4 Questions

  • 11 Replies
  • 3865 Views
?

Pen

  • 3
  • +0/-0
4 Questions
« on: November 13, 2016, 06:36:18 AM »
just a few questions, i am not tryin to come accross as hating your guys views, but here goes nothing :)

1. I have seen the ISS go overhead multiple times so how is it orbiting the flat earth?
2. With the flat earth how does gravity work, and if gravity does not exist, what is pulling us towards the earth?
3. How does the magnetic field of the flat earth work?
4. Does the flat earth have a core, and if so what is it made out of?

Thanks for answering!
-Pen

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: 4 Questions
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2016, 07:00:33 AM »
There are a fair few models out there, and giving answers with respect to each model would get a bit over-elaborate. I'll give the detailed answers for the DE flat Earth model, with mention of others.

1. All forms of man-made satellites are typically just in-atmosphere equivalents, like planes or balloons, if they're acknowledged to exist. Some point out the difficulty with observing something as small and fast as the ISS in any detail, that they deny it being any more than a pinprick of light, which could be anything.
2. Gravity could exist on an infinite flat plane, which is a model some accept. More typically, though, FEers believe gravity does't exist, or if it does it's much weaker or is only exerted by some forms of matter. There are various alternative explanations for what keeps us on the Earth's surface; under DET, for instance, there's what's essentially a flow of force to the centre of the disc-shaped Earth (DET essentially involves two discs on top of each other; the gap between them is what attracts this force, long story). As long as you're above either disc, you'll end up pushed to the Earth's surface.
3. I don't know the more general answers to this. Under DET, though, there's a superheated metal ball that exists in the centre of the Earth (created by the aforementioned flow inwards, which made the matter condense and created it in the middle) which spins quickly, creating the magnetic field in a similar way to a dynamo.
4. Typically no. DET's the only exception I've seen where there's any meaningful core to the Earth. That being said, there's a user called Sceptimatic who has a model with an object in the North Pole which isn't exactly a core, but it's in the centre and has some related traits, though I don't understand that model enough to say much else about it.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

?

Pen

  • 3
  • +0/-0
Re: 4 Questions
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2016, 07:38:11 AM »
Quote
3. I don't know the more general answers to this. Under DET, though, there's a superheated metal ball that exists in the centre of the Earth (created by the aforementioned flow inwards, which made the matter condense and created it in the middle) which spins quickly, creating the magnetic field in a similar way to a dynamo.
How would the super heated metal ball become super heated without gravity? and how would the flow inwards occur without gravity


?

Pen

  • 3
  • +0/-0
Re: 4 Questions
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2016, 07:43:34 AM »
I also have another question

how would you explain the curve on these pictures at the edges of the horizon, such as in the linked images:

i.ytimg.com/vi/a0sX9ArivpI/maxresdefault.jpg
jlavision.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/11-26-12airplane2.jpg?w=545&h=393
static.wixstatic.com/media/9dd2c6_d5262574fc474afeb78470fbd49ddc77.jpg

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: 4 Questions
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2016, 08:05:06 AM »
Quote
3. I don't know the more general answers to this. Under DET, though, there's a superheated metal ball that exists in the centre of the Earth (created by the aforementioned flow inwards, which made the matter condense and created it in the middle) which spins quickly, creating the magnetic field in a similar way to a dynamo.
How would the super heated metal ball become super heated without gravity? and how would the flow inwards occur without gravity

Exact details are lengthy. The basic gist is that space itself flows, from high concentrations to low, and there's a low concentration in the Earth which means it flows inside. The ball becomes superheated, essentially, from constant friction.

I also have another question

how would you explain the curve on these pictures at the edges of the horizon, such as in the linked images:

i.ytimg.com/vi/a0sX9ArivpI/maxresdefault.jpg
jlavision.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/11-26-12airplane2.jpg?w=545&h=393
static.wixstatic.com/media/9dd2c6_d5262574fc474afeb78470fbd49ddc77.jpg
Optical illusion. Even under RET you wouldn't be able to see any observable curvature at those altitudes.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: 4 Questions
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2016, 06:34:11 PM »
I also have another question

how would you explain the curve on these pictures at the edges of the horizon, such as in the linked images:

While I believe that the earth is a Globe, a curved horizon would not be expected at that height, so my answer would be almost the same as FEers would give: "Lens distortion", they would always say "fish-eye  ;D  ;D lens", when most of the time the lens is just a "wide-angle lens" and NOT a "fish-eye lens".

Quote from: Pen
I don't see significant curvature here, and would not expect it at this altitude.

Quote from: Pen
Even at 10,000 m altitude, there is little curvature. Pilots say they can start to see it from around 15,000 m, but they have a much wider field of view than passengers and a flat "window".

Here I would again blame the camera.

