REs Please Explain

  • 331 Replies
  • 54116 Views
*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #300 on: July 03, 2014, 03:46:23 PM »
Can't wait until you understand what AusGeoff actually said.
Can't wait until you understand that people can't go to "space".
Can't wait until you understand the difference between "going to space" and "staying in space".
I do. Your point?


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45115
  • +87/-130
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #301 on: July 03, 2014, 06:58:09 PM »
Can't wait until you understand what AusGeoff actually said.
Can't wait until you understand that people can't go to "space".
Can't wait until you understand the difference between "going to space" and "staying in space".
I do. Your point?
Then perhaps you don't understand that most FE'ers concede that there is nothing stopping people from briefly "going to space".  They do, however, contend that people can't "stay in space" for any significant length of time.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

guv

  • 1132
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #302 on: July 03, 2014, 07:14:56 PM »
The space wing commander only asked which way the earths axis points, why all this dribble. It is an easy question.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #303 on: July 04, 2014, 06:15:26 AM »

Geoff, I find your posts to be worded very nicely.
Thank you.  I try to do my best.

Quote
I also find that you often have very poor points in counter to others.
That's your prerogative.

Quote
Those people have only allegedly been in "space".
Nope.  According to their own personal evidence and eye-witness accounts, they actually have been into space—as it's defined by contemporary astrophysicists.  Or are you suggesting that these 500+ people are all lying?  Or that they're all part of some bizarre conspiracy?  At any rate, nobody has "alleged" they've been into space; the irrefutable evidence proves the actuality.

Quote
Right now you're arguing that my point is moot because 500 flat Earth enthusiasts have not been in space.
Correct.  And until such time as at least one flat earther travels into space, and captures at least one photographic image of the purported flat earth, it stands.


*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #304 on: July 05, 2014, 12:09:29 PM »
Can't wait until you understand what AusGeoff actually said.
Can't wait until you understand that people can't go to "space".
Can't wait until you understand the difference between "going to space" and "staying in space".
I do. Your point?
Then perhaps you don't understand that most FE'ers concede that there is nothing stopping people from briefly "going to space".  They do, however, contend that people can't "stay in space" for any significant length of time.
Ahhh. Semantics. Fun.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #305 on: July 05, 2014, 05:49:00 PM »

Ahhh. Semantics. Fun.

As you're so keen on semantics thermometer, and as you've claimed to understand the alleged difference between "going to space" and "staying in space", could you please explain what the differences are (in your opinion)?

As I understand it, going to space entails a lot more than simply reaching orbital altitude for a couple of hours, and then dropping back to earth.  It means staying in space (or thermosphere)—in low earth orbit—for weeks and/or months at a time, as per the ISS.

I also note that you often use the "semantics" call to either support your arguments or refute those of other people.  You seem to use the term reciprocally as the occasion suits you.


?

Macpie

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #306 on: July 07, 2014, 04:17:15 AM »
As you're so keen on semantics thermometer, and as you've claimed to understand the alleged difference between "going to space" and "staying in space", could you please explain what the differences are (in your opinion)?

As I understand it, going to space entails a lot more than simply reaching orbital altitude for a couple of hours, and then dropping back to earth.  It means staying in space (or thermosphere)—in low earth orbit—for weeks and/or months at a time, as per the ISS.

Well, Geoff, I think what he means by these terms is, as follows:

1. going to space - reaching a high enough altitude, regardless of it being above a round or flat Earth. An arbitrary level. It should be possible in both cases. Simply to show we have the technology to reach a stable orbit should the Earth be round. You know, the propulsion systems, life support etc.

2. staying in space - staying there for any long period of time. In RE model it involves reaching a stable orbit by increasing your horizontal velocity until you move fast enough to "miss" the Earth on the way down. It would be absolutely impossible in FE model, as there is nothing to orbit. So the vessel would have to maintain an upwards thrust to overcome the gravity/FE acceleration. It is basically hovering while the fuel lasts. The same could be done on RE and FE alike, but we have no technology to build such an engine - the fuel would be wasted very quickly. And please, FEs, don't tell me such a device exists but is top-top-top-...-secret.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #307 on: July 07, 2014, 03:23:22 PM »

Ahhh. Semantics. Fun.

As you're so keen on semantics thermometer, and as you've claimed to understand the alleged difference between "going to space" and "staying in space", could you please explain what the differences are (in your opinion)?

As I understand it, going to space entails a lot more than simply reaching orbital altitude for a couple of hours, and then dropping back to earth.  It means staying in space (or thermosphere)—in low earth orbit—for weeks and/or months at a time, as per the ISS.

