Orbits

  • 16 Replies
  • 4040 Views
Orbits
« on: May 11, 2014, 09:24:40 AM »
So, we clearly have artificial satellites. I don't want to hear arguments about this piece.

Now, how do you get into orbit? What happens past a certain place? Is it just hovering limbo or something? Like a point above a plane just suspended there? What DOES keep it there?
P.S. This is basically one question.

Next problem: To get into orbit, you burn up, forming a sort of parabola right? Then, at the apoapsis (Highest point of parabola/orbit) you burn straight ahead, (If this were a flat earth, you would be burning in the direction parallel to the earth)
AKA prograde. This achieves a stable orbit.

These are very well known orbital mechanics. If you paid enough, you could see them in action. But if not, here's a video

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

If you debate how this is a government cover-up, fine. But I don't see how it is.

So, now, the question. How is this possible with a flat earth?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 09:33:00 AM by CubedCubie »

*

V

  • 304
  • icosatetrachoron
Re: Explain me this
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2014, 10:18:24 AM »
FEers will always claim satellites are nonexistent. You can do nothing about that.
i don't need a signature. go away.

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Orbits
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2014, 12:05:02 PM »
You will hear all sorts if stupid ideas. One I heard is "yes there are rockets but no space rockets". Another one is: "there is no air for the engines to run.". In the end not one FE'ers has ever seen one go up so it does not exist. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Orbits
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2014, 04:42:34 AM »
You will hear all sorts if stupid ideas. One I heard is "yes there are rockets but no space rockets". Another one is: "there is no air for the engines to run.". In the end not one FE'ers has ever seen one go up so it does not exist.
Nobody has seen one go up into space, not just flat Earthers. There is nothing in that sky that is man made, higher than about 100,000 feet and I'm being generous here.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Orbits
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2014, 04:54:02 AM »
So, we clearly have artificial satellites. I don't want to hear arguments about this piece.

Why would you put this in the Debate section if you do not want to debate about your topic?  This makes no sense. 


Now, how do you get into orbit? What happens past a certain place? Is it just hovering limbo or something? Like a point above a plane just suspended there? What DOES keep it there?
P.S. This is basically one question.

I would give you an answer, but I don't want to upset you by causing an argument in the debate section.  ::)

Next problem: To get into orbit, you burn up, forming a sort of parabola right? Then, at the apoapsis (Highest point of parabola/orbit) you burn straight ahead, (If this were a flat earth, you would be burning in the direction parallel to the earth)
AKA prograde. This achieves a stable orbit.

The astronaughts burn up as they enter orbit?  This is very confusing. 


These are very well known orbital mechanics. If you paid enough, you could see them in action. But if not, here's a video

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

They can do amazing things with CGI these days.


If you debate how this is a government cover-up, fine. But I don't see how it is.

So, now, the question. How is this possible with a flat earth?

I am still trying to figure out why you would make a post in the debate section and then say that you do not want any arguments. 

?

blnjms

  • 162
  • Just another RE'er
Re: Orbits
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2014, 12:12:53 PM »
You will hear all sorts if stupid ideas. One I heard is "yes there are rockets but no space rockets". Another one is: "there is no air for the engines to run.". In the end not one FE'ers has ever seen one go up so it does not exist.
Nobody has seen one go up into space, not just flat Earthers. There is nothing in that sky that is man made, higher than about 100,000 feet and I'm being generous here.

Scepti, I hope that one day you see the light. Your know-it-all attitude is disturbing. I may not have been into space but neither have you, but I cannot dismiss all the evidence for RE and space travel and satellites and such. No matter what anyone of you says.

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Orbits
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2014, 03:01:49 PM »
You will hear all sorts if stupid ideas. One I heard is "yes there are rockets but no space rockets". Another one is: "there is no air for the engines to run.". In the end not one FE'ers has ever seen one go up so it does not exist.
Nobody has seen one go up into space, not just flat Earthers. There is nothing in that sky that is man made, higher than about 100,000 feet and I'm being generous here.
It is interesting that people all around the world can see the ISS on a precise time all the time and you say satellites don't exist. I can tell you exactly when it will pass over your area for months ahead of time. Maybe it is a baby moon.

