Have To Bring This Up

  • 34 Replies
  • 1604 Views
*

TheRoundEarther123

  • 18
  • Filler Filler Filler Filler Filler Filler Filler
Have To Bring This Up
« on: November 03, 2017, 04:38:58 PM »
I am a Round Earther, just to note.

Now, I am here to ask some questions:


1: Lots of people say "Oh that's a fish eye lenses" to debunk the curve of the Earth, but Fisheye lenses can make flat things look round, and make round things look flat, so you have no proof either way.

2: Ever realize why we switched away from the flat earth model? In science we go with what we think is right for the time based on calculations. We did not have the tools in the past to measure the curve properly, so we thought it was flat, since we got the new technology we experimented, measured, tested, and found the earth was round!

3: For those who say the ISS videos were fake, how can you fake 0g environments?

4: Many people say we never made it to space, got any proof? You can say the same to space, but if we did not make it, what about the Hubble pictures? Hm?


That's all I have, if this site lets you edit posts (I forgot, been a while since I was on here) I will try to add them as you comment. Until next time flat earthers! Hope to discuss with ya.
"Do I want to die? Maybe, at least from looking at this forum."

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18439
  • Thread Janitor
Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2017, 05:21:26 PM »

Now, I am here to ask some questions:


Cool.



1: Lots of people say "Oh that's a fish eye lenses" to debunk the curve of the Earth, but Fisheye lenses can make flat things look round, and make round things look flat, so you have no proof either way.


That is not a question.



2: Ever realize why we switched away from the flat earth model?


Yes.



3: [For those who say the ISS videos were fake], how can you fake 0g environments?


Free fall.



4(a): Many people say we never made it to space, got any proof?


I will stipulate that many people have said that.



4(b): You can say the same to space, but if we did not make it, what about the Hubble pictures?


The Hubble pictures are colorful.



4(c): Hm?


Huh?



Until next time flat earthers! Hope to discuss with ya.


OK.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 41914
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2017, 05:32:17 PM »
I never would have guessed he's a round earther.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2017, 05:48:18 PM »


3: [For those who say the ISS videos were fake], how can you fake 0g environments?


Free fall.


20+ seconds of free fall in a parabolic flight path is about the most you can get, and there are videos that are 1:longer duration than that, 2: more spacious than any airplane, and 3: predate convincing cgi effects.

1, 2, and 3 please. Don't leave one out or deflect

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18439
  • Thread Janitor
Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2017, 05:58:18 PM »

20+ seconds of free fall in a parabolic flight path is about the most you can get, ...



Are you suggesting that a free fall of, say, 4 minutes and 36 seconds is not possible?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2017, 05:59:24 PM »
1: Lots of people say "Oh that's a fish eye lenses" to debunk the curve of the Earth, but Fisheye lenses can make flat things look round, and make round things look flat, so you have no proof either way.
It's not used to debunk the curve, just debunk the evidence of the curve. It's not meant to be proof either way.

Quote
2: Ever realize why we switched away from the flat earth model? In science we go with what we think is right for the time based on calculations. We did not have the tools in the past to measure the curve properly, so we thought it was flat, since we got the new technology we experimented, measured, tested, and found the earth was round!
This isn't really a question that can be answered. If you want people to engage then give instances of new technology, new measurements, and why it proves RET.

Quote
3: For those who say the ISS videos were fake, how can you fake 0g environments?
Movies manage it.

Quote
4: Many people say we never made it to space, got any proof? You can say the same to space, but if we did not make it, what about the Hubble pictures? Hm?
What makes Hubble pictures inherently accurate? Images have been faked for pretty much as long as humans have had photography.

Quote
I am a Round Earther, just to note.
Same here, but if you want to ask meaningful questions you have to give your reasoning as to why you see them as issues.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2017, 06:06:34 PM »

20+ seconds of free fall in a parabolic flight path is about the most you can get, ...



Are you suggesting that a free fall of, say, 4 minutes and 36 seconds is not possible?

You're silly, of course it is. Just not in a jet plane.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2017, 06:26:27 PM »
Are you suggesting that a free fall of, say, 4 minutes and 36 seconds is not possible?
4 minutes and 36 seconds?
So 276 s, with a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2? (assuming suborbital flight in the atmosphere).
Best case scenario, starting at a high vertical speed, going up to the peak at 138 s in, and then falling back down.
That puts the speed at the start (and end) as 1352.4 m/s or roughly 1 km/s.
That is between mach 3 and 4.
That alone makes it basically impossible to do other than as an orbit.
You would need some of the fastest planes available which are not large enough for the scenes.

But lets ignore that for now.

If you started at ground level, you would reach a peak of 0.5*9.8*138^2 m. That is 93315.6 m, or roughly 93 km. The "official" definition of space is 100 km.


