Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

  • 1183 Replies
  • 67511 Views
Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« on: January 05, 2023, 11:33:17 AM »
One of the most intriguing aspects of flat earth are those that push space travel is impossible.

And yet.  Comets come and go, changing the night sky.  Comets that travel about our solar system.  Orbit the sun if they don’t get vaporized by the sun.  And a well documented comet that broke apart and crashed into Jupiter.  Leaving dark spots for months, if not changes to Jupiter for years. 

Meteorites light up heaven and earth when falling from space. 

We know, or the evidence is well documented, there is a belt of asteroids in our solar system.

We have a moon, earth’s natural satellite, orbiting our planet.  We can see with binoculars or telescopes other planets in our solar system also have natural satellites.

But, some flat earther’s believe it’s impossible for man to follow where comets, meteorites, and natural satellites have traveled.  Makes no sense. 
« Last Edit: January 05, 2023, 11:35:07 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2023, 11:59:52 AM »
One of the most intriguing aspects of flat earth are those that push space travel is impossible.

And yet.  Comets come and go, changing the night sky.  Comets that travel about our solar system.  Orbit the sun if they don’t get vaporized by the sun.  And a well documented comet that broke apart and crashed into Jupiter.  Leaving dark spots for months, if not changes to Jupiter for years. 

Meteorites light up heaven and earth when falling from space. 

We know, or the evidence is well documented, there is a belt of asteroids in our solar system.

We have a moon, earth’s natural satellite, orbiting our planet.  We can see with binoculars or telescopes other planets in our solar system also have natural satellites.

But, some flat earther’s believe it’s impossible for man to follow where comets, meteorites, and natural satellites have traveled.  Makes no sense. 

Okay so, none of that has anything to do with the space travel argument. Cool.

I'm assuming you're more inspired by Turbonium's 'All matters tends towards its origin' approach, which I don't think I've seen anyone else propose. The usual argument is that there are extreme forces that act on a rocket that tries to leave the atmosphere, thus tearing it apart - in the same way meteors burn up on entering the atmosphere. The old turn of phrase was aetheric whirlpools, the rotational forces that carry and move the Sun and planets under FET begin to dominate at higher altitudes. Meteors are only really even conceptually an issue for Turbonium's model.
You also get the 'Rockets don't work in a vacuum' line of argumentations which, will be honest, I don't even really know how to give the justification of that one.

How does 'Planets have natural satellites' point to 'Space travel ought be possible?'
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2023, 12:06:14 PM »

Okay so, none of that has anything to do with the space travel argument. Cool.



How does it not have anything to do with space travel? 

You
Quote
I'm assuming you're more inspired by Turbonium's

And you would be wrong…

No source of energy.

How do meteorites travel to crash into the moon?  And comets travel around / about the solar system.  Just a little gravity and the near zero frictionless atmosphere of space.


As far as rockets..

This has been posted for you before..


Model Rocket Engine In A Vacuum Chamber - 4K Slow Motion - will it burn? - Rockets (S1 • E3)



Burning Model Rocket Engine Underwater in 4K Slow Motion - Rockets (S1 • E4)


As pointed out before.  Rockets work in a vacuum, underwater, in inert atmospheres because they contain their own fuel and oxidizer.

The fact comets, meteorites, and natural satellites move within our solar system most definitely shows travel in “space” between
planets and around the sun is very much possible.  It’s very possible to orbit a planet. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2023, 12:17:52 PM »
The fact comets, meteorites, and natural satellites move within our solar system most definitely shows travel in “space” between
planets and around the sun is very much possible.  It’s very possible to orbit a planet.
When you use the term 'space travel,' don't be shocked when people think you mean, like, space travel as in travel to space (famously something FEers object to), and not 'the act of motion in the area we call outer space.' Very unclear use of terms.

The latter, eh, not really a problem for most people. For the rocket example, the objection typically is to specifically rockets, bringing up satellites is a non sequitur. The objection I've seen goes that, in vacuum, the exhaust has nothing to push against (which I don't rate as an objection, but yeah that's the one I've seen) - I don't know if that's Bulma's position but, like, making an argument as if she objects to the moon moving suggests more that you have misunderstood her position than that you've actually exposed a weakness.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2023, 01:09:46 PM »

When you use the term 'space travel,' don't be shocked when people think you mean, like, space travel as in travel to space (famously something FEers object to), and not 'the act of motion in the area we call outer space.' Very unclear use of terms.


From the opening posts. I mean space travel.  Literally, “But, some flat earther’s believe it’s impossible for man to follow where comets, meteorites, and natural satellites have traveled.”

As in.  We have, on purpose or by misadventure, crashed manmade objects on the moon like a meteorite.  Used gravity assist to get spacecraft farther from the sun to get where some comets may originate.  And placed manmade objects in orbits around planets to mimic natural satellites.

See a bird fly to ponder if manflight is possible is similar to seeing a comet travel about the solar system to ponder if interplanetary travel is possible.  And with gravity assist, we can travel about the solar system similar to a comet….

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2023, 01:46:10 PM »

When you use the term 'space travel,' don't be shocked when people think you mean, like, space travel as in travel to space (famously something FEers object to), and not 'the act of motion in the area we call outer space.' Very unclear use of terms.


From the opening posts. I mean space travel.  Literally, “But, some flat earther’s believe it’s impossible for man to follow where comets, meteorites, and natural satellites have traveled.”

