Ask me About DET!

Again, aether is all space, not a vacuum. You can't twist the theory to make it apply to only empty space. I've given you the answer, I'm not sure why you're trying to push that idea.

Because just before you said that disc's aren't aether. And if all space including ocucpied space is aether then how can there ever be no aether space as you say is near equator. And that is also why I compared it to empty space. Because aether disappears when two solid objects touch each other. Or at least it seems to be case if you look how these disc touch each other firmly at equator. Its kind of mystery how places with aether and without aether are indistinguishable from each other.

If we cross the equator, shouldn't we get a flash of light through the center of the earth where the sun actually is?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67964.msg1820264#msg1820264
The light would only be present for an infinitesimal amount of space. There's just no time for you to register it (and it'd be infinitesimally small for that matter).

Because just before you said that disc's aren't aether. And if all space including ocucpied space is aether then how can there ever be no aether space as you say is near equator. And that is also why I compared it to empty space. Because aether disappears when two solid objects touch each other. Or at least it seems to be case if you look how these disc touch each other firmly at equator. Its kind of mystery how places with aether and without aether are indistinguishable from each other.

The discs aren't composed of aether, they're composed of matter, but that matter occupies a point in aether(ie: it occupies space). Doesn't make them the same thing.
Space can be stretched thin under the model, that's what happens at the equator. When it's stretched thin, there's no distance, and so limited room for matter to exist in.
You can't directly detect the amount of aether in your vicinity because you occupy space. You occupy the same amount of space no matter how stretched that space is. You'd only be able to directly detect how the concentration varies in limited circumstances.
Aether doesn't disappear when objects touch each other. When there's no aether, there's no distance between the objects, by definition. Like I mentioned before, you're mixing up cause and effect.

Quote from: zork on September 10, 2016, 02:56:37 PM

Because just before you said that disc's aren't aether. And if all space including ocucpied space is aether then how can there ever be no aether space as you say is near equator. And that is also why I compared it to empty space. Because aether disappears when two solid objects touch each other. Or at least it seems to be case if you look how these disc touch each other firmly at equator. Its kind of mystery how places with aether and without aether are indistinguishable from each other.

The discs aren't composed of aether, they're composed of matter, but that matter occupies a point in aether(ie: it occupies space). Doesn't make them the same thing.
Space can be stretched thin under the model, that's what happens at the equator. When it's stretched thin, there's no distance, and so limited room for matter to exist in.

So matter occupies space but at equator there is matter but no aether. How? I really can't wrap my head around it.

Aether doesn't disappear when objects touch each other. When there's no aether, there's no distance between the objects, by definition. Like I mentioned before, you're mixing up cause and effect.

  So, two objects touching each other and two cases. There is aether because aether doesn't disappear when objects touch each other. And there is no aether  because there's no distance between the objects. Which one it really is?

So matter occupies space but at equator there is matter but no aether. How? I really can't wrap my head around it.

You're over-complicating. Near the equator there's a regular amount of land and aether etc, nothing special. Just over the other side there's the same thing. It's only the crossing where there's no aether, and so no matter, but there's no distance covered so you don't notice. If there's no aether, there's no space, there cannot be matter.

  So, two objects touching each other and two cases. There is aether because aether doesn't disappear when objects touch each other. And there is no aether  because there's no distance between the objects. Which one it really is?

Depends if you want to get into semantics.
Think of it like water. You have two objects in water. You move them so they touch. There's no water between the objects because it doesn't fit, though you could arguably say there's still water all around. If you take a zero distance, nothing's going to fit inside it, nothing special.
Generally though, aether's everywhere. Move objects apart, it's there. Move objects until they touch, it's there.
Removing aether would reduce the distance between objects, but that's a one-way relationship. Reducing the distance between objects doesn't affect the aether, unless you want to get technical like in the water case.

Intikam, can I join your list ?
It seems like everyone cool already's in it, and I sure am no hipster.

Quote from: zork on September 10, 2016, 03:41:41 PM

So matter occupies space but at equator there is matter but no aether. How? I really can't wrap my head around it.

You're over-complicating. Near the equator there's a regular amount of land and aether etc, nothing special. Just over the other side there's the same thing. It's only the crossing where there's no aether, and so no matter, but there's no distance covered so you don't notice. If there's no aether, there's no space, there cannot be matter.