The earth is huge!
Here is a video on this topic, to save space I'll just give a link to it.
I set it to start at "The Horizon", but you might like to watch it from the beginning. Hope it helps.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: 4 Questions
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2016, 07:27:26 AM »
rabinoz made a very helpful post for change.  Keep up the good work!

?

IonSpen

  • 1209
  • +0/-0
Re: 4 Questions
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2016, 08:43:14 AM »
FE'rs have a difficult time trying to explain away the ISS & other satellites. The main problem I see is they're predicted, and with precision. There are several websites and apps that tell you when a satellite will pass overhead, its expected magnitude of brightness, its trajectory in the sky, how long it will be visible, its height, speed, etc etc.
The ability to calculate an iridium flare destroys any flat earth view of the non-existence of satellites, in my opinion.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: 4 Questions
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2016, 12:29:48 PM »
rabinoz made a very helpful post for change.  Keep up the good work!
;D ;D So you didn't bother to watch the video!  ;D ;D

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: 4 Questions
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2016, 12:39:57 PM »
rabinoz made a very helpful post for change.  Keep up the good work!
;D ;D So you didn't bother to watch the video!  ;D ;D
Does anyone bother watching the videos?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • +0/-0
  • What do you, value?
Re: 4 Questions
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2016, 02:47:05 AM »
There are a fair few models out there, and giving answers with respect to each model would get a bit over-elaborate. I'll give the detailed answers for the DE flat Earth model, with mention of others.

1. All forms of man-made satellites are typically just in-atmosphere equivalents, like planes or balloons, if they're acknowledged to exist. Some point out the difficulty with observing something as small and fast as the ISS in any detail, that they deny it being any more than a pinprick of light, which could be anything.

It so happens that the pinprick of light which is observed by the human eye is exactly where it should be, and when.
 
My followup questions:
0. Which part of the atmosphere does it travel through?
1. The ISS shape is about as aerodynamic as a brick, how are you going to make that move at high speed through whatever part of the atmosphere you think it resides.
2. No airplane in existence can go as fast as the ISS, let alone with the observed shape. Let alone a balloon, their fastest recorded speed is 394 km/h
3. How are you going to keep your balloon or plane up there 24/7 day in day out for YEARS?
4. The design changes, large things dock... especially the Space Shuttle. How did they keep it in the air but still add and dock parts?
5. Why can we not see the balloon/plane in photographs? even against the bright sun or moon there is only the ISS structure, no plane or balloon.
6. How does this balloon or plane get propelled? how does it get refueled?
7. Has anyone every observed or recorded the Space Shuttle or Soyuz NOT entering their orbit and instead of reaching higher, going back down?  surely after +30 years there must be one recording of it landing or crashing somewhere, if it really doesn't go into orbit after launch.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 02:49:23 AM by Denspressure »
):

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: 4 Questions
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2016, 04:23:20 AM »
There are a fair few models out there, and giving answers with respect to each model would get a bit over-elaborate. I'll give the detailed answers for the DE flat Earth model, with mention of others.

1. All forms of man-made satellites are typically just in-atmosphere equivalents, like planes or balloons, if they're acknowledged to exist. Some point out the difficulty with observing something as small and fast as the ISS in any detail, that they deny it being any more than a pinprick of light, which could be anything.

It so happens that the pinprick of light which is observed by the human eye is exactly where it should be, and when.
 
My followup questions:
0. Which part of the atmosphere does it travel through?
1. The ISS shape is about as aerodynamic as a brick, how are you going to make that move at high speed through whatever part of the atmosphere you think it resides.
2. No airplane in existence can go as fast as the ISS, let alone with the observed shape. Let alone a balloon, their fastest recorded speed is 394 km/h
3. How are you going to keep your balloon or plane up there 24/7 day in day out for YEARS?
4. The design changes, large things dock... especially the Space Shuttle. How did they keep it in the air but still add and dock parts?
5. Why can we not see the balloon/plane in photographs? even against the bright sun or moon there is only the ISS structure, no plane or balloon.
6. How does this balloon or plane get propelled? how does it get refueled?
7. Has anyone every observed or recorded the Space Shuttle or Soyuz NOT entering their orbit and instead of reaching higher, going back down?  surely after +30 years there must be one recording of it landing or crashing somewhere, if it really doesn't go into orbit after launch.
Well we can predict when and where the Sun will rise, so that's not hugely impressive.
1, 2, 4, 5. A lot of people deny its shape; it's not the easiest thing to verify. You'd need to zoom in an awful lot on a very fast-moving object, in a huge field of black with very few landmarks to help locate one specific thing. I do recall one person who seemed to be saying it was a balloon with a rocket attached to it though, so take that as you will. Aspects like the 'basket' wouldn't be that obvious, and would be dwarfed by the shape of the thing itself.
3, 4, 6. By refuelling and repairing while in flight. Maybe that's why we see extra additions to the station; they're what's supplying the new fuel.
7. There are plenty of records of rockets crashing; Columbia comes to mind. ISS-wise, luck or cover-ups.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!