Garlic bread in space (the globe earth evidence you have demanded)

This video is completely a brainwashing. And bread doesn't seem realistic.

This video is completely a brainwashing. And bread doesn't seem realistic.

There is nothing to indicate it is a brainwashing and no reason to think so.
You are just grasping at whatever straws you can to dismiss it.

Explain why it is fake or stop claiming it is.

This video is completely a brainwashing. And bread doesn't seem realistic.

Unrealistic as in plastic, CGI? Please explain.
I will agree that it looks different in space than on the earth, not the shape or details, but mostly the lighting which would naturally be different in space, where it isn't lit slightly from the ground and atmosphere, and the suns light isn't distorted by the atmosphere. I also think I noticed the bread getting a slightly different texture, but again this is natural when you introduce baked bread to negative 30 degrees for a prolonged period.
So please, inform me how the bread doesn't look realistic, as I see it as plenty realistic.

So, very simply, if you believe the video to be fake, show us a single video which isn't fake and showing a clear flat horizon from earth and flat horizon at 20/30 km height using the same camera. You can't. You won't. You will redirect and say that we are the ones who should provide proof. We have done so already, so man up and show your video, it is your time now.

PS: If you had started by acknowledging that what you and I saw looked curved (as you insulted me by claiming I needed glasses), I would be much nicer towards you than I currently am.

I'll not continue to talk about this fraud anymore.

Run run run, as fast as you can, no one can catch the brotherhood man.

I'll not continue to talk about this fraud anymore.

Too bad. I would’ve loved to discuss space garlic bread in further detail with you.

Oh well ... nothing I can do about it.

Why are we all arguing when we can simply just go to the grocery store and buy some garlic bread and do our own tests? Or for those of you who are more of the science type, you can make your own garlic bread at home. Mine is in the oven right now and I should be ready to conduct some tests on it within the hour.

Why are we all arguing when we can simply just go to the grocery store and buy some garlic bread and do our own tests? Or for those of you who are more of the science type, you can make your own garlic bread at home. Mine is in the oven right now and I should be ready to conduct some tests on it within the hour.

Sounds good.
I was expecting garlic bread for dinner, but the gf forgot, and I only got bread with butter. Still good, but not garlic bread.

Quote from: 1 + 1 is 3 apparently on April 25, 2018, 12:59:29 PM

Why are we all arguing when we can simply just go to the grocery store and buy some garlic bread and do our own tests? Or for those of you who are more of the science type, you can make your own garlic bread at home. Mine is in the oven right now and I should be ready to conduct some tests on it within the hour.

Sounds good.
I was expecting garlic bread for dinner, but the gf forgot, and I only got bread with butter. Still good, but not garlic bread.

Have you considered the possibility that your girlfriend is a paid shill?

I'll not continue to talk about this fraud anymore.

You are the fraud here, not the garlic bread.
You lie about everything that shows you to be wrong and expect people to just agree with whatever you say. It is truly pathetic.

If you don't have anything rational to say, act like an adult for once.
Admit you were wrong, admit you have no reason to dismiss it as a fake and are just ignoring it because it shows you to be wrong.
If you can't do that, then just don't say anything.

As for your latest sig, what's the matter, didn't you plan ahead to make sure you had enough F's when you needed 2 at once?
You also switched your blues so now the cockroaches doesn't look right.
No one in their right mind would "lvoe" you, Brotherhood fo the Dmoe.

Did you mean to make all those mistakes, or were you just not capable of putting it together well?

At least it's better than your normal epilepsy inducing crap.

For those interested, his sig now reads:

corey feldman is a mucisal god
lvoe brotherhood fo the dmoe
cockroaches of the sea
pegnuins are the divel
hnugry? eat pocporn
the ertah si falt

Then the last frame has multiple letters highlighted as follows:

g,o,d
u,s,j,e,s
l,o,v,e,s

Video is fake. They cant even be truthful in the title. 'edge' of space?

Space is considered to be 100km or greater altitude. These people didn't even bring it up a 1/3rd of the way there. Are we going to trust the camera lens was free of distortion and data they tell us given we know their title is a pathetic click bait grab?

fake video and FAKE NEWS

Why are we all arguing when we can simply just go to the grocery store and buy some garlic bread and do our own tests? Or for those of you who are more of the science type, you can make your own garlic bread at home. Mine is in the oven right now and I should be ready to conduct some tests on it within the hour.

How did the launch go?