 I don't overcomplicate, you do. My case is simple - no aether, no matter. But in equator there is no aether but there is matter. And then you come and start overcomplicate and are being inconsistent. At least in my opinion.

Quote

  So, two objects touching each other and two cases. There is aether because aether doesn't disappear when objects touch each other. And there is no aether  because there's no distance between the objects. Which one it really is?

Depends if you want to get into semantics.
Think of it like water. You have two objects in water. You move them so they touch. There's no water between the objects because it doesn't fit, though you could arguably say there's still water all around. If you take a zero distance, nothing's going to fit inside it, nothing special.
Generally though, aether's everywhere. Move objects apart, it's there. Move objects until they touch, it's there.
Removing aether would reduce the distance between objects, but that's a one-way relationship. Reducing the distance between objects doesn't affect the aether, unless you want to get technical like in the water case.

Water case is simple. Water is one thing objects are other things. There is no water between objects but there is water around objects. But aether is everything so the water example doesn't fit quite well. Its more like you have two pieces of water inside water and you move these two pieces of water inside water so close that there is no water between two pieces of water. Does that makes sense?

I don't overcomplicate, you do. My case is simple - no aether, no matter. But in equator there is no aether but there is matter. And then you come and start overcomplicate and are being inconsistent. At least in my opinion.

Again, you're overcomplicating. Don't just assume what I'm saying's wrong. I did very clearly say no aether means no matter, stop pushing for the opposite like you were doing before.
As I explained, that's not how it works at the equator. If, by the equator, you mean the infinitesimally thin line that's the exact divide between north and south, then there's no aether there, and no matter. That's true. In the vicinity of the equator, in the area around that line, there is aether, and is matter.
You're conflating the two things. When people refer to the equator, they generally refer to an actual area. It's easier to talk about it like that. But the actual equator is just a 1-D line. There is no aether there (or rather, a negligible amount). That's where the matter ends.

Though, regardless, this whole idea of zero aether doesn't mean anything because it doesn't happen at any point. Like I said, it's just a simpler way of phrasing than constantly saying negligible amounts. There is aether for the crossing of the equator, just such a small amount it's negligible. The implication of zero aether = no matter is true, but also irrelevant as it doesn't occur anywhere.
There's no matter at the equator, but that's nothing directly to do with how much aether's there, it's just the shape of the Earth.

Water case is simple. Water is one thing objects are other things. There is no water between objects but there is water around objects. But aether is everything so the water example doesn't fit quite well. Its more like you have two pieces of water inside water and you move these two pieces of water inside water so close that there is no water between two pieces of water. Does that makes sense?

Aether isn't everything, aether is only space. Space isn't the same as matter. Ultimately it's just distance. if there's zero distance between two objects, there's zero aether, but that's just semantics really. That doesn't mean the objects had any effect on aether. Again, i used the water analogy for a reason, don't just assume what I said has to be wrong. After all, we're talking about the distance between two objects, not two blobs of aether (if that even means anything).

Oh NOOOOOOOO, they got Jane!  They infected Jane with the DET virus.  There is no known cure.  Sad times are ahead. 

Oh NOOOOOOOO, they got Jane!  They infected Jane with the DET virus.  There is no known cure.  Sad times are ahead.

You can probably blame REers, they voted for it.

Isn't it wonderful being an abstract mathematician!

You can argue both sides of an argument and make them both appear equally valid.

But, when is someone going to face up to a few practical points?

The simplest has been mentioned a couple of times before and completely ignore by jane and brushed aside by JRowe with a "prove it" comment.

How do we determine the shape of something? Well, measuring it might give us some clues!

The distance from either pole to the equator it almost exactly 10,000 km. This comes from the 1793 definition of the metre by the French Academy of Sciences.

The circumference of the equator is not quite to easy "pin down" historical, but the "Geographical Mile" has been defined as the length of on minute of longitude at the equator. In 1924 this was defined as 1855.4 m, making the
circumference of the equator 1855.4 x 60 x 360 m or close to 40,078 km.

If you challenge these figures I am sure that any navigator^[1] will soon put you right!

So if these figures are accepted the circumference of the equator is very close to 4 x radius.
But if the earth were a plane surface the circumference must be 2 x π x radius - a big difference.

