Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

Fuel to dense mass ratio and a lift off at full thrust to gain a fairly consistent altitude gain before burn out and fall back to the ground or the sea.
All over with in seconds or minutes.

There are mountains of evidence that satellites are in space.
And none that the rockets just fly up for a little bit before crashing back to the ground or sea.

Care to provide any justification at all for your claims?

And I'm talking about real rockets not pretend space rockets.

You mean you are dismissing real rockets as pretend, and instead want to focus on tiny model rockets.

How about 3 minutes vertical flight and I believe I'm being generous in offering that. Maybe I should've said a couple of minutes and be ever so slightly generous.

And what you believe doesn't really matter.
Can you justify it at all?
Why do you limit it to 3 minutes?
Why not 5?
Why not 10?
Why not 100?

You are just pulling numbers from no where to dismiss reality.

When they've been hiding all their rockets from being seen or filmed

They haven't.
People have filmed them, and you have been provided that footage.
You have had your safety BS refuted repeatedly.
Stop bringing it up. Every time you do you just demonstrate your dishonesty.

After you said that 'gravity', within the 'core', of your ball Earth, was sending out 'waves of gravity'

No, that was entirely you, spouting delusional nonsense to try and ridicule the RE, because you can't actually demonstrate any problems.

Stop deflecting from your inability to justify your delusional BS.

Clearly explain exactly how the rocket looks different to the plane, or admit there is no major difference and the sole reason you claim it shows the rocket is plummeting down is because you so desperately need the rocket to crash.

Likewise, provide evidence for your fantasy dome, or admit you have none and just believe in it because you are desperate for space to be fake.

When they've been hiding all their rockets from being seen or filmed, and claim it's for our 'safety', and I've told you it's a lie, because we can see them at the same distance away, at the launch area, so we should also be able to see it from that same distance, from the ocean, too..

You just ignore that, and keep saying it's for our 'safety', or make another excuse.
After you said that 'gravity', within the 'core', of your ball Earth, was sending out 'waves of gravity', that went through thousands of miles around the core, to the outer surface of Earth, and all the air above Earth, too. 

Then, those 'gravity waves' made all our instruments which measure for level, make them measure level, as 'level to Earth's curvature'. 

That's all to say that planes don't really fly level, when they measure it as level in flights, because it destroys your fairy tale instantly.

Making up a force that doesn't exist, which is a magical force, which solves all problems, is then held up again, where it sends out waves from Earth's core, spreading over the surface, into the air above the surface, making all our instruments measure what you want it to be, which is 'level to Earth's curvature', which is purely an amazing coincidence!

I'm not surprised by whatever you come up with after that one, it tops them all.

And again…

And yet anyone with a telescope can witness comets orbiting the sun, traveling about the planets and solar system.  No barrier to stop them.

Why can’t rockets follow where comets have traveled?

And yet anyone with a telescope can witness comets orbiting the sun, traveling about the planets and solar system.  No barrier to stop them.

Why can’t rockets follow where comets have traveled?

They can, because all of these objects are ALSO beneath the Firmament, and shown to be very, very close to Earth, and shown to be much, much smaller than they've told us they are.

These are separate issues, but I wanted to mention them, since you keep bringing up 'comets', etc. like they have been proven to be in 'space', which has never been proven to exist, in the FIRST place!   

Your arguments, from start to finish, are simply lies, which are piled up, over and over and over again, taken out as needed, in groups, usually, as you've done here. 

Each one of them hasn't a shred of proof, or any valid evidence, but your side constantly holds them up, in pure desperation, when having nothing else left, or very little.

That's why your side always plunks them into the conversation, like they are all proven facts, that you can suddenly sprinkle throughout almost any issue, whenever you wish to, and of course, the most important thing is putting them in like they're all well-proven facts, and claim how they all support your arguments.

Moving along now....

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 25, 2023, 02:38:41 AM

And yet anyone with a telescope can witness comets orbiting the sun, traveling about the planets and solar system.  No barrier to stop them.

Why can’t rockets follow where comets have traveled?