Quote from: 1 + 1 is 3 apparently on April 25, 2018, 12:59:29 PM

Why are we all arguing when we can simply just go to the grocery store and buy some garlic bread and do our own tests? Or for those of you who are more of the science type, you can make your own garlic bread at home. Mine is in the oven right now and I should be ready to conduct some tests on it within the hour.

How did the launch go?

What launch?  I ate it.  Flat earth confirmed. 

Quote from: boydster on April 25, 2018, 07:36:22 PM

Quote from: 1 + 1 is 3 apparently on April 25, 2018, 12:59:29 PM

Why are we all arguing when we can simply just go to the grocery store and buy some garlic bread and do our own tests? Or for those of you who are more of the science type, you can make your own garlic bread at home. Mine is in the oven right now and I should be ready to conduct some tests on it within the hour.

How did the launch go?

What launch?  I ate it.  Flat earth confirmed.

You ate the whole thing? In that case, I guess the launch will be tomorrow? 

Quote from: 1 + 1 is 3 apparently on April 25, 2018, 07:43:08 PM

Quote from: boydster on April 25, 2018, 07:36:22 PM

Quote from: 1 + 1 is 3 apparently on April 25, 2018, 12:59:29 PM

Why are we all arguing when we can simply just go to the grocery store and buy some garlic bread and do our own tests? Or for those of you who are more of the science type, you can make your own garlic bread at home. Mine is in the oven right now and I should be ready to conduct some tests on it within the hour.

How did the launch go?

What launch?  I ate it.  Flat earth confirmed.

You ate the whole thing? In that case, I guess the launch will be tomorrow? 

Aim for the stars!

Space is considered to be 100km or greater altitude. These people didn't even bring it up a 1/3rd of the way there. Are we going to trust the camera lens was free of distortion and data they tell us given we know their title is a pathetic click bait grab?

Instead they made it clear that they weren't going to space, and instead are calling it the edge of space due to the extremely low pressure, even at that altitude.
What do you think constitutes the "edge" of space?

Quote from: Shifter on April 25, 2018, 07:05:29 PM

Space is considered to be 100km or greater altitude. These people didn't even bring it up a 1/3rd of the way there. Are we going to trust the camera lens was free of distortion and data they tell us given we know their title is a pathetic click bait grab?

Instead they made it clear that they weren't going to space, and instead are calling it the edge of space due to the extremely low pressure, even at that altitude.
What do you think constitutes the "edge" of space?

'Edge'. What do you think of when you hear that word. Am I at the edge of the cliff when I am one step away from falling off? Or several hundred metres away

Edge of space lol. They didn't even get 1/3rd of the way to space. Even 2/3rds you wouldn't call an 'edge'. Maybe if it were 90km high I could say, yeah, still a whole 10km to go (almost the depth of our deepest oceans!) but fair effort, I'll give you the use of the term edge. But only 30km high?

It was not even close to the edge of space! Still SO much further to go than not go!

They want to be all 'sciencey' on us then they should had least get their terminology right.

Video is fake. They cant even be truthful in the title. 'edge' of space?

Space is considered to be 100km or greater altitude. These people didn't even bring it up a 1/3rd of the way there. Are we going to trust the camera lens was free of distortion and data they tell us given we know their title is a pathetic click bait grab?

fake video and FAKE NEWS

So the video is fake because of the title?
If I had taken the video, I would probably have named it something similar. It is a title meant to provide clicks, but it isn't exactly clickbait.
But lets leave the title alone for now, since a rose by any other name is still a rose, and the video speaks for itself.

It shows an undistorted flat horizon at ground and above clouds. So the lens seems to do exactly as explained.
It shows a box and garlic bread, which is undistorted the whole travel to 30 km. So it seems the lens doesn't change.
It shows the curved horizon at high altitude. No matter where the horizon is positioned in the frame, and even when the camera is rotating.
The video speaks for itself.

You are welcome to call it fake without any substantial indication, like FEers always do. Dismiss it by its title, oh how logical that is.

I even asked in the comments for the full unedited video, and if enough people do that, they might release it.

Just looked around for other videos like it.



This one uncut and re-uploaded by a prominent youtube flat earther. Showing the exact same thing. A flat horizon at ground and curve at high altitude.

Is this one fake aswell?

You constantly demand 'show me the curve', and when we do you instantly call it fake.
Now please realise that you are making a baseless assertion that it is fake based on the fact that you do not want to believe in the globe earth.
We can't provide you with any higher altitude videos, because that would require rockets, and you distrust anything space agency related and call it fake.