As in.  We have, on purpose or by misadventure, crashed manmade objects on the moon like a meteorite.  Used gravity assist to get spacecraft farther from the sun to get where some comets may originate.  And placed manmade objects in orbits around planets to mimic natural satellites.

See a bird fly to ponder if manflight is possible is similar to seeing a comet travel about the solar system to ponder if interplanetary travel is possible.  And with gravity assist, we can travel about the solar system similar to a comet….
So, an irrelevant argument to any actual FE objection.
'Follow' is hardly the word to use, reaching escape velocity is non-trivial, even more so in FE models. What is your actual argument, or are you just relying on poetry?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2023, 11:59:13 PM »
One of the most intriguing aspects of flat earth are those that push space travel is impossible.

And yet.  Comets come and go, changing the night sky.  Comets that travel about our solar system.  Orbit the sun if they don’t get vaporized by the sun.  And a well documented comet that broke apart and crashed into Jupiter.  Leaving dark spots for months, if not changes to Jupiter for years. 

Meteorites light up heaven and earth when falling from space. 

We know, or the evidence is well-documented, there is a belt of asteroids in our solar system.

We have a moon, earth’s natural satellite, orbiting our planet.  We can see with binoculars or telescopes other planets in our solar system also have natural satellites.

But, some flat earther’s believe it’s impossible for man to follow where comets, meteorites, and natural satellites have traveled.  Makes no sense.

Well-documented is not the same as lied about often by those in positions of power.
What you are describing is appeal to authority.

Lemme make this clearer to you.

Space travel COULD be possible.

But you need a logically consistent model.

The Norse model, where either other worlds are different dimensions, or there are bridges of atmosphere connecting world is logically consistent. In parallel dimensions, you never sail a spaceship into empty space. In an atmospheric  "rainbow" bridge, you never sail a spaceship into empty space.

Further, a flat Earth with concentric zones (including concentric arctic rings) is a viable way to get to other worlds. Simply find a path through the ice rim and you're in another plane.

Both of these are viable (though Deep State has signed treaties to the effect of making the Arctic Circle a no-fly zone, and sailing isn't a better option) as theories. They don't involve strange suspensions of rules of physics.

On the other hand, the model of outer space we have is stupid and based on crappy films.

Let's use an analogy.

If you sailed a ship off a cliff, would expect to continue sailing to the other side simply because you have a strong wind blowing that day?

Space is a gap. Things don't tend to do well in gaps. Now, unlikely or not, if there was a thin bridge of earth and water between two waterfalls, could you make it across?

Stick to ideas that are real. Not things that "scientists" with a definite axe to grind have " witnessed".
Such people also hold a monopoly over theories of whether or not dinos exist. Guess what happens to scientists who are dubious? They get defunded and deplatformed.

I don't mind any idea that seems like it could happen. What I mind is stupid ideas being parroted around by people who can't even understand why they're wrong while more sensible explanations get shouted down. The monopoly of dumbass notions.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2023, 12:05:11 AM »
Stick to ideas that are real.

Ummm, like:

The first is worlds strung together on a tree-like model (neither orbits nor sphericality make any sense to me, we would all die of motion sickness, and blood rush), with bridges between worlds.
The second is an infinite expansion model. The world cannot really be destroyed as it cycles between ice ages and thaws, and each thaw expands the world outward. The world has arctic rings (it looks like a tree) and continues ever upward with each world as a domed sky.


How is that sticking to ideas that are "real"?

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2023, 12:58:52 AM »
What, you have a problem with that? ;D

Myth is often used to explain truth to illiterate or unscientific ppl. It has a purpose to it. The part that is real about this is the that the Norse and such understood space travel better than you do, despite never having done it. What this tells me is that these "gods" were simply humans from a time where there was technological disparity. They knew how to travel between worlds using bridges.
 
Mythological or not, it still has the word logical in it. But there is no logic to the idea that you can just move across empty space. The rocket will burn out and be stranded.

 "Oh, but there are oxidizing agents in the fuel." Sorry, no. The experiments with ignition in a vacuum used things with oxidizing agents. They still couldn't burn.

it doesn't matter what model you use for a world. Flat, round, pyramid, square. But if you don't understand the rules of the world you have proposed, you look like a jerk mocking people who do. Especially when they understand what your rules are too, while you choose to ignore ideas that are inconvenient.

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2023, 02:50:28 AM »

Well-documented is not the same as lied about often by those in positions of power.
What you are describing is appeal to authority.


Well.  Expect I’m a bit of an amateur astronomer. 

And observe things for myself.

Quote
Space travel COULD be possible.


It’s been ongoing naturally with comets for millennia.

And man has fallowed suit for decades.

Everything from Sputnik, the Apollo Missions, Skylab before CGI, the international space station, modern services like satellite GPS and satellite phone in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, the Chinese moon missions, the rovers and equipment broadcasting from Mars, the probes in place around the sun, the voyager missions now at the edge of our solar system.



External source
Quote

Ham Radio Signals from Mars

https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2021/02/16/ham-radio-signals-from-mars/

Feb. 16, 2021: Around the world, ham radio operators are doing something once reserved for national Deep Space Networks. “We’re monitoring spacecraft around Mars,” says Scott Tilley, of Roberts Creek, British Columbia, who listened to China’s Tianwen-1 probe go into orbit on Feb. 10th. The signal, which Tilley picked up in his own back yard, was “loud and audible.”

