Clearing up a misconception...

Hello all- I've been lurking for a while on this forum but never made an account until now, when I noticed just how prevalent conspiracy theories are against space programs such as NASA and the ESA. I am here to clarify that as far as can be accurately determined, they are, in fact, legitimate agencies bringing humans to space. The misconception lies in the thought that because they seek to prove the earth is round, they must be evil organizations covering up the truth. The fact of the matter is, however, these agencies merely believe that the earth is round because of how their understanding of orbital mechanics works. In reality, flat-earth orbital mechanics is quite similar to round-earth orbital mechanics, but with some crucial differences that I shall go over after describing the basic launch profile of a space-bound rocket.

---

• Step 1: Launch!
  Image: Space Shuttle taking off
  
  
  The rocket begins it's vertical ascent. This is important, as it must clear the ground before it can safely begin the next step.
• Step 2: Gravity Turn
  Image: Rocket performing the beginnings of a gravity turn
  
  
  This is the part of the flight where the rocket pitches over. Round-earth orbital mechanics suggest that the rocket is starting to gain horizontal speed, but in reality, it is cancelling it's horizontal speed given to the rocket at launch by the rotating earth. This is a long process that consumes a lot of fuel, so most rockets begin this part of the flight very shortly after takeoff, and progressively increase the angle with the vertical.
• Step 3: Velocity Cancellation
  Image: Space shuttle performing orbital burn (Sorry for the low quality image, it's really hard to find good images of this! The key thing to realize here is that the rocket is parallel with the ground, pointing retrograde)
  
  
  In this last stage of ascent, the rocket is completely horizontal, cancelling it's horizontal speed given to it by the earth. In order to stay in orbit, it must cancel all of this velocity! This is what makes spaceflight really hard to achieve--Many nations have sent crafts to space, but only very few have sent large payloads into orbit above our flat world. You'll also hear of things like the ISS 'boosting' it's orbit- This is due to two factors. Primarily, it's impossible to 100% completely cancel every single small little movement in the craft, and realistically as it moves around (orienting, and as humans move within it, etc.), it will drift from having a velocity of 0 m/s. This can cause the earth to slowly pull the station into a downward helix, something that NASA obviously wants to prevent. Therefore, every 6 months, they re-boost the craft back up, cancelling the downward spiral and maintaining the spacecraft in orbit.

I hope that answers briefly some of the confusion surrounding this point, these space agencies are legitimate and have done great things, but simply have a wrong understanding of the Earth's topology that happens to work in orbit.

But, it hought gravity wasn't a thing in the FE model?

I am impressed with the research that has been done here. Just to clarify one thing, I'd like to point out that the orbital mechanics as defined by the quantum theory of a hyperzoratic particle motion approximates the same path you've mentioned. Are you sure the that the cancellation of horizontal speed comes from the Helical Orbit Phenomenon described, but not specifically mentioned by you?

I am impressed with the research that has been done here. Just to clarify one thing, I'd like to point out that the orbital mechanics as defined by the quantum theory of a hyperzoratic particle motion approximates the same path you've mentioned. Are you sure the that the cancellation of horizontal speed comes from the Helical Orbit Phenomenon described, but not specifically mentioned by you?

You have no idea about orbital mechanical. He is describing retrograde for descent. The shuttle must be horizontal to do that.
The gravity turn is not that at all. The shuttle will make a correction after launch to get on the programed orbit. If there is a delay in launch hey have to make a bigger correction which is hard on the structure of the shuttle. That is why they have a 10 minute window. After that the earth has rotated too much for the shuttle to make a correction.

The reboost is because is very small air friction that slows down the ISS. here is a link.http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?100512-What-happens-during-an-ISS-reboost

But, it hought gravity wasn't a thing in the FE model?

This is an alternate theory that's been proposed recently. Gravity is a very, very weak force, being 32 orders of magnitude less strong than, say, the magnetic or static-electric force, which explains why it wasn't accounted for until recently in FE theories. Do also remember that FE theories are a new branch of science, and as such it is rapidly developing with multiple interpretations of what it means. I am sure that soon enough, a unified theory will emerge nicely describing our viewpoint, and this is my effort to move this cause forward.

