« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

More Conspiracy!

  • 56 Replies
  • 11117 Views
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2006, 09:02:03 PM »
Both of you calm down.

Erasmus (or GeoGuy), could you be more specific about what is accepted by most FEers?

I have been operating under the assumption that FEers believed it was impossible for satellites to exist because you cannot orbit a flat disk.  Then Erasmus said that was not true, but didn't provide any details.

So, what do most FEers believe?  Could you have an orbiting/circling observatory in the FE?  Or must the data from Hubble be faked?
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

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

beast

  • 2997
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2006, 09:05:30 PM »
I think just like some round Earthers believe that gravity is caused by the Earth's magnetic field (and lets be honest, that's at least as improbable a belief as believing that the Earth is flat), I think there is obviously some variety of opinion about how the flat Earth works.  We don't all think exactly the same things...  :shock:
Logged
?

Jveritas8

  • 158
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2006, 09:06:22 PM »
http://www.spacedaily.com/images/hubble-ultradeep-desk-1280.jpg

Whether you think it's real or fake, that's one of the coolest pictures I've ever seen 8-)
Logged
he earth is a giant frisbee being thrown around the universe by George Bush and Zeus.
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2006, 09:08:38 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
FEism asserts that "satellites" are not things in orbit around the Earth.  It doesn't assert that you can't have telescopes in space[...]


Those statements seem inherently contradictory.  The only way to have a telescope in space is to put in orbit.

Well, maybe not.  I guess, theoretically, you could mount a telescope on a ballistic missile, which would leave the atmosphere, but never technically be in orbit; but I don't think you're implying something like that (?)
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

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

GeoGuy

More Conspiracy!
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2006, 09:08:53 PM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"


I have been operating under the assumption that FEers believed it was impossible for satellites to exist because you cannot orbit a flat disk.  Then Erasmus said that was not true, but didn't provide any details.

So, what do most FEers believe?  Could you have an orbiting/circling observatory in the FE?  Or must the data from Hubble be faked?


I believe Erasmus is saying that, although "satellites" don't exist, the objects you see flying across the night sky could actually be some kind of high flying craft that serve the same purpose as satellites, without actually orbiting Earth.
Logged
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2006, 09:12:31 PM »
No, I take it back.  The balistic missle thing is even more ridiculus then I thought.  The image Jveritas8 posted is the Hubble Ultra-Deep field, which was photographing objects so dim it to took several weeks worth of exposure time to capture them.

(Deleted)
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

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

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2006, 09:19:44 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
I believe Erasmus is saying that, although "satellites" don't exist, the objects you see flying across the night sky could actually be some kind of high flying craft that serve the same purpose as satellites, without actually orbiting Earth.


Well, GeoGuy, although an aircraft might be able to serve the same function as a comunications satelite, there is no way any aircraft could serve the function of an orbiting observatory like Hubble.  It's quite just impossible.

Hubble is photographing things that are so distant, and so faint, that any atmosphere would completelly drown them out.  The only way to get those photographs is to get significantlly outside of the atmosphere.  Something an aircraft couldn't do.

So GeoGuy, is it fair for me to assume that you can't have an observatory in space in the FE model?
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

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

GeoGuy

More Conspiracy!
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2006, 09:24:06 PM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"

Well, GeoGuy, although an aircraft might be able to serve the same function as a comunications satelite, there is no way any aircraft could serve the function of an orbiting observatory like Hubble.  It's quite just impossible.

Hubble is photographing things that are so distant, and so faint, that any atmosphere would completelly drown them out.  The only way to get those photographs is to get significantlly outside of the atmosphere.  Something an aircraft couldn't do.


I didn't say aircraft. It may actually be possible to leave Earth's atmosphere in the FE model.

Quote
So GeoGuy, is it fair for me to assume that you can't have an observatory in space in the FE model?


I doubt having something like the Hubble would be possible on a FE. But I honestly don't know.
Logged
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2006, 09:30:34 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
I didn't say aircraft. It may actually be possible to leave Earth's atmosphere in the FE model.


Well, okay.  But just remember that once something leaves the FE atmosphere, it's no longer in indirect contact with the UA.  As you have said before, aircraft can fly in FE because the atmosphere is being pushed by the Earth, but once you're in space, you'll need to find some other way to avoid crashing to the ground.

Quote from: "GeoGuy"
I doubt having something like the Hubble would be possible on a FE. But I honestly don't know.


Erasmus, what do you think?  Remember, if Hubble isn't aloud in FE, then you have no direct evidence for the existence of the dark energy phenomena that may be powering the UA.
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

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

GeoGuy

More Conspiracy!
« Reply #39 on: November 17, 2006, 09:39:33 PM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"

Well, okay.  But just remember that once something leaves the FE atmosphere, it's no longer in indirect contact with the UA.  As you have said before, aircraft can fly in FE because the atmosphere is being pushed by the Earth, but once you're in space, you'll need to find some other way to avoid crashing to the ground.


Oh of course. But I imagine that accelerating yourself in a vacuum would be easier than doing so in the atmosphere because you don't have to worry about air resistance. It would just mean that "Satellites" have to come down to refuel at some point in time, which is perfectly plausible, since they don't stay in one field of view for more than a few minutes at most.
Logged
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2006, 10:07:41 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Oh of course. But I imagine that accelerating yourself in a vacuum would be easier than doing so in the atmosphere because you don't have to worry about air resistance. It would just mean that "Satellites" have to come down to refuel at some point in time, which is perfectly plausible, since they don't stay in one field of view for more than a few minutes at most.


I think that is asking a bit much.  There are hundreds if not thousands of satellites visible to the naked eye.  And each one is visible twice during its orbit (Whenever it passes the day/night line on the RE.)  I don't think it's possible for someone to pull off that many launches without someone noticing.