Re: Orbits
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2014, 04:26:50 PM »
You will hear all sorts if stupid ideas. One I heard is "yes there are rockets but no space rockets". Another one is: "there is no air for the engines to run.". In the end not one FE'ers has ever seen one go up so it does not exist.
Nobody has seen one go up into space, not just flat Earthers. There is nothing in that sky that is man made, higher than about 100,000 feet and I'm being generous here.

So when I get my telescope out and look at the International space station. What is it that you think I'm looking at?

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Orbits
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2014, 04:52:07 PM »
You will hear all sorts if stupid ideas. One I heard is "yes there are rockets but no space rockets". Another one is: "there is no air for the engines to run.". In the end not one FE'ers has ever seen one go up so it does not exist.
Nobody has seen one go up into space, not just flat Earthers. There is nothing in that sky that is man made, higher than about 100,000 feet and I'm being generous here.

So when I get my telescope out and look at the International space station. What is it that you think I'm looking at?
Also that is predictable.

?

Goth

  • 220
Re: Orbits
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2014, 03:28:24 AM »
"America's biggest rocket"   Launched a spy satellite  from Southern California!

This gets my vote as the phoniest looking rocket launch ever.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">America's biggest rocket blasts spy satellite into space
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 05:03:32 AM by Goth »

Re: Orbits
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2014, 04:06:17 AM »
"America's biggest rocket" launched a spy satellite yesterday from Southern California!

This gets my vote as the phoniest looking rocket launch ever.

Yesterday? I think you're confused, I don't think there was any launch yesterday.
Anyway, incredulity argument over and over, never any evidence.
I have yet to see evidence that Lunar Eclipses even exist.  Have you ever seen one?

?

Goth

  • 220
Re: Orbits
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2014, 05:20:00 AM »
I know Bravimore, it's mad, isn't it? The thermosphere info is easily available on the net as well.

What it all shows is that with just a few hours of internet searches over a couple of evenings you can destroy an entire promotional concept that we all previously accepted.

The problem is, this kind of research is new to me and it amazes me that I hadn't bothered to look before. We all finish work, go home, prepare to eat, eat, and then relax in what ways we can, then go to bed. A little bit of research like this takes effort and the concept that "they are lieing to us" has to be accepted first as well I suppose.

That can be the only reason why I think most others don't know of the complete NASA bullshit.

I'm with you as well on the heliocentric nonsense. That is a ludicrous theory if you take it apart. I have my own theories on what the sun, moon and stars are really (no idea about "planets" and celestial "movement" though), but it will take me a little time to organize the evidence and speculations into something more concrete and understandable. When I mentioned the theory to my wife she looked at me like I was a complete imbecile, but heh

Re: Orbits
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2014, 07:34:31 AM »
I know Bravimore, it's mad, isn't it? The thermosphere info is easily available on the net as well.

What it all shows is that with just a few hours of internet searches over a couple of evenings you can destroy an entire promotional concept that we all previously accepted.

The problem is, this kind of research is new to me and it amazes me that I hadn't bothered to look before. We all finish work, go home, prepare to eat, eat, and then relax in what ways we can, then go to bed. A little bit of research like this takes effort and the concept that "they are lieing to us" has to be accepted first as well I suppose.

That can be the only reason why I think most others don't know of the complete NASA bullshit.

I'm with you as well on the heliocentric nonsense. That is a ludicrous theory if you take it apart. I have my own theories on what the sun, moon and stars are really (no idea about "planets" and celestial "movement" though), but it will take me a little time to organize the evidence and speculations into something more concrete and understandable. When I mentioned the theory to my wife she looked at me like I was a complete imbecile, but heh

Awesome... sceptimatic the 2nd. You'll fit in around here.

I must say, I laugh at how you FE's have seemingly thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, people and politician lies, yes there are real conspiracies, but that doesn't mean that all of science is based on lies and subterfuge. There is simply no connection there whatsoever and no one on this forum has come close to connecting the (non-existent) dots let alone substantiate anything. Science is what it is because it is repeatable, verifiable and refutable. We are where we are today in a technological sense because the laws of physics work and are not in any way based on guesses or baseless assumptions like everything FE's post on this forum.

Calling RE'ers 'indoctrinated' about science is truly nonsensical. Science isn't static; it is constantly evolving. That, in and of itself, says that dogma plays no part in science, nor does subterfuge. Nothing that is put forward as a hypothesis is considered above reproach and will never be blindly accepted. Where in all of this do you come to the conclusion that this is all smoke and mirrors, and someone at sometime decided to conceal the truth about the shape of the earth and the nature of the universe and managed to convince everyone that it was a good idea (for some unknown reason)? Not only that, but to keep this charade going generations into the future..

This, too, is all long before space travel. Why would they even bother with 'space travel' in the first place? Why not simply say space is inaccessible and leave it at that? It would save them faking space rockets, public rocket launches, footage of astronauts experiencing zero-g in orbit, faked moon landings, the endless charade of astronauts whom they need to lie until they die, countless shopped photos/footage and still they have to fudge hours of live footage of the ISS every single day... the list goes on and on.

Yea... I can certainly see that it really is all 'nonsense'.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Orbits
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2014, 11:44:19 AM »
I'm with you as well on the heliocentric nonsense. That is a ludicrous theory if you take it apart. I have my own theories on what the sun, moon and stars are really (no idea about "planets" and celestial "movement" though), but it will take me a little time to organize the evidence and speculations into something more concrete and understandable.

It's invariably amusing that many flat earthers repeatedly make claims almost identical to this, but then never follow through with "taking apart" heliocentrism, or "organising" and subsequently posting their "evidence".

These grandiose claims inevitably get lost in the following tsunami of comments, never to be seen again LOL.
 

Re: Orbits
« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2014, 11:03:28 PM »
I want to know if orbiting is possible too.  I imagine that's what happened in the Apollo missions when it came to going to the moon.  Given the fact that satellites don't exist, it seems like it is impossible.  Whatever is in orbit would require a source of propellent, because there are molecules of air in space (NASA bullshit).  I don't know if orbiting is something real, but the truth might actually be that it is not possible.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Orbits
« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2014, 06:55:22 PM »
I want to know if orbiting is possible too.  I imagine that's what happened in the Apollo missions when it came to going to the moon.  Given the fact that satellites don't exist, it seems like it is impossible.  Whatever is in orbit would require a source of propellent, because there are molecules of air in space (NASA bullshit).  I don't know if orbiting is something real, but the truth might actually be that it is not possible.

Uh... you do understand that man-made satellites are in effect identical to the earth's major satellite the moon don't you, and both orbit in precisely the same way and for the same reasons.  Or do you think that the moon has some sort of propulsive device requiring a "propellent"?

But if you truly "want to know if orbiting is possible too" then you only have to look at the moon to prove it is.

Re: Orbits
« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2014, 06:05:39 PM »
So, we clearly have artificial satellites. I don't want to hear arguments about this piece.

Why would you put this in the Debate section if you do not want to debate about your topic?  This makes no sense. 


Now, how do you get into orbit? What happens past a certain place? Is it just hovering limbo or something? Like a point above a plane just suspended there? What DOES keep it there?
P.S. This is basically one question.

I would give you an answer, but I don't want to upset you by causing an argument in the debate section.  ::)

Next problem: To get into orbit, you burn up, forming a sort of parabola right? Then, at the apoapsis (Highest point of parabola/orbit) you burn straight ahead, (If this were a flat earth, you would be burning in the direction parallel to the earth)
AKA prograde. This achieves a stable orbit.

The astronaughts burn up as they enter orbit?  This is very confusing. 


These are very well known orbital mechanics. If you paid enough, you could see them in action. But if not, here's a video

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

They can do amazing things with CGI these days.


If you debate how this is a government cover-up, fine. But I don't see how it is.

So, now, the question. How is this possible with a flat earth?

I am still trying to figure out why you would make a post in the debate section and then say that you do not want any arguments.



Yes, astronauts burn up in orbit because of the velocity they're travelling. Whether or not they're going parallel, or flying in circles, velocity creates heat, and heat causes that burning effect.


Man, so CGI must be so advanced that it actually looks real now. Oh wait.


Burden of Proof.

1. The obligation to prove one's assertion.