Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers.


Ok, how do u guys explain when you see a satelite in the sky?

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers.


Ok, how do u guys explain when you see a satelite in the sky?

Well, it's like this:


1. They are airplanes (really fast government airplanes)
2. They are unexplained phenomenae that the Government uses to back up their claims.

Yeh thats amazing, pretty fucking fast planes. FOOL

Yeh thats amazing, pretty fucking fast planes. FOOL

Or else they aren't all that fast, but closer to the ground than you think they are. They're just lights in the sky, how can you possibly judge their altitude?

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers.


Ok, how do u guys explain when you see a satelite in the sky?

How do you explain shooting stars or the moon? Do you know how the Moon got up there in the first place?

Quote from: "Round till i die"

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers.


Ok, how do u guys explain when you see a satelite in the sky?

How do you explain shooting stars or the moon? Do you know how the Moon got up there in the first place?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Quote from: "Round till i die"

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers.


Ok, how do u guys explain when you see a satelite in the sky?

How do you explain shooting stars or the moon? Do you know how the Moon got up there in the first place?

The moon didn't get up there, it's a natural satellite.

So, FEer, there's nothing else in the Universe except the Earth ?

Moon is a spotlight ? Sun is a more powerful spotlight ?

And the atmosphere is the limit of the Universe ?

 :lol:

And (I'm aware of repeating): A theory which consists of possibilities (maybe there are very fast government airplanes, perhaps it's all about gold, possibly ...) is, yeah, a possibility. But if you've got another 'theory' which consists of facts (here we have the RET) and rules the other one out - which one is the one you call true?

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Quote from: "Round till i die"

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers.


Ok, how do u guys explain when you see a satelite in the sky?

How do you explain shooting stars or the moon? Do you know how the Moon got up there in the first place?

The moon didn't get up there, it's a natural satellite.

Well it is a natural satellite then it must have a natural cause of getting up there.

Can you explain how it got up there? I actually can. But I'm curious to see if you can.

BTW my explination is based on the RE model and is I believe the currently favored theory for how the Moon got up there.

Quote from: "sydpwnt"

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Quote from: "Round till i die"

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers.


Ok, how do u guys explain when you see a satelite in the sky?

How do you explain shooting stars or the moon? Do you know how the Moon got up there in the first place?

The moon didn't get up there, it's a natural satellite.

Well it is a natural satellite then it must have a natural cause of getting up there.

Can you explain how it got up there? I actually can. But I'm curious to see if you can.

BTW my explination is based on the RE model and is I believe the currently favored theory for how the Moon got up there.

"Got up" is an expression from the Earth point of view. The Moon is not "up" in space. There's no up and down in space. The Moon is around the Earth, and the Earth around the Sun. Nobody took a big rock and shoted it to the sky... The Moon came from the Big Bang, as well as the rest of the Universe does. But nor the FE nor RE theory can explain where does the Big Bang come from.

There is no place for the expression "getting up". If you really think that the Moon got shoted in the sky by anyone (probably the Government...), then you have NO credibility because we all know that it's impossible, because the rock would be really large, and we wouldn't see it because of perspective. Also, the Moon can't be "not that far", because the position of it would change dramatically if you moved from a point to another, WHICH DOESN'T.

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Quote from: "sydpwnt"

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Quote from: "Round till i die"

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers.


Ok, how do u guys explain when you see a satelite in the sky?

How do you explain shooting stars or the moon? Do you know how the Moon got up there in the first place?

The moon didn't get up there, it's a natural satellite.

Well it is a natural satellite then it must have a natural cause of getting up there.

Can you explain how it got up there? I actually can. But I'm curious to see if you can.

BTW my explination is based on the RE model and is I believe the currently favored theory for how the Moon got up there.

"Got up" is an expression from the Earth point of view. The Moon is not "up" in space. There's no up and down in space. The Moon is around the Earth, and the Earth around the Sun. Nobody took a big rock and shoted it to the sky... The Moon came from the Big Bang, as well as the rest of the Universe does. But nor the FE nor RE theory can explain where does the Big Bang come from.

