Is a Flat Earth Rocket Scientist an oxymoron?

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on November 27, 2017, 08:31:17 AM

An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force; an object at rest tends to stay at rests unless acted on by an outside force.

Therefore conservation of momentum does not exist and can be scrubbed from the words list as being a nonsense.

No object will ever stay in motion or gain motion unless it is acted upon by a force.
An object at rest is impossible and will never stay at rest.

However, this will work in the fictional space vacuum where there is absolutely nothing, we are told.

So we get back to it being nonsense.
I'll change that to inertia seeing as I saw markjo's post.
Anyway that's inertia wiped out.

Let me see if I have this right in what you're trying to say.

Are you saying that conservation of momentum in it's real terms is momentum forever in a closed system?
Or am I not quite getting it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 02:38:32 PM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on November 27, 2017, 08:31:17 AM

An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force; an object at rest tends to stay at rests unless acted on by an outside force.

Therefore conservation of momentum does not exist and can be scrubbed from the words list as being a nonsense.

Incorrect! If no force is acting on an object, why would it slow down?

An object at rest is impossible and will never stay at rest.

However, this will work in the fictional space vacuum where there is absolutely nothing, we are told.

So we get back to it being nonsense.

Anyway that's inertia wiped out.

It’s true you can launch a rocket without any scientific background. I’m sure all of us have launched an Estes rocket at on time in our life. That didn’t take any background in rocket sciences.
But, when you are talking about designing a rocket from scratch. That’s a whole ‘nother ballgame! I’d sure like to see the design in detail. I’m guessing there is no detail in the design!  I had to be a publicity stunt.

Quote from: Nightsky on November 27, 2017, 02:00:20 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 05:23:34 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 27, 2017, 04:32:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 04:05:09 AM

So tell me what laws I'm ignoring that cater for the design and build of the stuff you mention.

Tell me how it all works so you can tell me what I'm going against.

What is it that I'm going against?

Try the Law of Conservation of Momentum?

What does conservation of momentum actually mean?
Nice and basic.

Have you ever seen or played with a Newton's Cradle, classic example of conservation of momentum.

Ok fair enough.

The conservation bit is a bit puzzling.
What exactly is the meaning behind it?

Quote from: Theo Theardrun on November 25, 2017, 02:45:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2017, 03:33:56 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 21, 2017, 08:14:22 PM

Quote from: sovietchild on November 21, 2017, 05:51:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 21, 2017, 04:04:05 PM

Did you miss the part where that guy is a Flat Earther?  Maybe he'll finally get some decent pictures of the disc and prove that the earth is flat once and for all.

You don't understand. Since he is a flat earther, he might confirm that the earth is a globe to all the flatties out there.

But then he won't be a flat earther, so flat earthers won't believe him because all non-flat earthers are part of the conspiracy against flat earthers.
So Logkical!

It's nothing to do with non-flat Earthers being in on any conspiracy against flat Earthers.
It's more a case of a mass following of a set of so called sciences that are no more than religious beliefs.
Basically a mass following of something that has no genuine verifiable proof but is argued to have it based on some kind of peer reviewing by whoever is stood out as the so called experts on what is pushed out as a truth  based on nothing more that brainwashing in order to get people to be trained into acceptance of artefacts as the reality of a historical so called truth, etc.

You just... kinda broke me. I have been typing and deleting this message for a few minutes at this point, because I do not know exactly how to handle your absurdity of a message. You have made the point that nothing can be trusted, including the experts of their fields, the scientific method in general, and the acceptances of masses. You have called the scientific process religious, as if it were something based in faith, not a process that depletes the need for faith-based thinking. You have implied that flat earth "science" is to be trusted, but have not explained the scientific processes that verify the earth is flat and that neither use peer-review nor experts.

It seems that you have a lot of skepticism for the intentions of the Big Brothers (NASA, Government in general, experts, etc.) of your world. I understand the scrutiny you must put these groups through in order to gain their trust, and often times you find stories that verify that they are, in fact, corrupt in many ways. Experts in the pharmaceutical industries create studies to boost sales, governments falsify votes, and NASA landed on the moon in 1969 ... but, if you start to deny everything that every expert says because some have lied for personal gain, then you must deny all that you take in because it is equally as fallible, including the flat earth theories discussed on this site by "experts".