If I were a FEer, I would just find someway for the UA to apply to "orbiting" objects and be done with it.

But anyway, that alone is enough for FE to require that Hubble be a hoax. Hubble often takes photographs that require it to stay locked on a single target for several weeks at a time, and landing every few minutes is, needless to say, not an option.
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

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

Joseph Bloom

  • 114
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #41 on: November 18, 2006, 02:10:16 AM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Defeat to what?


The FAQ is canon therefore Hubble does not exist and there is no such thing as dark matter.
Logged
he Engineer and GeoGuy are douchebags. Period.

Also, they smell bad.
?

GeoGuy

More Conspiracy!
« Reply #42 on: November 18, 2006, 05:33:12 AM »
Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"

... therefore Hubble does not exist and there is no such thing as dark matter.


We never discussed a single one of those things.

Quote
The FAQ is canon


Didn't I just tell you that the FAQ is FE canon?
Logged
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #43 on: November 18, 2006, 08:11:04 AM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"

... Therefore Hubble does not exist and there is no such thing as dark matter.


We never discussed a single one of those things.


Nevertheless, Joseph is more or less correct.

The Chandra x-ray telescope, another orbiting observatory, recently directly observed dark matter.  It was an incredible find.  Here is the publication:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608408

And here is a non-technical summary:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/

Read it!  It's an incredible discovery!

But in FE, no orbiting observatories, no Chandra X-ray telescope, no direct evidence of dark matter.

And no Hubble, no direct evidence of dark energy.
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

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

GeoGuy

More Conspiracy!
« Reply #44 on: November 18, 2006, 08:19:19 AM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"


Nevertheless, Joseph is more or less correct.


Yes, but Joseph said "So you're admitting defeat." And, since we hadn't ever talked about anything like that, it would be relatively impossible for me to admit having been defeated by it.
Logged
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #45 on: November 18, 2006, 08:47:13 AM »
Of course GeoGuy.

I was just pointing out that if FE does not allow orbiting telescopes, then Joseph was correct about the lack of evidence for dark matter as well as dark energy.
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

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

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
  • +1/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #46 on: November 18, 2006, 09:59:01 AM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"

I was just pointing out that if FE does not allow orbiting telescopes, then Joseph was correct about the lack of evidence for dark matter as well as dark energy.


Actually, Joseph didn't just say there was a lack of evidence, he said if Hubble doesn't exist then dark energy doesn't exist.
Kind of a non-sequitur if you ask me.
Logged
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.
?

Xargo

  • 670
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #47 on: November 18, 2006, 10:17:24 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Erasmus, are you saying that, according to FE, it is possible to launch a "satellite" into a circular path above the Earth, like the sun and the moon?


No.


If the sun and moon is orienting over the flat earth, it's logical that satellites could do the same. Explain why they couldn't.
Logged
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0
?

rr332211

  • 46
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #48 on: November 18, 2006, 01:35:46 PM »
Quote from: "Xargo"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Erasmus, are you saying that, according to FE, it is possible to launch a "satellite" into a circular path above the Earth, like the sun and the moon?


No.


If the sun and moon is orienting over the flat earth, it's logical that satellites could do the same. Explain why they couldn't.
Because the sun and the moon can't do that.  What force would even make them do that?  What pushes them in a path so...unnatural, and keeps them there?

Wrong, the answer is nothing.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #49 on: November 18, 2006, 01:50:31 PM »
Since when is a circle unnatural?
Logged


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

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #50 on: November 18, 2006, 02:08:22 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Since when is a circle unnatural?


In FE, the suns path isn't a circle.  Far from it.

Remember, by FEs own admission:

The radius of the suns path must change in order for us to have seasons.

It must have a changing velocity for us to get things like solar/true time discrepancies.

It must be accelerating upward with the Earth.

Taken together, its path really resembles something like an unusually warped helix.  Not exactly natural.
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

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

Stapler117

  • 33
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #51 on: November 18, 2006, 02:11:56 PM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Since when is a circle unnatural?


In FE, the suns path isn't a circle.  Far from it.

Remember, by FEs own admission:

The radius of the suns path must change in order for us to have seasons.

It must have a changing velocity for us to get things like solar/true time discrepancies.

It must be accelerating upward with the Earth.

Taken together, its path really resembles something like an unusually warped helix.  Not exactly natural.


How can even the FE'ers accept that nonsense? I just don't understand how they can believe it so easily, it boggles the mind.
Logged
?

Xargo

  • 670
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #52 on: November 19, 2006, 11:28:45 PM »
Would anyone answer my question?
Why can't a satellite travel in the same way as the moon and sun?
Logged
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0
?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16894
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #53 on: November 19, 2006, 11:32:08 PM »
Who says they can't?  It's more expensive to manage such projects, but it is possible.
Logged
Quote from: PizzaPlanet on March 24, 2011, 11:05:27 AM
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET
?

Xargo

  • 670
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #54 on: November 19, 2006, 11:39:34 PM »
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Who says they can't?  It's more expensive to manage such projects, but it is possible.


Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Erasmus, are you saying that, according to FE, it is possible to launch a "satellite" into a circular path above the Earth, like the sun and the moon?


No.
Logged
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0
?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16894
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #55 on: November 19, 2006, 11:46:59 PM »
According to FE.  I'm not arguing for FE.
Logged
Quote from: PizzaPlanet on March 24, 2011, 11:05:27 AM
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET
?

Xargo

  • 670
  • +0/-0
More Conspiracy!
« Reply #56 on: November 19, 2006, 11:53:06 PM »
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Who says they can't?


Just answered your question.
Logged
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »