# Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

• 1183 Replies
• 67345 Views
?

#### Themightykabool

• 10811
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1020 on: January 14, 2024, 12:11:07 AM »
Mass does that, as a function of a force.

?

#### turbonium2

• 1717
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1021 on: January 14, 2024, 12:47:55 AM »
If gravity is strong enough to pull the moon into its grasp, it would continue to pull it in to Earths surface, because it would be stronger when the moon is closer in.

Why would gravity make things orbit around at a distance, if it is a directional force?

And if it can hold onto the moon, and make it orbit around Earth in space, it would act the same way on all those floating astronauts, who drift in all directions within seconds each, and not going around Earth in an orbit.

They float all over in ‘space’, that’s what they wanted ‘space’ to look like, a zero gravity environment where everything just floats around anywhere at all, for no force is acting on them in ‘space’

#### JackBlack

• 22178
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1022 on: January 14, 2024, 01:27:18 AM »
All objects of any mass and density greater than that of air
Again, density doesn't explain it.
Density provides no reason for the directionality, nor the rate, nor why it should move at all.
You need something else.

they are first put up
Again, if something is put to the right, it doesn't fall to the left.
Origin does not explain it either.

Stop just repeating the same refuted BS and try to come up with something original.

requires no force at all
The object accelerates. That demands a force.

let alone two forces
You mean a force and a direct result of that force?
With that second force clearly demonstrable from measurements of the pressure gradient, and observations of how pressure interacts with objects.

like you must have to explain your story of a ball Earth speeding through space.
Again, if your delusional BS worked, it would work BETTER with a RE.
We use gravity to explain what is observed, to actually explain it.

You still don’t understand why things should always fall from the air downward
Because you refuse to explain it.
And all your attempts to do so are just repeating the same refuted BS.

At first, do you understand that all things are on the surface, have always been known to be on the surface, and that nothing has ever come from above the surface from elsewhere, and was ever ‘pulled down’ to the surface by your made up force?
Except for plenty of things which do which you just dismiss as fake.
So you start your explanation with a lie and wilful ignorance of reality.

That explains why everything exists on the surface
No, it is a baseless assertion that things magically exist on the surface. There is no explanation for why they exist on the surface, nor any evidence for their origin on the surface, nor any explanation for why moving it off the surface makes it go down, nor why the surface is magic so it is only moving upwards that is an issue.

Especially given the fact you can break something off an outcrop, moving it down and it falls away from the surface.

There is NOTHING indicating anything magical about the surface.
Objects do not fall to the surface.
They fall DOWN!

Mass is good since it holds us down to the surface
Only thanks to gravity.

We must be put in one direction to go upward, and one opposite direction downward again. They are both single directions, not only one going downward.
Just like left and right.

Is the relative density of the object to the medium of air and water.
Due to gravity, including that it causes a pressure gradient which acts to push objects up in a fluid.

That is the reason here, nothing difficult to understand.
What is missing is why anything should move at all.
Why should being denser make it go down?
Again, density has no directionality.
It provides no reason at all.
And going to the surface is clearly not what happens.

Our real force CAN.
Do you know why?
Because if you consider a column of fluid, with a cross sectional area A, with a height of h in a gravitational field of g with a density of rho_f; then the mass of the fluid is rho_f*A*h.
And the force due gravity is rho_f*A*h*g.
If the pressure at the top of the column is P_T, then there is a force pushing the top of the column down of P_T*A.
That means the force at the bottom, needing to support it is:
P_T*A+rho_f*A*h*g = A*(P_T+rho_f*h*g).
So the pressure at the bottom, pushing up is A*(P_T+rho_f*h*g)/A = P_T+rho_f*h*g
This means the pressure differential is rho_f*h*g.

Notice that this does not depend upon the area.
Instead, it depends upon the density of the fluid, the height of the column and g.

And the nice thing about fluids is they are hydrostatic, so they will try to equalise pressures.
So if you have an object immersed in a fluid, that pressure differential in the fluid (in hypothetical static conditions where the object is fixed in place) will be equal to that for the fluid itself as if that object wasn't there.
So we now consider an object immersed in a fluid.
The object has a cross sectional area of A, a height of h and a density of rho_o, so a mass of A*h*rho_o.
Because it is in the fluid, the fluid will have a pressure gradient across it, the pressure at the top is P_T. The pressure at the bottom, as shown above, is P_T+rho_f*h*g.
We can multiply both by the area to get F_T = P_T*A, and F_B = A*(P_T+rho_f*h*g) = A*P_T+A*rho_f*h*g.
In addition to that, we also have the force of gravity on the object. That is given A*h*rho_o*g.

When we add these together, we need to be careful of sign. I will treat a downwards force as positive and an upwards force as negative.
So the downwards force from the pressure at the top and the downwards force due gravity is positive, and the upwards force from the pressure is negative.
So the net force on the object is:
F=P_T*A + A*h*rho_o*g - (A*P_T+A*rho_f*h*g)
F=P_T*A + A*h*rho_o*g - A*P_T - A*rho_f*h*g
F=A*h*rho_o*g - A*rho_f*h*g
F=A*h*g*(rho_o - rho_f).

