NASA into space

  • 42 Replies
  • 6295 Views
NASA into space
« on: October 23, 2006, 01:02:09 AM »
The FAQ says the following:

Quote
"Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead"


Now, I've heard the argument "Humans never made it onto the moon". I even read some strong points which tend to confirm this, even though I don't really believe them.

But NASA did send rockets into space and this can easily be checked with a strong telescope on a clear day. While I was still a student, I had the opportunity to watch a launch from the university observatory, together with other students from my astronomy class. The whole point was to watch the rocket leave the atmosphere and go into space.

I would encourage anyone who has this opportunity to do the same and furthermore, I am curious to know how FE'ers can defend their statement, "NASA did not send rockets into space" when this can be easily verified with "earthly" techniques (such as observing launches ourselves)?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
NASA into space
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2006, 01:11:49 AM »
NASA has sent rockets into space.  What those rockets did after that, is the important part.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

NASA into space
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2006, 01:15:34 AM »
It seems that your statement is in contraditction with what your FE fellows believe. The admin of this website (or whoever wrote the FAQ) says that NASA did not go into space.

Now, if they did go into space, then why isn't visual proof of the round earth accepted by FE'ers and rather called fake? I'm pretty sure that if NASA or anyone else could send rockets into space, one of the first things they would do is take pictures of our planet. Why, then, do you assume that the ones we are exposed to are fake?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
NASA into space
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2006, 01:18:51 AM »
Because they show a round earth.  Therefore, they must be fake.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

NASA into space
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2006, 01:39:25 AM »
That makes no sense.

Firstly, dismissing an argument like that is ignorant, since there is no weight behind your words. Furthermore, these types of responses are the reason why wikipedia says that the "FE "science" is written in a tongue-in-cheek style" - meaning "ironically or mockingly; insincerely". I guess you don't believe in science, but rather you are here to write 1-sentence answers and be a smart-ass.

Secondly, if you are in disagreement with the view held by this website, you are not a genuine FE believer and you are weakening the FE "theory" by pointing out that FE'ers are in contradiction with each other.

Lastly, how does the FE theory stand when I point out that your FAQ says, "NASA did not send rockets into space" and you tell me that they did? If the FAQ applies "sometimes" (when it makes your arguments stronger) and it doesn't apply other times (when it weakens your arguments) then clearly there is something wrong with your theory.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
NASA into space
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2006, 12:29:10 PM »
The theory is evolving, that's how science works.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

NASA into space
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2006, 01:00:02 PM »
The faq states this:

Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitiude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.


What if there is a certain altitude, say the altitude at which the sun and the moon orbit above the earth, there is a small region where the force of acceleration is nuetralized by the stars gravitational pull. Although the failure rate may be very high, I would say some rocket payloads may be able to persist in this "sweet spot" for extended periods of time.

NASA into space
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2006, 01:02:41 PM »
The image provided as a mock-up of the earth shows that the lit area resembles a circular area.


NASA into space
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2006, 01:20:59 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
NASA has sent rockets into space.  What those rockets did after that, is the important part.


I take it your implication is that they do not remain in orbit?

Not that anyone every listens to me when I say this, but you can observe on orbit objects from here on Earth.  This includes the shuttle when ever it's up there.  People have photographed both the shuttle and the space station before, and I have personally observed the fact that it is in orbit.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
NASA into space
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2006, 01:24:32 PM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
People have photographed both the shuttle and the space station before, and I have personally observed the fact that it is in orbit.


I have seen airplanes in the sky before.  I've also seen balloons, kites, birds... you name it.  Just because you can see them there doesn't mean they're in orbit around the Earth.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

NASA into space
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2006, 01:32:22 PM »
The topic creator is a paid government agent, sent here to fool the community.  I have proof of this.
img]http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/2904/sigjx5.png[/img]
This has been a public service announcement from The People's Republic of Apocalypto.

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
NASA into space
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2006, 02:47:01 PM »
I believe the argument is that NASA rockets left the atmosphere, re-entered the atmosphere, remained airborne and then came back down to Earth.

Since this means they are essentially high flying planes, they would be cheaper to build and maintain than proper space rockets.

NASA into space
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2006, 03:00:27 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
I have seen airplanes in the sky before.  I've also seen balloons, kites, birds... you name it.  Just because you can see them there doesn't mean they're in orbit around the Earth.


No Erasmus, I have explained this before.  I've used the parallax meathod to calculate the observed objects altitude, and it was far outside both the FE and RE atmospheres.  I will provide details if you like.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

NASA into space
« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2006, 03:04:24 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
People have photographed both the shuttle and the space station before, and I have personally observed the fact that it is in orbit.


I have seen airplanes in the sky before.  I've also seen balloons, kites, birds... you name it.  Just because you can see them there doesn't mean they're in orbit around the Earth.


That is a weird conterargument. You can easily verify if the object reaches the atmosphere by watching it with a telescope, and if that isn't enough just factor in it's speed with the amount of time it spends flying up. You'll know if it reaches outerspace or not. It is very different from watching birds fly.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
NASA into space
« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2006, 05:53:54 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
That is a weird conterargument. You can easily verify if the object reaches the atmosphere by watching it with a telescope, and if that isn't enough just factor in it's speed with the amount of time it spends flying up. You'll know if it reaches outerspace or not. It is very different from watching birds fly.


Both of these methods include an arbitrary scale factor.  Parallax can fix this factor, and even presuming Max is using parallax correctly (I'll just presume that), it still doesn't prove that the objects in question are in orbit.  They might just be flying in big circles high overhead.

Max: what distance did you calculate the objects you saw to be at?
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

NASA into space
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2006, 07:21:35 PM »
Erasmus:  I calculated the satellite (The ISS in this case) to be orbiting at an altitude of 349.7 km +/- 30 km.

According to a NASA tracking site, the actual altitude at the time was 368 kilometers.

Edit:  In addition, if you would like to check over my procedures and mathematics, just ask, and I will provide the raw data.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

*

beast

  • 2997
NASA into space
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2006, 07:29:16 PM »
So if they're lying about the height of the satellite, what else are they lying about?


 :wink:

NASA into space
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2006, 08:45:00 PM »
They're not lying about it, there could be a number of variables why the numbers are off. Also, the difference isn't significant. Theres a 95% accuracy rating so it's close enough

*

beast

  • 2997
NASA into space
« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2006, 09:06:53 PM »
I was making a joke.  I'm sorry that you didn't get it.  It wasn't very funny.  :cry:

NASA into space
« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2006, 12:38:46 AM »
Quote
The theory is evolving, that's how science works.


Sure, theories evolve, but then again they evolve based on something, not just through words thrown around by TheEngineer for no reason and with no basis like "NASA went into space (despite the fact that the FAQ says differently) but they did not take pictures of earth because I say so".


Quote
I have seen airplanes in the sky before. I've also seen balloons, kites, birds... you name it. Just because you can see them there doesn't mean they're in orbit around the Earth.


Quote
They might just be flying in big circles high overhead.


Firstly, If NASA sent cheap planes into space which left the atmosphere and then re-entered it, they would have to refuel in order to fly around continuously for 5 days - 2 weeks until the "fake mission" ended. That would require more fuel on board than the shuttle could carry (remember, once it leaves the atmosphere the shuttle uses fuel a lot more efficiently than planes do, by means of short impulses to accelerate or change direction - this would not be possible within our atmosphere and definitely not for days on end; you can read more about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion).
Secondly, there are many "shuttle" enthusiasts who would observe the shuttles landing and taking off, or simply leaving and entering the atmosphere constantly. NASA wouldn't be able to hide the fact that they aren't orbiting anything.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
NASA into space
« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2006, 12:45:50 AM »
Quote from: "bibicul"
Quote
The theory is evolving, that's how science works.


Sure, theories evolve, but then again they evolve based on something, not just through words thrown around by TheEngineer for no reason and with no basis like "NASA went into space (despite the fact that the FAQ says differently) but they did not take pictures of earth because I say so".