I also note that you often use the "semantics" call to either support your arguments or refute those of other people.  You seem to use the term reciprocally as the occasion suits you.
So you think that going and staying are the same thing?
"Space" is generally recognized to be an altitude of 100 km+.
I'm sure it's possible that someone has gone to space, but it's not a place you can go to stay.
You'd probably see the flat Earth for a few minutes, and then drop right back down. (Rather, the Earth would catch you.)
I called semantics, because that's what it was. I was using "going to space" in the round Earth sense. As in, when you go to space, generally you don't come back down for awhile on a round Earth.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #308 on: July 08, 2014, 06:02:33 AM »

You'd probably see the flat Earth for a few minutes, and then drop right back down.

Fair enough.  So why haven't any of your purported "flat earth astronauts" managed to snap a few images of your flat earth during those few minutes?

You're also implying that it'd take a "few minutes" for the upwards accelerating flat earth to meet the stationary space capsule.  How could this be when the capsule is only 100km from the surface of the flat earth at its highest point?  Wouldn't the time be measured in nanoseconds?  How could the earth take measurable minutes to travel only 100km through space?


?

Macpie

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #309 on: July 08, 2014, 06:54:08 AM »
ausGeoff, it is not 100km movement through space to be covered by Earth, it is a 100km difference in positions of Earth and the spaceship, just like in RE model. The FErs seem to agree that the net "downwards" acceleration relative to the surface is about 10/s^2, whether it comes from gravity or from Earth accelerating upwards. The spaceship speeds up during launch, then slows down to match the Earth's speed through space at the highest point above the surface.

In RE it then starts to fall down, accelerating. In FE, the Earth keeps accelerating, catching up to an ALREADY MOVING spaceship, while there is nothing to accelerate the spaceship. Therefore the apparent effect is similar, the time it takes the spaceship to hit Earth would be almost exactly similar in both cases.

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #310 on: July 08, 2014, 07:06:33 AM »
I still don't understand how planes work with UA.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #311 on: July 08, 2014, 07:32:26 AM »
I still don't understand how planes work with UA.
Bendy LightTM  and PerspectiveTM::)
They really aren't in the air, perspective and bendy light cause them to appear as though they were in the air.  We have just always been lied to by the ConspiracyTM

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #312 on: July 08, 2014, 08:24:02 AM »
ausGeoff, it is not 100km movement through space to be covered by Earth, it is a 100km difference in positions of Earth and the spaceship, just like in RE model. The FErs seem to agree that the net "downwards" acceleration relative to the surface is about 10/s^2, whether it comes from gravity or from Earth accelerating upwards. The spaceship speeds up during launch, then slows down to match the Earth's speed through space at the highest point above the surface.

In RE it then starts to fall down, accelerating. In FE, the Earth keeps accelerating, catching up to an ALREADY MOVING spaceship, while there is nothing to accelerate the spaceship. Therefore the apparent effect is similar, the time it takes the spaceship to hit Earth would be almost exactly similar in both cases.

Uh... no.  A man-made satellite is designed to orbit the earth at a specific altitude in a pre-determined trajectory.  The satellite doesn't necessarily "match" the earth's speed of rotation unless it's placed in a geostationary orbit.  Earth isn't "accelerating upwards".

I think you might be conflating flat earth hypotheses with round earth astrophysics?  Or fanciful thinking with empirical evidence?


*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #313 on: July 08, 2014, 10:47:29 AM »
I still don't understand how planes work with UA.
Aetheric stuff or something.

I hope that has cleared that up.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

Macpie

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #314 on: July 08, 2014, 11:18:51 AM »
ausGeoff, it is not 100km movement through space to be covered by Earth, it is a 100km difference in positions of Earth and the spaceship, just like in RE model. The FErs seem to agree that the net "downwards" acceleration relative to the surface is about 10/s^2, whether it comes from gravity or from Earth accelerating upwards. The spaceship speeds up during launch, then slows down to match the Earth's speed through space at the highest point above the surface.

In RE it then starts to fall down, accelerating. In FE, the Earth keeps accelerating, catching up to an ALREADY MOVING spaceship, while there is nothing to accelerate the spaceship. Therefore the apparent effect is similar, the time it takes the spaceship to hit Earth would be almost exactly similar in both cases.

Uh... no.  A man-made satellite is designed to orbit the earth at a specific altitude in a pre-determined trajectory.  The satellite doesn't necessarily "match" the earth's speed of rotation unless it's placed in a geostationary orbit.  Earth isn't "accelerating upwards".

I think you might be conflating flat earth hypotheses with round earth astrophysics?  Or fanciful thinking with empirical evidence?