Notice a key part here?
The force is proportional to the volume of the object, and the difference between the density of the object and the density of the fluid.
If the density of the object is greater, the object goes down.
If the density of the object is less, the object goes up.

So yes, we CAN use relative density, as that is exactly what is expected for gravity.

You mean the other real force, which is a direct consequence of the first real force (gravity), which is proven to exist beyond any doubt and you can directly measure the pressures involved to measure the pressure gradient.
A combination of 2 forces which explain what is observed so well; which you cannot show a fault with and instead need to ridicule and baseless assertions?

Just why do you think these 2 real forces cannot save reality?

there is no second made up force pushing them upward in air
i.e. you are entirely ignoring an empirically verifiable pressure gradient or the countless experiments which clearly demonstrate that pressure gradients push from high pressure to low pressure.

i.e. you are choosing to be wilfully ignorant of reality to try propping your delusional BS.

Buoyancy is a made up force that also fails to work.
Why?
Can you show any fault with it at all?
No. You can just repeat the same pathetic claim that it doesn't work.

#### JackBlack

• 22178
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1023 on: January 14, 2024, 01:36:09 AM »
Why does an object only rise up or fall by their relative density to air or water?
See above.
Note that this does not simply cause an object to rise or fall.
It changes the measured weight of an object.
If you get a steel ball and weigh it in and out of water, it will appear to weigh less in the water.

If you weren’t on a speeding ball in endless space, no force is needed to hold us on the surface
Yes a force is needed.
Otherwise if you throw something up it will continue to go up forever.
The shape of Earth has NOTHING to do with it.

Again, your delusional BS would work better for a RE, as you can say everything originated at the centre and is trying to go there.

since our greater mass and density than air, and the greater mass and density of the surface, is all we need for it.
No, it isn't. As explained repeatedly.
That does not explain why things should move at all.
It does not explain why it should move in any direction.
It does not explain why it should accelerate at a particular rate.
It does not explain why this rate is measured to vary over Earth.
It does not explain why this would cause a pressure gradient in a fluid.
It does not explain why objects should defy this pressure gradient and go from low pressure to high pressure.

In short, it explains nothing.
But even if you reject gravity as it is best understood, and instead have it as a simple magical downwards force proportional to mass, then it would directly explain most of these points.

Why would you need a force
Because to make an object accelerate, you need a force.

If gravity is strong enough to pull the moon into its grasp, it would continue to pull it in to Earths surface
That relies upon the assumption that the moon magically started elsewhere, and Earth just grabbed.

That assumption is baseless.

Considering you want to invoke things just magically being created in a certain way, then what is wrong with the moon just being magically created there?

But if you want to stick to reality, the Earth-Moon system formed from a collision.
After this collision, the moon has been getting further away due to the gravitational interaction between Earth and the moon which causes the tides, which also causes Earth to slow down.

There is no reason for it to magically pull the moon down.

Why would gravity make things orbit around at a distance, if it is a directional force?
Because that directionality is based upon relative position.
Say you are standing off to the right of an object, trying to move forwards.
It pulls you towards it, changing your direction.
This causes you to turn slightly to the left, so after walking you are in a position equivalent to where you started.
This continues with it continually causing you to turn towards it, causing you to circle it.
That is an orbit.

This is trivial to understand.
If you find it difficult, get a piece of string, tie an object to it, and spin it around.

And if it can hold onto the moon, and make it orbit around Earth in space, it would act the same way on all those floating astronauts
And it does, with those astronauts orbiting Earth.

who drift in all directions within seconds each
You are focusing on the tiny differences in their orbit, to pretend they are going in different directions.

They float all over in ‘space’, that’s what they wanted ‘space’ to look like, a zero gravity environment where everything just floats around anywhere at all, for no force is acting on them in ‘space’
No, that is nothing like space.
That is like what dishonest, lying FEers claim (and other lying conspiracy nuts).

In space, gravity is still acting.
The astronauts are still orbiting.
For example, in the ISS, they are travelling at roughly 8 km every second.
Their tiny motion relative to the ISS is negligible compared to their orbit.

Yet again you are lying to try to prop up your fantasy.

#### bulmabriefs144

• 2679
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1024 on: January 14, 2024, 04:33:47 AM »
If gravity is strong enough to pull the moon into its grasp, it would continue to pull it in to Earths surface, because it would be stronger when the moon is closer in.

Why would gravity make things orbit around at a distance, if it is a directional force?

And if it can hold onto the moon, and make it orbit around Earth in space, it would act the same way on all those floating astronauts, who drift in all directions within seconds each, and not going around Earth in an orbit.

They float all over in ‘space’, that’s what they wanted ‘space’ to look like, a zero gravity environment where everything just floats around anywhere at all, for no force is acting on them in ‘space’

That right.

Both by the gravity model and buoyancy model, a feather in a vacuum drops like a stone. Since space is a vacuum, lightest objects should not float but fall fast.

Conclusion? All space floating must be done in a lab, because it cannot exist in the actual world.

This is also why space travel is impossible. Outer space has no air to almost no air for ships to push against. No ignition, no propulsion, and mass heavier than no air.