So in order to not crash into Earth and not go to space, you have 6684.4 m to lose 1352.4 m/s after your descent (and similarly before your ascent). We can find the acceleration required similar to the above.
You have a=a;
v=v0+a*t;
d=d0+v0*t+0.5*a*t^2.
Noting that at the end (t=te), v=0 and d=0.
Thus v=0=v0+a*te
a=-v0/te
v=0=d0+vo*te+0.5*(-v0/te)*te^2
=d0+v0*te-0.5*v0*te
=d0+0.5*v0*te.
te=-2*d0/v0

Noting that d0=6684.4 m and v0=-1352.4 m/s
This gives us te=2*6684.4 s / 1352.4.
So that gives 9.885... s.
I'll be nice and call it 10 s.
So we have 10 s to lose 1352.4 m/s.
That means we need an acceleration of 135.24 m/s^2.
That is ~ 14 g. Well past lethal, especially when sustained for 10 s.

This is also how fast it needs to go up.

I don't know of any vehicle that can do that.
So it seems the only way to do it is to go to space.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18439
  • Thread Janitor
Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2017, 06:29:17 PM »

20+ seconds of free fall in a parabolic flight path is about the most you can get, ...



Are you suggesting that a free fall of, say, 4 minutes and 36 seconds is not possible?

You're silly, of course it is. Just not in a jet plane.

Jet plane was your idea, not mine.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2017, 06:30:18 PM »
1: Lots of people say "Oh that's a fish eye lenses" to debunk the curve of the Earth, but Fisheye lenses can make flat things look round, and make round things look flat, so you have no proof either way.
As Jane said, it is used as an excuse to dismiss the evidence, not as evidence itself.
I say excuse because even with the fish eye lens you can still typically tell that there is significant curvature due to other objects in the frame or Earth only appearing flat well below centre.

2: Ever realize why we switched away from the flat earth model? In science we go with what we think is right for the time based on calculations. We did not have the tools in the past to measure the curve properly, so we thought it was flat, since we got the new technology we experimented, measured, tested, and found the earth was round!
Not quite, people simply assumed it was flat.
They then later found evidence that indicated it wasn't, before being able to measure it.

3: For those who say the ISS videos were fake, how can you fake 0g environments?
Ask holliwood.

4: Many people say we never made it to space, got any proof? You can say the same to space, but if we did not make it, what about the Hubble pictures? Hm?
There is far better evidence, like GPS, satellite photos of Earth, sat phones and so on.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2017, 06:30:55 PM »
Jet plane was your idea, not mine.
As the only decent way to experience 0g without going to space.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2017, 06:36:19 PM »
Are you suggesting that a free fall of, say, 4 minutes and 36 seconds is not possible?
4 minutes and 36 seconds?
So 276 s, with a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2? (assuming suborbital flight in the atmosphere).
Best case scenario, starting at a high vertical speed, going up to the peak at 138 s in, and then falling back down.
That puts the speed at the start (and end) as 1352.4 m/s or roughly 1 km/s.
That is between mach 3 and 4.
That alone makes it basically impossible to do other than as an orbit.
You would need some of the fastest planes available which are not large enough for the scenes.

But lets ignore that for now.

If you started at ground level, you would reach a peak of 0.5*9.8*138^2 m. That is 93315.6 m, or roughly 93 km. The "official" definition of space is 100 km.


So in order to not crash into Earth and not go to space, you have 6684.4 m to lose 1352.4 m/s after your descent (and similarly before your ascent). We can find the acceleration required similar to the above.
You have a=a;
v=v0+a*t;
d=d0+v0*t+0.5*a*t^2.
Noting that at the end (t=te), v=0 and d=0.
Thus v=0=v0+a*te
a=-v0/te
v=0=d0+vo*te+0.5*(-v0/te)*te^2
=d0+v0*te-0.5*v0*te
=d0+0.5*v0*te.
te=-2*d0/v0

Noting that d0=6684.4 m and v0=-1352.4 m/s
This gives us te=2*6684.4 s / 1352.4.
So that gives 9.885... s.
I'll be nice and call it 10 s.
So we have 10 s to lose 1352.4 m/s.
That means we need an acceleration of 135.24 m/s^2.
That is ~ 14 g. Well past lethal, especially when sustained for 10 s.

This is also how fast it needs to go up.

I don't know of any vehicle that can do that.
So it seems the only way to do it is to go to space.

I'm pretty sure he was baiting me into saying that Joe Kittinger couldn't have made the space jump in 1960. He was not in zero-g, but was in a free fall. A real head-scratcher, I know!

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2017, 06:37:40 PM »

20+ seconds of free fall in a parabolic flight path is about the most you can get, ...

Are you suggesting that a free fall of, say, 4 minutes and 36 seconds is not possible?
He never said that! He said, "20+ seconds of free fall in a parabolic flight path is about the most you can get".

