Parabolic Orbit vs Radial Orbit

I have been reading that the Flat Earther’s don’t have a model of the sun and the earth. Well, they might be right, but I will come back to you and say that the Spherical Earther’s don’t have a correct model either.

The Parabolic Orbit is pure fiction and I will explain why.

Take a yo-yo and spin it in the air. It will make a circular orbit because the tension in string will hold it in position. A string or rope can only have expansion forces; no compression forces. You can’t push something with a string, only pull.

In our yo-yo model, take the sun to be your hand and the earth to be the yo-yo.
The string is the force that binds the sun and the earth together and it can act only in one direction, it can’t do both pull and push.

In order to have a model of the Sun – earth rotation with an elliptical trajectory, with a yo-yo, that would mean that the string would have to change in size as it is spinning.

Which would mean that the gravitational forces of the sun to the earth will have to change, based upon the position.

Also from basic geometry, we know to plot a ellipse, you need to have two focal point where in a circle you have only one.

In the Heliocentric Model, we only have 1 focal point, the sun.

The elliptical orbit is pure fiction, but it was the only way that they could make the heliocentric hypothesis to work out.

Can the Spherical Earthers, build something that rotates in an elliptical orbit, like a motor?

Last time I checked they were all round.

They have created funny math to make it appear that it works, but it really does not. Like I say, make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit and I will agree with you that I am wrong.

Quote from: Kami on July 22, 2017, 07:44:44 AM

He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.

I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.

But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?

I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:

fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc =  rand([2 100]);
fluc2 =  (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');

I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference

I think you forgot to reply to this thread...

The orbits are elliptical, not parabolic.

The orbits are elliptical, not parabolic.

Your right, my mistake in wording.

Quote from: prkearther on July 22, 2017, 07:50:41 AM

Quote from: Kami on July 22, 2017, 07:44:44 AM

He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.

I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.

But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?

I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:

fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc =  rand([2 100]);
fluc2 =  (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');

I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference

I think you forgot to reply to this thread...

Trying to change the subject, ha....

Defend your orbit with a yo-yo, if you can!!!

yeah, I'm trying to change the subject, that's it...

Its not that I'm trying to point out you have a seriously inflated view of your own intelligence...

Go play with a yo-yo and try to make it have an elliptical orbit 

Go align your self image with the reality of what you are.

i.e. A person of reasonable intelligence that is making themselves look stupid because you think you are FAR more intelligent than you are.

Reality, do you maybe mean virtual Reality, you know the place that you live in!!!

Thanks, that's a perfect example of my last post.

Quote from: prkearther on July 22, 2017, 07:50:41 AM

Quote from: Kami on July 22, 2017, 07:44:44 AM

He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.

I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.

But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?

I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:

fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc =  rand([2 100]);
fluc2 =  (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');

I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference

I think you forgot to reply to this thread...

Do you remember this

Yes I do thanks.

Do you remember that you supported his evidence then he admitted it was a hoax?

Oh wait, do you not have the cognitive ability to understand what happened on that thread? is that it?

Yes I do thanks.

Do you remember that you supported his evidence then he admitted it was a hoax?

You mean when I made these posts

Since phones are not acceptable instruments for testing, then the video has to be disregarded as to where his location is, since is based on an iPhone and not an expensive machinery that cost thousands of dollars.

The wolf pack has moved on the next stage of making fun of you and calling you names.
If they would truly interested in your work, they would ask for the data readings themselves. It is funny how they can prove you wrong, without ever looking at the actual numbers of your experiment.

But you take the time to attack all topics that go against he Heliocentric model...

OK, but first your credentials...Who do you work for, pay stubs, Your Degrees and transcripts, because we got to know if we are talking with a 4.0 student or a 2.0 student

I have to see the numerical data first, but I'm not interested if the data is precise, but it is accurate and if you had an engineering degree you would know the difference!

In your opinion, for an experiment be to be valid, to how many decimal places must the reading be? If somebody was measuring the height of an object, that was 2 meter tall, how many decimal places must he measure to, cm, mm... But remember with your answer, you will claim that all experiments that we conducted without this extend, are bogus! If you will not answer because you don't know, then your statement of this experiment not being valid is bogus!!!