I perfectly understand basic orbital mechanics involved at this level, don't worry about that. I was not talking about any types of satellites, my post was about sub-orbital flight, with no relevant horizontal movement. The "matching" of speeds referred to vertical movement.

I was talking about thermometer's post saying that ""Space" is generally recognized to be an altitude of 100 km+. I'm sure it's possible that someone has gone to space, but it's not a place you can go to stay. ", as his definition of going to space seems to revolve around reaching a specific altitude by going straight up away from the surface, and your reply about FE smashing into a stationary right after it stopped mid-air(or mid-space, depending how you word it), from 06:02:33 AM.

As on a FE spaceships do not need any tangent velocity component(unlike on a RE where it is the most important detail of achieving a stable orbit), I think thermometer pictures "getting to space" as launching a rocket vertically, without changing its course. As xkcd described it here, "Getting to space is easy. The problem is staying there". You seem to mix the terms. If you launched a rocket straight up, or even fired it out of some massive cannon, it would behave exactly the same regardless of the shape of the world. There would be no "Earth smashing into the "stationary space capsule" nanoseconds later", as you have pictured it a while ago. No type of mechanics, orbital or not, works such way.

*

TokyoRoyalty

  • 12
  • +0/-0
  • Theoretical Physics major at MIT
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #315 on: July 08, 2014, 06:56:46 PM »
The two diagrams right above and below each other on that Wikipedia page do NOT show where the Sun is at all relative to the diagram of the Earth. If both of those diagrams showed the Sun as being on the left, there would be an inconsistency. But since the Sun is not depicted, the diagrams are drawn from two different perspectives in space.

Also, even IF there was something wrong with a diagram depicting some kind of science, that has no bearing WHATSOEVER on whether or not the thing being depicted is true or not. There's a higher chance that someone didn't know the actual science of what they were drawing, rather than the entire science being some kind of made up fiction.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #316 on: July 09, 2014, 12:19:32 AM »

If you launched a rocket straight up, or even fired it out of some massive cannon, it would behave exactly the same regardless of the shape of the world.

Nope.  The launching rocket's trajectory has to factor in the Coriolis effect on the spherical earth in order to attain the intended orbital path of the satellite it carries.  And its effect is more or less pronounced depending on what latitude the launch occurs.



And, more importantly, the Coriolis effect doesn't apply to any flat earth model.


?

Macpie

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #317 on: July 09, 2014, 12:28:38 AM »
You are completely missing the point here, aren't you? Care to explain what you mean by "You're also implying that it'd take a "few minutes" for the upwards accelerating flat earth to meet the stationary space capsule.  How could this be when the capsule is only 100km from the surface of the flat earth at its highest point?  Wouldn't the time be measured in nanoseconds?  How could the earth take measurable minutes to travel only 100km through space?"?
In some cases some of you seem to be as stubborn in willful ignorance and misunderstanding as the FErs.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #318 on: July 09, 2014, 01:05:59 AM »
You are completely missing the point here, aren't you?
Nope.  The flat earthers have yet to explain what repellent forces are causing the sun, the moon, man-made satellites, weather balloons, and even clouds to remain at a constant altitude above the continuously "upwards" motion of their flat earth's surface.


Quote
Care to explain what you mean by "You're also implying that it'd take a "few minutes" for the upwards accelerating flat earth to meet the stationary space capsule.
That wasn't my initial claim.

It was th3rm0m3t3r0 who said "You'd probably see the flat Earth for a few minutes, and then drop right back down. Rather, the Earth would catch you.



?

Macpie

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #319 on: July 09, 2014, 02:40:19 AM »

It was th3rm0m3t3r0 who said "You'd probably see the flat Earth for a few minutes, and then drop right back down. Rather, the Earth would catch you.

Yes, I know it was him who said that. And, aside from the "flat" part and what would drop to/catch what, I pretty much agree with him. Why do you say it wouldn't be a few minutes, but a much, much shorter time, until the ship and ground collide again?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #320 on: July 09, 2014, 03:25:48 AM »

Yes, I know it was him who said that. And, aside from the "flat" part and what would drop to/catch what, I pretty much agree with him. Why do you say it wouldn't be a few minutes, but a much, much shorter time, until the ship and ground collide again?

It's not so much a question of the time involved until the earth and the satellite collide.  It's more a question of why they'd ever collide (and in fact don't, obviously), and what repellant force keeps an orbiting man-made satellite from colliding with the earth.

Presumably, if you agree with any part of thermometer's bizarre pseudo-science, then you're not a round earther?


?

Macpie

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #321 on: July 09, 2014, 04:43:14 AM »
I am. How could I not be if some of my main fields of interest(after industrial chemistry, if that is the correct English term for it) are orbital mechanics and astronomy?