Now I know I am labouring this one point, but unless it is addressed, the earth cannot be a plane surface - FET or DET!
I do not claim that this proves that the earth is a Globe, just that it cannot be flat.


[1] Oops sorry, I just realised that all navigators must be part of the  conspiracy and sworn to secrecy  !

If we cross the equator, shouldn't we get a flash of light through the center of the earth where the sun actually is?

No, we get teleported.

If you cross the equator with just one leg (straddle it in Quito, Ecuador, for example),
half of your body is at north and half at south side.

Still none of it is in the middle area.

no satellites. GPS obviously exists, it's just reliant on stratellites (in-atmosphere equivalents to satellites).

A radio amateur can tell you how fast a satellite is going if it transmits a signal and therefore from keplers laws how high the satellite is.    The lower the orbit the faster the satellite.

satellites irrefutably exist, the evidence being photographs by amateurs, gps, and also the fact you can see and track them

Quote from: Johnorbital on September 10, 2016, 09:12:10 AM

any evidence for 'stratellites'?
or is that just another wild guess?

Evidence is the same as the evidence for satellites.

The space station is proven to be travelling at 5 miles per second.  27,600km per hour.

evidence? I'm talking about the evidence of us being a globe.. of which there's an abundance, just open any thread on this debate forum

I'm still confused about satellites, I'd like to know how he believes in stratellites.. where he's got that idea from, how he's backing up his claims

to me it seems he's just thought 'I need an answer for satellites, what can I think of?'

if he's got any photos, videos, whistleblowers etc, I'd like to see/hear them


remember, this guy has simply thought up this theory on the spot, that's ample reason to disbelieve it, same with John Davis's ridiculous theory too

I'm wondering why you're giving it the time of day, unless you actually believe it.. which would tell us a lot about you in all fairness

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 10, 2016, 05:54:38 PM

Oh NOOOOOOOO, they got Jane!  They infected Jane with the DET virus.  There is no known cure.  Sad times are ahead.

You can probably blame REers, they voted for it.

voted? voted for what?

I'm wondering why you're giving it the time of day, unless you actually believe it.. which would tell us a lot about you in all fairness

I had the same problems with Denpressure.

You are not going to get a sensible answer from her.  She handwaves to tell you stratellites and satellites have the same evidence and if you attempt to get clarification you will be instructed to learn more about the model.

She also told me she was Jrowe.

I can't afford theodolite.
The cheapest one I could find is $459, it has accuracy of 5 seconds.
(http://www.exploringoutlet.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=71_75&product_id=60
and I think tripod and rods arenot included. Didn't really check. Too expensive for me right now.)

I have urgent needs that won't let me invest in it.
TST (Total Station Theodolite) is even more expensive. Several thousands dollars.

But someone can. Some companies have them already. And private surveyers.
My father was in Construction and I was lucky to have access to people and equipment.
Not much, but enough.

With theodolite (or with Total Station) you can actually measure the Earth's curvature.
You can measure that (in)famous Nautical Mile as One Arcminute of Earth's Curve.

How DET explains that?

I can't afford theodolite.
The cheapest one I could find is $459, it has accuracy of 5 seconds.
(http://www.exploringoutlet.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=71_75&product_id=60
and I think tripod and rods arenot included. Didn't really check. Too expensive for me right now.)

I have urgent needs that won't let me invest in it.
TST (Total Station Theodolite) is even more expensive. Several thousands dollars.

But someone can. Some companies have them already. And private surveyers.
My father was in Construction and I was lucky to have access to people and equipment.
Not much, but enough.

With theodolite (or with Total Station) you can actually measure the Earth's curvature.
You can measure that (in)famous Nautical Mile as One Arcminute of Earth's Curve.

How DET explains that?

It is verboten to discuss evidence falsifying the theory.  Learn the model or go for a walk.

You have been told the model fits reality and that is all you are going to be told.

Guys, Jane is not Flat Earther.
She just got sick of incompetent answers given by Flat Earthers.
Lot of them (I never said "all") are trying to "prove" things without knowing even basics.
It makes any discussion painful and counterproductive.

How can "person A" prove or disprove something to "person B"
if none of them know what are they talking about?

On the other hand, every defendant has right to a lawyer.
Without that we can't have any fair trial anywhere.

