Rockets cannot propel in space. Therefore no globe picture could have been taken

  • 393 Replies
  • 46329 Views
*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Ok mag.
How do you orbit a flat plate?

You go over, then under, then over, then under... The Aztecs understood this, though they also thought the sun needed human blood to give it strength to fight the demons underneath the Earth or it would not rise the next morning, which is pretty dumb, because everybody knows the demons are not on the underside, they're in Congress and the White House. Anyway, that's how you orbit a plate.

Whoah! I admire your sense of humor, but whoever said the earth was a "plate"?

While some think it might be flat on the surface we are all familiar with, like the top of your dinner plate, those same individuals freely admit they have no idea the shape of the underside of flat earth. A plate would break apart, like what happens when you drop your dinner plate on the kitchen floor. You're gonna have to do better than that!



Indeed, I'd have quibbled over the use of the word "plate" but I don't think that was the point, so I let it pass. I think something more like a thick pancake or French toast would be more apt. But his point would have been the same with pancake instead of plate, so I felt it would have been petty to go off on that tangent.

Of course some have pictured the Earth as flat on top and then tapering down to a point on the bottom, like an upside down volcano. And I have no argument against that version. But personally I favor the pancake or French toast. And before any wag asks, you should never put cheap corn-syrup-based artificially-flavored syrup on pancakes or French toast. It's got to be 100% genuine maple syrup. Preferably Canadian.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
The pictures are indeed beautiful, rab.
But why do those and the thousands of other similar photos taken from different positions show that the Earth must be very nearly spherical?

Because of Art. (I don't mean fakery. I mean that Nature adores Art. Such pictures are more beautiful, so they occur.)
In other words you have no logical answer.


Great.
Think about what you just said.
So you think astronuats wih their phds and genius level math and mechanical backgrounds cant figure out theyre orbitting a flat plate vs a ball?

Perspective and optical illusions. Even PhD's are tricked by the same optical illusions that get the rest of us.

Have you considered the possibility that “perspective and optical illusions” might be tricking you instead?

Mag is trolling.


Tats needs to respond to the japanese water video

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Indeed, I'd have quibbled over the use of the word "plate" but I don't think that was the point, so I let it pass. I think something more like a thick pancake or French toast would be more apt. But his point would have been the same with pancake instead of plate, so I felt it would have been petty to go off on that tangent.

Of course some have pictured the Earth as flat on top and then tapering down to a point on the bottom, like an upside down volcano. And I have no argument against that version. But personally I favor the pancake or French toast. And before any wag asks, you should never put cheap corn-syrup-based artificially-flavored syrup on pancakes or French toast. It's got to be 100% genuine maple syrup. Preferably Canadian.
I swear its so hard to identify real trolls from complete nut cases over here.
Literally anywhere else on the internet this would either be an obvious troll or just pure comedy.
At the FES, where all the crazies come to gather, its nearly impossible to tell.

I think at this point there should be a betting game of "Troll of Nut" TM
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

It was directed at you, my apologies for being too lazy to quote you. <...snip...>

You are repeating questions that have been asked and answered. And as it says in The Thousand Nights and a Night (Sir Richard Burton translation) "Of no avail is a twice-told tale."

Anyway, that's off topic. The topic is Do rockets work in space? They do. If they didn't, Neil Armstrong never could have walked on the moon. Which, BTW, was a colossal waste of money because it was nothing but a giant pissing contest with the Soviets. Which, FWIW, we won because the Soviet government insisted that its scientist had to work under the idiotic hypothesis that the laws of science obey Soviet political dogma. Which is very much like our (U.S.) government is doing now concerning climate change: Insisting that our scientists conform to capitalist, and oil company dogma. But this is off topic also, for which I apologize.

Some awesome people invented a jetski "rocket pack".

What's even cooler than a jetski rocket pack is a jetski flyboard.



At about 8:45 in the video she does some head-first dives into the water.