I agree with his statement that if you sent a ship straight up, it would reach some altitude determined by launch speed(if it was shot out of some kind of a cannon), engines thrust(if it was a rocket) etc, and then, unless powered, drop down to Earth, almost exactly vertically, accelerating downwards at about 9,81m/s^2. Even on our round Earth this holds true - if a vessel doesn't reach enough horizontal velocity relative to the ground, it will drop down to Earth. Even if it went as high as, for example, the Moon's orbital altitude. Maybe it would miss Earth by a tiny bit due to Earth's orbit around the Sun placing it in a place slightly different from where it was during the ascent. But on a few hours flight it would be irrelevant.

We are not talking about reaching a stable orbit here, nothing about satellites, just about getting high enough to be able to clearly see whether Earth is flat or round. A few thousand km above the ground is enough to see the roundness pretty clearly, and at around 57k km you can see 45% of the globe at once - almost as much as it can get. Meaning you can pick up your camera, point it down and take a photo of "the Big Blue Marble". You seem to claim such trip would be impossible on a flat Earth(other than the obvious thing that on a flat Earth such a photo would be not possible to look like it did on RE). I disagree and try to explain to you why it is perfectly possible. What is the problem here?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45115
  • +87/-130
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #322 on: July 09, 2014, 08:23:18 AM »
The flat earthers have yet to explain what repellent forces are causing ...
Actually, they have (sorta).

Quote
the sun, the moon...
Universal acceleration/Aether winds.

Quote
man-made satellites...
Fakes.

Quote
weather balloons, and even clouds to remain at a constant altitude above the continuously "upwards" motion of their flat earth's surface.
As the earth accelerates upwards, it pushes the atmoplane up with it and normal buoyant forces act as expected.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #323 on: July 10, 2014, 06:23:28 AM »
What is the problem here?

You're conflating the ungoverned trajectories of ballistic missiles with the controlled trajectory of rocket-powered spacecraft.  Two totally different principles.


?

Macpie

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #324 on: July 10, 2014, 07:07:38 AM »
What is the problem here?

You're conflating the ungoverned trajectories of ballistic missiles with the controlled trajectory of rocket-powered spacecraft.  Two totally different principles.

Yet it is you who seemingly insist that what I have posted as a possible way to take a high altitude photo of Earth is for some reason NOT possible. Why is that? If the mission's goal is to take a picture from far away, at which point would my plan fail? Other than it might be fuel inefficient.

?

lolzomgz1337

  • 14
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #325 on: July 12, 2014, 02:19:22 PM »
There are no directions in space. It tilts relative to it's own orbit.

?

guv

  • 1132
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #326 on: July 13, 2014, 06:45:31 PM »
Found something, it will fake cause it comes from nasty NASA.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/04feb_wobble/

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #327 on: July 13, 2014, 11:54:29 PM »
The satanists at NASA come up with all kinds of ploys to divert your attention.  You people just lap it up, like a kitten with a saucer of cream.  I feel sorry for you. 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #328 on: July 14, 2014, 09:16:10 AM »
The satanists at NASA come up with all kinds of ploys to divert your attention.  You people just lap it up, like a kitten with a saucer of cream.  I feel sorry for you.

Rather than wasting your time "feeling sorry" for round earthers jroa, you should spend a bit more time researching our geophysical and astrophysical models—and comparing how they comply with every observable and replicable phenomena on earth with those suggested by the flat earth model.

The flat earth hypothesis is sorely lacking in any empirical data that explains myriad naturally occurring phenomena on our planet or in the skies.  It's also lacking in any support whatsoever from the scientific fraternity.  And again, no flat earther on this forum has been able to name even a half dozen accredited scientists who accept that the earth is (allegedly) flat.  Why not?

From my standpoint, I consider it's the round earthers who should be feeling sorry for the flat earthers—judging by the obvious lack of scientific knowledge repeatedly displayed on these forums.  One of the reasons I post stuff here is in an attempt to at least get some flat earthers to consider—even for a nanosecond—that their flat earth model could be wrong, or that a lot of the round earth theory does make sense.

Intellectual inflexibility and  dogmatic opinion inevitably blind one to the ultimate truth.  Consider Galileo's heliocentric model and the Roman Inquisition as a classic example of this.  (Although I know that flat earthers still consider that the sun orbits the earth, rather than the other way around.)




?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: REs Please Explain
« Reply #329 on: July 14, 2014, 09:19:19 AM »
The satanists mods at NASA the FES forums come up with all kinds of ploys to divert your attention.  You people just lap it up, like a kitten with a saucer of cream.  I feel sorry for you.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?