.
A bit like the boasts of big powerful rockets that we can't see close up I suppose.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:25:44 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 09:22:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:20:10 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 05:37:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 05:18:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

I'm not saying they wouldn't work. I'm saying that nobody has been in space to find out what physics works, it's all theory chosen as fact.

what mysterious force keeps rockets from reaching space?

The main one is simple and anything after that doesn't matter really...and that is, we don't have the capabilities to launch a rocket big enough to reach space for starters. We can't get into space by burning it's arse end.

how do you know this for sure? I would love to hear.

The proof is in the launches and the surrounding area of those launches.
Those Saturn V's would be still sitting there if they were as big and heavy as we were told.
Same as the shuttle and every other space rocket.

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

so all these people are lying and the thousands of people that helped them get into space (allegedly?)

The proof is in the launches and the surrounding area of those launches.
Those Saturn V's would be still sitting there if they were as big and heavy as we were told.
Same as the shuttle and every other space rocket.

I've already told you about thrust-weight ratio...

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 09:28:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:25:44 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 09:22:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 09:20:10 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on February 08, 2013, 05:37:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2013, 05:18:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:40:22 PM

Oh, ok. You discard what you have been spoon fed and let's start again from scratch. Is that ok ?

Did you know that many of the basic principles of "spoon fed physics" are demonstrated and recreated as lab exercises in physics courses?

You mean like space physics and Nuclear Suns etc?

why wouldnt physics work in space?

I'm not saying they wouldn't work. I'm saying that nobody has been in space to find out what physics works, it's all theory chosen as fact.

what mysterious force keeps rockets from reaching space?

The main one is simple and anything after that doesn't matter really...and that is, we don't have the capabilities to launch a rocket big enough to reach space for starters. We can't get into space by burning it's arse end.

how do you know this for sure? I would love to hear.

The proof is in the launches and the surrounding area of those launches.
Those Saturn V's would be still sitting there if they were as big and heavy as we were told.
Same as the shuttle and every other space rocket.

You clearly don't understand how thrust works then, or how long it actually took to get those rockets off the ground. Scientists didn't suddenly pull a rocket out of their ass that could pass through our atmosphere and into outer space. There were years of testing and years of failure. And before that they were testing jets to attempt to break the sound barrier; many lives were lost in the process. It wasn't an overnight thing. I advise you to check out the movie The Right Stuff: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086197/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1