The signal from Tianwen-1 is dominated by a strong X-band carrier wave with weaker side bands containing the spacecraft’s state vector (position and velocity). Finding this narrow spike of information among all the possible frequencies of deep space communication was no easy task.

“It was a bit like a treasure hunt,” Tilley says. “Normally a mission like this would have its frequency published by the ITU (International Telecommunications Union). China did make a posting, but it was too vague for precise tuning. After Tianwen-1 was launched, observers scanned through 50MHz of spectrum and found the signal. Amateurs have tracked the mission ever since with great accuracy thanks to the decoded state vector from the probe itself.”

So far, Tilley has picked up signals from China’s Tianwen-1 spacecraft, NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and the United Arab Emirates’ Hope probe–all orbiting Mars approximately 200 million kilometers away. How is such extreme DX’ing possible?



Have any proof man made objects are not broadcasting from mars?


Quote
But you need a logically consistent model.


Or actually leave the basement and observe the real solar system.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2023, 06:56:27 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22194
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2023, 03:25:55 AM »
Well-documented is not the same as lied about often by those in positions of power.
What you are describing is appeal to authority.
No, there is no appeal to authority there.
It is describing simple observations.
But because you can't handle it, you need to look for some excuse to reject it as fake.

Space travel COULD be possible.
But you need a logically consistent model.
And you cannot show any logical inconsistency with the RE model.
Instead you need to bring in aspects of the FE model, or otherwise entirely misrepresent the RE model to pretend it doesn't work.

On the other hand, the model of outer space we have is stupid and based on crappy films.
Yet you cannot show any fault with it. Instead, you can just continually dismiss it as fake or broken.

Stick to ideas that are real.
So things like a RE, with space, and so on; not a delusional fantasy like a FE?

What I mind is stupid ideas being parroted around by people who can't even understand why they're wrong while more sensible explanations get shouted down.
So what you mind is people like yourself doing what you are doing?

But there is no logic to the idea that you can just move across empty space. The rocket will burn out and be stranded.
If you want to show a problem, you need to do so in a logical manner, not just assert delusional BS.

The rocket burns to get the craft moving. It doesn't need to keep burning to keep it moving.

Sorry, no. The experiments with ignition in a vacuum used things with oxidizing agents. They still couldn't burn.
You mean your dishonestly cherry picked examples, which dishonestly only showed the ones which didn't burn while ignoring one which did burn?
And in a setup completely different to a rocket?

it doesn't matter what model you use for a world. Flat, round, pyramid, square. But if you don't understand the rules of the world you have proposed, you look like a jerk mocking people who do. Especially when they understand what your rules are too, while you choose to ignore ideas that are inconvenient.
And if you don't understand the model you are trying to attack, and instead just spout all sorts of ignorant garbage, you look like a delusional fool or a pathetic troll.
Once more, you are describing yourself.

?

ecco

  • 188
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2023, 09:14:20 AM »
 
Well-documented is not the same as lied about often by those in positions of power.
What you are describing is appeal to authority.

Lemme make this clearer to you.

 
Stick to ideas that are real. Not things that "scientists" with a definite axe to grind have " witnessed".

The only people who believe scientists have an axe to grind are people who dismiss science - Creationists.

Such people also hold a monopoly over theories of whether or not dinos exist. Guess what happens to scientists who are dubious? They get defunded and deplatformed.

Airline pilots and ship captains who would try to follow a flat earth map (IF you guys could ever produce one), should and would get defunded and de-platformed.  People trying to breed lambs with no more training than Gen: 30 should and would get defunded and de-platformed.  People who cannot tell an elephant femur from a fossilized tree limb should and would get defunded and de-platformed.  Why do you believe ignorant people should be rewarded for their mis-efforts.  Your FE leaders, on the other hand, get plenty of funding by hawking seminars, books, and merchandise to their sheeples.





What I mind is stupid ideas being parroted around by people who can't even understand why they're wrong while more sensible explanations get shouted down. 

 What I mind is stupid ideas being parroted around by people whose entire scientific training comes from having the bible shoved down their throats from the time of their infancy.

Although I've askeded several times for flat earthers to admit or deny that they are Creationists, it's clear you are one.  You Creationists deny all matters that are in conflict with the bible that you believe is the word of your God.  It's bad enough that you deny evolution.  But the abject ridiculousness of your view comes to the fore when you try to deny what man has known for centuries - long before your hated scientists formalized the science of science.

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2023, 11:53:58 AM »

Myth is often used to explain truth to illiterate or unscientific ppl.

And military units use science for targeting, not myth…

Used in another thread.

"The M5 gun director" to a platform.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_(military)#Example

Wonder what calculations went with the M5 when used for targeting…


Quote
The M5 director is used to determine or estimate the altitude or slant range of the aerial target.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_(military)#Example


Slant Range?

New term to kick around?


Quote
Slant Range

https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Slant%20Range.en.html



However, this would only be valid if the earth were a flat disk. In addition, however, the earth's radius also has an effect, as shown in figure 3. Thus, the actual topographic distance concerning the slant distance measured by the radar depends on:
the measured slant range,
the actual height of the aim, and
the earth radius, which is valid for the location of the radar unit.