So I ask you, what more do you want? What can you accept as evidense? I can't see how it is even possible to provide anything better for you.
Are you so trapped in your own conspiracy bubble that you will call these videos fake for no reason, or can you use just a tiny bit of logic to realise that we SEE curve at higher altitudes.

Again, I see 2 outcomes, either proclaim it fake, or make up some theory as to why the earth looks curved at high altitude on a flat earth.
Proclaiming it is fake will simply show how trapped you are in your conspiracies.
Making another theory will simply prove that you did not accept your previous assertion that the horizon always looks flat and you can never use that argument again.

Make your choice or choose the secret 3rd or 4th option.

Just looked around for other videos like it.



This one uncut and re-uploaded by a prominent youtube flat earther. Showing the exact same thing. A flat horizon at ground and curve at high altitude.

Is this one fake aswell?

You constantly demand 'show me the curve', and when we do you instantly call it fake.
Now please realise that you are making a baseless assertion that it is fake based on the fact that you do not want to believe in the globe earth.
We can't provide you with any higher altitude videos, because that would require rockets, and you distrust anything space agency related and call it fake.

So I ask you, what more do you want? What can you accept as evidense? I can't see how it is even possible to provide anything better for you.
Are you so trapped in your own conspiracy bubble that you will call these videos fake for no reason, or can you use just a tiny bit of logic to realise that we SEE curve at higher altitudes.

Again, I see 2 outcomes, either proclaim it fake, or make up some theory as to why the earth looks curved at high altitude on a flat earth.
Proclaiming it is fake will simply show how trapped you are in your conspiracies.
Making another theory will simply prove that you did not accept your previous assertion that the horizon always looks flat and you can never use that argument again.

Make your choice or choose the secret 3rd or 4th option.

The title is misleading so leads to issues of trust. The video does have some editing also.

We know it was still deep in our atmosphere. No where near the edge of space, yet they named it such. That part is most definitely FAKE but most laymen people wont notice.

I never said I did not want to believe in a globe Earth. You have me confused for someone else. My view is agnostic until a full understanding of the nature of the universe is known. Which wont be for at least several hundred years even with the help of an ASI

Also, here is another one of those FAKES.

Techrax here dropped an iphone from 100,000ft and somehow the iPhone was in perfect order after it hit the ground. We all know iPhones are shit and cant survive a drop of even 3ft without some cosmetic damage. We are expected to believe it can survive a drop from 100,000ft?

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 25, 2018, 11:38:47 PM

Just looked around for other videos like it.



This one uncut and re-uploaded by a prominent youtube flat earther. Showing the exact same thing. A flat horizon at ground and curve at high altitude.

Is this one fake aswell?

You constantly demand 'show me the curve', and when we do you instantly call it fake.
Now please realise that you are making a baseless assertion that it is fake based on the fact that you do not want to believe in the globe earth.
We can't provide you with any higher altitude videos, because that would require rockets, and you distrust anything space agency related and call it fake.

So I ask you, what more do you want? What can you accept as evidense? I can't see how it is even possible to provide anything better for you.
Are you so trapped in your own conspiracy bubble that you will call these videos fake for no reason, or can you use just a tiny bit of logic to realise that we SEE curve at higher altitudes.

Again, I see 2 outcomes, either proclaim it fake, or make up some theory as to why the earth looks curved at high altitude on a flat earth.
Proclaiming it is fake will simply show how trapped you are in your conspiracies.
Making another theory will simply prove that you did not accept your previous assertion that the horizon always looks flat and you can never use that argument again.

Make your choice or choose the secret 3rd or 4th option.

The title is misleading so leads to issues of trust. The video does have some editing also.

We know it was still deep in our atmosphere. No where near the edge of space, yet they named it such. That part is most definitely FAKE but most laymen people wont notice.

I never said I did not want to believe in a globe Earth. You have me confused for someone else. My view is agnostic until a full understanding of the nature of the universe is known. Which wont be for at least several hundred years even with the help of an ASI

Also, here is another one of those FAKES.

Techrax here dropped an iphone from 100,000ft and somehow the iPhone was in perfect order after it hit the ground. We all know iPhones are shit and cant survive a drop of even 3ft without some cosmetic damage. We are expected to believe it can survive a drop from 100,000ft?

You went with the 'fake' option I see. Now, the iPhone was strapped to a solid board and the iPhone did not hit the ground directly, but the construction did. Try placing an iPhone between 2 solid pieces of wood with tape around it throwing it as hard as you possibly can at the ground or a wall... I'll bet you the iPhone will still start.
The construction seemed to take a HUGE beating when hitting the ground, splitting it and sending the part with the iPhone further away. The construction took the biggest impact of the fall, breaking it and that is how the iPhone survived.

You have shown you are trapped in your conspiracy theories, you have shown you are not agnostic, not at all. You can't understand something, so you call it fake. This is all you do.

Quote from: Shifter on April 26, 2018, 12:43:21 AM

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 25, 2018, 11:38:47 PM

Just looked around for other videos like it.



This one uncut and re-uploaded by a prominent youtube flat earther. Showing the exact same thing. A flat horizon at ground and curve at high altitude.

Is this one fake aswell?

You constantly demand 'show me the curve', and when we do you instantly call it fake.
Now please realise that you are making a baseless assertion that it is fake based on the fact that you do not want to believe in the globe earth.
We can't provide you with any higher altitude videos, because that would require rockets, and you distrust anything space agency related and call it fake.

So I ask you, what more do you want? What can you accept as evidense? I can't see how it is even possible to provide anything better for you.
Are you so trapped in your own conspiracy bubble that you will call these videos fake for no reason, or can you use just a tiny bit of logic to realise that we SEE curve at higher altitudes.

Again, I see 2 outcomes, either proclaim it fake, or make up some theory as to why the earth looks curved at high altitude on a flat earth.
Proclaiming it is fake will simply show how trapped you are in your conspiracies.
Making another theory will simply prove that you did not accept your previous assertion that the horizon always looks flat and you can never use that argument again.

Make your choice or choose the secret 3rd or 4th option.

The title is misleading so leads to issues of trust. The video does have some editing also.

We know it was still deep in our atmosphere. No where near the edge of space, yet they named it such. That part is most definitely FAKE but most laymen people wont notice.

I never said I did not want to believe in a globe Earth. You have me confused for someone else. My view is agnostic until a full understanding of the nature of the universe is known. Which wont be for at least several hundred years even with the help of an ASI

Also, here is another one of those FAKES.

Techrax here dropped an iphone from 100,000ft and somehow the iPhone was in perfect order after it hit the ground. We all know iPhones are shit and cant survive a drop of even 3ft without some cosmetic damage. We are expected to believe it can survive a drop from 100,000ft?

You went with the 'fake' option I see. Now, the iPhone was strapped to a solid board and the iPhone did not hit the ground directly, but the construction did. Try placing an iPhone between 2 solid pieces of wood with tape around it throwing it as hard as you possibly can at the ground or a wall... I'll bet you the iPhone will still start.
The construction seemed to take a HUGE beating when hitting the ground, splitting it and sending the part with the iPhone further away. The construction took the biggest impact of the fall, breaking it and that is how the iPhone survived.

You have shown you are trapped in your conspiracy theories, you have shown you are not agnostic, not at all. You can't understand something, so you call it fake. This is all you do.

That board would be meaningless when dropped from 100,000ft. It would have hit the ground at over 200km/h. Wood is not a great absorber of shock. That board with the iPhone smashing to the ground at over 200km/h is no different than dropping an egg with the protection of its carton.

The author of that video said he sent some garlic bread to the edge of space. That's a fake. He sent it high into the atmosphere
Techrax claims the iPhone survived a free fall landing from 100,000ft. If you believe that board is sufficient protection, I guess you will have no problem dropping your phone attached to a board from your house. I bet you wont.

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 26, 2018, 01:06:29 AM

Quote from: Shifter on April 26, 2018, 12:43:21 AM

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 25, 2018, 11:38:47 PM

Just looked around for other videos like it.



This one uncut and re-uploaded by a prominent youtube flat earther. Showing the exact same thing. A flat horizon at ground and curve at high altitude.

Is this one fake aswell?

You constantly demand 'show me the curve', and when we do you instantly call it fake.
Now please realise that you are making a baseless assertion that it is fake based on the fact that you do not want to believe in the globe earth.
We can't provide you with any higher altitude videos, because that would require rockets, and you distrust anything space agency related and call it fake.

So I ask you, what more do you want? What can you accept as evidense? I can't see how it is even possible to provide anything better for you.
Are you so trapped in your own conspiracy bubble that you will call these videos fake for no reason, or can you use just a tiny bit of logic to realise that we SEE curve at higher altitudes.

Again, I see 2 outcomes, either proclaim it fake, or make up some theory as to why the earth looks curved at high altitude on a flat earth.
Proclaiming it is fake will simply show how trapped you are in your conspiracies.
Making another theory will simply prove that you did not accept your previous assertion that the horizon always looks flat and you can never use that argument again.

Make your choice or choose the secret 3rd or 4th option.

The title is misleading so leads to issues of trust. The video does have some editing also.

We know it was still deep in our atmosphere. No where near the edge of space, yet they named it such. That part is most definitely FAKE but most laymen people wont notice.

I never said I did not want to believe in a globe Earth. You have me confused for someone else. My view is agnostic until a full understanding of the nature of the universe is known. Which wont be for at least several hundred years even with the help of an ASI

Also, here is another one of those FAKES.

Techrax here dropped an iphone from 100,000ft and somehow the iPhone was in perfect order after it hit the ground. We all know iPhones are shit and cant survive a drop of even 3ft without some cosmetic damage. We are expected to believe it can survive a drop from 100,000ft?

You went with the 'fake' option I see. Now, the iPhone was strapped to a solid board and the iPhone did not hit the ground directly, but the construction did. Try placing an iPhone between 2 solid pieces of wood with tape around it throwing it as hard as you possibly can at the ground or a wall... I'll bet you the iPhone will still start.
The construction seemed to take a HUGE beating when hitting the ground, splitting it and sending the part with the iPhone further away. The construction took the biggest impact of the fall, breaking it and that is how the iPhone survived.

You have shown you are trapped in your conspiracy theories, you have shown you are not agnostic, not at all. You can't understand something, so you call it fake. This is all you do.

That board would be meaningless when dropped from 100,000ft. It would have hit the ground at over 200km/h. Wood is not a great absorber of shock. That board with the iPhone smashing to the ground at over 200km/h is no different than dropping an egg with the protection of its carton.

The author of that video said he sent some garlic bread to the edge of space. That's a fake. He sent it high into the atmosphere
Techrax claims the iPhone survived a free fall landing from 100,000ft. If you believe that board is sufficient protection, I guess you will have no problem dropping your phone attached to a board from your house. I bet you wont.

Let me show you an egg drop.


So because the author used the word space in his title and it was cut from 3 hours to 5 minutes, you are refuting his whole video calling it fake.
Just admit that no matter what the video was called, you would still have claimed it fake. No matter if the video showed the whole 3 hour trip, you would have called it fake (as you do with the other video I linked). You simply can't do anything else as I've stated previously.

I could easily drop my phone attached to a board from my 2nd floor window down on the pavement below. But the reason I wont is not because it would scratch my phone a little, its because you still would not be convinced. You simply claim fake even though there is clear video that it isn't. You claim fake simply because you don't understand it. You do not claim CGI, but simply fake. I showed you an unedited video from ground to 30 km, and you still claim fake. As I said, that is all you can do, since you clearly can't understand it.

Your logic is flawed, you can't see the flaw, and it is a well known effect.
https://medium.com/@littlebrown/i-wore-the-juice-the-dunning-kruger-effect-f8ac3299eb1
A burgler who used lime juice to become invisible, so he could rob a place. He was so convinced by the logic that lime juice is used as invisible ink, that he logically concluded that he would become invisible when wearing it. He could not believe the video showing him that he was actually visible.

You are not as dumb as this, since this is the extreme, but you really do make some jumps in logic which reminded me of this effect.

That board would be meaningless when dropped from 100,000ft. It would have hit the ground at over 200km/h. Wood is not a great absorber of shock. That board with the iPhone smashing to the ground at over 200km/h is no different than dropping an egg with the protection of its carton.

What total garbage!
Did you watch the video before spouting you idiotic claim of 200 km/h. The terminal velocity of a person falling is usually less that 200 km/hr.

Sure, "Wood is not a great absorber of shock." because the garlic bread etc was not protected by wood!

The author of that video said he sent some garlic bread to the edge of space. That's a fake. He sent it high into the atmosphere
Techrax claims the iPhone survived a free fall landing from 100,000ft. If you believe that board is sufficient protection, I guess you will have no problem dropping your phone attached to a board from your house. I bet you wont.

<< added later >>
What would be the terminal velocity of the iPhone etc falling with all that shredded balloon dragging behind it? Certainly not 200 km/hr!
If you check up on terminal velocities, they are a lot lower than you think.

Yes, "He sent it high into the atmosphere" and that is what he claimed, if you bothered to watch it!

Did you bother to check how the garlic bread etc were brought down before weighing with you ignorant rant?

Well read this!

YouTuber Sends Garlic Bread to 'Edge of Space' and Then Eats It
What happens to garlic bread when you send it to the edge of space?

While this is unlikely to be a question that anyone has pondered for long, British YouTuber Tom Scott deemed the topic worthy enough to test out the idea.

In the opening scene of a new YouTube film, Scott—who has more than one million subscribers on his channel—declares: “This is not going to be a normal video, we’re sending garlic bread to the edge of space!”

To achieve this, Scott and his collaborators placed the garlic bread in a protective box attached to a weather balloon. The balloon was then released, floating 35 kilometers into the stratosphere—the second major layer of the Earth’s atmosphere that extends to about 50 kilometers above the surface.

“Most standards organizations agree that space officially starts at the completely arbitrary Kármán line, 100 kilometers up,” Scott said, adding that the balloon they were using would only reach about a third of the way there.

“We’re not saying space, we’re saying the edge of space,” he said. “The atmosphere is so thin up there, about 1 percent of the pressure at ground level, that it’s close enough.”

When the balloon reached 35 kilometers up, it popped, causing the box to fall to Earth before a parachute was deployed, bringing the bread safely down to the surface.

From: YouTuber Sends Garlic Bread to 'Edge of Space' and Then Eats It

So, Mr Shifter:

• They were quite aware of the Kármán line, 100 kilometers up and that they were only going 35 kilometers into the stratosphere and
  
  
• The garlic bread etc were not protected by "wood", but when it hit the ground was in a closed styrofoam box!
  
  
• Even that closed styrofoam box then had a parachute (you have heard that parachutes are commonly used for this purpose?) deployed to slow the whole assembly to about 20 km/hr - not 200 km/hr as one idiot claimed!

But it was made as a fun, tongue-in-cheek video and here you weigh in with all your  ASI assisited brilliance and make an utter fool of yourself!

Care to take back your claim,  "It would have hit the ground at over 200km/h. Wood is not a great absorber of shock."

I was talking about the iPhone drop regarding its wooden board protection rab, not the garlic bread. Try and keep up

'Edge'. What do you think of when you hear that word. Am I at the edge of the cliff when I am one step away from falling off? Or several hundred metres away

Now how about you try comparing it to something more like what it is.
Lets say you have your cliff, it has a vertical drop at some point, that is where the cliff is defined to be.
However, at the top of this vertical drop it isn't flat, instead it is almost vertical, say 80 degrees, and goes back for another 100 m at this slope.
Now, when standing at the top, 100 m away from the vertical drop, would you say you were at the edge?
Is sure would.

The point they made is that the definition of "space" is quite arbitrary, being defined as 100 km.
Yet the atmosphere is already basically gone a lot lower.


There is no defined "edge of space". All that has been defined is where space starts.
As such, they are fine to say it went to the edge of space.

That board would be meaningless when dropped from 100,000ft. It would have hit the ground at over 200km/h. Wood is not a great absorber of shock.

You seem to have no idea what causes things to break.
It doesn't need to absorb the shock. It needs to ensure the entire phone is exposed to the same shock.
The reasons phones break is because they don't land flat and have the entire phone stopped at once. Instead it either hits a rock (or other small debris) which imparts all the force onto that location, or hits the corner.

Another simple test you can do is get a piece of wood, place it over the phone, and hit the wood with a hammer. See what happens then.

You also seem to have no idea at how things fall.
It would be quite hard to have something like that get to 200 km/hr. You would need something forcing it at that.
The terminal velocity will be quite low, especially with the balloon fragments and the like trailing behind.

The author of that video said he sent some garlic bread to the edge of space. That's a fake. He sent it high into the atmosphere

Yes, he sent it high into the atmosphere, i.e. the edge of space.
After all, space is 6471 km from the centre of Earth, they went to ~ 6400. That is 99% of the way there.

Quote from: Shifter on April 25, 2018, 10:02:36 PM

'Edge'. What do you think of when you hear that word. Am I at the edge of the cliff when I am one step away from falling off? Or several hundred metres away

Now how about you try comparing it to something more like what it is.
Lets say you have your cliff, it has a vertical drop at some point, that is where the cliff is defined to be.
However, at the top of this vertical drop it isn't flat, instead it is almost vertical, say 80 degrees, and goes back for another 100 m at this slope.
Now, when standing at the top, 100 m away from the vertical drop, would you say you were at the edge?
Is sure would.

The point they made is that the definition of "space" is quite arbitrary, being defined as 100 km.
Yet the atmosphere is already basically gone a lot lower.


There is no defined "edge of space". All that has been defined is where space starts.
As such, they are fine to say it went to the edge of space.

Quote from: Shifter on April 26, 2018, 01:11:54 AM

That board would be meaningless when dropped from 100,000ft. It would have hit the ground at over 200km/h. Wood is not a great absorber of shock.

You seem to have no idea what causes things to break.
It doesn't need to absorb the shock. It needs to ensure the entire phone is exposed to the same shock.
The reasons phones break is because they don't land flat and have the entire phone stopped at once. Instead it either hits a rock (or other small debris) which imparts all the force onto that location, or hits the corner.

Another simple test you can do is get a piece of wood, place it over the phone, and hit the wood with a hammer. See what happens then.

You also seem to have no idea at how things fall.
It would be quite hard to have something like that get to 200 km/hr. You would need something forcing it at that.
The terminal velocity will be quite low, especially with the balloon fragments and the like trailing behind.

Quote from: Shifter on April 26, 2018, 01:11:54 AM

The author of that video said he sent some garlic bread to the edge of space. That's a fake. He sent it high into the atmosphere

Yes, he sent it high into the atmosphere, i.e. the edge of space.
After all, space is 6471 km from the centre of Earth, they went to ~ 6400. That is 99% of the way there.

The bit from the centre to the surface doesn't count. Otherwise you might as well say I am already 98-99% of the way to the 'edge of space'. A ridiculous notion. It's only from the surface (sea level) to the 'arbitrary' line we have deemed as space that counts in this context. They didn't get even a 1/3rd of the way there. Title was click bait. Dishonest. When I think of space, I think of 100km high or higher (and I don't consider myself more than 6000km high because I am counting from the centre). To me, even 100km from the surface is pretty low given the overall size of the Earth. Think of an apple and pretend that is the Earth to scale. 100km up from the surface is hardly anything. Maybe another skin or 2 layer in height. That is where space 'begins'

If I drop my phone from a roof of a building and it lands perfect, flat on its back. It will break. No question.

Skydivers can fall at speeds more than 300km/h if they dive head first tucking in their arms and legs. And that's with all the atmospheric drag.  Okay, so the balloon fragments may create some drag and slow it down. This did fall from a point where the atmosphere was incredibly thin. In the start of it's journey, it had very little drag to contend with. It is not a large object either so although the air would have slowed it down, it would not have slowed it down to a gentle landing. How about you jump out of an aeroplane but before you do, shred your parachute. Do you believe you will fall slow enough to be okay?

This phone would have smashed into the ground in an uncontrolled manner at a very fast speed, not as fast as a skydiver, or  Much faster than if you dropped the phone from your head height that still breaks sometimes despite a case and screen protector. This iPhone was dropped from 100,000ft (estimated) and was perfectly fine. It was a shitty iPhone that are renowned for always breaking. Let that sink in.

Maybe NASA should borrow Techrax's board design. How many probes have obliterated smashing into Mars despite all their protections built in. Earth is much bigger and Techrax can have a fragile iPhone survive with nothing more than a little board and a few streamers of what was once a balloon

I was talking about the iPhone drop regarding its wooden board protection rab, not the garlic bread. Try and keep up

Quote from: Shifter on April 26, 2018, 01:11:54 AM

That board would be meaningless when dropped from 100,000ft. It would have hit the ground at over 200km/h. Wood is not a great absorber of shock. That board with the iPhone smashing to the ground at over 200km/h is no different than dropping an egg with the protection of its carton.

What total garbage!
Did you watch the video before spouting you idiotic claim of 200 km/h. The terminal velocity of a person falling is usually less that 200 km/hr.

I never said I did not want to believe in a globe Earth. You have me confused for someone else. My view is agnostic until a full understanding of the nature of the universe is known. Which wont be for at least several hundred years even with the help of an ASI

Also, here is another one of those FAKES.

Techrax here dropped an iphone from 100,000ft and somehow the iPhone was in perfect order after it hit the ground. We all know iPhones are shit and cant survive a drop of even 3ft without some cosmetic damage. We are expected to believe it can survive a drop from 100,000ft?

You claim, "We all know iPhones . . . can't survive a drop of even 3ft without some cosmetic damage".
I have have a Google Nexus 4 (made by LG) and have (accidently) dropped that, completely unprotected, from about 3 ft onto a very hard tiled floor - no damage at all!

My objection is you whole attitude of "here is another one of those FAKES".
You don't even bother to check on the details before weighing with an ignorant claim like "It would have hit the ground at over 200km/h".Look at shredded balloon coming down with it. That does not make a good parachute, but still provides a lot more drag than a free falling iPhone.
I cannot find any experimental data on terminal velocities of "shredded weather balloons" because they usually use a parachute to slow descent to aroung 20 km/hr.
But a few guesses putting: the mass at 2 kg, cross-sectional area at 0.2 m² and drag coefficient at 1.0 would make the terminal velocity about 12.7 m/s or 46 km/hr.
Even that is a far cry for your 200 km/hr.

By the way, I would estimate that an unprotected iPhone 7 might reach a terminal velocity of from 16 m/s falling flat up to 146 m/s falling end on.
I suspect that the falling iPhone would not fall end on, but would "flutter" and would fall at closer to the 16 m/s.
If you are interested in learning, you might read IOP Science, Flutter and tumble in fluids, though some people prefer to sit on the side-lines and ridicule.

But you dive in an immediately cry "fake" bothering to check if you even vaguely correct.
Sure, be sceptical, but don't automatically assume everything is a fake, without any reasonable grounds - you'd make a wonderful flat earther.
Seems you're really a flat-earther that's afraid to "come out" after: I've been considering being a flat earther but I have some questions « on: April 24, 2018, 01:35:33 PM »
And this sort of idiocy:
Why do you need to know the "full understanding of the nature of the universe" before knowing the shape of the earth? Forget you ASI and open you eyes!

This iPhone was dropped from 100,000ft (estimated) and was perfectly fine.

The starting altitude is totally irrelevant to the final velocity - let that sink in. The assembly would reach its terminal velocity of an estimated 46 km/hr in a few seconds.
Also it did not fall onto a hard pavement - in all probability, it hit soil, which is a quite different matter.

And, it was not "perfectly fine"!

You claim, "We all know iPhones . . . can't survive a drop of even 3ft without some cosmetic damage".
I have have a Google Nexus 4 (made by LG) and have (accidently) dropped that, completely unprotected, from about 3 ft onto a very hard tiled floor - no damage at all!

My objection is you whole attitude of "here is another one of those FAKES".
You don't even bother to check on the details before weighing with an ignorant claim like "It would have hit the ground at over 200km/h".

Can an iPhone 7 Survive From a Space Drop Test? (100,000 FT) 2:50

Look at shredded balloon coming down with it. That does not make a good parachute, but still provides a lot more drag than a free falling iPhone.
I cannot find any experimental data on terminal velocities of "shredded weather balloons" because they usually use a parachute to slow descent to aroung 20 km/hr.
But a few guesses putting: the mass at 2 kg, cross-sectional area at 0.2 m² and drag coefficient at 1.0 would make the terminal velocity about 12.7 m/s or 46 km/hr.
Even that is a far cry for your 200 km/hr.

By the way, I would estimate that an unprotected iPhone 7 might reach a terminal velocity of from 16 m/s falling flat up to 146 m/s falling end on.
I suspect that the falling iPhone would not fall end on, but would "flutter" and would fall at closer to the 16 m/s.
If you are interested in learning, you might read IOP Science, Flutter and tumble in fluids, though some people prefer to sit on the side-lines and ridicule.

But you dive in an immediately cry "fake" bothering to check if you even vaguely correct.
Sure, be sceptical, but don't automatically assume everything is a fake, without any reasonable grounds - you'd make a wonderful flat earther.
Seems you're really a flat-earther that's afraid to "come out" after: I've been considering being a flat earther but I have some questions « on: April 24, 2018, 01:35:33 PM »
And this sort of idiocy:

"My view is agnostic until a full understanding of the nature of the universe is known. Which wont be for at least several hundred years even with the help of an ASI"!

Why do you need to know the "full understanding of the nature of the universe" before knowing the shape of the earth? Forget you ASI and open you eyes!

Yes, you had an LG made phone, not an Apple. I have yet to see someone with an Apple phone that doesn't have a cracked screen or scratched up back etc. Their build quality is shit.

Your made up calculations and assumptions are extreme and don't take into account that for much of the phones descent, there would have been no drag because of the extremely thin atmosphere thus attaining speeds much higher than 46km/h. The drag would have slowed it down a little on the way down but not enough to give it a gentle landing and not enough that it would have slowed to 46km/h. Even a landing at 46km/h would be devastating to and iPhone. Imagine throwing your phone to the ground as hard as you can. People shatter their iPhones from a simple drop at head height

You don't think Techrax is honest do you?