I am impressed with the research that has been done here. Just to clarify one thing, I'd like to point out that the orbital mechanics as defined by the quantum theory of a hyperzoratic particle motion approximates the same path you've mentioned. Are you sure the that the cancellation of horizontal speed comes from the Helical Orbit Phenomenon described, but not specifically mentioned by you?

Thank you for the compliment! Of course I slimmed down my explanation a bit, to make sure that it was easy to understand, and I intend to answer questions as they come up. Obviously the motion does match that of a hyperzoratic particle, but the helical orbit explanation is a good simplification (up to a certain degree, of course).

Quote from: Science on March 31, 2014, 07:13:23 PM

I am impressed with the research that has been done here. Just to clarify one thing, I'd like to point out that the orbital mechanics as defined by the quantum theory of a hyperzoratic particle motion approximates the same path you've mentioned. Are you sure the that the cancellation of horizontal speed comes from the Helical Orbit Phenomenon described, but not specifically mentioned by you?

You have no idea about orbital mechanical. He is describing retrograde for descent. The shuttle must be horizontal to do that.
The gravity turn is not that at all. The shuttle will make a correction after launch to get on the programed orbit. If there is a delay in launch hey have to make a bigger correction which is hard on the structure of the shuttle. That is why they have a 10 minute window. After that the earth has rotated too much for the shuttle to make a correction.

The reboost is because is very small air friction that slows down the ISS. here is a link.http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?100512-What-happens-during-an-ISS-reboost

First and foremost, "Orbital Mechanics," not "orbital mechanical." Secondly, you seem to have a wrong definition of 'retrograde' Retrograde is NOT specific to descent, or even orbits. ALL objects not at rest have a Prograde vector, being their velocity, and a Retrograde vector, being the negative of their velocity. To cancel your velocity, move retrograde until there is no longer any velocity to cancel, and you are at rest.

Also, what you call a 'gravity turn' is wrong in both RE AND FE theories of orbital mechanics. Gravity turns are meant to change the spacecraft's horizontal speed without introducing significant stress on the spacecraft's structure or sacrificing efficiency, both of which being very important to pay attention to when going to space. And as to the earth rotating 'too much,' this isn't actually a thing. The orbit of the earth doesn't magically change the resulting orbit, everything is in terms of when you left the pad, not when the launch was set to begin.

FINALLY, I would like to point out that the presence of air in low Earth orbit isn't relevant to this argument, because it neither disproves nor proves FE or RE theories. Please try and make relevant arguments instead of spewing unrelated facts that aren't really contested by either side.

I am impressed with the research that has been done here. Just to clarify one thing, I'd like to point out that the orbital mechanics as defined by the quantum theory of a hyperzoratic particle motion approximates the same path you've mentioned. Are you sure the that the cancellation of horizontal speed comes from the Helical Orbit Phenomenon described, but not specifically mentioned by you?

Perhaps you should look up what quantum means. Also maybe not make up words.

Yes, I remember this shuttle. This was the first ever lift off of a shuttle wasn't it, where they done a spiffing paint job on the main tank, then realising it was to be jettisoned and discarded, then realised how much weight the paint was, so they kept the tank rusty.
Not long after, they realised that the tank was filled with hydrogen and couldn't be rusty, so they added in the pretence of rusty looking FOAM covering the full tank.
The whole thing is a scam. The Russians made one called the Buran, which they apparently launched once and decided not to do any more. Weirdly enough, the space shuttle is a carbon copy of it apart from the tanks attached.

Taking off like that and going into a turn not long after would render the space craft , not a space craft, because there's no way it's going anywhere outside of Earth.
Why you people can't see this scam for what it is, will forever surprise me. The genuine people I mean. Not those put in place to keep up this pathetic ruse.

The shuttle is a scam just like every other space rocket in history.