From figure 3 one can see the solution approach. A triangle between the points: Center of the earth, the location of the radar unit, and the location of the flight target, whose sides defines the cosine theorem and thus by the equation:
R2 = re2 + (re + H)2 - 2re(re + H) · cos α
(re is the equivalent radius of the earth).
Under the assumption that the earth is a sphere, from the angle α, the part of the earth's circumference can be calculated with a simple ratio calculation from the total earth circumference:
360° · Rtopogr. = α · 2π re
This partial section of the earth circumference can be regarded as an approximation (here still without consideration of the refraction) to the actual topographic distance.
In practice, however, the propagation of electromagnetic waves is also subject to refraction, i.e. the transmitted beam of the radar is not a rectilinear side of this triangle, but this side is additionally also curved depending on
the transmitted wavelength,
the barometric pressure,
the air temperature and
the atmospheric humidity.
Since all these parameters cannot be included in the radar video map, the map is inevitably inaccurate if the radar software does not take into account the relationship between slant range and topographic range. And this is unfortunately always the case with 2D radar devices since these lack the height information compellingly necessary for these computations!


What navy has a tactical advantage because they treat the world as flat instead of spherical? 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2023, 12:58:54 PM »
What navy has a tactical advantage because they treat the world as flat instead of spherical?
...Googleotomy? Is that you?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2023, 09:19:43 PM »
One of the most intriguing aspects of flat earth are those that push space travel is impossible.

And yet.  Comets come and go, changing the night sky.  Comets that travel about our solar system.  Orbit the sun if they don’t get vaporized by the sun.  And a well documented comet that broke apart and crashed into Jupiter.  Leaving dark spots for months, if not changes to Jupiter for years. 

Meteorites light up heaven and earth when falling from space. 

We know, or the evidence is well documented, there is a belt of asteroids in our solar system.

We have a moon, earth’s natural satellite, orbiting our planet.  We can see with binoculars or telescopes other planets in our solar system also have natural satellites.

But, some flat earther’s believe it’s impossible for man to follow where comets, meteorites, and natural satellites have traveled.  Makes no sense.

I'm only speaking from MY view of it, nobody else's. The misinformation and confusion from the liars is intended to dismiss the flat Earth as a 'nutball' idea, and it's obviously worked in doing so.

I simply argue that 'space' doesn't exist as some endless area above Earth, with stars trillions of miles away, a Sun 93 million miles away, and a moon 250,000 miles away, among other things. The original lie of Earth being a ball, speeding through endless space, is what started it all, and continues to do so.

'Comets' are part of that lie, of course. They claim 'comets' are from 'outer space', and have landed on Earth, without a shred of valid evidence for ANY of those claims. NONE of us have ever BEEN in any so-called 'outer space', there is NO WAY TO EVER PROVE 'SPACE' EVEN EXISTS, and that is the FIRST problem here.

What about all stars being trillions of miles away? Where the hell does THAT claim have any PROOF for it? Nobody has ever been in 'space', whatever THAT'S supposed to be, let alone 'trillions of miles away', and yet all of this BS is somehow accepted as 100% TRUE?!?  It's a complete joke! Not to mention how sad it is, for so many to blindly believe it without any question at all.

An 'endless space' above Earth, with all stars 'trillions of miles away, being 'Suns' or whatever', combined with a made up magical 'pulling down/holding down to Earth force', is simply a pile of lies, created to support one another, to defend the ball Earth lie.

I've repeateadly said that it is EASY to prove which side is right, which is wrong, by simply launching rockets straight up, and see what happens to them soon afterwards. If there is NO firmament, rockets will keep flying up, until they're a speck in the sky, and soon vanish from all view, into 'space'. If they do NOT keep flying up, and hit a barrier, that will prove the firmament DOES exist above Earth, and the whole 'space' story is complete BS, start to finish.

Anyone who DOES believe their side is right, like I do, WANTS to prove they're right, or accept being WRONG about what they have believed to that point.

As I've said before, I would GLADLY accept the results of these tests, no matter WHAT they show. In fact, I wish rockets DID fly up into 'space', and that we HAD landed on a far away 'moon' over 50 years ago - it would be fantastic!

But I'm a realist, and I don't like being lied to, I want the truth, no matter where it may lead,  not blindly believe what they tell us,  just because I WISH it were all true! Or at least, to believe that the moon landing story was true, anyway!
« Last Edit: January 06, 2023, 09:24:39 PM by turbonium2 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22194
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2023, 10:39:49 PM »
I simply argue that 'space' doesn't exist as some endless area above Earth, with stars trillions of miles away, a Sun 93 million miles away, and a moon 250,000 miles away, among other things. The original lie of Earth being a ball, speeding through endless space, is what started it all, and continues to do so.
You mean assert.
Argue would imply that you are attempting to justify that position rather than just continually asserting, with no evidence or rational thought to back up your claims.

They claim 'comets' are from 'outer space', and have landed on Earth, without a shred of valid evidence for ANY of those claims.
You mean without any evidence that you will accept, because you will reject any evidence that shows you are wrong.

What about all stars being trillions of miles away? Where the hell does THAT claim have any PROOF for it?
That CONCLUSION (not a claim), is based upon the available evidence.
The mountains of evidence that clearly demonstrate that Earth is round and orbiting the sun.
The evidence showing just how far away the sun is.
And stellar parallax which allows us to determine the distance to the "near" stars based upon the size of Earth's orbit.

Nobody has ever been in 'space', whatever THAT'S supposed to be
You mean you baselessly assert the same lie that no one has been in space, ignoring all the evidence that your claim is a lie.

Not to mention how sad it is, for so many to blindly believe it without any question at all.
What is said, is for people like you to reject it, and so desperately need to reject so much of reality, wilfully rejecting so much evidence, because it doesn't fit your fantasy.

combined with a made up magical 'pulling down/holding down to Earth force', is simply a pile of lies, created to support one another, to defend the ball Earth lie.
Your irrational hatred of gravity, something backed up by mountains of evidence, something you are yet to find fault with or find a viable alternative; in no way makes it magic, nor does it make the fact that Earth is round a lie.

I've repeateadly said that it is EASY to prove which side is right, which is wrong
And so have we.
Strapping a camera to a rocket, and launching it into space, provide great video evidence that you are wrong.
Vastly superior evidence to trying to look at a rocket from Earth's surface and guessing how far up it is.
But you reject that, because such footage is trivial to find and it so clearly shows you are wrong.

So it is clear that it is not about which side is right, but about you desperately looking for pathetic excuses to reject reality.

If you want other proof, then you get it yourself. You have been provided with more than enough to show you are wrong.

Anyone who DOES believe their side is right, like I do, WANTS to prove they're right, or accept being WRONG about what they have believed to that point.
Pure BS.
Anyone who is like you, who is so desperate to pretend their side is right, while likely deep down knowing their side is entirely wrong, will make no attempt at all to provide or even find evidence that they are wrong, because the evidence shows they are wrong. Instead they will focus on making up excuses to dismiss that evidence.

You are not willing to accept being wrong.

If you were like you describe, then you would have already accepted that you were wrong and admitted it.

As I've said before, I would GLADLY accept the results of these tests, no matter WHAT they show.
No, you wouldn't.
Instead, you will use whatever excuse you can to dismiss it, as you already have done so for all the evidence you have been provided with.

But I'm a realist, and I don't like being lied to, I want the truth
No, you hate the truth and reality.
You will happily lie to everyone.

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2023, 01:48:35 AM »
and a moon 250,000 miles away, among other things.

Well, I’ll post this to your benefit.  The moon, the natural satellite of earth that exhibits an orbit around the earth that proves that objects can orbit the earth….




Because the moon has no other side,

WTF?   You understand how objects work? Right?

Example.  A cube has six sides.

Even if the moon was some sort of cylinder, which there is no proof it’s anything but a relatively solid (as proven by tides on earth and blocks the sun during a solar eclipse) spherical body, you would get this effect…



People in the South American country of Argentina would see the”face” in this example.

People in Easter Brazil would see it on edge.

People in North America would see the backside of the “face”.


Simple elegant proof the earth is spherical.

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2023, 03:18:23 AM »
Strapping a camera to a rocket, and launching it into space, provide great video evidence that you are wrong.
Vastly superior evidence to trying to look at a rocket from Earth's surface and guessing how far up it is.
But you reject that, because such footage is trivial to find and it so clearly shows you are wrong.

It's so stupid, how can anyone NOT see it, is beyond me!

One video that your side showed me elsewhere, from NASA, had a split screen of two camera views, supposedly, from the rocket, and from the ground....

I'm sure that other videos of this are around, right? 

Anyway, this video showed us those two views, side by side, when taken at the EXACT SAME time, from those two viewpoints...

It's so blatantly obvious to see it's complete BS, but if you don't know why, I'll explain it to you...

When we see the rocket in air, from the ground view, it is seen within the blue skies above us, like always, with planes in flights, passing over us, nearby to us, in the distance, each and every day of the year, countless times a day, over Earth, anywhere at all.

The same thing seen with planes, over a thousand times a day. The only difference is it's a rocket, not a plane, but that's about it! 

When they have one view 'from the rocket', showing a black of 'space', all around a partial ball shaped Earth, below it, what is seen from the ground at the very same time? 

A rocket flying in the blue skies above us, just like planes are seen, every day of the year, all the time...

If the rocket actually WERE so high up, to be in 'space', to view a partial ball Earth within black of 'space', around it, as shown to us, if it's first assumed that there IS 'space' to begin with, and to also assume Earth IS a ball, too, there's no way we'd see the rocket in blue skies above, if it were ever in ]space'!

When we see those white colored planes fly across our skies in daylight, spewing out trails, every time, which is another issue itself, but we know it's trails, spewed out.....

We know these planes must be very high up, above the surface of Earth, because we cannot see much of them, or any details of them, by eye alone.

Even by using magnification, it's better than by eye, but it isn't enough to show them in any great detail. Not from the videos I've seen, anyway.

I'm not saying there CANNOT be any videos of them in fine detail, but I just haven't seen any yet, if any do exist....   I've seen a few decent ones, though....

We only can see that they appear white in color, and that's all we can see of them, by eye, at least.

They are at high altitudes, in air, and we can barely see them, even when they're right ABOVE us, on the ground below..  So we know they are flying at high altitude, that's for sure, we don't need to know the ACTUAL altitude to know that much is true. 

When we see the rocket flying away from view, it is always in blue skies, and is NEVER seen higher than any planes are seen flying at, on a clear day, all of the time.