Being knowledgeable (Jane), I believe she has abilities to represent FET or DET.
She doesn't have to believe herself, just to present the case in convincing manner if possible.

Here we are trying to see if it IS possible.
And, as I said, we all have to know what are we talking about.

Guys, Jane is not Flat Earther.
She just got sick of incompetent answers given by Flat Earthers.
Lot of them (I never said "all") are trying to "prove" things without knowing even basics.
It makes any discussion painful and counterproductive.

How can "person A" prove or disprove something to "person B"
if none of them know what are they talking about?

On the other hand, every defendant has right to a lawyer.
Without that we can't have any fair trial anywhere.

Being knowledgeable (Jane), I believe she has abilities to represent FET or DET.
She doesn't have to believe herself, just to present the case in convincing manner if possible.

Here we are trying to see if it IS possible.
And, as I said, we all have to know what are we talking about.

You are not making any sense at all.

If Jane claims stratelites and satellites have the same evidence she is talking complete shite.

How is an object in the atmosphere going to be able to travel at 5 miles per second for years and years?   How can you calculate your position based on the falsely supplied location of a stratellite?  Amateur radio operators have to change the frequency of reception and transmission to interact with the ISS and other satellites including their own Amateur satellites.  We know with no doubt at all unless the laws of physics are wrong what speed those things are travelling.    Keplers laws then tell us what the height is.

It is clearly false to say stratellites and satellites have the same evidence.  GPS is an excellent way of proving the world is round.   It simply cannot work if the wrong information is supplied.

Right there the stupid model is busted.   Jane repeatedly tells you the model fits reality when it clearly does not. 

She did the same crap with her defense of denpressure.   Jane behaves like a flat earther who is trolling.

Isn't it wonderful being an abstract mathematician!

You can argue both sides of an argument and make them both appear equally valid.

But, when is someone going to face up to a few practical points?

The simplest has been mentioned a couple of times before and completely ignore by jane and brushed aside by JRowe with a "prove it" comment.

How do we determine the shape of something? Well, measuring it might give us some clues!

The distance from either pole to the equator it almost exactly 10,000 km. This comes from the 1793 definition of the metre by the French Academy of Sciences.

The circumference of the equator is not quite to easy "pin down" historical, but the "Geographical Mile" has been defined as the length of on minute of longitude at the equator. In 1924 this was defined as 1855.4 m, making the
circumference of the equator 1855.4 x 60 x 360 m or close to 40,078 km.

If you challenge these figures I am sure that any navigator^[1] will soon put you right!

So if these figures are accepted the circumference of the equator is very close to 4 x radius.
But if the earth were a plane surface the circumference must be 2 x π x radius - a big difference.

Now I know I am labouring this one point, but unless it is addressed, the earth cannot be a plane surface - FET or DET!
I do not claim that this proves that the earth is a Globe, just that it cannot be flat.


[1] Oops sorry, I just realised that all navigators must be part of the  conspiracy and sworn to secrecy  !

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67964.msg1820577#msg1820577

No, we get teleported.

If you cross the equator with just one leg (straddle it in Quito, Ecuador, for example),
half of your body is at north and half at south side.

Still none of it is in the middle area.

Teleportation's not a good way to think about it. One of the key points to the model is that what happens at the equator is that nothing unusual happens there. it's not that you get teleported from one side and aren't in the middle area, it's that there is no middle area.

evidence? I'm talking about the evidence of us being a globe.. of which there's an abundance, just open any thread on this debate forum

I'm still confused about satellites, I'd like to know how he believes in stratellites.. where he's got that idea from, how he's backing up his claims

to me it seems he's just thought 'I need an answer for satellites, what can I think of?'

if he's got any photos, videos, whistleblowers etc, I'd like to see/hear them


remember, this guy has simply thought up this theory on the spot, that's ample reason to disbelieve it, same with John Davis's ridiculous theory too

I'm wondering why you're giving it the time of day, unless you actually believe it.. which would tell us a lot about you in all fairness

Evidence is defined to be: an observation that is in line with what a theory states.
This covers experiments as well. (If you disagree, feel free to give another kind of evidence, and explain how they're not in line). By this definition, the evidence for stratellites is simply the evidence for satellites. That's all that's needed, though the fact space travel is impossible under the model is also in support of stratellites over satellites.
And, like I said before, I'm doing this because it was voted for.

I can't afford theodolite.
The cheapest one I could find is $459, it has accuracy of 5 seconds.
(http://www.exploringoutlet.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=71_75&product_id=60
and I think tripod and rods arenot included. Didn't really check. Too expensive for me right now.)

I have urgent needs that won't let me invest in it.
TST (Total Station Theodolite) is even more expensive. Several thousands dollars.

But someone can. Some companies have them already. And private surveyers.
My father was in Construction and I was lucky to have access to people and equipment.
Not much, but enough.

With theodolite (or with Total Station) you can actually measure the Earth's curvature.
You can measure that (in)famous Nautical Mile as One Arcminute of Earth's Curve.

How DET explains that?

ENaG, Chapter 14:
"IF a spirit-level or a theodolite is "leveled," and a given point be read on a graduated staff at the distance of say 100 chains, this point will have an altitude slightly in excess of the altitude of the cross-hair of the theodolite; and if the theodolite be removed to the position of the graduated staff, again leveled, and a back sight taken of 100 chains, another excess of altitude will be observed; and this excess will go on increasing as often as the back and fore sight observations are repeated. From this it is argued that the line of sight from the theodolite is a tangent, and, therefore, the surface of the earth is spherical. The author has made experiments similar to the above, and found it to be as stated; but the cause is not that the line of sight is a tangent, but the same "collimation" as that referred to in the section on "Spherical Excess.""

Guys, Jane is not Flat Earther.
She just got sick of incompetent answers given by Flat Earthers.
Lot of them (I never said "all") are trying to "prove" things without knowing even basics.
It makes any discussion painful and counterproductive.

How can "person A" prove or disprove something to "person B"
if none of them know what are they talking about?

On the other hand, every defendant has right to a lawyer.
Without that we can't have any fair trial anywhere.

Being knowledgeable (Jane), I believe she has abilities to represent FET or DET.
She doesn't have to believe herself, just to present the case in convincing manner if possible.

Here we are trying to see if it IS possible.
And, as I said, we all have to know what are we talking about.

You're making it more noble than it is, I just find it fun to learn abstract models, and think in terms of them. It's not all that easy, but it's a good mental exercise, and a handy skill, to be able to think strictly in terms of logic rather than intuition. After all, that's what this is. Maybe it's based on faulty precepts, but you have to think only in terms of them, and applying logic to them, rather than what you'd normally think. Far easier to practise that on things that aren't true, because it means intuition is a totally failed guide.
There are other benefits, sure, like hopefully being able to do a better job of explaining it as I think differently to the others that do so, but generally I'm doing this for fun. A lot of people take this forum way too seriously.

ENaG, Chapter 14:
"IF a spirit-level or a theodolite is "leveled," and a given point be read on a graduated staff at the distance of say 100 chains, this point will have an altitude slightly in excess of the altitude of the cross-hair of the theodolite; and if the theodolite be removed to the position of the graduated staff, again leveled, and a back sight taken of 100 chains, another excess of altitude will be observed; and this excess will go on increasing as often as the back and fore sight observations are repeated. From this it is argued that the line of sight from the theodolite is a tangent, and, therefore, the surface of the earth is spherical. The author has made experiments similar to the above, and found it to be as stated; but the cause is not that the line of sight is a tangent, but the same "collimation" as that referred to in the section on "Spherical Excess.""

Completely off-topic, but isn't Rowbotham kind to prove that "surface of the earth is spherical",
then of course, explaining it away by showing he does not understand that the telescope in a theodolite just makes it easier to read accurately.

the evidence for stratellites is simply the evidence for satellites. That's all that's needed

How can a stratellite be travelling 5 miles per second through the atmosphere?  Does reality matter in this model or what??

From this it is argued that the line of sight from the theodolite is a tangent, and, therefore, the surface of the earth is spherical. The author has made experiments similar to the above, and found it to be as stated; but the cause is not that the line of sight is a tangent, but the same "collimation" as that referred to in the section on "Spherical Excess.""

If you use a transit theodolite - which is a very common theodolite - you can rotate the telescope 180 degrees and then flip it over to repeat the measurement, thereby proving when the results are the same the telescope has no "collimation errors"

Time and time again you demonstrate you know squat about reality and that is why you support these idiotic models.