They are not just words.  I've seen three shuttle launches.  I saw the shuttle go very, very high.  Therefore, I have a first hand account that rockets have been into 'space'.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
NASA into space
« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2006, 01:05:53 AM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Erasmus:  I calculated the satellite (The ISS in this case) to be orbiting at an altitude of 349.7 km +/- 30 km.


That's well within the 3000-mile sphere containing the fixed stars.  What makes you so sure this satellite was orbiting around the Earth, instead of just going in very large circles overhead?
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

NASA into space
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2006, 01:06:26 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "bibicul"
Quote
The theory is evolving, that's how science works.


Sure, theories evolve, but then again they evolve based on something, not just through words thrown around by TheEngineer for no reason and with no basis like "NASA went into space (despite the fact that the FAQ says differently) but they did not take pictures of earth because I say so".

They are not just words.  I've seen three shuttle launches.  I saw the shuttle go very, very high.  Therefore, I have a first hand account that rockets have been into 'space'.


We have been into space, get over it.

Douche.
quote="Dogplatter"]
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.  [/quote]


LOL

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
NASA into space
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2006, 01:09:31 AM »
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
We have been into space, get over it.

That's what I just said.  You need to stop eating paste, Yardstick.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

NASA into space
« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2006, 01:22:05 AM »
Then change your FAQ. You are misleading people, since it says that we haven't gone to space. Then explain why pictures of earth from space are false. "Because the earth looks round, they must be fake - because I say so" is not an answer, by the way.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
NASA into space
« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2006, 01:29:28 AM »
Quote from: "bibicul"
Then explain why pictures of earth from space are false. "Because the earth looks round, they must be fake - because I say so" is not an answer, by the way.

Seems like a reasonable answer to me.  The earth is flat, they show pictures of it being spherical - That can only mean the pictures are fake.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

NASA into space
« Reply #26 on: October 24, 2006, 01:31:48 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "bibicul"
Then explain why pictures of earth from space are false. "Because the earth looks round, they must be fake - because I say so" is not an answer, by the way.

Seems like a reasonable answer to me.  The earth is flat, they show pictures of it being spherical - That can only mean the pictures are fake.


Indeed, sometimes I wonder if the round earthers are born retarded. :lol:
he Engineer and GeoGuy are douchebags. Period.

Also, they smell bad.

NASA into space
« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2006, 02:08:25 AM »
Here is a new "rule" set by Mephistopheles, one of your friends and admins on this forum:

Quote
1) Burden of proof - You attempt to prove FE'ers wrong, you require proof. If an FE'er attempts to disprove something in the RE model, then he or she requires proof.


How is "Because the earth looks round in the pictures so they must be fake" reasonable when you have no proof?

NASA into space
« Reply #28 on: October 24, 2006, 07:53:08 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"

That's well within the 3000-mile sphere containing the fixed stars.  What makes you so sure this satellite was orbiting around the Earth, instead of just going in very large circles overhead?


True Erasmus, my experiment does not test for that.

So lets us assume, for the sake of contradiction, that "orbiting" satellites are actually just tracing a circle above the Flat Earth.  Two contradictions are immediately apparent.

1) The satellites path would not be circular.  The ISS is visible at all latitudes between 60 and -60 degrees.  Here is a good demonstration of how this works in the RE.  

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/tracking/index.html

And remember, the ISS can be seen from the Earth, so we know this path is legitimate.  I fail to see how such an orbital path could be accomplished on a FE.

2) This experiment can disprove the belief that the celestial sphere is only 3000 miles away.  The ISS only orbits at about 200 miles, there are satellites that orbit well above 3000 miles.  Geostationary satellites orbit at about 20,000 miles.  These satellites are much harder to observe, but it can be done in principle.

If I performed this experiment with a satellite that orbited higher then 3000 miles, would anyone accept that as evidence?




On a related matter,

"The Earth is flat, photos showing it to be round must be fake."  


Is a no more valid argument than:

"The Earth is round, all FE'ers must be lying"


To prove the photographs illegitimacy, you must provide evidence other than the shape of the Earth.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

NASA into space
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2006, 02:19:50 AM »
Makes sense completely.