In Roatan, Honduras, there was an outfit that had flyboards. I asked them if someone like me would be able to do it (68 years old at the time, just about on the borderline of being overweight, and not athletic at all) and they said probably not. So I didn't try.

But a good demonstration of the rocket principle.

You can buy these things today. They connect to a jetski, not included with your purchase of the flyboard.


How can you show that the water is not pushing off the air?


we can say it because it doesn't happen.

scepti already tried your argument.
he failed miserably.
he even posted a video disproving himself.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78872.msg2140397#msg2140397


Quote from: JCM
You claimed the pop can is pushing off the wall in the low atmosphere environment, yet the shower head pushing itself up can’t push off your hand smothering the open end...  Don’t you see this makes no sense?  You made the claim, back it up.
The lid and the decompressing gas up against the already decompressed gas inside the chamber crash into each other and create a reaction. The wall just adds to that reaction in such a small area.
You still haven’t answered why the shower head doesn’t lift off your hand smothering the water side.  Add as much water pressure as you want, it doesn’t push any extra due to your hand under it.  It only can raise higher as you crank the water pressure up.

If that’s not a good enough experiment, maybe not enough pressure...  take a firehose, it has measurable water pressure right, a lot of it, measurable even while exhausting.  Under constant water pressure walk the hose up to a wall.  Are you suggesting that pressure pushing back on the person holding it increases when the firehose is placed as close to the wall as possible?  Be very specific, this effect is actually measurable and if true then it would actually support your theories.
Think of a better scenario because I'm not too sure what you're getting at with this wall stuff.

This is readily apparent to everyone reading this I think, but I will break it down. 

You think rockets, sprinklers, pressurized soda cans, fire hoses all expell fire or water etc and that expelled material pushes on the atmosphere and a reactionary force is felt the opposite direction of the flow.   These examples are pushing off the atmosphere you say; they are also pushing off of objects like walls, edges of the vacuum chamber, etc.  It would follow logically that this effect could be measured or seen.

Following me with this?  I displayed that there was not enough air in the chamber for the drone to work, yet that didn’t affect the pressurized soda can in its ability to thrust away from the soda explosion in any noticeable way. 

Except here we have a problem, because if these devices can push off of walls, why isn’t your hand smothering the shower head causing it to push off your hands and go higher?  I brought in the firehose because it is a really good analogy. The firehose pushes back onto the fireman a considerable amount correct?  THe water it is ejecting has hundreds of pounds of measurable force.   The water pressure running through the fire truck is monitored as well and controllable.   Your contention is that these things are pushing off both the atmosphere and other physical barriers like walls, etc.  Therefore, a fireman, walking towards a wall with his hose at constant pressure, should notice a significant difference in the reactionary force he is feeling when he gets within a couple feet of the wall correct?
I'll leave you with this video and you can decide what's happening.

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=3Al6L7sgqhM


www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=3Al6L7sgqhM

here
he's found a video hoping to prove his point.
instead he proves his and your failure at grade 10 physics.
(subsequently proves the japanese should've stopped at the computerized toilet).

take special note between 1:00 and 1:04.

the air is 1,000,000,000x less dense than a solid steel wall.
by your logic, you should expect the hose end to jump after crossing the window.
everyone else who knows better, don't.

Ill spam this until tats responds.


Doesn’t prove anything. Water can be pushing off the air. The steel wall was not close enough to cause the water to go back and hit the nozzle. Air is immediate after the nozzle. There’s air also initially in the nozzle as well which the water has to displace.


Great.
Think about what you just said.
So you think astronuats wih their phds and genius level math and mechanical backgrounds cant figure out theyre orbitting a flat plate vs a ball?

Perspective and optical illusions. Even PhD's are tricked by the same optical illusions that get the rest of us.

Have you considered the possibility that “perspective and optical illusions” might be tricking you instead?


Or greed.
If you paid me enough, I’d take down this thread and start pro space threads and troll anyone that is anti space.

Its pushing off the air immediately outside the nozzle.
If you use that logic then why didnt it massively jump when it was resring on the ground?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Or greed.
If you paid me enough, I’d take down this thread and start pro space threads and troll anyone that is anti space.
Maybe some have far higher standards than you.

In any case, you'd have to pay millions to cover up the true shape of the earth because I'm sure millions know the true shape of the earth simply to perform their daily tasks.

Or greed.
If you paid me enough, I’d take down this thread and start pro space threads and troll anyone that is anti space.
Maybe some have far higher standards than you.

In any case, you'd have to pay millions to cover up the true shape of the earth because I'm sure millions know the true shape of the earth simply to perform their daily tasks.

Is $53 million a day budget can pay many $1million annual salaries

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
The pictures are indeed beautiful, rab.
But why do those and the thousands of other similar photos taken from different positions show that the Earth must be very nearly spherical?

Because of Art. (I don't mean fakery. I mean that Nature adores Art. Such pictures are more beautiful, so they occur.)
In other words you have no logical answer.

Art is not subject to logic. Art is an endeavor meant to speak to the emotions.


Great.
Think about what you just said.
So you think astronuats wih their phds and genius level math and mechanical backgrounds cant figure out theyre orbitting a flat plate vs a ball?

Perspective and optical illusions. Even PhD's are tricked by the same optical illusions that get the rest of us.

Have you considered the possibility that “perspective and optical illusions” might be tricking you instead?

But I'm not basing my views on looking at pictures.

Right
Mag the troll bases his views on nothing.
Baseless.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Right
Mag the troll bases his views on nothing.
Baseless.

The Urban Dictionary defines troll as:

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

Or

Someone who deliberately pisses people off online to get a reaction

I don't think that arguing in favor of FET on the FES discussion board can possibly qualify as trolling. Taking the same position on a RE discussion board might be trolling, whether the poster believed in RET or FET. Your characterization of me as a troll does not fit the definition. My intention is not to cause disruption, and I don't think any sensible person could point to any of my posts as disruptive. I have also been careful to be polite and courteous and to avoid pissing people off. It is possible that some RET advocates have arrived here pissed off against FET, but I have certainly not done anything that could be reasonably interpreted as attempts to piss anyone off. I have not even addressed any RE advocates except to answer queries directed specifically at me, mostly asking me how I could possibly believe in FET.

So I reject the accusation of trollery.

Several round-Earthers and one flat-Earther have accused me of secretly being a round-Earther (the latter using the rather whimsical term "globularist") because they think that my support of science precludes the possibility of believing in FET. But even were that true, it would not make me a troll.

Mag equote:

I don't think that arguing in favor of FET on the FES discussion board can possibly qualify as trolling.




Then present an argument other than "because i believe it to be so".
Or stupidasss "i can make a tortilla with a machine press".
Or other stupidass "my friend thought he saw a ufo once so therefore nasa astronaurts are mistaken by optical illusions".
Or the most sutpidass "although gps works, i dont understand how gps works, so the guy who invented possibly is wrong about why it works, because no one can know everything".

And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism

Mag equote:

I don't think that arguing in favor of FET on the FES discussion board can possibly qualify as trolling.




Then present an argument other than "because i believe it to be so".
Or stupidasss "i can make a tortilla with a machine press".
Or other stupidass "my friend thought he saw a ufo once so therefore nasa astronaurts are mistaken by optical illusions".
Or the most sutpidass "although gps works, i dont understand how gps works, so the guy who invented possibly is wrong about why it works, because no one can know everything".


GPS can work without satellites

Mag equote:

I don't think that arguing in favor of FET on the FES discussion board can possibly qualify as trolling.

Then present an argument other than "because i believe it to be so".
Or stupidasss "i can make a tortilla with a machine press".
Or other stupidass "my friend thought he saw a ufo once so therefore nasa astronaurts are mistaken by optical illusions".
Or the most sutpidass "although gps works, i dont understand how gps works, so the guy who invented possibly is wrong about why it works, because no one can know everything".


GPS can work without satellites
And does work with satellites.  Typically a receiver will see 15.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism
As recently stated, you don’t try to prove a negative.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

And yet you have no mechanism for water to push off air.

Prove that there is no mechanism

Rockets in space prove it.
We re at a stale mate unless you concede.

Mag equote:

I don't think that arguing in favor of FET on the FES discussion board can possibly qualify as trolling.




Then present an argument other than "because i believe it to be so".
Or stupidasss "i can make a tortilla with a machine press".
Or other stupidass "my friend thought he saw a ufo once so therefore nasa astronaurts are mistaken by optical illusions".
Or the most sutpidass "although gps works, i dont understand how gps works, so the guy who invented possibly is wrong about why it works, because no one can know everything".


GPS can work without satellites

G-PS.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Mag equote:

I don't think that arguing in favor of FET on the FES discussion board can possibly qualify as trolling.

Then present an argument other than "because i believe it to be so".
Or stupidasss "i can make a tortilla with a machine press".
Or other stupidass "my friend thought he saw a ufo once so therefore nasa astronaurts are mistaken by optical illusions".
Or the most sutpidass "although gps works, i dont understand how gps works, so the guy who invented possibly is wrong about why it works, because no one can know everything".

The above is a non-sequitur. Making a joke about tortillas makes me a troll??? OTOH, you come to a flat Earth discussion board and call people "stupidass" for believing in flat Earth. Which is more troll-like behavior? Defending flat Earth on a flat Earth board, or visiting a flat-Earth board and calling people "stupidass"?

If I went to a round-Earth board and claimed the Earth is flat, you'd have justification for asking me to provide reasons for my opinion. But you simply have no frigging right to come here, to the FES discussion board and demand that people justify themselves to you. I can hold whatever views I like, and as long as I'm not visiting your board and trying to foist my views on you, I don't have to give you any reasons. You can hold whatever opinion of me you like, but name-calling will not win you any points even among your own people.

Note also, please, that I am one of the only people, if not the only person on this board, actively arguing that you and other reound-Earthers are not liars and conspirators or stupid or dupes. I am one of the only people, if not the only person on this board, actively arguing that you and other round-Earthers honestly believe the things you say. And you repay this by calling me a stupidass. Well, I'll tell you what. I'm still not going to call you a liar or a conspirator, because it would just be childish to reply to rudeness with animosity.

Mag equote:

I don't think that arguing in favor of FET on the FES discussion board can possibly qualify as trolling.




Then present an argument other than "because i believe it to be so".
Or stupidasss "i can make a tortilla with a machine press".
Or other stupidass "my friend thought he saw a ufo once so therefore nasa astronaurts are mistaken by optical illusions".
Or the most sutpidass "although gps works, i dont understand how gps works, so the guy who invented possibly is wrong about why it works, because no one can know everything".


GPS can work without satellites

Yes, you could triangulate a position from mobile phone masts. Not as accurate. And you need an on board database of the locations of all the phone masts.

Now explain how GPS works in the middle of the ocean.
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

Mag equote:

I don't think that arguing in favor of FET on the FES discussion board can possibly qualify as trolling.

Then present an argument other than "because i believe it to be so".
Or stupidasss "i can make a tortilla with a machine press".
Or other stupidass "my friend thought he saw a ufo once so therefore nasa astronaurts are mistaken by optical illusions".
Or the most sutpidass "although gps works, i dont understand how gps works, so the guy who invented possibly is wrong about why it works, because no one can know everything".

The above is a non-sequitur. Making a joke about tortillas makes me a troll??? OTOH, you come to a flat Earth discussion board and call people "stupidass" for believing in flat Earth. Which is more troll-like behavior? Defending flat Earth on a flat Earth board, or visiting a flat-Earth board and calling people "stupidass"?

If I went to a round-Earth board and claimed the Earth is flat, you'd have justification for asking me to provide reasons for my opinion. But you simply have no frigging right to come here, to the FES discussion board and demand that people justify themselves to you. I can hold whatever views I like, and as long as I'm not visiting your board and trying to foist my views on you, I don't have to give you any reasons. You can hold whatever opinion of me you like, but name-calling will not win you any points even among your own people.

Note also, please, that I am one of the only people, if not the only person on this board, actively arguing that you and other reound-Earthers are not liars and conspirators or stupid or dupes. I am one of the only people, if not the only person on this board, actively arguing that you and other round-Earthers honestly believe the things you say. And you repay this by calling me a stupidass. Well, I'll tell you what. I'm still not going to call you a liar or a conspirator, because it would just be childish to reply to rudeness with animosity.

Wahwahwah mag.
So insyead of providng a few lines of clear communication of why,you choose paragraphs of cry fest.

Doesnt matter how much you claim the scientists are right.
Immediately following it you state they are (paraprhasing/ equivalent to) fools because they cant figure out a ball from a plate.
If you claim they are not fools well akin to "im no racist but..."

Ive been banned a bunch of times.
This latest failure at patience prorbably means im due for a timeout.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Ive been banned a bunch of times.
This latest failure at patience prorbably means im due for a timeout.

Or maybe just calm down a bit. You know, you're not going to convince anybody here. If you're not having fun, what's the point? And if you were having fun, you wouldn't get so upset. This is the FES. So enjoy it. Or, I don't know, give yourself ulcers arguing with us. I'm having fun here, among my fellow FE people. Arguing with round-Earthers wouldn't be fun, which is why I don't do it. The world is a big place, and life is short. Why waste it someplace you're not having fun?



Have you considered the possibility that “perspective and optical illusions” might be tricking you instead?

But I'm not basing my views on looking at pictures.

Perspective and optical illusions don’t only apply to photos.  Although you don’t specify what type of illusion you think is relevant, so it’s hard to respond properly.

But that wasn’t really the point.  I was asking if you have any doubt that near everyone else is mistaken instead of you?  I’m not really sure how you came to the conclusion the earth is flat, and your viewpoint is very different from most flat earthers.

I’m just curious really.  The main reason I’m here is trying to work out why flat earthers believe what they do.  Yours is an interesting one.

And for what it’s worth, I don’t think you are a troll. 

I always have fun.
Ask jane.
Or the little green dancing alien guy.

Oh and keep on dodging.
You dont have to answer me, yet you continue to "answer".
Not answering my direct question.
But instead posting a bunch of off topic nothingness.
I alrwady live in canada.
We do enoughh hand holding.
Dont need you to tell me how to be friendly.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
... I’m just curious really.  The main reason I’m here is trying to work out why flat earthers believe what they do.  Yours is an interesting one.

Is it really possible to know why anyone believes what they do? Some folks can formulate an answer to that question. I suspect that most cannot. Religion, politics, economic philosophy. Why is one person a capitalist and another is a socialist? Why is one person a democrat and another is a monarchist? Why is one person a Hindu and another is a Sikh? Why, really, does one person believe the Earth is round and another believes it is flat? Is it really because of "evidence" or is it something deeper? FWIW, I'm a socialist, an atheist, a monarchist and a flat-Earther. I don't feel the need to justify or explain any of it, though I enjoy participating in this discussion board, and I would like to convince my fellow flat-Earthers that their hostility toward round-Earthers is unwarranted.

And for what it’s worth, I don’t think you are a troll. 

Thank you.

Oh and keep on dodging.
You dont have to answer me, yet you continue to "answer".
Not answering my direct question.
But instead posting a bunch of off topic nothingness.

Just because I post, does not mean I'm trying to answer you.

No,mag
Youre definitely not trying to answer or have a discussion.
Funny you join an fe forum to NOT talk about your views or how the earth is flat.
Instead you join this thread and tell tats that rockets do exist and that hes wrong in his beliefs.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2019, 02:55:21 PM by Themightykabool »