@Super-Jack
So, after 8 hours or so, you finally end up going directly away from the center of the earth??? lol
THE PROBLEM No 1 : What kind of a rocket can provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.
THE PROBLEM No 2 : As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude. Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air.
Note: NASA says so - not me.THE PROBLEM No 3 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.
Everything looks nice in NASA cartoons, however, NASA have been caught in lie(s) so many times it isn't even funny any more... 1. Neil De Grass Tyson explains that at the edge of an atmosphere you can see stars even with the sun in the sky, doesn't it mean that when the sun is not in the sky then the view of the stars is much more spectacular (the stars are much brighter) then here on the earth? Following this logic i suppose that in space you wouldn't even have to use long exposure technique in order to catch the stars while taking the photo of the night sky. ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
According to
Neil De Grass Tyson when you get at the edge of the atmosphere all of a sudden the view becomes totally spectacular. So, as i already pointed out : following his (Neil De Grass Tyson) logic stars wouldn't be just a little brighter, they would be much brighter.
Michael Collins contradicting himself : During famous Apollo 11 conference he claimed that he wasn't able to see *ANY* star from the lunar orbit...However in his book he claims that he was very able to observe countless stars from earth' orbit...How about that??? You see, this is an example where the same person asserts two totally contradictory claims (in two different occasions).
What could disable
Michael Collins to see the stars from the lunar orbit? If there was anything that could obscure the stars while he was in lunar orbit, that very same reason (an obstacle) would disable him to see the stars TO EVEN A GREATER EXTENT while he was in earth's orbit since according to NeilDeGrass Tyson the only reason why we can't see the stars from the earth (during the day) is the presence of earth's atmosphere which is a glow with scattered light from the sun!!! If you take away the atmosphere, the sun will still be there but the sky goes dark! That is what folks get when they get to the edge of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is no longer between you and the rest of the universe and the stars would reveal themselves just as they would at night! Plain and simple!!!
2. YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY : LUNACY - PART 2 :
3. When the first crew who landed on the moon did a world tour ,they presented the Dutch premier with a piece of moon rock ,,,when he died a few years ago the university of Utrecht in Holland did some experiments on what they thought was moon rock ,,and it was found to be worthless petrified wood ,,?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html4. No tyre tracks from rover : Even guys who believe that we landed on the moon admit that there is huge amount of altered (photoshopped) "apollo" images.--- MOON FAKERY - 3 :
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/192/moon-fakery-3.htm5. Set of excerpts of "docking" : You must be a genuine idiot so to be unable to recognize obvious fakery in this cheap animation : once again : 100% proof moon landing Hoax in a 1 minute clip :
6. In 60 years of all of NASA or any other organizations outer space video footage... there does not exist a single video clip of someone panning the camera 360 degrees!!! HOW COME???
7. Does anybody have a link to a rocket launch with rear facing cameras, where the rocket continues out into space eventually showing the whole globe?
8. How about live streaming of the earth by using camera mounted on a geostationary satellite?
---The alleged speed of a geostationary satellite is about 10 000 km/h (height = 37 000 km)
---The alleged speed of ISS is about 28 000 km/h (height = 400 km)
9. How high must one get before the atmospheric rotation does not exist? For if all rotates it must have to stop somewhere. I figure at mt Everest you have one third less air at top so wouldn't that mean at 100,000 feet, if mt Everest is at 28000 ft, no air or no atmosphere? So why not simple make airplanes outfitted for 110000 ft go up and then come down and let the earth spin underneath to arrive at ur destination. Well, how about numerous footages (countless of which are available on youtube) taken by cameras (attached to a baskets of a balloons that can go as high as 125 000 feet) in which we can clearly see perfectly still earth underneath??? U know why they don't, because it's all Bullshit???
Now, something very interesting regarding the point 9 :
Sagnac effect proves that the earth is stationary and that an aether rotates 24h/day around motionless earth.
However, aether's rotation is subtle, that is to say, we can detect that with interferometer kind of experiments (MMX, SAGNAC, MGP, ring-laser gyros, etc...), but aether's rotation doesn't produce such an effect which could be detected with directional gyros (heading indicators). However, if earth rotated heading indicators would indicate (detect) that motion. Not only that, your HC friends claim that mechanical heading indicators indeed detect earth's motion. But you as a pilot very well know that it is a blatant lie. They can claim whatever they want, but it doesn't matter what they claim, the only thing that matters is IS WHAT THEY CLAIM TRUE OR NOT, isn't that so??? Now, if earth rotated then mechanical heading indicators would detect earth's motion while we firmly stand on the rigid earth, and fly within earth's atmosphere, but that ability (of mechanical heading indicators) of detection of motion of the earth (and atmosphere) would come to a stop at higher altitudes (beyond earth's atmosphere). Where is (at what altitude) that boundary?
Now, even within geocentric scenario we would have the problem with that boundary, because unlike in HC scenario, within which going beyond that boundary means entering motionless space, within GC scenario, going beyond that boundary means entering *MECHANICALLY* (NOT AETHERLY) MOVING SPACE!!!
10. Within HC model geostationary satellites (at 37 000 km distance) are very far away from the last frontier of earth's atmosphere, and despite that their orbital speed is perfectly synchronized with the speed of earth's rotation. Isn't that too good to be true?
Within GC model geostationary satellites are again at 37 000 km distance and have to be motionless in the same way as the earth is motionless. I can show you how famous geocentrist Robert Sungenis explains the mechanics of that motionless geostationary satellites. He uses assumption of mechanical motion of space and then introduce roulette wheel and a ball example to illustrate how a ball (satellite) can stay fixed in space above certain point above the earth by the force of moving roulette wheel (rotating shell of the universe)...
I don't claim geostationary satellites don't exist for sure but since an explanation of Robert Sungenis is pretty odd, and since i know for sure that the earth is at rest (which means that HC explanation for geostationary satellites is 100 % fraudulent), then i still choose to remain suspicious about the very existence of geostationary satellites...
11. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS : @
Rabinoz, you are eager to see some contradictory statements? Let me show you just a few of them :
It is important to note that much of the resistance to what we call the Copernican Revolution derived from the fact that for some time it left many important questions unanswered - in particular, how the planets and stars moved and cohered without the celestial spheres. One central insight was the switch from Aristotles's belief in projectile motion, in which a moving object must be acted upon directly to keep moving, to the modern concept of INERTIA, in which a moving object keeps moving unless stopped by wind drag or something else.
A related insight also contrary to Aristotle was Newton's MATHEMATICAL understanding of GRAVITY, which allowed bodies to act on one another from a distance without direct contact. In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point. Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.” According to Newton's way of thinking, besides the ordinary actions of physical laws, God acted by sustaining the motion of celestial spheres, and by setting up the initial orbits of the planets and later preventing them from disintegrating. Newton didn't hesitate to appeal to extraordinary acts of God to explain features of the natural world.
Nevertheless, many of Newton's successors thought Newton was suggesting that God had to "correct" his own regular actions. They preferred instead the notion of God manifesting his powers not with irregular actions in nature but strictly by establishing regular "laws" that governed the entire cosmos.
Here is what
Newton said in Proposition 43:
In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun... Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest,as in the Tychonic system."We have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." -
Galileo Galilei in letter to
Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641
Geocentricity detractors often appeal to the coriolis effect. It is, like the rest of the appeals, vain. The observations would be the same geocentrically or heliocentrically. Dr. Bouw covers it in detail in his books and explains how the coriolis *effect* becomes an actual coriolis *force* under a geocentric setup (and centrifugal force becomes centrifugal effect).
Here are some more quotes on the matter from some esteemed scientists:
The Coriolis effect arises, equally, whether the Earth rotates or the cosmos rotates. -
Rick DeLano"One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K [e.g.-the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K, whereby K is treated as being at rest. -
Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, "On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921
"If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*" -
Albert Einstein, cited in "Gravitation", Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.
"
...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by
Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.
Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right." -
Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications, 1962, pp 344 & 345
Why Don't More Scientists reject the heliocentric theory?Some scientists admit the truth in their own words. Dutch physicist
Hendrik Lorentz (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:
"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…"His great contemporary
Henri Poincare confessed:
"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative..."Lincoln Barnett agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (
Albert A. Michelson), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”Astronomer
Sir Fred Hoyle says:
“Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense (…) Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down.”
In further startling evidence that the scientific community is stifling dissenting views,
Alexander von Humboldt admitted:
“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don't rush into the wasps' nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I don't feel the courage.”
In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.The circumstances surrounding Hubble’s interpretation of the redshift are intriguing.
Hubble worked with
Milton Humason,
but only Hubble’s name is associated with the redshift/expansion theory. The primary reason is that Humason was very reluctant to provide evidence for an expanding universe. The scientific community, based on Einstein’s reworked mathematical formulas (courtesy of de Sitter and Friedmann), had already decided that the universe was expanding, but they were missing observational evidence. Consequently, the science community was predisposed to interpret redshift as a Doppler phenomenon wherein galaxies are understood to be moving away at great speeds from the observer.2 This is in the face of the fact that there was no proof for a connection between receding galaxies and redshift, or that galaxies are receding at all, or that redshift is to be interpreted as a Doppler shift. In a paper published in 1931
Humason wrote:
It is not at all certain that the large redshifts observed in the spectra are to be interpreted as a Doppler effect but, for convenience, they are interpreted in terms of velocity and referred to as apparent velocities.Interestingly enough, regardless of what the science establishment now associates exclusively with
Edwin Hubble,
the fact remains that even Hubble never fully committed himself to the now popular interpretation.
Hubble was quite aware of what the science community desired, but maintained his distance. He writes:
This explanation interprets redshifts as Doppler effects, that is to say, as velocity‐shifts, indicating actual motion of recession. It may be stated with some confidence that redshifts are velocity‐shifts or else they represent some hitherto unrecognized principle in physics.... Meanwhile, redshifts may be expressed on a scale of velocities as a matter of convenience. They behave as velocity‐shifts behave and they are very simply represented on the same familiar scale, regardless of the ultimate interpretation. The term “apparent velocity” may be used in carefully considered statements, and the adjective always implied where it is omitted in general usage.As we have noted in our earlier discussion of
Hubble, he then came to the place where he knew ሺconsidering what he actually saw in his telescopeሻ that there were only two options left to him. He writes:
Thus the use of dimming corrections leads to a particular kind of universe, but one which most students are likely to reject as highly improbable. Furthermore, the strange features of this universe are merely the dimming corrections expressed in different terms. Omit the dimming factors, and the oddities vanish. We are left with the simple, even familiar concept of a sensibly infinite universe. All the difficulties are transferred to the interpretation of redshifts which cannot then be the familiar velocity shifts....Meanwhile, on the basis of the evidence now available, apparent discrepancies between theory and observation must be recognized. A choice is presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a strangely small, finite universe and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature.[/color]