There is no place for the expression "getting up". If you really think that the Moon got shoted in the sky by anyone (probably the Government...), then you have NO credibility because we all know that it's impossible, because the rock would be really large, and we wouldn't see it because of perspective. Also, the Moon can't be "not that far", because the position of it would change dramatically if you moved from a point to another, WHICH DOESN'T.

-sigh-

Current theory speculates that during the formation of the earth, it was a giant ball of magma. During this period at some point a asteroid that was roughly the same size, weight, and density of the current moon struck the geletin-like earth. This caused an equally large amount of magma to shoot out from the earth (in the form of a massive splash), this magma fell into orbit around the earth and eventually formed the moon we know of today.

So yeah, in essence the moon did "get up there". According to this theory the moon originated as part of the earth.

BTW could you explain how the moon or the sun "is around" the earth? I know you mean "goes around" the earth and that this isn't your primary language. But I find it rather lame that you comment on my choice of words while using the wrong words yourself.

So you admit that the atmosphere is NOT the limit of the Universe, haha. There is the Moon that is outside the atmosphere, and the rock that originally came from far to hit the Earth was, indeed, outside the Earth's atmosphere. I think you talked too much on this one.

How this proves that the Earth is flat ? In no way. But it proves that the Earth is largely more likely to be spheric : when the asteroid hit the Earth to form the Moon, it's more likely that it left a spheric trace, instead of a flat trace.

Oh and it leads me to this : explain how does the moutains get higher and higher. With the FE model, the force would be concentrated to the "center" of the Earth (Which is another point... with the FE model, it's supposed that there's a center to our planet. Where it is ?) so only the moutains near the center would recieve the force to grow up, which is not true because the moutains in West Canada and India grow at the same rate. With the RE model, both moutains are equally near of the center of the sphere.

Good luck!

So you admit that the atmosphere is NOT the limit of the Universe, haha. There is the Moon that is outside the atmosphere, and the rock that originally came from far to hit the Earth was, indeed, outside the Earth's atmosphere. I think you talked too much on this one.

How this proves that the Earth is flat ? In no way. But it proves that the Earth is largely more likely to be spheric : when the asteroid hit the Earth to form the Moon, it's more likely that it left a spheric trace, instead of a flat trace.

Oh and it leads me to this : explain how does the moutains get higher and higher. With the FE model, the force would be concentrated to the "center" of the Earth (Which is another point... with the FE model, it's supposed that there's a center to our planet. Where it is ?) so only the moutains near the center would recieve the force to grow up, which is not true because the moutains in West Canada and India grow at the same rate. With the RE model, both moutains are equally near of the center of the sphere.

Good luck!

I don't recall ever stating I was an FE'er. My point was that you could NOT explain the moon, so why should you ask anyone else to explain satellites? The explination is the popular theory in how the moon was formed. It was also an explination on how the moon "got up there" since you were making such a big deal out of it (to the point of making an ass out of yourself).

And mountains have various methods of being formed. Some are volcanic and rise with Lava. Others such as the Indian Mountains are two plates clashing together and being forced upwards because the plates are nearly equal in weight. How would this differ at all from the FE model? If you can't explain mountains then, again, why are you asking for an FE explination? You would never believe any answear because you would have no RE related answear to compare it to.

Quote from: "yop69g"

So you admit that the atmosphere is NOT the limit of the Universe, haha. There is the Moon that is outside the atmosphere, and the rock that originally came from far to hit the Earth was, indeed, outside the Earth's atmosphere. I think you talked too much on this one.

How this proves that the Earth is flat ? In no way. But it proves that the Earth is largely more likely to be spheric : when the asteroid hit the Earth to form the Moon, it's more likely that it left a spheric trace, instead of a flat trace.