How do you pick and choose what experts to follow? Are you pragmatically agnostic in life altogether and just don't truly believe in anything, or do you just denounce science because it has a funny way of providing uncomfortable truths (we are primates, we are animals, the world was not made for humans, but that humans evolved to be, the world is round, there has not been any proof of a heaven or other afterlife stories, the universe is expansive relative to us, gravity is real and a bitch, I could probably go on, but you get the point... ... ... right...)?

It's very very simple for me.

This is how I work, so try and absorb it to understand the simple logical (my logic) way that I go about it.

To believe something outright where I do not require to question it, I must be able to verify it in a physical way so as to be comfortable with it as the most potential truth.

The stuff I'm arguing against and the stuff I'm arguing for have very little in terms of physical proof, so I have to revert to using my logical mind to see what has a potential better fit at this present time.

This is where I'm at now.
I'm not arguing my side and telling everyone it's all physically true. I'm telling them that my side is a much better fit than their side when looked at logically.
Naturally other people will tell me the very same thing from their side.

I'll always argue mine as if it's a truth against anyone who argues their side as if their side is a truth. It's a tit for tat measure and a way for me to tell anyone that I'm backing my logical side.

The entire truth of most things could be a hell of a lot different than what we all think.

The arguments against alternate theorists to the mainstream given, is arguments based on best guess scenarios and basically lies and misinformation with a hint of potential truth, depending on who's telling them.


All I can do is question them and decide what's worth accepting and what is worth arguing against.
And here I am.

It’s true you can launch a rocket without any scientific background. I’m sure all of us have launched an Estes rocket at on time in our life. That didn’t take any background in rocket sciences.
But, when you are talking about designing a rocket from scratch. That’s a whole ‘nother ballgame! I’d sure like to see the design in detail. I’m guessing there is no detail in the design!  I had to be a publicity stunt.

So have you finally done the experiment that I recommended a couple years back that only requires you have a friend a few hundred miles away and a phone to prove the earth is round? I mean, since you only believe what you can prove.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 01, 2017, 01:30:11 PM

So have you finally done the experiment that I recommended a couple years back that only requires you have a friend a few hundred miles away and a phone to prove the earth is round? I mean, since you only believe what you can prove.

Have you ever done that? I notice round eathers are quick to ask for experiments, and slow to do them themselves.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 01, 2017, 01:30:11 PM

So have you finally done the experiment that I recommended a couple years back that only requires you have a friend a few hundred miles away and a phone to prove the earth is round? I mean, since you only believe what you can prove.

Have you ever done that? I notice round eathers are quick to ask for experiments, and slow to do them themselves.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 02:46:17 PM

Let me see if I have this right in what you're trying to say.

Are you saying that conservation of momentum in it's real terms is momentum forever in a closed system?
Or am I not quite getting it?

Yes, though the difficult thing to achieve is the "closed system".

In real life that is always a bit of an approximation. The "Law" is correct, but the application is often subject to small errors due to friction, air resistance or some effect of gravity (whatever its cause).

But in a very low-pressure chamber, air resistance can be reduced to virtually zero and friction can be reduced to a very low level.

The "closed system" can be as big or as small as we chose. In simple cases we might just look at two objects to see "what would happen if . . . ".

You'll have to excuse scepti.  He just can't wrap his brain around the concept of an idealized, friction free environment, even as just a thought experiment.

In space as we are told there is no up nor down nor direction for anything in it so how can any object move in it?
No gravity, no matter and no direction and yet we can have something not only be moved in it but carry on moving within it.
How?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Picture this if you can.

Deep space with nothing as we are told.
A so called solid ball has been moved somehow in it, very slowly.
So here's the way it appears to me.

The ball was somehow pushed which is now moving forever unless it hits something  but for this thought we will stick to the space we're told.

Now here's the key and I'd like an explanation.

If that ball is moving in space it has to be moving in a direction at a constant velocity forever because as I am told, this is conservation of the momentum that was apparently applied to the ball to get it underway.