#### JackBlack

• 22178
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1025 on: January 14, 2024, 12:18:11 PM »
That right.
No, it is delusional BS, as explained.
Objects in space are not magically floating. They are accelerating towards Earth as they orbit it.

Conclusion? You are desperately looking for any excuse you can to reject reality.
You do not give a damn about the truth at all, and are entirely willing to lie to everyone to prop up your fantasy.

This is also why space travel is impossible.
So your pathetic lies and wilful rejection of reality magically makes space travel impossible?
No, it doesn't. This is just another lie from you.

Outer space doesn't have air to offer resistance to slow a craft down.
The craft still has engines, specifically rocket engines, which work by expelling the exhaust backwards at a high velocity which in turn pushes the craft forward.
It does not need anything to push off, as it has the exhaust to push off.
And ignition is entirely possible, especially when you have a combustion chamber.

#### Smoke Machine

• 3274
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1026 on: January 14, 2024, 12:49:12 PM »
If gravity is strong enough to pull the moon into its grasp, it would continue to pull it in to Earths surface, because it would be stronger when the moon is closer in.

Why would gravity make things orbit around at a distance, if it is a directional force?

And if it can hold onto the moon, and make it orbit around Earth in space, it would act the same way on all those floating astronauts, who drift in all directions within seconds each, and not going around Earth in an orbit.

They float all over in ‘space’, that’s what they wanted ‘space’ to look like, a zero gravity environment where everything just floats around anywhere at all, for no force is acting on them in ‘space’

That right.

Both by the gravity model and buoyancy model, a feather in a vacuum drops like a stone. Since space is a vacuum, lightest objects should not float but fall fast.

Conclusion? All space floating must be done in a lab, because it cannot exist in the actual world.

This is also why space travel is impossible. Outer space has no air to almost no air for ships to push against. No ignition, no propulsion, and mass heavier than no air.

Bulimiabriefs144, you've obviously had a deprived childhood, but do you mean to tell me you never had a birthday party where you inflated a balloon and instead of tying off the end, let it go and you watched the balloon fly around the room until all the air was expelled and it fell on the floor?

That is a demonstration of how rockets work. It would work exactly the same in a vacuum chamber. The expelled air doesn't push against the air molecules in the room.

Your reason why space travel is impossible, is destroyed by a simple party balloon. But hey, if you don't have any party balloons, and I know how you flat earthers never have any money for your flat earth obsession, the experiment works equally well with an inflated condom. It probably even works well with your favourite condoms, the ribbed variety. (I guess you just like the feel more)

?

#### turbonium2

• 1717
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1027 on: January 14, 2024, 07:50:45 PM »
Quote
Why should being denser make it go down?

You mean why should a helium balloon less dense than air go up, and a more dense brick go up? Why do you think one goes up, and one goes down, if not their relative density to air?

I guess you think they should both go in all directions?

?

#### turbonium2

• 1717
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1028 on: January 14, 2024, 08:01:45 PM »
Objects with more mass need more force to pull them in or throw them out, than objects with lighter mass, right?

Yet you cannot use the same force on both objects, because the one with more mass won’t be pulled in or thrown out, or at the same speed as the one with less mass.  You must use the force two separate times, at different strengths, to pull them in at the same speed, or throw them out the same distance.

Forces don’t emit different levels of strength to each object of different mass, to pull them in at the same speed, or throw them out at the same speed, that’s ridiculous!

?

#### turbonium2

• 1717
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1029 on: January 14, 2024, 10:56:26 PM »
Quote
In space, gravity is still acting.
The astronauts are still orbiting.

No, we see them moving in all directions while ‘floating’ around in ‘space’, attached to a cable of ‘space capsules’.

They even said that the astronauts are ‘drifting’ around in a zero ‘gravity’ environment of ‘space’, many times.

If they were cut off the cable, they said they would float and drift in space forever, and die in space.

They only said that the capsules were in orbit, and when astronauts go out of the capsule into soace, they must be attached to the capsule by cables, or they would drift around aimlessly in space.

They later changed their claims of astronauts being adrift in space, and changed their claim of zero gravity space, but I know what they always said before that, and trying to change their claims later shows it’s all bs, that changes after it doesn’t work anymore.

Facts don’t need to be changed later on, only lies need to be changed.

They have changed many of their claims, some of them multiple times. They’ll keep changing them in future, when they don’t work anymore.

When did they first say that objects can appear to be in constant, eternal motion from an effect of our atmosphere? Or have they ever said that?

Nobody said it when they claimed to see dark spots on a virtually motionless Saturn over 400 years ago. When they  mentioned the ‘seeing conditions’ they never said anything about it creating an appearance of Saturn moving around at all.

They must have had telescopes before the one you believe was much better than ours today, which were at least equal or worse than ours today, right?

So they’d have seen what we see today, right? But they still never said Saturn looked like it was in motion through those telescopes either, did they?

#### JackBlack

• 22178
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1030 on: January 15, 2024, 02:25:13 AM »
You mean
No, I mean what I said.
Why should it go down?
Why should it move at all, and why in any particular direction?

if not their relative density to air?
That is a scalar.
It does not have any directionality.