Oh and it leads me to this : explain how does the moutains get higher and higher. With the FE model, the force would be concentrated to the "center" of the Earth (Which is another point... with the FE model, it's supposed that there's a center to our planet. Where it is ?) so only the moutains near the center would recieve the force to grow up, which is not true because the moutains in West Canada and India grow at the same rate. With the RE model, both moutains are equally near of the center of the sphere.

Good luck!

I don't recall ever stating I was an FE'er. My point was that you could NOT explain the moon, so why should you ask anyone else to explain satellites? The explination is the popular theory in how the moon was formed. It was also an explination on how the moon "got up there" since you were making such a big deal out of it (to the point of making an ass out of yourself).

And mountains have various methods of being formed. Some are volcanic and rise with Lava. Others such as the Indian Mountains are two plates clashing together and being forced upwards because the plates are nearly equal in weight. How would this differ at all from the FE model? If you can't explain mountains then, again, why are you asking for an FE explination? You would never believe any answear because you would have no RE related answear to compare it to.

The plates moves equally because the gravity is equally divised. In the FE model, the gravity CAN'T be equally divised over the planet because in gravity, the farest you are from the center of gravity, the less you're attracted to this center. This way, the plates far of the center in the FE model wouldn't move at all, or their movement wouldn't be equal.

Also, in aaaaall these years of development post-colision with the Moon, the Earth would have changed and would become more spheric than flat because of the gravity.

Gravity explains a lot of things in physics

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Quote from: "yop69g"

So you admit that the atmosphere is NOT the limit of the Universe, haha. There is the Moon that is outside the atmosphere, and the rock that originally came from far to hit the Earth was, indeed, outside the Earth's atmosphere. I think you talked too much on this one.

How this proves that the Earth is flat ? In no way. But it proves that the Earth is largely more likely to be spheric : when the asteroid hit the Earth to form the Moon, it's more likely that it left a spheric trace, instead of a flat trace.

Oh and it leads me to this : explain how does the moutains get higher and higher. With the FE model, the force would be concentrated to the "center" of the Earth (Which is another point... with the FE model, it's supposed that there's a center to our planet. Where it is ?) so only the moutains near the center would recieve the force to grow up, which is not true because the moutains in West Canada and India grow at the same rate. With the RE model, both moutains are equally near of the center of the sphere.

Good luck!

I don't recall ever stating I was an FE'er. My point was that you could NOT explain the moon, so why should you ask anyone else to explain satellites? The explination is the popular theory in how the moon was formed. It was also an explination on how the moon "got up there" since you were making such a big deal out of it (to the point of making an ass out of yourself).

And mountains have various methods of being formed. Some are volcanic and rise with Lava. Others such as the Indian Mountains are two plates clashing together and being forced upwards because the plates are nearly equal in weight. How would this differ at all from the FE model? If you can't explain mountains then, again, why are you asking for an FE explination? You would never believe any answear because you would have no RE related answear to compare it to.

The plates moves equally because the gravity is equally divised. In the FE model, the gravity CAN'T be equally divised over the planet because in gravity, the farest you are from the center of gravity, the less you're attracted to this center. This way, the plates far of the center in the FE model wouldn't move at all, or their movement wouldn't be equal.

Also, in aaaaall these years of development post-colision with the Moon, the Earth would have changed and would become more spheric than flat because of the gravity.

Gravity explains a lot of things in physics

1.  'Gravity' isn't evenly divided over the round earth though, it is different in different places.

2.  'Gravity' in the flat earth model is constant.

3.  So it is okay to assume the existence of something to prove it exists?  Isn't that one of the logical fallacies?

4.  But nothing in physics explains gravity.  :wink:

Quote from: "yop69g"

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Quote from: "yop69g"

So you admit that the atmosphere is NOT the limit of the Universe, haha. There is the Moon that is outside the atmosphere, and the rock that originally came from far to hit the Earth was, indeed, outside the Earth's atmosphere. I think you talked too much on this one.

How this proves that the Earth is flat ? In no way. But it proves that the Earth is largely more likely to be spheric : when the asteroid hit the Earth to form the Moon, it's more likely that it left a spheric trace, instead of a flat trace.