Mr Moose, if you are trying to challenge jroa to the honoured position of champion derailer, you are doing a crappy job.
He would come up with something a bit harder to pull apart.

I suppose I could say, "Of course a free fall of 4 minutes and 36 seconds is everyday stuff on the ISS."

But to achieve "a free fall of 4 minutes and 36 seconds" you'd better don your space-suit and get dropped from about 375 km up!
It might be better to drop from 400 km and
have some retro-rockets and parachutes handy for your re-entry or we might be having some extremely over-cooked moose for dinner.
But, how do you get that high? Local authorities on rockets in a vacuum (like Papa Legba and Sceptimatic) assure us they won't work.

Nice try though, but real video from the ISS seems a more believable proposition.


Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2017, 06:41:03 PM »
Jet plane was your idea, not mine.
As the only decent way to experience 0g without going to space.

Exactly, you need engines to create thrust downward equivalent to the wind resistance. The wind is why free fall is not zero-g, and also why the duration of the free-fall is longer than if it were zero-g.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2017, 06:51:47 PM »
I jumped once from 14,500 feet and had a free fall for 58 seconds. You can quickly realize the force of the wind resistance and have terminal velocity-ish for quite a while.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2017, 07:33:05 PM »
Exactly, you need engines to create thrust downward equivalent to the wind resistance. The wind is why free fall is not zero-g, and also why the duration of the free-fall is longer than if it were zero-g.
I was under the impression that when other forces came into it (at least to a significant extent) it was no longer free fall. Hence falling at terminal velocity wouldn't be free fall.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2017, 02:42:51 AM »
Exactly, you need engines to create thrust downward equivalent to the wind resistance. The wind is why free fall is not zero-g, and also why the duration of the free-fall is longer than if it were zero-g.
I was under the impression that when other forces came into it (at least to a significant extent) it was no longer free fall. Hence falling at terminal velocity wouldn't be free fall.

It would seem that you are right. Thanks for this clarification! Haha, wiki says "The term 'free fall' is often used more loosely than in the strict sense defined above." Whoops!

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2017, 02:13:47 AM »
I never would have guessed he's a round earther.

I know, right? His level of incoherence was just too flat-earther-ish

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2017, 06:33:38 AM »
1: Lots of people say "Oh that's a fish eye lenses" to debunk the curve of the Earth, but Fisheye lenses can make flat things look round, and make round things look flat, so you have no proof either way.
It's not used to debunk the curve, just debunk the evidence of the curve. It's not meant to be proof either way.
but you forget that it is not debunked.
as you said, fisheye does not prove it either way, therefor it does not disprove it either way.
Quote
Quote
2: Ever realize why we switched away from the flat earth model? In science we go with what we think is right for the time based on calculations. We did not have the tools in the past to measure the curve properly, so we thought it was flat, since we got the new technology we experimented, measured, tested, and found the earth was round!
This isn't really a question that can be answered. If you want people to engage then give instances of new technology, new measurements, and why it proves RET.
the global earth is proven many time because science developed more accurate methods to examine problems.
Quote
Quote
3: For those who say the ISS videos were fake, how can you fake 0g environments?
Movies manage it.
I say that movie is not able to fake all the video that are made from outer space.
if you say I am wrong, prove it
Quote
Quote
4: Many people say we never made it to space, got any proof? You can say the same to space, but if we did not make it, what about the Hubble pictures? Hm?
What makes Hubble pictures inherently accurate? Images have been faked for pretty much as long as humans have had photography.

Quote
I am a Round Earther, just to note.
Same here, but if you want to ask meaningful questions you have to give your reasoning as to why you see them as issues.

so you believe that the earth is a globe, but why?
you question all the evidence for a global earth but you still believe that the earth is a globe.
what are the evidence that you believe in a global earth and not in a flat earth?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2017, 10:20:39 AM »
so you believe that the earth is a globe, but why?
you question all the evidence for a global earth but you still believe that the earth is a globe.
what are the evidence that you believe in a global earth and not in a flat earth?
I don't question the evidence, I just point out when people argue for it badly. There are good arguments, they just weren't given in the OP. Pretty sure I've explained this to you before.

For a couple of examples of poor arguing, we have:

Quote
Quote
2: Ever realize why we switched away from the flat earth model? In science we go with what we think is right for the time based on calculations. We did not have the tools in the past to measure the curve properly, so we thought it was flat, since we got the new technology we experimented, measured, tested, and found the earth was round!
This isn't really a question that can be answered. If you want people to engage then give instances of new technology, new measurements, and why it proves RET.
the global earth is proven many time because science developed more accurate methods to examine problems.