We'd certainly KNOW if a rocket flew up higher than planes do, but if anything at all, rockets actually fly LOWER than planes do, at cruising altitudes!

Rockets clearly veer off at, or lower than, cloud altitudes of 10-12000 feet, on average. Videos PROVE this is true, conclusively. Even if all of those clouds somehow WERE higher than the average altitudes of clouds, it'd STILL be at a very low altitude, anyway!

If you see how long they take to fly through the clouds, while rising higher up in air, until finally HIGHER than the clouds, that indicates what their trajectory is, and what their SPEED is, in general, and we can compare it to when PLANES fly through clouds, while rising higher in air, until they are flying over them, and are flying higher and higher up, far above the clouds below.

If 'space' was real, and there was NO firmament above Earth, and stars really WERE trillions of miles away from Earth, and so forth, every rocket would go straight up into 'space', simply because it is the direct path into 'space', the quickest path into 'space', and the most FUEL-EFFICIENT path into 'space', from Earth's surface below it.

PLANES never stay in flights at those lower altitudes, because there is too much air resistance there, so that's why planes fly at a HIGHER altitude, with less air resistance for our flights.

No more speed is gained at lower altitudes, it is at HIGHER altitudes where more speed can be attained in flights, whether for planes, or rockets, or ANY OTHER CRAFT THAT IS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR.       

*

JackBlack

  • 22194
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2023, 03:53:01 AM »
It's so stupid, how can anyone NOT see it, is beyond me!
We see straight through your BS. I'm pretty sure most people can.

When we see the rocket in air, from the ground view, it is seen within the blue skies above us
You have already tried this BS and failed.
This delusional line of BS of yours only works if you accept your fantasy about a magical blue dome.
Back in reality, it doesn't work like that. The sky is blue because of the air scattering the light.
There is no magical altitude at which a blue thing suddenly appears in front.

The reason a plane in the atmosphere doesn't look blue is because of all the light from the plane, either emitted by its lights or reflecting off it.
The most you get is a slight blue tint.
Can you demonstrate that there is no blue tint to these rockets? No. You just assert the same delusional BS with no rational justification or evidence at all.

If the rocket actually WERE so high up, to be in 'space', to view a partial ball Earth within black of 'space', around it, as shown to us, if it's first assumed that there IS 'space' to begin with, and to also assume Earth IS a ball, too, there's no way we'd see the rocket in blue skies above, if it were ever in ]space'!
Why? Because you say so? Because you want to pretend the sky has a magical solid blue dome which will block out any other light?
That is your delusional, not reality.

We know these planes must be very high up, above the surface of Earth, because we cannot see much of them, or any details of them, by eye alone.
Then you should probably get your eyes checked.
I can see detail on planes just fine. Not all the fine details, but still plenty of detail, far more than just their colour.
And if you use a decent camera, you can see even more.

When we see the rocket flying away from view, it is always in blue skies, and is NEVER seen higher than any planes are seen flying at, on a clear day, all of the time.
Again, BASED ON WHAT?
Again, you just assert delusional BS with no rational justification or evidence at all.
You desperately need them to magically stay lower than a plane, so you just spout the same delusional BS again and again, while refusing to justify it.

We'd certainly KNOW if a rocket flew up higher than planes do
And we do, due to all the footage of rockets in space, and no footage of a plane in space, and no way for a plane to operate in space.

So yes, we do KNOW.
You just wilfully reject that knowledge because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.

Rockets clearly veer off at, or lower than, cloud altitudes of 10-12000 feet, on average.
PROVE IT!
Stop just asserting the same pathetic delusional BS again and again.
All it does is show how utterly dishonest you are and how little you care for the truth.

If 'space' was real, and there was NO firmament above Earth, and stars really WERE trillions of miles away from Earth, and so forth, every rocket would go straight up into 'space', simply because it is the direct path into 'space', the quickest path into 'space', and the most FUEL-EFFICIENT path into 'space', from Earth's surface below it.
And again, repeating this after it has already been refuted so many times shows just how dishonest you are.

Going straight up will get them into space, for a short time until they fall back down and crash into Earth.
To keep them in space, without wasting so much fuel it isn't funny, they need to go sideways.
And having them go straight up to space, only to turn and start accelerating sideways would be a massive waste of fuel.
Especially when you consider they can reach quite high speeds in the atmosphere, where trying to go faster can waste more fuel.

PLANES never stay in flights at those lower altitudes
Nor do rockets.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2023, 04:16:27 AM »
I simply argue that 'space' doesn't exist as some endless area above Earth, with stars trillions of miles away, a Sun 93 million miles away, and a moon 250,000 miles away, among other things. The original lie of Earth being a ball, speeding through endless space, is what started it all, and continues to do so.

Why? Why is the earth as a ball a problem for you? Not interested in explanations regarding this observation or that. Just simply why? It sounds like you feel the entirety of humanity is lying to you? Why do you feel that way? Why do you believe in a massive worldwide conspiracy? What does the world benefit from that? What would the world benefit from your belief system? Why did you pick this particular thing to be so adamantly against? Is it a religious thing?

What particular event or occurrence spun you up into your belief system? Why does a globe earth upset you so?

Do others around you share your belief system? If not, how does that work for you? Are you in constant battle defending your belief system?

Just curious as to the motivations of people with alternative belief systems.

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2023, 04:19:00 AM »

We'd certainly KNOW if a rocket flew up higher than planes do,

We do know…

Quote
Tracking Apollo-17 from Florida


http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm

On December 10, 1972 we picked up our first signals on S-band. The main carrier was 45 dB over noise and the voice subcarrier was 25 dB over noise. Apollo 17 passed. over the lunar disc between 1722 and 1819.10 local time (2222-2319 UT), and during these 57 minutes we measured a total Doppler frequency shift of 43 kHz (see figure below). The frequency numbers on the ordinate is the dial reading on the R-390 receiver minus 29000 kHz.

The spacecraft had entered orbit at 1447.23 local time (1947.23 UT), Initially the orbit was 97.4-314.8 km. The orbital period was then 128.2 minutes and the spacecraft would be seen from the earth for about 80 minutes. We clearly did not pick up the signal as the spacecraft appeared from behind the Moon. The doppler curve below is indeed not perfectly symmetrical which most probably is the result of the eccentricity of the orbit. The average speed in the orbit was 1.58 km/s. If the orbit had been perfectly circular at the 128.2 minute period the doppler shift for a simple transmitter would have been = 2287.5 x 1000 x 1.58/300000= ± 12 kHz. For a coherent transponder the doppler shift would be almost double this number (doppler shift on both uplink and downlink), i.e. 46 kHz. We observed about 43 kHz which is consistent with the fact that we did not catch the complete pass in front of the lunar disc.



Quote
UArizona students confirm errant rocket's Chinese origin, track lunar collision course
Students studying the object's composition confirmed that it is most likely a Chinese booster and not a SpaceX booster, as previously reported.

https://news.arizona.edu/story/uarizona-students-confirm-errant-rockets-chinese-origin-track-lunar-collision-course

Using the RAPTORS system, a telescope atop the Kuiper Space Sciences building on campus, UArizona students took observations on the nights of Jan. 21 and Feb. 7, the latter of which was the last time the rocket would be visible before it hits the moon in March.

"I am astounded that we can tell the difference between the two rocket body options – SpaceX versus Chinese – and confirm which one will impact the moon with the data we have. The differences we see are primarily due to type of paint used by SpaceX and the Chinese," said Adam Battle, a graduate student studying planetary science. Battle has worked at the Space Domain Awareness lab since 2018 and focuses on spectroscopy, which helped confirm the booster's origins. An object's spectrum can also reveal the effects of space weathering.

Quote
Radio Amateurs Receive Images from Chinese Lunar Satellite

http://www.arrl.org/news/radio-amateurs-receive-images-from-chinese-lunar-satellite

An open telecommand protocol allows radio amateurs to take and download images. The spacecraft transmits on 70 centimeters (435.400/436.400 MHz) with 250/500 bps GMSK using 10 kHz wide FM single-channel data, with concatenated codes or JT4G. JT4 uses four-tone FSK, with a keying rate of 4.375 baud; the JT4G sub-mode uses 315 Hz tone spacing and 1,260 Hz total bandwidth.


Buy the active broadcasting of spacecraft and probes and the Doppler shift of their broadcast frequency, it can be proven man made items are in orbit around the earth.

Or if a spacecraft is broadcasting while going away from the earth.

Through Doppler shift, the strength of the signal, and triangulation of a broadcast, it can be proven manmade objects are broadcasting from the moon.

Through visual changes in the night sky from Sputnik, one of the Sputnik rocket stages, the international space station, the starlink satellites, or seeing space junk orbit the moon by telescope based systems.


Quote
Challenge for astronomy: Megaconstellations becoming the new light pollution
By Tereza Pultarova published October 22, 2021
The sky may brighten by a factor of two to three due to reflection of sunlight off megaconstellation satellites, a new report finds.

https://www.space.com/megaconstellations-disruption-astronomy-like-light-pollution



An astronomical image marred by trails caused by satellites of SpaceX's Starlink megaconstellation. (Image credit: Victoria Girgis/Lowell Observatory)
[/qoute]



Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2023, 06:40:45 AM »

Why? Why is the earth as a ball a problem for you? Not interested in explanations regarding this observation or that. Just simply why? It sounds like you feel the entirety of humanity is lying to you? Why do you feel that way? Why do you believe in a massive worldwide conspiracy? What does the world benefit from that? What would the world benefit from your belief system? Why did you pick this particular thing to be so adamantly against? Is it a religious thing?

I don't like being lied to, and I WAS told lies, and still hear lies, and I'm not taking their BS anymore, and I'm tying to explain it to others, who are like I once was, ignorant about the whole sham!

When I ask why they don't prove their claims, just by launching a rocket straight up, and see if it keeps going up, or crashed into the firmament, your side makes BS excuses for it, when you SHOULD WANT TO PROVE ME WRONG, by doing it. 

To me, you're a bunch of cowards, who hide from the truth, who are afraid to FIND OUT the truth - for whatever reason, I don't know.

I've heard all your excuses about why rockets veer off at stupidly low altitudes, which do nothing but waste tons of fuel. I've heard your excuses about how 'dangerous' it is to see a rocket from 200 miles way, when it drops some crap attached to parachutes. I've heard ALL your BS for years, it never ends.

It's not ME who has an agenda, who is scared to know the truth, who makes every excuse in the book, to NOT find the truth.

Look in the mirror, you'll see who fears the truth

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2023, 06:51:13 AM »

Why? Why is the earth as a ball a problem for you? Not interested in explanations regarding this observation or that. Just simply why? It sounds like you feel the entirety of humanity is lying to you? Why do you feel that way? Why do you believe in a massive worldwide conspiracy? What does the world benefit from that? What would the world benefit from your belief system? Why did you pick this particular thing to be so adamantly against? Is it a religious thing?

I don't like being lied to, and I WAS told lies, and still hear lies, and I'm not taking their BS anymore, and I'm tying to explain it to others, who are like I once was, ignorant about the whole sham!

Woah, lighten up on the hostility. That will get you nowhere.

When I ask why they don't prove their claims, just by launching a rocket straight up, and see if it keeps going up, or crashed into the firmament, your side makes BS excuses for it, when you SHOULD WANT TO PROVE ME WRONG, by doing it.

Who did you ask? And why do you think someone should launch a rocket in the way you want to satisfy you? Are you important or something?

In any case, your request has already been satisfied by Blue Origin. Just ask William Shatner. He flew 351,000 feet (about 66 miles) straight up last year and got about 5 minutes of weightlessness as a bonus.




Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2023, 06:52:13 AM »
I've experienced what it is to BE in a religion, which I was, as a Catholic.

My mom finally took me and my brother out of church, and catechism, for I was being mentally abused, and she saw it, and took us out of it, when I was about 7 years old.

So it has NOTHING to do with me being religious, that's for sure.


I just want the truth, and I despise being lied to. That's where I'm at - nothing more, nothing less.

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2023, 07:10:39 AM »

So it has NOTHING to do with me being religious, that's for sure.



But I also clearly indicated that if you don't claim that and instead leave it as a more vague idea of a firmament it places into the realm of religion, like a god, where you can keep pushing it back to keep it out of reach, making it more and more useless as you do so.

Then explain why Von Braun, the father of rocketry, the creator of Saturn V rockets, which supposedly flew humans to the moon and back to Earth again, would convert to Christianity, at the same time? Not during WW2, and his V1, and V2 rockets, but later on, while working in America, and its new 'space program' had begun!

But more than that, he had a specific passage from the Bible, as his very favorite, which was so important to him, that he made sure it was referred to on his tombstone.

That passage referred to one specific thing - the Firmament, which shows God's handiwork, to everyone of us on Earth!

It makes no sense at all, to refer to the Firmament, as ohe ne's last words on Earth, if he thought, or knew', or 'saw', if he saw his rockets fly up beyond that point, to the moon, for example!

In fact, he would KNOW the Firmament didn't exist, if that was the case. Seeing rockets fly up past that point, it'd not make any sense to refer to the Firmament like that.

The only way it DOES make sense, is if he saw, and knew, the Firmament DID exist. And he, more than anyone on Earth, WOULD know that, and he DID know it, so he let us all know, with his last words on Earth to us.



Then why would anyone lie the earth is flat….

It’s just reality it’s spherical.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2023, 07:14:45 AM »
I've experienced what it is to BE in a religion, which I was, as a Catholic.

My mom finally took me and my brother out of church, and catechism, for I was being mentally abused, and she saw it, and took us out of it, when I was about 7 years old.

So it has NOTHING to do with me being religious, that's for sure.


I just want the truth, and I despise being lied to. That's where I'm at - nothing more, nothing less.

Well, the "firmament" is definitely a bible thing.

Is William Shatner lying to you?

You got your wish, rocket flying straight up 351,000 feet (about 66 miles).

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2023, 07:33:15 AM »
Well, the "firmament" is definitely a bible thing.

Is William Shatner lying to you?

You got your wish, rocket flying straight up 351,000 feet (about 66 miles).

Of course the firmament is described in the Bible, but it's proof of the firmament I'm after here, not what it says in the Bible, or not.

There's no video of that rocket from the ground, showing it fly up until it's a speck, and then out of all sight.  That's the whole problem, same as always.

Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2023, 07:36:23 AM »

Of course the firmament is described in the Bible, but it's proof of the firmament I'm after here, not what it says in the Bible, or not.


Then why would people lie about the earth being flat? 


There is no reason.

The reality is the earth is spherical as proven by the view of the moon.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2023, 07:41:36 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2023, 07:45:27 AM »
Well, the "firmament" is definitely a bible thing.

Is William Shatner lying to you?

You got your wish, rocket flying straight up 351,000 feet (about 66 miles).

Of course the firmament is described in the Bible, but it's proof of the firmament I'm after here, not what it says in the Bible, or not.

There's no evidence of a firmament.

There's no video of that rocket from the ground, showing it fly up until it's a speck, and then out of all sight.  That's the whole problem, same as always.

You're wrong yet again. Please double-check your statements before you post them. Took me all of 5 seconds to find this:


Re: Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2023, 07:48:48 AM »

Of course the firmament is described in the Bible, but it's proof of the firmament I'm after here, not what it says in the Bible, or not.


Then how do charged particles/solar winds from the sun make it to earth, comets traveling about the planets, comets orbit the sun, a comet crash into Jupiter, comets changing the night sky, space dust makes it to earth, meteorites fall to earth, and not a think layer of dust on the dome after millennia. 
« Last Edit: January 07, 2023, 09:49:52 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »