Re-Entering Earth's Atmosphere

When the Space Shuttle is returning to Earth, why does it look as if it is re-entering the atmosphere, when according to FE, it never leaves it?


If satellites do not orbit the Earth, what am I seeing in orbit, moving in straight lines at night, which when I view them through my telescope, look strangely like satellites?  You can even see them without a telescope.  So far, I don't think anyone has answered this question, but rather, try to completely avoid it.

i agree.

This question HAS been avoided. I have brought it up several times. I have personally seen the space shuttle in orbit, as well as the ISS. Soon this thread will sink down, with FE'ers saying "Read the FAQ," when the FAQ doesn't answer this question.

bump..........

When the Space Shuttle is returning to Earth, why does it look as if it is re-entering the atmosphere,

What does this look like?  Fire?  C'mon, you know as well as I do that mankind has been able to make fire since at least the 70s.  If Tom Hanks can do it, so can NASA.

do you believe the Russians have made it to space?... i think your communist.

do you believe the Russians have made it to space?... i think your communist.

The Russians?  I don't know.  They're very secretive.

Also, my communist what?

Quote from: "Cheech6"

do you believe the Russians have made it to space?... i think your communist.

The Russians?  I don't know.  They're very secretive.

Also, my communist what?

Ah HA!

it's cuz this organization's a farse... they know it's not real but they push it to the max b/c it's fucking hilarious

Quote from: "troy2000"

When the Space Shuttle is returning to Earth, why does it look as if it is re-entering the atmosphere,

What does this look like?  Fire?  C'mon, you know as well as I do that mankind has been able to make fire since at least the 70s.  If Tom Hanks can do it, so can NASA.

That doesn't even have anything to do with the question.

That doesn't even have anything to do with the question.

Yes it does, it means that creating an effect that would look like a shuttle re-entering the atmosphere would be relatively easy.

That doesn't even have anything to do with the question.

Well, I asked what reentry looks like to you, and speculating on a possible description, gave an explanation.  So I think it has everything to do with the question.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

That doesn't even have anything to do with the question.

Well, I asked what reentry looks like to you, and speculating on a possible description, gave an explanation.  So I think it has everything to do with the question.

You are talking about the fac tthat man has known how to make fire for a long time. Which has nothing to do with observing reentry. You can follow the trajectory until whatever the object you're looking at lands. The Tom Hanks comment was illogical and served no purpose, neither did the fire comment.

Ever see Apollo 13? Wait to completely not get the reference.


~D-Draw

Ever see Apollo 13? Wait to completely not get the reference.


~D-Draw

Aollo 13 is a movie, we all know Tom hanks didn't do anything close to a reentry.

You are talking about the fac tthat man has known how to make fire for a long time. Which has nothing to do with observing reentry. You can follow the trajectory until whatever the object you're looking at lands. The Tom Hanks comment was illogical and served no purpose, neither did the fire comment.

...

Okay sorry my mind was temporarily numbed by that response.  I'll just repeat the question I guess: what is the visible property of some flight trajectories which indicates that they are reentries rather than just somebody flying something someplace?

Even when a question is most of the main post, FE'ers will STILL refuse to answer it  :roll: .  Could any FE'er answer my second question?

I don't understand the logic at all.  If we pretend round Earth theory is correct for a minute - space shuttles don't heat up because they're re-entering the Earth's atmosphere - they heat up because they're going really fast through air - which also slows them down.  To explain the same phenomenon in FEism I would say that the obvious answer is that they don't go out of the atmosphere but they do speed up to go really fast - but only have enough power to sustain this for a short period of time.  The other explanation would be that they are a hoax and don't heat up at all - I have never seen this happen with my own eyes.

Regarding satellites -  They could be flying machines with very set paths?  If the conspiracy is capable of hiding the shape of the Earth they probably have technology advanced enough to make a little metal box fly around in circles above the Earth.

I don't understand the logic at all.  If we pretend round Earth theory is correct for a minute - space shuttles don't heat up because they're re-entering the Earth's atmosphere - they heat up because they're going really fast through air - which also slows them down.  To explain the same phenomenon in FEism I would say that the obvious answer is that they don't go out of the atmosphere but they do speed up to go really fast - but only have enough power to sustain this for a short period of time.  The other explanation would be that they are a hoax and don't heat up at all - I have never seen this happen with my own eyes.

Regarding satellites -  They could be flying machines with very set paths?  If the conspiracy is capable of hiding the shape of the Earth they probably have technology advanced enough to make a little metal box fly around in circles above the Earth.

OK, that has got to be the most hillarious answer on the whole forum  :wink: .  And i think this may disprove it:

1: Observe the satellite for a few seconds and you will see it fading out as it enters the Earths shadow.  If it were a small metal box, how would it be visible at all, when as FE'ers have already stated, the sun is a spotlight?  Unless you are saying that they have lights attatched to them, which would ofcourse run out after a while.

2: There are experiments to show that the satellite is actually in orbit.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

You are talking about the fac tthat man has known how to make fire for a long time. Which has nothing to do with observing reentry. You can follow the trajectory until whatever the object you're looking at lands. The Tom Hanks comment was illogical and served no purpose, neither did the fire comment.

...

Okay sorry my mind was temporarily numbed by that response.  I'll just repeat the question I guess: what is the visible property of some flight trajectories which indicates that they are reentries rather than just somebody flying something someplace?

I'm not sure what you mean by "visible property" or what it has to do with Tom Hanks. And it would be repeating if it was a question that had been previously asked.

If a shuttle achieves reentry, it's hull will heat up, but it won't be on fire.