In space as we are told there is no up nor down nor direction for anything in it so how can any object move in it?
No gravity, no matter and no direction and yet we can have something not only be moved in it but carry on moving within it.
How?

Because if there's no real rational answer, there's no real meaning of conservation of momentum and also no inertia.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 01, 2017, 01:30:11 PM

So have you finally done the experiment that I recommended a couple years back that only requires you have a friend a few hundred miles away and a phone to prove the earth is round? I mean, since you only believe what you can prove.

Have you ever done that? I notice round eathers are quick to ask for experiments, and slow to do them themselves.

Quote from: markjo on November 27, 2017, 04:40:05 PM

You'll have to excuse scepti.  He just can't wrap his brain around the concept of an idealized, friction free environment, even as just a thought experiment.

There's a very good reason for that. A frictionless environment cannot exist as an environment so why use it?
The only way to use it is for sci-fi and if that's what you want to use it for then state it and we can try and debate on the sci-fi by simply making up stuff.

Oh wait, mainstream science is already doing this.

Quote from: markjo on November 27, 2017, 04:40:05 PM

You'll have to excuse scepti.  He just can't wrap his brain around the concept of an idealized, friction free environment, even as just a thought experiment.

There's a very good reason for that. A frictionless environment cannot exist as an environment so why use it?
The only way to use it is for sci-fi and if that's what you want to use it for then state it and we can try and debate on the sci-fi by simply making up stuff.

Oh wait, mainstream science is already doing this.

Quote from: markjo on November 27, 2017, 04:40:05 PM

You'll have to excuse scepti.  He just can't wrap his brain around the concept of an idealized, friction free environment, even as just a thought experiment.

There's a very good reason for that. A frictionless environment cannot exist as an environment so why use it?

Sceptimatic seems to be outnumbered about 100 to 1 on this site. That has got to suck. This site seems to be designed just to beat up on FE believers. Imagine if you went to a Round Earth Society page and about 95% were FE believers?  Although I can’t agree with his position I can at least admire his tenacity!  I think it is possible to feel empathy towards someone who is constantly demeaned as a human being. Will I ever be a FE believer? No.  Will Sceptimatic ever be a RE believer? I’m fairly certain the answer is no. My post has zero significance to the OP’s question. I’m just trying to be the voice of reason. It has got to be a depressing existence to feel like everyone in the world is conspiring against you. This type of paranoia has got to be exhausting.

Sceptimatic seems to be outnumbered about 100 to 1 on this site. That has got to suck. This site seems to be designed just to beat up on FE believers. Imagine if you went to a Round Earth Society page and about 95% were FE believers?  Although I can’t agree with his position I can at least admire his tenacity!  I think it is possible to feel empathy towards someone who is constantly demeaned as a human being. Will I ever be a FE believer? No.  Will Sceptimatic ever be a RE believer? I’m fairly certain the answer is no. My post has zero significance to the OP’s question. I’m just trying to be the voice of reason. It has got to be a depressing existence to feel like everyone in the world is conspiring against you. This type of paranoia has got to be exhausting.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sceptimatic or sponge pants, is not free thinking, rather he’s steeped in confirmation bias and not willing to put his claims up for scrutiny. The man is a fraud end off. I’ve asked him countless times if he has seen his magical molecules....and he has never answered the question. There is no conspiracy involved. The man makes outlandish claims and is incapable of any kind of self reflection.

scepti is an FE warrior.

As I understand it, Mike Hughes is not necessarily a Flat Earther at the moment, but he will very likely become a true flat Earther after his next launch.

As I understand it, Mike Hughes is not necessarily a Flat Earther at the moment, but he will very likely become a true flat Earther after his next launch.

I was thinking once about a "Flat Earth Live from Space 24/7" Live feed, from when some flat earthers launch a rocket up to orbit and make their own feed.
Such would be expensive but a cool project.

Quote from: AltSpace on November 21, 2017, 04:25:15 PM

I was thinking once about a "Flat Earth Live from Space 24/7" Live feed, from when some flat earthers launch a rocket up to orbit and make their own feed.
Such would be expensive but a cool project.

What is this rocket going to "orbit" if the earth is flat?