I am impressed with the research that has been done here. Just to clarify one thing, I'd like to point out that the orbital mechanics as defined by the quantum theory of a hyperzoratic particle motion approximates the same path you've mentioned. Are you sure the that the cancellation of horizontal speed comes from the Helical Orbit Phenomenon described, but not specifically mentioned by you?

You are a spoof character, aren't you?

Oh, and DeltaV - good effort!

DeltaV, step 2 and 3 in your OP imply that the earth rotates westward at a linear velocity (at Cape Canaveral) of about 28,000km/h. I'm sure you can see the problems this poses.

DeltaV, step 2 and 3 in your OP imply that the earth rotates westward at a linear velocity (at Cape Canaveral) of about 28,000km/h. I'm sure you can see the problems this poses.

Is this a problem? What makes it so? I'd be interested to see your proof.

Oh, and DeltaV - good effort!

Thanks!

Quote from: Scintific Method on April 01, 2014, 03:18:40 AM

DeltaV, step 2 and 3 in your OP imply that the earth rotates westward at a linear velocity (at Cape Canaveral) of about 28,000km/h. I'm sure you can see the problems this poses.

Is this a problem? What makes it so? I'd be interested to see your proof.

It depends on what earth shape you believe in. If you go for the bipolar flat model, then the earth can have no rotation anyway. If you favour the monopole model, then a rotational speed as high as is implied would have people in Florida leaning northward by about 45° due to the centripetal acceleration of almost 1g, and people further south would be even worse off. If you also go with the sun orbiting above the earth, it would have to be circling westward at nearly 30,000km/h to maintain a 24 hour day/night cycle (and that's just around either equinox, this speed would be even higher in December). If you can show me why these are not problems, I would be quite interested.

'retrograde' Retrograde has two meanings. If the shuttle want to do a decent burn it will point the shuttle 180 degrees of the direction of motion. This is called retrograde.   
If you look up "orbital mechanical" it will refer to "orbital mechanics". If the shuttle wants to orbit a particular inclination it has to do so at a predetermine window and then do the proper correction just after launch to achieve the desired orbit. The horizontal direction is part of the launch profile. It will start that very soon after launch. If you want to practice all of this I suggest you try: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/ It is all there.You can run all the shuttle missions.

It depends on what earth shape you believe in. If you go for the bipolar flat model, then the earth can have no rotation anyway. If you favour the monopole model, then a rotational speed as high as is implied would have people in Florida leaning northward by about 45° due to the centripetal acceleration of almost 1g, and people further south would be even worse off. If you also go with the sun orbiting above the earth, it would have to be circling westward at nearly 30,000km/h to maintain a 24 hour day/night cycle (and that's just around either equinox, this speed would be even higher in December). If you can show me why these are not problems, I would be quite interested.

I'd love to hear what you think the bipolar flat model is, as that makes 0 sense to me (I've never heard that before). But also, you're forgetting centrifugal acceleration. Centrifugal acceleration counteracts the centripedal acceleration caused by the rotating earth. It's hard to observe at really small scales as there's a lot of other forces interacting on the objects, and that's what's led to the common misconception that centrifugal acceleration is a 'false force.'

'retrograde' Retrograde has two meanings. If the shuttle want to do a decent burn it will point the shuttle 180 degrees of the direction of motion. This is called retrograde.   
If you look up "orbital mechanical" it will refer to "orbital mechanics". If the shuttle wants to orbit a particular inclination it has to do so at a predetermine window and then do the proper correction just after launch to achieve the desired orbit. The horizontal direction is part of the launch profile. It will start that very soon after launch. If you want to practice all of this I suggest you try: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/ It is all there.You can run all the shuttle missions.

"If the shuttle want to do a decent burn it will point the shuttle 180 degrees of the direction of motion. " This is exactly what I just said. Pretty much verbatim. "ALL objects not at rest have a Prograde vector, being their velocity, and a Retrograde vector, being the negative of their velocity". Learn to read.

Also, the only reason "Orbital Mechanics" shows up when you google "orbital mechanical" is because of Google's auto-correct. That doesn't mean it's actually right.