By the way I am blocked by this retard because I objected to her stupidity in ignoring reality.  If somebody could quote me I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

Quote from: Jane on September 11, 2016, 03:58:02 AM

ENaG, Chapter 14:
"IF a spirit-level or a theodolite is "leveled," and a given point be read on a graduated staff at the distance of say 100 chains, this point will have an altitude slightly in excess of the altitude of the cross-hair of the theodolite; and if the theodolite be removed to the position of the graduated staff, again leveled, and a back sight taken of 100 chains, another excess of altitude will be observed; and this excess will go on increasing as often as the back and fore sight observations are repeated. From this it is argued that the line of sight from the theodolite is a tangent, and, therefore, the surface of the earth is spherical. The author has made experiments similar to the above, and found it to be as stated; but the cause is not that the line of sight is a tangent, but the same "collimation" as that referred to in the section on "Spherical Excess.""

Completely off-topic, but isn't Rowbotham kind to prove that "surface of the earth is spherical",
then of course, explaining it away by showing he does not understand that the telescope in a theodolite just makes it easier to read accurately.

Ah, but does he not understand theodolites, or do we not understand collimation?

AliveAndKicking, 

like SpJunk, Jane and others have stated, this is just a thought experiment.  We're just playing a game of Dungeons and Dragons and Jane is playing the role of GM.  Sorry I can't think of a less nerdy metaphor right now.

AliveAndKicking, 

like SpJunk, Jane and others have stated, this is just a thought experiment.  We're just playing a game of Dungeons and Dragons and Jane is playing the role of GM.  Sorry I can't think of a less nerdy metaphor right now.

I've tried explaining that to them multiple times, I wouldn't bother.

How can a stratellite be travelling 5 miles per second through the atmosphere?  Does reality matter in this model or what??

An object that is not very far away from you can give the appearance of traveling the same speed as an object that is considerably farther away from you that is traveling at a faster speed. 

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 11, 2016, 07:40:52 AM

How can a stratellite be travelling 5 miles per second through the atmosphere?  Does reality matter in this model or what??

An object that is not very far away from you can give the appearance of traveling the same speed as an object that is considerably farther away from you that is traveling at a faster speed.

He was talking of air resistance at that speed, and how quickly stratellites would slow down and fall.

And his point about "does reality matter" is always good question everywhere.

AliveAndKicking, 

like SpJunk, Jane and others have stated, this is just a thought experiment.  We're just playing a game of Dungeons and Dragons and Jane is playing the role of GM.  Sorry I can't think of a less nerdy metaphor right now.

On my planet a thought experiment is expected to conform to the known laws of the universe as determined by accumulated experimental observations.

Additionally to my knowledge we are not talking about science fiction here.  The model is supposed to be realistic rather than fantastic.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 11, 2016, 07:40:52 AM

How can a stratellite be travelling 5 miles per second through the atmosphere?  Does reality matter in this model or what??

An object that is not very far away from you can give the appearance of traveling the same speed as an object that is considerably farther away from you that is traveling at a faster speed.

So what?

http://www.qsl.net/ah6rh/am-radio/spacecomm/doppler-and-the-iss.html

Radio amateurs know what speed these things are travelling because they have to adjust the frequency when the satellite follows particular paths in the sky.    We know the speed and therefore we know the altitude or the known laws of physics are wrong.

The model is supposed to conform to reality rather than some fools fantasies about conspiracies involving radio amateurs who have been involved in building their own satellites for decades.

Additionally it is impossible to calculate your position with a handheld GPS receiver/computer using falsely supplied locations of objects travelling somewhere in the sky.   Even the most stupid of people should be able to work that out.

This model does not even try to be realistic.

Quote from: jroa on September 11, 2016, 09:07:51 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 11, 2016, 07:40:52 AM

How can a stratellite be travelling 5 miles per second through the atmosphere?  Does reality matter in this model or what??

An object that is not very far away from you can give the appearance of traveling the same speed as an object that is considerably farther away from you that is traveling at a faster speed.

He was talking of air resistance at that speed, and how quickly stratellites would slow down and fall.

And his point about "does reality matter" is always good question everywhere.

And, I said it did not need to travel "at that speed" if it is much closer.  Please, keep up with the conversation.