And Like I said, you can follow the trajectory until whatever the object you're looking at is, lands, so you don't need to take anyone else's word that it was a shuttle. You seem to have missed that sentence somehow.

I'm not sure what you mean by "visible property"

A property.... that you can see.

If a shuttle achieves reentry, it's hull will heat up,

And how do you know that it has heated up?  Now I'm going to jump ahead a little so just bear with me: do you think there might be other reasons for the shuttle heating up, besides reentry?

space shuttles don't heat up because they're re-entering the Earth's atmosphere - they heat up because they're going really fast through air

explain to me the difference between these two statments again.

the space shuttle and most other things we fling into orbit still have some atomosphere between them and space. Yet that bit atmosphere is so thin that it has no effect on the spacecraft's trajectory, therefore the shuttle can remain in powerless flight for the duration of a mission unless a course correction is neccessary. when the thrusters are fired to begin the reentry process, the shuttle begins to descend into the thicker layers of the atmoshpere. at this point the shuttle is moving approx 5 mi/sec, and a trumrendous ammount of friction builds up and the shuttle begins to flare up like a fire ball. the friction also slows it down as the shuttle remians in powerless flight througout the duration of this phase of this mission.

 

what is the visible property of some flight trajectories which indicates that they are reentries rather than just somebody flying something someplace?

download the footage of the columbia disaster. it looks similiar to that.

... the shuttle begins to flare up like a fire ball.

...

download the footage of the columbia disaster. it looks similiar to that.

So it sounds like the answer to my question is: it looks like fire.

Quote from: "semperround"

... the shuttle begins to flare up like a fire ball.

...

download the footage of the columbia disaster. it looks similiar to that.

So it sounds like the answer to my question is: it looks like fire.

Don't be dissing on the fire, man.  It's some cool looking stuff.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

I'm not sure what you mean by "visible property"

A property.... that you can see.

Quote

If a shuttle achieves reentry, it's hull will heat up,

And how do you know that it has heated up?  Now I'm going to jump ahead a little so just bear with me: do you think there might be other reasons for the shuttle heating up, besides reentry?

you can follow the trajectory until whatever the object you're looking at is, lands, so you don't need to take anyone else's word that it was a shuttle.
An object on fire does not look like fire. It looks like that object on fire.

Quote from: "semperround"

... the shuttle begins to flare up like a fire ball.

...

download the footage of the columbia disaster. it looks similiar to that.

So it sounds like the answer to my question is: it looks like fire.

i fail to see how your average camp fire looks like a fireball streaking across the sky at supersonic velocities, but to each his own.

i fail to see how your average camp fire looks like a fireball streaking across the sky at supersonic velocities, but to each his own.

Good point!  Luckily I didn't include the descriptors "average" or "camp" in my comparison, eh?

Anyway, I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth; I don't know where those words have been.

Good point!  Luckily I didn't include the descriptors "average" or "camp" in my comparison, eh?

Anyway, I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth; I don't know where those words have been.

if you don't use descriptive words, then how the hell am i supposed to know? i think most people wouldn't describe something that looks like a shooting star as fire. i was just trying to help you understand.

Bumpity.

Quote from: "beast"

I don't understand the logic at all.  If we pretend round Earth theory is correct for a minute - space shuttles don't heat up because they're re-entering the Earth's atmosphere - they heat up because they're going really fast through air - which also slows them down.  To explain the same phenomenon in FEism I would say that the obvious answer is that they don't go out of the atmosphere but they do speed up to go really fast - but only have enough power to sustain this for a short period of time.  The other explanation would be that they are a hoax and don't heat up at all - I have never seen this happen with my own eyes.

Regarding satellites -  They could be flying machines with very set paths?  If the conspiracy is capable of hiding the shape of the Earth they probably have technology advanced enough to make a little metal box fly around in circles above the Earth.

OK, that has got to be the most hillarious answer on the whole forum  :wink: .  And i think this may disprove it:

1: Observe the satellite for a few seconds and you will see it fading out as it enters the Earths shadow.  If it were a small metal box, how would it be visible at all, when as FE'ers have already stated, the sun is a spotlight?  Unless you are saying that they have lights attatched to them, which would ofcourse run out after a while.

2: There are experiments to show that the satellite is actually in orbit.

1:  Are you trying to prove that the Earth is round?  As I said, if we begin with the assumption that the Earth is flat and then try to disprove it - as is normal scientific method, then I think it is entirely logical to assume that people capable of convincing the entire world that the flat Earth is actually round are capable of building flying boxes with lights on them.

2.  I really fail to see how this statement offers any kind of support for anything, especially your statement that it will "disprove" what I wrote.  You can't win arguments by telling people that a good argument for what you're saying exists - you actually have to present the good argument.  There may indeed be experiments that show satellites actually orbit but until you actually present those experiments what evidence that your statement is correct have you actually presented?

Quote from: "beast"

space shuttles don't heat up because they're re-entering the Earth's atmosphere - they heat up because they're going really fast through air.

explain to me the difference between these two statments again.

The difference is that it's not the fact that they're re-entering the atmosphere that makes them heat up - it's the fact that they're travelling really fast through the air.

The question was

When the Space Shuttle is returning to Earth, why does it look as if it is re-entering the atmosphere, when according to FE, it never leaves it?

And my response is that even in RE theory it's not re-entering the atmosphere that is what you see - you only see a change once the Space Shuttle has already entered the atmosphere - after re-entry and not on re-entry.  So in terms of disproving FEism, this suggestion fails because you only get the phenomenon when you are inside the atmosphere.  So the space shuttle doesn't have to leave the atmosphere for you to see the same event - it just needs to be travelling at a particular speed.