So if you like, why should dense things go down while less dense things go up?
Why don't dense things go up while less things go down?
Why don't dense things go left, while less dense things go right?
Why don't dense things go inwards while less dense things go outwards?
Why don't dense things stay right where they are and less dense things also stay right where they are?

With gravity we have a reason, we have an explanation for the directionality.
With your BS there is no reason, it just magically happens.

But more importantly; when we look at reality we observe a pressure gradient in fluids.
That pressure gradient will push things up.
So based upon that observation, the question is why is there that pressure gradient, and why isn't it pushing everything up?

Objects with more mass need more force to pull them in or throw them out, than objects with lighter mass, right?
Yes, which clearly indicates there is a force proportional to mass acting on them, which at least near Earth is primarily downwards.

Yet you cannot use the same force on both objects
And the same can be said with every force.
e.g. air resistance.
You can't have the "same force" acting on a parachute when it is stowed in its bag and when it is deployed.
If it did, that "same force" would act the same, either making a parachute entirely useless, or just as effective when stashed in the bag.

Likewise, we see magnets pull different objects with different forces.

All you are doing is showing the force of gravity is proportional to mass.

Forces don’t emit different levels of strength to each object of different mass
All forces are proportional to something.
Gravity is not special in that regard.

No, we see them moving in all directions
No, you don't.
That is like claiming if you have a camera in a plane, and you film someone in the plane moving back towards the back of the plane, that they are magically actually moving backwards and they aren't moving forwards with the plane.
It is dishonest BS.

You only seeing the tiny relative motion doesn't magically negate the motion of the entire craft.

They even said that the astronauts are ‘drifting’ around in a zero ‘gravity’ environment of ‘space’, many times.
They have also said they are orbiting plenty of times.
But dishonest conmen like you will entirely ignore anything that doesn't suit your agenda and twist reality as much as possible to promote your dishonest BS.

They later changed their claims of astronauts being adrift in space, and changed their claim of zero gravity space
No, they didn't.
They said 0g, not zero gravity.

0g is free fall.

But it has been understood by all honest intelligent people who bothered looking, that they are in orbit. Not just magically drifting with gravity magically switched off.

I know what they always said before that, and trying to change their claims later shows it’s all bs, that changes after it doesn’t work anymore.
You lying about their claims means you are spouting BS.

Facts don’t need to be changed later on, only lies need to be changed.
Yes, lies like those used to support the FE.

They have changed many of their claims
Care to provide an example? With direct references rather than more lies?

You can keep your delusional BS from other threads out of this one.

#### Timeisup

• 3878
• You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1031 on: January 16, 2024, 02:59:02 PM »
If gravity is strong enough to pull the moon into its grasp, it would continue to pull it in to Earths surface, because it would be stronger when the moon is closer in.

Why would gravity make things orbit around at a distance, if it is a directional force?

And if it can hold onto the moon, and make it orbit around Earth in space, it would act the same way on all those floating astronauts, who drift in all directions within seconds each, and not going around Earth in an orbit.

They float all over in ‘space’, that’s what they wanted ‘space’ to look like, a zero gravity environment where everything just floats around anywhere at all, for no force is acting on them in ‘space’

The issue here is your total lack of understanding of basic physics that it turn allows your gross ignorance to overwhelm you.
Do you actually read what you write?
"I can accept that some aspects of FE belief are true, while others are fiction."

Jack Black

Now that is a laugh!

#### Smoke Machine

• 3274
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1032 on: January 16, 2024, 04:34:07 PM »
If gravity is strong enough to pull the moon into its grasp, it would continue to pull it in to Earths surface, because it would be stronger when the moon is closer in.

Why would gravity make things orbit around at a distance, if it is a directional force?

And if it can hold onto the moon, and make it orbit around Earth in space, it would act the same way on all those floating astronauts, who drift in all directions within seconds each, and not going around Earth in an orbit.

They float all over in ‘space’, that’s what they wanted ‘space’ to look like, a zero gravity environment where everything just floats around anywhere at all, for no force is acting on them in ‘space’

Enroll yourself in a science course at university level which covers orbital mechanics, and then you'll understand.

None of us here are teachers getting paid. Let alone getting paid to teach someone like yourself who doesn't even want to learn, how orbital mechanics work.

?

#### turbonium2

• 1717
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1033 on: January 19, 2024, 10:00:35 PM »
There’s actual physics, and faked physics, which is not physics at all, only called it by name, under the real physics we know is real.

How can they prove this crap when it’s all based on made up crap to begin with? They can’t prove anything at all. It’s all made up nonsense, with garbage ‘equations’ using made up non-existent forces!

Actual physics is provable, demonstrable, repeatable. Nothing hidden, no bs claims, no made up forces, no made up ‘space’, no made up ball Earth speeding through made up space.

All this has no proof, no evidence, and never will have any proof. It’s all a fairy tale story, nobody can ever touch or visit or see for themselves at all.

It’s anything they want it to be, nobody knows different or ever will know it’s all made up bs!

#### JackBlack

• 22178
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1034 on: January 19, 2024, 11:06:47 PM »
There’s actual physics, and faked physics, which is not physics at all
Yes, there is actual physics which you reject because you hate it and it shows you are wrong; and then there is dishonest BS which you cling to and pretend is physics.

How can they prove this crap when it’s all based on made up crap to begin with? They can’t prove anything at all. It’s all made up nonsense, with garbage ‘equations’ using made up non-existent forces!
Great job showing a complete lack of understanding of science.
How do you think they test it?
They have an equation to determine the strength and see how well that predicts what is observed in reality.
They then use that equation in engineering for a variety of purposes.

Actual physics is provable, demonstrable, repeatable.
Just like gravity and space travel and Earth being round and moving through space and so on and entirely unlike your delusional BS.

It’s anything they want it to be, nobody knows different or ever will know it’s all made up bs!
That would be the FE, where FEers typically refuse to provide models because as soon as they do, problems with the model can be shown.

?

#### turbonium2

• 1717
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1035 on: January 19, 2024, 11:22:05 PM »
No, they see where stars etc move to over the times, and make an equation that fits to it, thus proving it’s all bs.

Same as they saw how all objects of any mass and density fell down through air at the same rate proved there was no magical made up pulling down force within the Earth, knowing all objects fall at the same rate being all are of more mass and density than air, making them all fall at the same rate from one medium they are within.  No force needed to all fall the same rate in the same less dense medium. Only more force is needed to lift them up into air, from ground.

#### JackBlack

• 22178
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1036 on: January 19, 2024, 11:36:45 PM »
No, they see where stars etc move to over the times, and make an equation that fits to it, thus proving it’s all bs.
No, they recognise that a monopolar force is likely to be an inverse square law due to how 3D space works, and that the force needs to be proportional to mass.

So they produce an equation for gravity equivalent to that for electrostatic forces.
F_G = GMm/r^2.
F_E = kQq/r^2.

Then they just need to work out the constant of proportionality, which they do by measuring objects on Earth.

Same as they saw how all objects of any mass and density fell down through air at the same rate proved
that there is a force proportional to mass accelerating them.

Only more force is needed to lift them up into air, from ground.
You mean how we need a force to resist the force of gravity.
And how if an object is placed upon a scale, it will push it down with a force proportional to its mass?

Everything indicates a force. Nothing indicates your magic.

#### Timeisup

• 3878
• You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1037 on: January 20, 2024, 12:06:45 AM »
There’s actual physics, and faked physics, which is not physics at all
Yes, there is actual physics which you reject because you hate it and it shows you are wrong; and then there is dishonest BS which you cling to and pretend is physics.

How can they prove this crap when it’s all based on made up crap to begin with? They can’t prove anything at all. It’s all made up nonsense, with garbage ‘equations’ using made up non-existent forces!
Great job showing a complete lack of understanding of science.
How do you think they test it?
They have an equation to determine the strength and see how well that predicts what is observed in reality.
They then use that equation in engineering for a variety of purposes.

Actual physics is provable, demonstrable, repeatable.
Just like gravity and space travel and Earth being round and moving through space and so on and entirely unlike your delusional BS.

It’s anything they want it to be, nobody knows different or ever will know it’s all made up bs!
That would be the FE, where FEers typically refuse to provide models because as soon as they do, problems with the model can be shown.
Why so upset with the Turbo person Jack. They are doing exactly what you advocate, using personal experience to form their neu-think opinions! They’ve obviously never been into space, and are clearly taking your advice to never trust experts.

What’s all this observing and science you are on about? Is this all good stuff you yourself have personally done? No wonder she doesn’t want to buy what you’re selling. How the hell do you know anything about space when you have personally never been there?

What’s going on Jack? You, the man that advocated doing it all of your own bat. With you not being an expert, heaven forbid, and thinking in the same neu-think mode as  Turbo, they, quite rightly to, possibly thinks it’s your expert free neu- think opinion against their own.

When I last looked it’s pretty difficult to build a space vehicle. I hear it’s a job for teams and teams of those people you hate, experts. Experts in this and experts in that as it’s all so dam specialised.

Though all those experts are all going  to have to up their game what with all the recent red faced failures. Private enterprise is finding out just how hard it is especially when you factor in budget restraint.

When I last looked doing one’s own ground based space research is pretty limiting, puts you back on level terms with old Galileo Galilei.

Same when it comes to the physics you talk about. I take  it’s all expert free  neu-think stuff you yourself have  neu-thought up. Heaven forbid you have been peeking at the work of other experts. That would be cheating Jack.

No wonder Turbo blows you.Take that any way you will! What the hell makes you think your neu-think is superior to their neu-think?

Now me, I get all my stuff from proper clever people, all experts in their chosen fields, like all the other smart people. I hear it’s the model adopted by all the best universities. Thats places where people to learn from experts. Why bother reinventing the wheel Jack when there are lots and lots of really good ready mades available.

Based on what my expert supported view of the world tells me: is that Turbo and their neu-think are totally and utterly wrong.

Just goes to show Jack, neu-think is the road to ignorance with Turbo being a prime example. I see you following quite close behind.

"I can accept that some aspects of FE belief are true, while others are fiction."

Jack Black

Now that is a laugh!