Finally, again, you're not saying anything at all related, you've brought in a broken video game simulator based on broken physics and a bad understanding of orbital mechanics. Please, make actual arguments if you wish to even begin to successfully argue a point.

Here is what I found on retrograde:

A retrograde orientation is one that has the ship facing in the opposite direction from its direction of travel in its orbit.
A retrograde burn is one in that direction, i.e. that subtracts from the ship's orbital speed.
The effect of a retrograde burn is to lower the orbit's altitude (opposite the ship's current location); it is thus used when approaching a planet or moon and assuming a closed orbit, or when landing.

By the way the orbiter software was written by a NASA. It is not intended to be a game but an actual simulation.

Orbiter was developed by Dr. Martin Schweiger, a senior research fellow in the computer science department at University College London,

Here is what I found on retrograde:

A retrograde orientation is one that has the ship facing in the opposite direction from its direction of travel in its orbit.
A retrograde burn is one in that direction, i.e. that subtracts from the ship's orbital speed.
The effect of a retrograde burn is to lower the orbit's altitude (opposite the ship's current location); it is thus used when approaching a planet or moon and assuming a closed orbit, or when landing.

By the way the orbiter software was written by a NASA. It is not intended to be a game but an actual simulation.

You're not stating anything new. I said EXACTLY this earlier. Seriously, you're arguing that my definition is wrong by proving that your supposedly correct definition is exactly the same as mine. It makes no sense. You REs don't accept evidence as factual and just continue on blocking out the truth because it 'isn't approved'.

Also,

"Copyright © 2000-2012 Martin Schweiger"
"UCL Medical Physics"
The game is made by a single person working at the University College of London Medical Physics School. The UCL is a London University. Neither Martin Schweiger nor UCL have ANY affiliation with NASA whatsoever.

Orbiter was developed by Dr. Martin Schweiger, a senior research fellow in the computer science department at University College London,

Again, you're agreeing with me while at the same time arguing I'm wrong.

DeltaV:

RE orbital mechanics is something I understand quite well, so -frankly- I'm surprised to see it here; I thought the party line was just to say that all spaceflight was a scam. That said, tell me if I've understood you correctly:

The flat earth is spinning rapidly (around the north pole?), so what we think of as reaching orbital velocity is actually just coming to rest with respect to the north pole? The surface of the flat earth then rotates rapidly below our spacecraft which is what astronauts and satellites see when they look down.

Assuming that's the gist of what you're saying:

• Why is it we don't experience the centrifugal force of the rapidly spinning flat earth here on the ground?
• What prevents the flat earth accelerating up into our spacecraft? How does it hang in the sky rather than falling?
• Why are orbital ground tracks not all parallel lines of latitude as it seems they would be if you have a satellite at rest and the ground spinning below like a dinner plate? I'm sure you're aware that they aren't.

Quote from: Starman on April 11, 2014, 06:39:37 PM

Here is what I found on retrograde:

A retrograde orientation is one that has the ship facing in the opposite direction from its direction of travel in its orbit.
A retrograde burn is one in that direction, i.e. that subtracts from the ship's orbital speed.
The effect of a retrograde burn is to lower the orbit's altitude (opposite the ship's current location); it is thus used when approaching a planet or moon and assuming a closed orbit, or when landing.

By the way the orbiter software was written by a NASA. It is not intended to be a game but an actual simulation.

You're not stating anything new. I said EXACTLY this earlier. Seriously, you're arguing that my definition is wrong by proving that your supposedly correct definition is exactly the same as mine. It makes no sense. You REs don't accept evidence as factual and just continue on blocking out the truth because it 'isn't approved'.

Also,

"Copyright © 2000-2012 Martin Schweiger"
"UCL Medical Physics"
The game is made by a single person working at the University College of London Medical Physics School. The UCL is a London University. Neither Martin Schweiger nor UCL have ANY affiliation with NASA whatsoever.

I made a mistake on his affiliation with NASA. It has bee a while since I used it. Either way your first description was confusing and I wanted to clarify it a bit.