Oh and it leads me to this : explain how does the moutains get higher and higher. With the FE model, the force would be concentrated to the "center" of the Earth (Which is another point... with the FE model, it's supposed that there's a center to our planet. Where it is ?) so only the moutains near the center would recieve the force to grow up, which is not true because the moutains in West Canada and India grow at the same rate. With the RE model, both moutains are equally near of the center of the sphere.

Good luck!

I don't recall ever stating I was an FE'er. My point was that you could NOT explain the moon, so why should you ask anyone else to explain satellites? The explination is the popular theory in how the moon was formed. It was also an explination on how the moon "got up there" since you were making such a big deal out of it (to the point of making an ass out of yourself).

And mountains have various methods of being formed. Some are volcanic and rise with Lava. Others such as the Indian Mountains are two plates clashing together and being forced upwards because the plates are nearly equal in weight. How would this differ at all from the FE model? If you can't explain mountains then, again, why are you asking for an FE explination? You would never believe any answear because you would have no RE related answear to compare it to.

The plates moves equally because the gravity is equally divised. In the FE model, the gravity CAN'T be equally divised over the planet because in gravity, the farest you are from the center of gravity, the less you're attracted to this center. This way, the plates far of the center in the FE model wouldn't move at all, or their movement wouldn't be equal.

Also, in aaaaall these years of development post-colision with the Moon, the Earth would have changed and would become more spheric than flat because of the gravity.

Gravity explains a lot of things in physics

1.  'Gravity' isn't evenly divided over the round earth though, it is different in different places.

2.  'Gravity' in the flat earth model is constant.

3.  So it is okay to assume the existence of something to prove it exists?  Isn't that one of the logical fallacies?

4.  But nothing in physics explains gravity.  :wink:

1. Earth is not a perfect sphere and Moon influences Earth's gravity as well.

2. Why "gravity" ? How is it constant ? What does it prove ? Constant and perfect things in science have reveleaded themselves to be FALSE after re-examination. There's nothing perfect, not even in science. If your "gravity" is constant, always the same, perfect!, it means that it's more likely to be false.

3. I explained why there's gravity and how it manifests in our world. Nothing else than gravity can explain phenomens like why does the apple dropped on this guy's head. Also, You guys with your FE theory assume that the Earth is flat because you have incomplete proofs and possibilities, not even probabilities about its flatness.

4. Go to Uni and you'll catch up the fundamentals : high school physics aren't enough in order to discuss about complicated science

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Quote from: "yop69g"

So you admit that the atmosphere is NOT the limit of the Universe, haha. There is the Moon that is outside the atmosphere, and the rock that originally came from far to hit the Earth was, indeed, outside the Earth's atmosphere. I think you talked too much on this one.

How this proves that the Earth is flat ? In no way. But it proves that the Earth is largely more likely to be spheric : when the asteroid hit the Earth to form the Moon, it's more likely that it left a spheric trace, instead of a flat trace.

Oh and it leads me to this : explain how does the moutains get higher and higher. With the FE model, the force would be concentrated to the "center" of the Earth (Which is another point... with the FE model, it's supposed that there's a center to our planet. Where it is ?) so only the moutains near the center would recieve the force to grow up, which is not true because the moutains in West Canada and India grow at the same rate. With the RE model, both moutains are equally near of the center of the sphere.

Good luck!

I don't recall ever stating I was an FE'er. My point was that you could NOT explain the moon, so why should you ask anyone else to explain satellites? The explination is the popular theory in how the moon was formed. It was also an explination on how the moon "got up there" since you were making such a big deal out of it (to the point of making an ass out of yourself).

And mountains have various methods of being formed. Some are volcanic and rise with Lava. Others such as the Indian Mountains are two plates clashing together and being forced upwards because the plates are nearly equal in weight. How would this differ at all from the FE model? If you can't explain mountains then, again, why are you asking for an FE explination? You would never believe any answear because you would have no RE related answear to compare it to.

The plates moves equally because the gravity is equally divised. In the FE model, the gravity CAN'T be equally divised over the planet because in gravity, the farest you are from the center of gravity, the less you're attracted to this center. This way, the plates far of the center in the FE model wouldn't move at all, or their movement wouldn't be equal.

Also, in aaaaall these years of development post-colision with the Moon, the Earth would have changed and would become more spheric than flat because of the gravity.

Gravity explains a lot of things in physics

People like you teach people to sigh I think.

If you knew anything about the FE model you would know that it doesn't produce it's own gravity. Instead it accelerates upwards at a rate equal to 1g. This would provide gravity throughout the FE model.

Also, you don't know much about gravity (modern science doesn't know much so theres no chance in hell you know much). You are treading on unkown territory here.

Now unless you can prove gravity exists as a force that applies to all objects, I doubt you can disprove the FE theory.

What do you know about modern science ?

What do you know about modern science ?

Relatively little, actually. I just seem to understand it's purpose and methods better then you do apparently.

No I'm not a member of the scientific community, but I do hear and read things often. As of now the extent of our knowledge on the theory of gravity can literally be boiled down to "magic". One popular theory is gravitons I believe, however I personally find that idea somewhat un acceptable. What would draw gravitons towards the earth? Personally I'm in favor of the fabric of space bending around the planet (or any object with mass) myself.

1. Earth is not a perfect sphere and Moon influences Earth's gravity as well.

2. Why "gravity" ? How is it constant ? What does it prove ? Constant and perfect things in science have reveleaded themselves to be FALSE after re-examination. There's nothing perfect, not even in science. If your "gravity" is constant, always the same, perfect!, it means that it's more likely to be false.

3. I explained why there's gravity and how it manifests in our world. Nothing else than gravity can explain phenomens like why does the apple dropped on this guy's head. Also, You guys with your FE theory assume that the Earth is flat because you have incomplete proofs and possibilities, not even probabilities about its flatness.

4. Go to Uni and you'll catch up the fundamentals : high school physics aren't enough in order to discuss about complicated science

2.  The speed of light is constant, always the same, perfect.  Does this mean it is false?
3.  The apple falls due to acceleration.  As gravity=acceleration.

Or else they aren't all that fast, but closer to the ground than you think they are. They're just lights in the sky, how can you possibly judge their altitude?

I feel obliged to ask how the heck you (or Rowbotham) judged the altitude of the sun and moon, then? And satellites aren't just "lights in the sky". Saying that just makes me wanna beat you up in the name of reason. Ever heard of this new cool invention called a telescope? You can clearly see they're satellites with one of those, and they're definitely man-made thus not shot up in the beginning of time while the earth was still a ball of flaming magma. And satellites aren't ballons, nor airplanes.

They orbit the earth and send signales ? The Earth is round so its very simple. and btw.

Round till i die

nice name.

Quote from: "yop69g"

1. Earth is not a perfect sphere and Moon influences Earth's gravity as well.

2. Why "gravity" ? How is it constant ? What does it prove ? Constant and perfect things in science have reveleaded themselves to be FALSE after re-examination. There's nothing perfect, not even in science. If your "gravity" is constant, always the same, perfect!, it means that it's more likely to be false.

3. I explained why there's gravity and how it manifests in our world. Nothing else than gravity can explain phenomens like why does the apple dropped on this guy's head. Also, You guys with your FE theory assume that the Earth is flat because you have incomplete proofs and possibilities, not even probabilities about its flatness.

4. Go to Uni and you'll catch up the fundamentals : high school physics aren't enough in order to discuss about complicated science

2.  The speed of light is constant, always the same, perfect.  Does this mean it is false?
3.  The apple falls due to acceleration.  As gravity=acceleration.

2. The speed of light changes depending in what context it is. It is slower in water but at its maximum speed in space. And if you do an experiment, you can't come up with perfect results, orelse your results will be refused by the scientific community. That's the way it is, because nothing's perfect enough to give perfect enough results.

3. The acceleration is the most clear manifestation of gravity. Gravity attracts objects at different rate, depending on the force of the attracting object (mass, maybe volume, speed, energy, etc.). This rate is the acceleration, on Earth, is approx 9.81 m/sē. Also, you could get very good results to this, but even atoms influences your results, so it's impossible to get the "perfect" result. This partially explains the variation that the guy had, having 9.79m/sē (the position on the Earth where he did his experiment also influences his results). The most revealing example of this is the most cold temperature : 0 K (-273 degrees celcius). Nobody reached it because we have to align the atoms in order to reach it! There's always one of them that won't be cooperative. So even in temperature, nothing's perfect.

4. Reading science isn't enough... I can read a book of medicine or surgery... but I'll never be able to cure someone as a real doctor would do. Finally, I did two years of physics and one of chemestry. My girlfriend often teaches me what she's learning at CEGEP in chemestry. So, don't come up with uncertain ideas and personnal attacks when you don't even know what you're talking about.

2.  The speed of light in a vacuum is always the same.  Just because your stopwatch is not accurate does not mean the photon is traveling at a different speed.
3.  I don't care about the perfect result. It's not possible.  You asked how the apple could fall if there is no gravity.  It is simple - acceleration.

2.  The speed of light in a vacuum is always the same.  Just because your stopwatch is not accurate does not mean the photon is traveling at a different speed.
3.  I don't care about the perfect result. It's not possible.  You asked how the apple could fall if there is no gravity.  It is simple - acceleration.

2. Stupid answer. I know that the speed of light is always the same but try to measure it twice at the same exact speed.

3. Perfect results are very important in science. If you deny this, then you have no credibility because it's the basis of experimentation.

You apparently need to learn about physics : acceleration IS DUE to gravity. No gravity = no acceleration. There's no other possible answers. There can be speed without acceleration if the object had an initial speed, but there can't be acceleration without gravity in space.

You apparently need to learn about physics : acceleration IS DUE to gravity. No gravity = no acceleration. There's no other possible answers. There can be speed without acceleration if the object had an initial speed, but there can't be acceleration without gravity in space.

Wait a minute, it seems as though you're implying here that the acceleration produced by a rocket traveling through space producess the same effect as gravity (it does). Which would still mean that gravity=acceleration.

2. Stupid answer. I know that the speed of light is always the same but try to measure it twice at the same exact speed.

3. Perfect results are very important in science. If you deny this, then you have no credibility because it's the basis of experimentation.

You apparently need to learn about physics : acceleration IS DUE to gravity. No gravity = no acceleration. There's no other possible answers. There can be speed without acceleration if the object had an initial speed, but there can't be acceleration without gravity in space.

2.  You said that anything that was always the same was wrong.  
3.  There is no such thing as the perfect result.  There is always a measurement error or some other random error.  Measurement devices can only be so accurate.

Apparently you need to learn about physics: gravity=acceleration.  The two are locally indistinguishable.

You are so right!

Quote from: "yop69g"

2. Stupid answer. I know that the speed of light is always the same but try to measure it twice at the same exact speed.

3. Perfect results are very important in science. If you deny this, then you have no credibility because it's the basis of experimentation.

You apparently need to learn about physics : acceleration IS DUE to gravity. No gravity = no acceleration. There's no other possible answers. There can be speed without acceleration if the object had an initial speed, but there can't be acceleration without gravity in space.

2.  You said that anything that was always the same was wrong.  
3.  There is no such thing as the perfect result.  There is always a measurement error or some other random error.  Measurement devices can only be so accurate.

Apparently you need to learn about physics: gravity=acceleration.  The two are locally indistinguishable.

You might have to define locally there Engineer...

Alright Yop lets get onto an elevator in space, just a simple platform.

Lets accelerate that platform upwards at 1g (I dunno the precise acceleration rate) and we both jump. It would be no different from us jumping back on earth. However someone witnessing us jump would see our jump last for minutes instead of less then a second.