#### Timeisup

• 3878
• You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1038 on: January 20, 2024, 12:13:29 AM »
No, they see where stars etc move to over the times, and make an equation that fits to it, thus proving it’s all bs.
No, they recognise that a monopolar force is likely to be an inverse square law due to how 3D space works, and that the force needs to be proportional to mass.

So they produce an equation for gravity equivalent to that for electrostatic forces.
F_G = GMm/r^2.
F_E = kQq/r^2.

Then they just need to work out the constant of proportionality, which they do by measuring objects on Earth.

Same as they saw how all objects of any mass and density fell down through air at the same rate proved
that there is a force proportional to mass accelerating them.

Only more force is needed to lift them up into air, from ground.
You mean how we need a force to resist the force of gravity.
And how if an object is placed upon a scale, it will push it down with a force proportional to its mass?

Everything indicates a force. Nothing indicates your magic.

What the hell Jack. How the hell do you know this stuff? And who are the ‘they’ you quote? Surely you are not differing to …..experts?

Experts, such as the ones who came up with all the equations you quote. Experts such as those who have made all those discoveries about space you quote.
"I can accept that some aspects of FE belief are true, while others are fiction."

Jack Black

Now that is a laugh!

#### JackBlack

• 22178
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1039 on: January 20, 2024, 12:40:45 AM »
Why so upset with the Turbo person Jack.
You really are desperate aren't you.

Are you planning on trying to find me all over the forum and spouting crap like this?

They are doing exactly what you advocate, using personal experience to form their neu-think opinions!
You mean what you wish to pretend I advocate.
Because you can't object to what I actually say, you just make shit up and pretend I said it.

I get it, you are butt hurt and want to get back at me. But just coming up with these pathetic lies just shows your desperation.

#### Timeisup

• 3878
• You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1040 on: January 20, 2024, 12:54:04 AM »
Why so upset with the Turbo person Jack.
You really are desperate aren't you.

Are you planning on trying to find me all over the forum and spouting crap like this?

They are doing exactly what you advocate, using personal experience to form their neu-think opinions!
You mean what you wish to pretend I advocate.
Because you can't object to what I actually say, you just make shit up and pretend I said it.

I get it, you are butt hurt and want to get back at me. But just coming up with these pathetic lies just shows your desperation.

Deflect less Jack. Any desperation being around here is coming from your direction.

Let’s remember you are the advocate for expert free, self experience self produced neu- think. So why get so enraged when those tike the Turbo person use it? That’s what happens when people are free to make stuff up.

That’s the eventual outcome when people such as you subscribe to neu-think. All those neu-thinkers, you like so much, all gather together on the web and swap their neu-facts to create the shared neu-thought beliefs that hold their neu-think generated worlds together. You should be applauding them.

As for you  the man that likes to secretly swing both ways! In private sucking up all that expert derived goodness then spraying it around on this forum pretending it’s all your own neu-think self thought stuff.
There is a name for a person like you.
"I can accept that some aspects of FE belief are true, while others are fiction."

Jack Black

Now that is a laugh!

?

#### DataOverFlow2022

• 4243
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1041 on: January 20, 2024, 01:29:49 AM »

Any desperation being around here is coming from your direction.

It’s pretty simple.  People like turbo are smug in their lies and delusion toting insults that one believes because they are told.  When the spherical earth model can be demonstrated to be true.  So in reality people believe flat earth because they are told.  If Turbos wants to believe flat earth, that’s up to them.  When they debate and debate with lies.  Yes people should be bothered their time is wasted with lies.

#### JackBlack

• 22178
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1042 on: January 20, 2024, 03:57:23 AM »
Deflect less Jack. Any desperation being around here is coming from your direction.
Says the one entirely deflecting from the topic of the thread and instead focusing on you being butthurt over being shown to be wrong repeatedly.
The one still clinging to pathetic fantasies.
The one who is so upset at the fact that your holy prophets are not the only possible way to get knowledge, that you need to repeatedly lie, clinging to your pathetic fantasy which you can never back up.

If you want to bitch and whine about how your religion is wrong, go back to the thread on experts where you were repeatedly refuted and need to repeatedly lie about what people said because you couldn't defend the BS you chose to.
This is not the place for you being butthurt.

#### Timeisup

• 3878
• You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1043 on: January 20, 2024, 09:02:32 AM »

Any desperation being around here is coming from your direction.

It’s pretty simple.  People like turbo are smug in their lies and delusion toting insults that one believes because they are told.  When the spherical earth model can be demonstrated to be true.  So in reality people believe flat earth because they are told.  If Turbos wants to believe flat earth, that’s up to them.  When they debate and debate with lies.  Yes people should be bothered their time is wasted with lies.

When it comes to smug Jack, you are king of smug nothing more than some self proclaimed expert.....but then again you hate and despise and fear experts because they know more than you....being experts. And you simply can't stand the thought of someone knowing more than you. You claim adopting main stream ideas is akin to some religious act though from what I see of your behaviour you like to present yourself as some kind of Demi-god! The only worshiping going on around here is your very own very obvious self worship.

Turbo is of course wrong. Not because you say they are wrong cause what the hell do you know? They are wrong because what they believe is contrary to main stream scientific knowledge. This knowledge is not the result of a crazed individual such as yourself but the result of the work of many thousand of individuals over hundreds of years. It's a knowledge you appear to despise and ridicule because it's not your own. Yet the ironic thing is while you ridicule it you piggy-back of it relentlessly for how would you know about some of the things you pontificate about?

Jack you are nothing more than a fraud who likes to present himself as the font of all knowledge that the world should bow  to. Not only that but you are liar and double speak artist of the west kind by saying one thing while doing the very opposite. Its always nice to have some proof to back uo a claim and here it is:-

For someone who says this;-

“No, I believe that people should be free to question their beliefs and reassess them without facing ridicule”

And you also said the;-

“That if they are wrong, people should be able to explain in a rational and mature manner rather than acting like they are an imbecile or a brainwashed fool.”

And then you contradict yourself by doing this:-

This was to me…
“You really are desperate aren't you.
Are you planning on trying to find me all over the forum and spouting crap like this”

These were to Turbo
“You lying about their claims means you are spouting BS.”

“Conclusion? You are desperately looking for any excuse you can to reject reality.
You do not give a damn about the truth at all, and are entirely willing to lie to everyone to prop up your fantasy.”

You make up BS excuse after BS excuse of why your delusional BS should still work, all while ignoring the multitude of problems with it; and repeat lie after lie to try to pretend the RE model doesn't work.”

“No, your nonsense doesn't explain anything at all. Density has no directionality. It CANNOT explain why things fall.
You need to resort to so much extra BS to pretend it works.
Conversely, gravity works just fine and in an entirely consistent way without needing to make up other forces.”

“All real forces act proportionally to something.
Repeatedly lying by pretending they don't just shows how desperate you are.”

There hundreds if not thousands of other examples of your spite filled angry replies. You really are fond of abusing people and contradicting yourself along with being someone who avoids answering question like the plague incase you give away just how rank and dishonest you actually are.

I don't know why Turbo bothers as they only giving you the opportunity to rant and rave. No doubt the same ranting and raving you will give to this post.

You could always answer this question;-

Being a solo and very personal experience based thinker Jack, how do you get the low down about space?
"I can accept that some aspects of FE belief are true, while others are fiction."

Jack Black

Now that is a laugh!

?

#### DataOverFlow2022

• 4243
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1044 on: January 20, 2024, 09:48:01 AM »

When it comes to smug Jack, you are king of smug nothing more than some self proclaimed expert.....

You’re bad as a flat earther in making up false arguments.

Quote where I ever claimed to be an expert in anything.

I do have experience.  Sorry if that offends you.

I have many hobbies that are related to the science involved in many of the treads.  Sorry if that offends you.

I’m open to questioning.  In the navy I was taught to question.  Does this make sense.  Is this safe for the power plant.

I’m not open to repeatedly being lied to, and then belittled because I don’t believe in someone’s BS.

But it’s different when one can prove and demonstrate spherical earth, and try to engage in meaningful debate.  It’s other thing when people debate back with nothing but lies and false accusations of “shill”.

From 9/11 to inside job with the lie of WTC planted explosives and holographic passenger jets. To the earth is flat.  Things I have debated in.

The same examples of people that can’t use simple logic, and only have confirmation bias to believe want they want. The same people that get shitty because you apply a little science, logic, and demonstrable proof why something is wrong.

I don’t need the earth to be any particular shape. For some reason some people “need” the earth to be flat.  I really do appreciate the question “why do I believe the way I do”. But.  Also.  I get life is open and terrorists can and did cause 9/11. Some people can’t handle that.  They “need” to believe the US government is in control even if it means they did “evil” things because they can’t handle 19 men caused so much death and destruction.

I really like to engage in open debate.   Being lied to repeatedly is not open debate, it’s a farce.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2024, 10:01:20 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

?

#### DataOverFlow2022

• 4243
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1045 on: January 20, 2024, 09:57:44 AM »

Density has no directionality. It CANNOT explain why things fall.
You need to resort to so much extra BS to pretend it works.

That is how things accelerate.  Being acted on by unbalanced forces.

I can force a bowling ball down a lane to knock over pins.

Please by all means explain how I can density a bowling ball?

It takes force from me to accelerate a bowling ball.  Like it takes a force to slow a bowling ball thrown straight up faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Like it takes a force to stop a bowling ball to stop moving up.  Like it takes a force for a bowling ball thrown straight up to change direction 180 degrees to fall back to earth. Like it takes a force to cause a bowling ball to accelerate towards earth.

Added.  Timeisup, how do you make anything accelerate other than unbalanced forces?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2024, 10:03:16 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

#### JackBlack

• 22178
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1046 on: January 20, 2024, 01:21:24 PM »
When it comes to smug Jack, you are king of smug nothing more than some self proclaimed expert.....but then again you hate and despise and fear experts
Again, just more pathetic desperation.
Repeating the same pathetic lies wont change you being shown to be wrong repeatedly.
If you want to keep bitching about experts go back to that thread and defend your BS.
If you can't give up and move on.
You were wrong, deal with it.

They are wrong because what they believe is contrary to main stream scientific knowledge.
And likewise, Newton was wrong when what they believed was contrary to main stream scientific knowledge.
And Einstein was wrong when what they believed was contrary to main stream scientific knowledge.