My mistake, let me clarify my question, To what percentage of the objects height must a person be accurate in making his readings, 99%, 99.9% , 99,99999%
Modify message

OK, for this example, what % accuracy would you expect his readings to be. And how can people disregard this work, without even looking at the numerical data

I don't know, the iPhones are good telephones, but I use Android. Let me put it to you this way, the camera on the iPhone is much better video cameras then the ones costing thousands of dollars 30 years ago. So with this logic, the measuring instruments of the iPhone will be just as good as the measuring instruments of 30 years ago.

If you discard the measurement, then you also have to discard all measurement before 30 years ago also.

Please tell the world where I stated that his work was correct?

Quote from: Kami on July 22, 2017, 07:44:44 AM

He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.

I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.

But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?

I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:

fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc =  rand([2 100]);
fluc2 =  (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');

I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference

Nope. i don't need to. I'm going to do the equivalent of what you do and dodge your requests for specific info and post exactly what I want.

Your scientific integrity

Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you. They will throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink, but my advice, is to put them down with facts and science.

When you use science, they will start pulling rabbits out of the hat.

I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.

I have placed them up against a wall with my last thread,

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0

In which I give then two real airports and I ask them to draw me a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and to show all the forces, especially the ones that keep the airplane in sync with the ground. So far, I have not had any Free Body Diagrams, because they can’t do the physics.

But I’m curtain that they will pull some Dark Matter energy to try to confuse the subject, because that is what they do. When they are placed on the wall, they will start stating nonsense in order to discourage you.

I suggest, instead of showing the graphs, do some statistical analysis with standard deviations and averages to prove your point with math. It was very smart of you to do 100 jumps. If you need help, send me a message.

Good luck

Congratulating him on his hoax...

I agree, it was very smart of him to use 100 jumps to show how people will get behind any crap as long as it supports their belief.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 06:40:37 AM

Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you. They will throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink, but my advice, is to put them down with facts and science.

When you use science, they will start pulling rabbits out of the hat.

I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.

I have placed them up against a wall with my last thread,

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0

In which I give then two real airports and I ask them to draw me a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and to show all the forces, especially the ones that keep the airplane in sync with the ground. So far, I have not had any Free Body Diagrams, because they can’t do the physics.

But I’m curtain that they will pull some Dark Matter energy to try to confuse the subject, because that is what they do. When they are placed on the wall, they will start stating nonsense in order to discourage you.

I suggest, instead of showing the graphs, do some statistical analysis with standard deviations and averages to prove your point with math. It was very smart of you to do 100 jumps. If you need help, send me a message.

Good luck

Congratulating him on his hoax...

I agree, it was very smart of him to use 100 jumps to show how people will get behind any crap as long as it supports their belief.

Do you remember when I had wrote

I have to see the numerical data first

But, I never read any of you asking for the data but attacked whatever went against your religion.

Which would mean that the gravitational forces of the sun to the earth will have to change, based upon the position.

Yes, that's true. Almost like it follows some law, where the force is a function of distance, like Fg=GMm/r^2.

Also from basic geometry, we know to plot a ellipse, you need to have two focal point where in a circle you have only one.

Yes, very good. You can do some basic geometry. Would you like a gold star?

In the Heliocentric Model, we only have 1 focal point, the sun.

No, we still have 2, it is just that only 1 has something (significant) in it.

Are you also going to complain that for parabolic orbits we don't have the directrix?

The elliptical orbit is pure fiction, but it was the only way that they could make the heliocentric hypothesis to work out.

No, it is reality, but it can be done mathematically as well.

Can the Spherical Earthers, build something that rotates in an elliptical orbit, like a motor?

Do you understand the difference between rotation and orbit, between a motor and a planet orbiting a body?

I take it no.

A motor forces the object to move around the pivot point, instead of merely attracting it towards it.
In a gravitationally bound orbit, the "centre" merely attracts the object.

They have created funny math to make it appear that it works, but it really does not. Like I say, make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit and I will agree with you that I am wrong.

No. They used normal math.

Why would a yo-yo make an elliptical orbit?
Remember, the governing equation for an elliptical orbit is F=k/r^2
For a string like on a yo-yo, which would effectively act like a very tight spring, the governing equation is F=k*dx.

For gravity, i.e. the elliptical orbits, the strength of the force drops as you move away. For a string it increases.
As such, it isn't surprising that they act differently.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 23, 2017, 11:34:28 PM

Which would mean that the gravitational forces of the sun to the earth will have to change, based upon the position.

Yes, that's true. Almost like it follows some law, where the force is a function of distance, like Fg=GMm/r^2.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 23, 2017, 11:34:28 PM

Also from basic geometry, we know to plot a ellipse, you need to have two focal point where in a circle you have only one.

Yes, very good. You can do some basic geometry. Would you like a gold star?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 23, 2017, 11:34:28 PM

In the Heliocentric Model, we only have 1 focal point, the sun.

No, we still have 2, it is just that only 1 has something (significant) in it.

Are you also going to complain that for parabolic orbits we don't have the directrix?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 23, 2017, 11:34:28 PM

The elliptical orbit is pure fiction, but it was the only way that they could make the heliocentric hypothesis to work out.

No, it is reality, but it can be done mathematically as well.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 23, 2017, 11:34:28 PM

Can the Spherical Earthers, build something that rotates in an elliptical orbit, like a motor?

Do you understand the difference between rotation and orbit, between a motor and a planet orbiting a body?

I take it no.

A motor forces the object to move around the pivot point, instead of merely attracting it towards it.
In a gravitationally bound orbit, the "centre" merely attracts the object.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 23, 2017, 11:34:28 PM

They have created funny math to make it appear that it works, but it really does not. Like I say, make a yo-yo have an elliptical orbit and I will agree with you that I am wrong.

No. They used normal math.

Why would a yo-yo make an elliptical orbit?
Remember, the governing equation for an elliptical orbit is F=k/r^2
For a string like on a yo-yo, which would effectively act like a very tight spring, the governing equation is F=k*dx.

For gravity, i.e. the elliptical orbits, the strength of the force drops as you move away. For a string it increases.
As such, it isn't surprising that they act differently.

Fg=GMm/r^2.

If the distance would increase, that means that the gravitational force would decrease, and if the planet was able to break the original gravitational force and go to a higher orbit, what would bring it back into position again, since the gravitational force would be smaller at that point in time....


You said "No, we still have 2, it is just that only 1 has something (significant) in it."

Where is the second point and what is located in our solar system at that point!

Quote from: Boots on July 24, 2017, 12:10:01 AM

The orbits are elliptical, not parabolic.

Your right, my mistake in wording.

No your total lack of understanding!

Your scientific integrity

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Story Of The Piltdown Man Hoax

Please explain the connection between "Story Of The Piltdown Man Hoax" and "Parabolic Orbit vs Radial Orbit".

That is, unless someone here is over about 125 years of age.

I feel not the slightest guilt in claiming that you, Mr InFlatEarth, are a total idiot.

Saying "Your scientific integrity" is totally irrelevant as no-obe here had any connection with the "Piltdown Man Hoax".

In 1912 Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist claimed to have discovered the ‘missing link’ between ape and man. He had found part of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown village in Sussex, England.

Dawson wrote to Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum at the time, about his find.

I'm actually starting to feel bad about this. I think he may have actual issues and maybe we should just leave him alone...

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 24, 2017, 02:50:54 AM

Your scientific integrity

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Story Of The Piltdown Man Hoax

Please explain the connection between "Story Of The Piltdown Man Hoax" and "Parabolic Orbit vs Radial Orbit".

That is, unless someone here is over about 125 years of age.

I feel not the slightest guilt in claiming that you, Mr InFlatEarth, are a total idiot.

Saying "Your scientific integrity" is totally irrelevant as no-obe here had any connection with the "Piltdown Man Hoax".

Quote

In 1912 Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist claimed to have discovered the ‘missing link’ between ape and man. He had found part of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown village in Sussex, England.

Dawson wrote to Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum at the time, about his find.

Read your history, Piltdown Man was  fabricated in 1912 and was exposed in the 50's. They had even made a fucking memorial for the find.

The same standards that the scientist had in 1912, are used today, oh by the way, when did the scientist accept Einsteins relativity theory???

You profession does not have a clean record, and thus everything must be checked and rechecked to verify. True scientists will not have a problem with that all.

Just because you say something is true, does not meant that it is true.

Fg=GMm/r^2.

If the distance would increase, that means that the gravitational force would decrease, and if the planet was able to break the original gravitational force and go to a higher orbit, what would bring it back into position again, since the gravitational force would be smaller at that point in time....

The same thing which causes a pendulum to swing back and forth, or something that is rolling up a hill due to its momentum to stop and come back down.
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
As it climbs up out of the gravitational potential well, it slows down.

Remember, the only thing keeping an object in a circular orbit is its sideways momentum, if it lost that (such as by slowing down), then it would start falling inwards.
If it goes to fast (such as by falling inwards and gaining speed) then it will fly out.

An elliptical orbit is basically just switching between them.
A more technical explanation:
Lets say it starts off low, but it is going to fast. This means that it will deviate from the circular orbit and start flying outwards.
This means the object it is being attracted towards is no longer off in a direction at right angles to its path. Instead, it is now slightly behind.
As it's speed is still too fast, the force of gravity falls further and further behind, slowing it down more and more.
It eventually reaches a point where the sideways component would be enough, but it is still ahead. This means gravity keeps on slowing it down.
But just after that the sideways force is too great. This means it starts falling back, and thus the force of gravity can now start catching up, so it starts going from slightly behind to beside.
Eventually it reaches a point where it is directly to the side, as gravity has now caught up. But now the object is going too slow for an orbit of that distance. That means it now starts falling inwards, and falling behind. That means the direction of the force of gravity now gets slightly in front. This results in it speeding up.
This continues until it reaches the point where it is travelling at the right speed for the sideways force, after which it is going slightly too fast and thus it starts catching back up with gravity falling behind and eventually ending up purely sideways and we are back to the start.

You said "No, we still have 2, it is just that only 1 has something (significant) in it."

Where is the second point and what is located in our solar system at that point!

For what?
The solar system doesn't just have one.

Did you mean for Earth?
If so, one is the barycentre of the Earth-sun system (as an approximation anyway).
As for the second one, well it would be 2 times the distance between the centre and the focus away from that.
The eccentricity is the distance between the centre and the focus divided by the semi-major axis.
That means the distance is the eccentricity times the semi-major axis.
For Earth, the eccentricity is 0.0167086 and the semi-major axis is 149.60 e+6 km.
So the distance from the focus to the centre is 149.60 e+6*0.0167086=~2.5e+6 km.

So that would be a short distance from the sun.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 24, 2017, 04:13:42 AM

Fg=GMm/r^2.

If the distance would increase, that means that the gravitational force would decrease, and if the planet was able to break the original gravitational force and go to a higher orbit, what would bring it back into position again, since the gravitational force would be smaller at that point in time....

The same thing which causes a pendulum to swing back and forth, or something that is rolling up a hill due to its momentum to stop and come back down.
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
As it climbs up out of the gravitational potential well, it slows down.

Remember, the only thing keeping an object in a circular orbit is its sideways momentum, if it lost that (such as by slowing down), then it would start falling inwards.
If it goes to fast (such as by falling inwards and gaining speed) then it will fly out.

An elliptical orbit is basically just switching between them.
A more technical explanation:
Lets say it starts off low, but it is going to fast. This means that it will deviate from the circular orbit and start flying outwards.
This means the object it is being attracted towards is no longer off in a direction at right angles to its path. Instead, it is now slightly behind.
As it's speed is still too fast, the force of gravity falls further and further behind, slowing it down more and more.
It eventually reaches a point where the sideways component would be enough, but it is still ahead. This means gravity keeps on slowing it down.
But just after that the sideways force is too great. This means it starts falling back, and thus the force of gravity can now start catching up, so it starts going from slightly behind to beside.
Eventually it reaches a point where it is directly to the side, as gravity has now caught up. But now the object is going too slow for an orbit of that distance. That means it now starts falling inwards, and falling behind. That means the direction of the force of gravity now gets slightly in front. This results in it speeding up.
This continues until it reaches the point where it is travelling at the right speed for the sideways force, after which it is going slightly too fast and thus it starts catching back up with gravity falling behind and eventually ending up purely sideways and we are back to the start.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 24, 2017, 04:13:42 AM

You said "No, we still have 2, it is just that only 1 has something (significant) in it."

Where is the second point and what is located in our solar system at that point!

For what?
The solar system doesn't just have one.

Did you mean for Earth?
If so, one is the barycentre of the Earth-sun system (as an approximation anyway).
As for the second one, well it would be 2 times the distance between the centre and the focus away from that.
The eccentricity is the distance between the centre and the focus divided by the semi-major axis.
That means the distance is the eccentricity times the semi-major axis.
For Earth, the eccentricity is 0.0167086 and the semi-major axis is 149.60 e+6 km.
So the distance from the focus to the centre is 149.60 e+6*0.0167086=~2.5e+6 km.

So that would be a short distance from the sun.

But the momentum will be constant and the gravitational forces will decrease the further away you go.

Momentum is in a "linear" path the instant the force that hold's it breaks off.

it's like the string breaking, the yo-yo will be flying.

You just debunked yourself

have to go, be back in 2 hours!!!

Fg=GMm/r^2.

If the distance would increase, that means that the gravitational force would decrease, and if the planet was able to break the original gravitational force and go to a higher orbit, what would bring it back into position again, since the gravitational force would be smaller at that point in time....

So, like most flat earthers, you ridicule what you can't understand.

I'm too lazy (and it's too late at night) to try to use my own words, so here is a video on circular and elliptical orbits.

One little note on your title "Parabolic Orbit vs Radial Orbit".
While you should have made it "Elliptical Orbit vs Circular Orbit", the term "Parabolic Orbit" does have a specific meaning.

If the satellite is travelling just a little too fast for gravitation to bring it back it can travel on a parabolic path and escape altogether.

Also some piece of space debris could approach the earth with just the right velocity, travel on a parabolic path ans escape.

This sort of orbit is more applicable to "once only" comets, which might travel or either approximately hyperbolic or parabolic orbits.
Periodic comets travel on approximately elliptical orbits.

In both cases the "approximately" is because of possible gravitation effects of the planets.

Can the Spherical Earthers, build something that rotates in an elliptical orbit, like a motor?

How about an elliptical trainer?

But the momentum will be constant and the gravitational forces will decrease the further away you go.

Momentum is in a "linear" path the instant the force that hold's it breaks off.

it's like the string breaking, the yo-yo will be flying.

It is the conservation of angular momentum that controls the satellite's motion.
I'm too rushed now, but you could read Circular and Elliptical Orbit Geometries.

You just debunked yourself

have to go, be back in 2 hours!!!

No, he didn't,
This fault is, of course, not restricted to flat earthers,
but is common among people who imagine that they are far smarter than they really are.

There is no shame in ignorance nor in not understanding something.
Even Albert Einstein is reported to have said
“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
                   ― Albert Einstein
From Goodreads
But you think that you know everything!

But the momentum will be constant and the gravitational forces will decrease the further away you go.

No it won't.
Not even in a circular orbit is momentum constant.

As I said, if it goes too fast, then it moves ahead of the orbit and thus is pulled backwards, slowing it down.

Momentum is in a "linear" path the instant the force that hold's it breaks off.
it's like the string breaking, the yo-yo will be flying.

And unlike a yo-yo, gravity doesn't just break. It reduces following an inverse square law.

You just debunked yourself
have to go, be back in 2 hours!!!

No I didn't. I explained the origin of an elliptical orbit and you compared it to a pathetic strawman.