And:

Quote
I say that movie is not able to fake all the video that are made from outer space.
if you say I am wrong, prove it

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2017, 11:11:26 AM »
so you believe that the earth is a globe, but why?
you question all the evidence for a global earth but you still believe that the earth is a globe.
what are the evidence that you believe in a global earth and not in a flat earth?
I don't question the evidence, I just point out when people argue for it badly. There are good arguments, they just weren't given in the OP. Pretty sure I've explained this to you before.

For a couple of examples of poor arguing, we have:

Quote
Quote
2: Ever realize why we switched away from the flat earth model? In science we go with what we think is right for the time based on calculations. We did not have the tools in the past to measure the curve properly, so we thought it was flat, since we got the new technology we experimented, measured, tested, and found the earth was round!
This isn't really a question that can be answered. If you want people to engage then give instances of new technology, new measurements, and why it proves RET.
the global earth is proven many time because science developed more accurate methods to examine problems.

And:

Quote
I say that movie is not able to fake all the video that are made from outer space.
if you say I am wrong, prove it

you do not point out bad arguing, you doing it yourself and all the FEIB.


you and the FEIB argue that all pictures and videos and evidence and proves from science are wrong.
you and the FEIB argue that all claims of FEIB are correct and should be considered.

if something is proven to be wrong, than we can not consider as the reality.

it is explained to you many time that the claims from the FEIB are proven to be wrong.

you also did not explain why you believe that the earth is a globe.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2017, 11:27:25 AM »
Government and stuff

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2017, 12:17:48 PM »

you and the FEIB argue that all pictures and videos and evidence and proves from science are wrong.
you and the FEIB argue that all claims of FEIB are correct and should be considered.
No, you're just apparently incapable of addressing any post someone makes and instead make up your own version. We have had this exact discussion before,s top ignoring me.
I'm not saying anything's correct or wrong, I'm just pointing out that if you want to be able to refute FET you have to a) make an actual argument, and b) pay attention to what people say rather than just repeating irrelevant nonsense.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2017, 12:31:46 PM »

you and the FEIB argue that all pictures and videos and evidence and proves from science are wrong.
you and the FEIB argue that all claims of FEIB are correct and should be considered.
No, you're just apparently incapable of addressing any post someone makes and instead make up your own version. We have had this exact discussion before,s top ignoring me.
I'm not saying anything's correct or wrong, I'm just pointing out that if you want to be able to refute FET you have to a) make an actual argument, and b) pay attention to what people say rather than just repeating irrelevant nonsense.

you do a very bad job, as I post in the other thread, why do you do the good arguing for you believe and knowledge and only arguing against it.
do you teach your children the same way?
if they explain something that is correct in a way you don't like you start to argue against them with incorrect statements?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2017, 12:33:54 PM »
you do a very bad job, as I post in the other thread, why do you do the good arguing for you believe and knowledge and only arguing against it.
do you teach your children the same way?
if they explain something that is correct in a way you don't like you start to argue against them with incorrect statements?
What on earth are you talking about?
You are arguing against FET with logic that does not hold. Why are you getting so incensed when that gets pointed out?

*

Shifter

  • 14071
  • ASI
Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2017, 12:51:57 PM »
You can fake a little of 0g underwater. Ask the Chinese regarding their latest 'space walk'.


Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

?

frenat

  • 3548
Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2017, 12:56:11 PM »
You can fake a little of 0g underwater. Ask the Chinese regarding their latest 'space walk'.
The one with square "bubbles" that never moved in the same direction and a flag that waved with no resistance?

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2017, 12:57:36 PM »
you do a very bad job, as I post in the other thread, why do you do the good arguing for you believe and knowledge and only arguing against it.
do you teach your children the same way?
if they explain something that is correct in a way you don't like you start to argue against them with incorrect statements?
What on earth are you talking about?
You are arguing against FET with logic that does not hold. Why are you getting so incensed when that gets pointed out?

what logic does not hold? the logic of reality?

you are way more unlogic, you argue for denpressure that is impossible in reality.

and if you want to claim that it is possible than you have to provide any evidence for that claim.
but not one person was able to present any evidence that denpressure is possible.
there are only incomplete explanations or explanations that are completely wrong.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2017, 12:59:25 PM »
You can fake a little of 0g underwater. Ask the Chinese regarding their latest 'space walk'.

but you need a diving equipment under water.
the astronauts in the ISS do not wear diving equipment.

Re: Have To Bring This Up
« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2017, 01:02:30 PM »
do you teach your children the same way?
if they explain something that is correct in a way you don't like you start to argue against them with incorrect statements?
I certainly would, and I do the same with students.
I don't care if what they say is correct, I care if they are able to justify it.

If they say Earth is round because they like doughnuts and they are round, I will point out that their argument is pure garbage.
I might even make up an equally flawed argument against their claim to show them the error of their ways.