And so on.
But of course, you would never accept that, because they weren't wrong, instead the main stream scientific knowledge was wrong.

It's a knowledge you appear to despise and ridicule because it's not your own.
Again, that is just your pathetic fantasy.
I have never done anything to indicate that.

What I have ridiculed and called out for being pure BS, is your religion.
Your religious BS which would have dismissed the claims of Newton and Einstein and countless other scientists because they went against the main stream scientific knowledge.

Jack you are nothing more than a fraud who likes to present himself as the font of all knowledge that the world should bow
Again, your pathetic lies will not change what I am.
It shows the extent of your desperation.

I get it. You are massively butthurt that you entirely fail to defend the RE model against what should be very easy opponents.
You are upset that you have been shown to be wrong time and time again.
So you need to lash out and lie about those you deemed have wronged you.
But all it does is show how pathetic you are.

And then you contradict yourself by doing this:
How?
You are not questioning beliefs.
You are just going on a tirade to spout as much dishonest BS as you can to insult me for showing you are wrong.

Likewise turbo is not merely questioning beliefs. They have proven they are a liar, by continuing to make the same false claims after it has been repeatedly explained why they are wrong.

I address why they are wrong.
You just insult them.

Big difference.

#### Smoke Machine

• 3274
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1047 on: January 20, 2024, 02:43:46 PM »
When it comes to smug Jack, you are king of smug nothing more than some self proclaimed expert.....but then again you hate and despise and fear experts
Again, just more pathetic desperation.
Repeating the same pathetic lies wont change you being shown to be wrong repeatedly.
If you want to keep bitching about experts go back to that thread and defend your BS.
If you can't give up and move on.
You were wrong, deal with it.

They are wrong because what they believe is contrary to main stream scientific knowledge.
And likewise, Newton was wrong when what they believed was contrary to main stream scientific knowledge.
And Einstein was wrong when what they believed was contrary to main stream scientific knowledge.

And so on.
But of course, you would never accept that, because they weren't wrong, instead the main stream scientific knowledge was wrong.

It's a knowledge you appear to despise and ridicule because it's not your own.
Again, that is just your pathetic fantasy.
I have never done anything to indicate that.

What I have ridiculed and called out for being pure BS, is your religion.
Your religious BS which would have dismissed the claims of Newton and Einstein and countless other scientists because they went against the main stream scientific knowledge.

Jack you are nothing more than a fraud who likes to present himself as the font of all knowledge that the world should bow
Again, your pathetic lies will not change what I am.
It shows the extent of your desperation.

I get it. You are massively butthurt that you entirely fail to defend the RE model against what should be very easy opponents.
You are upset that you have been shown to be wrong time and time again.
So you need to lash out and lie about those you deemed have wronged you.
But all it does is show how pathetic you are.

And then you contradict yourself by doing this:
How?
You are not questioning beliefs.
You are just going on a tirade to spout as much dishonest BS as you can to insult me for showing you are wrong.

Likewise turbo is not merely questioning beliefs. They have proven they are a liar, by continuing to make the same false claims after it has been repeatedly explained why they are wrong.

I address why they are wrong.
You just insult them.

Big difference.

You call them liars. That isn't an insult, Jack? You insult them all the time in your own little way. You're like the pot calling the kettle black.

Flat earthers are people who feel they have been lied to and therefore trust nobody, so you calling anyone of them a liar, is the ultimate insult.

You

#### JackBlack

• 22178
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1048 on: January 20, 2024, 03:43:40 PM »
You call them liars. That isn't an insult, Jack?
Did you even bother reading what I said?

Calling someone a liar, after they have repeatedly demonstrated they are a liar, is not insulting.

But again, the big distinction is what else happens and when I call them a liar.
Timmy comes in and starts straight off with insults with no attempt to address the argument raised.
I come in and explain why they are wrong, many times, and only call them a liar if they repeat the same falsehoods multiple times without dealing with the refutation of that.

?

#### turbonium2

• 1717
##### Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1049 on: January 20, 2024, 09:49:21 PM »
[quoye]And imparts a force proportional to the area and dependent upon the shape.
It does NOT impart the same force to everything. Stop repeating the same lies.[/quote]

While the one repeating lies is saying I am, that's a good one!

If we measured the strength ovet a wind, or from a magnet, or an electrical charge, iy would read at a specific level, at any point of it.

An electrical charge ftom a live wire emits a certain voltage outward, it doesn't vary in voltage to diffetent objects it hits, it is one same voltage put out.

A wind emits one level of force over an area too, so an object with more surface area is hit by that one force, as it is a swath, or channel of force over an area of the air. The more of an object exposed to that swath of wind force, the more it is contacted by that one force.

Forces emit one degree of energy at a time, they do not vary to any object or whatever is out there. That’s absurd.

The wind does not blow out proportionally to what is out there, it is a single level of energy emitted over any area at the time.

Forces cannot emit proportional or varied levels of strength outward, it is always one level of strength emitted outward at any given moment.

That is what we measure, all the time - one level of voltage put out, to all beyond it.

Don’t you know that we measure forces by their one level of strength? It isn’t multiple levels of strength that vary to what it hits!!

Get serious