They can, because all of these objects are ALSO beneath the Firmament, and shown to be very, very close to Earth, and shown to be much, much smaller than they've told us they are.

Why do you keep dodging? Try and be honest for a change. A test has been performed to your parameters. The firmament must be higher than 307,000 feet? Right?

To prove it, either way, can easily be done, by launching a rocket straight up, and find out if it stops going up, or keeps going up, into 'space'.....

The problem is that even if someone were to perform your test, you would still deny it just like you dispute that the William Shatner rocket ride straight up to 307k feet in Blue Origin and straight back down, which you have seen an uncut video of. So, according to your test criteria, we know that your dome is somewhere above 307,000 feet, right? It's your test. So why won't you admit that at least? Why do you dispute this even though it fits exactly with your test?

In essence, you're full of shit. On the one hand you say, "Yeah, shoot a rocket straight up," and then on the other hand you say, "Oh, that rocket didn't go that high up, they are lying to you..." Totally hypocritical and pathetic. And extremely dishonest. You make FE look like a bunch of cagey liars.

In any case, you have finally admitted that you have no evidence, no proof of the existence of a firmament, a dome. Well done. I guess that’s that then. Thanks for playing. Game over for you and your dome.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 25, 2023, 02:38:41 AM

And yet anyone with a telescope can witness comets orbiting the sun, traveling about the planets and solar system.  No barrier to stop them.

Why can’t rockets follow where comets have traveled?

They can, because all of these objects are ALSO beneath the Firmament, and shown to be very, very close to Earth, and shown to be much, much smaller than they've told us they are.

These are separate issues, but I wanted to mention them, since you keep bringing up 'comets', etc. like they have been proven to be in 'space', which has never been proven to exist, in the FIRST place!   

Your arguments, from start to finish, are simply lies, which are piled up, over and over and over again, taken out as needed, in groups, usually, as you've done here. 

Each one of them hasn't a shred of proof, or any valid evidence, but your side constantly holds them up, in pure desperation, when having nothing else left, or very little.

That's why your side always plunks them into the conversation, like they are all proven facts, that you can suddenly sprinkle throughout almost any issue, whenever you wish to, and of course, the most important thing is putting them in like they're all well-proven facts, and claim how they all support your arguments.

Moving along now....

No, not moving along just yet.....

"Your side", refers to globe Earth believing people, as opposed to flat Earth believing people, yes? So, just to clarify, when you say "your side", you're referring to 8 000 000 000 + people, as opposed to the side you barrack for, which is, what, 500 uneducated people? (I usually cheer for the underdog, but not in this case)

Let's imagine for a moment, hypothetically ofcourse, I were a Police Officer and my job were to put a brief of evidence together to prove the Earth were a globe and not flat. The standard of proof I am tasked with is beyond a reasonable doubt. I can bring in expert witnesses to support my case, scientists mostly, and all the evidence I can gather. Now let's imagine, you Turbonium, are the Flat Earth defence. You too, can bring in your own experts and any information you can get your hands on, to refute me, and to create a reasonable doubt that the Earth is a globe, and is instead flat.

Turbonium, you'd be screwed.

Science can confidently say what those twinkly things in the night sky are, and how far away each of them are. You and your team can't do that. All you can say is, we don't know yet, to pretty much everything. The moon landings is actual proof beyond a reasonable doubt there is no firmament, and no invisible ceiling up there for a rocket to crash into.

Turbonium, like most 'flat earthers' are just LARPing for shits and giggles.

Theur answers are as hocced, vague word salads that don't explain anything. Because they have zero conviction. His life must be real sad and pathetic if doing this passes for his entertainment

They can, because all of these objects are ALSO beneath the Firmament

So you are saying the firmament is very far away, and we could have landed on the moon without leaving the firmament?

and shown to be very, very close to Earth, and shown to be much, much smaller than they've told us they are.

No, they haven't.
You repeatedly had your ass handed to you in the other thread and fled from it.
Don't trying bringing up that BS here.

like they have been proven to be in 'space', which has never been proven to exist, in the FIRST place!

Space can be proven to exist by induction.
We can observe the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
The air pressure decreases as you increase in altitude.
Eventually at a high enough altitude that will result in no significant air pressure at all, also known as space.
 

Your arguments, from start to finish, are simply lies

You should really stop projecting.
Our arguments are based upon evidence and rational thought.
Your arguments are based upon lies and BS.

Just compare.
Our side has evidence of rockets launching, including footage a significant amount of time after take off.
We have evidence in the form of photos of satellites, and even footage from space.
You can even watch the ISS yourself.

Loads of evidence showing your position is wrong.
And what's your response? That it is all fake.
That there is a magical dome which would prevent people going to space, that space doesn't exist, that rockets just smash back down to Earth.
All lies you claim with no supporting evidence.
In other threads you blatantly about the RE model and other aspects of reality, pretending that planes magically align themselves to some magical flat reference, that all levels also magically align themselves to some magical flat reference.

You are the one continually spouting lies.
And it isn't just you, it is plenty of other FEers as well.

You have no evidence for any of your delusional BS, nor can you refute the refutation of your claims against the RE.

Instead, all you do is deflect or lie, like you have done yet again.

Moving along now....

Go ahead, leave this thread (or better yet this forum) and stop spouting your dishonest BS.

Now again, where is your evidence of your magic dome?
Just what is so drastically different about the plane?

They haven't.
People have filmed them, and you have been provided that footage.
You have had your safety BS refuted repeatedly.
Stop bringing it up. Every time you do you just demonstrate your dishonesty.

It's very dishonest when you claim 'we have filmed them', because we all know they've filmed them, that's not what you're spewing about here, so stop the BS, and be specific, since we both know we've never seen a rocket after a few minutes, other than a very few, which were, of course, launched at night, when we cannot even see them, other than their lights, that is.

And these rockets flew over land, throughout this video, at least. Not over the ocean, which is obviously unusual, and rare, to this point.

We've always seen them fly over the ocean, where they go out of all view, in about 3-4 minutes, and are NEVER SEEN AGAIN, as in, to be seen, and identified, as a rocket, and is the same rocket seen a minute before that, from the launch area, flying out of sight. 

The most amazing coincidence, once again. There's a lot of amazing coincidences for your story, it seems. 

I'm sure you'll say that THIS is also an amazing coincidence, too, or make up some excuse for it, same as always. 


The very, very few videos, available to see, right now, show a rocket for more than all the others show us, which is about 3-4 minutes or so.  Often, it is very obvious to see, that these videos went on longer than those 3-4 minutes, because they were cut off, while the rocket was still in view, at a distance, so there's no reason they would suddenly STOP filming them, at that point. That's exactly why they are THERE, to FILM the rocket, so why would they stop filming it when still in view, doesn't make any sense at all. Nobody would be that stupid, for sure. And so why are ALL of these videos cut off when the rocket is still in view? No idea?

I saw most of these videos about a year ago, and earlier, but I haven't found them now, so far, anyway. They might have been buried on page 203, or were removed completely, or something, because I had easily found them all back then, it should not be impossible to find one or two of them now, but it is.   

Not strange at all.....yet

The films of rockets which are cut off, while the rocket is still in view, were shot in daylight, and also at night, though it is the daylight videos that are most important, as they are the only videos where we can actually SEE the rockets, see what they look like, specifically, what they look like at a distance, which is when most of these videos are so suddenly cut off, while we're still seeing the rocket in the distance, flying away.....

Nobody even zooms in on them, either, which is also weird. I mean, who would film a rocket, at the launch area, without zooming in on them, when at a distance? Nobody is that stupid either, but it's also the case.

It's very unlikely that all these films, shot in daylight, didn't use a zoom lens. Some of them DID zoom in on the rockets, but when it was stlll close to them, never when it was far away, or maybe it was, and not shown to us, who knows? Or they had crappy zoom lenses, and they couldn't zoom in much over that distance.   

The lack of zooming in doesn't really matter. What matters most, is that they all are so suddenly cut off, when the rocket is still visible to us.

So these are the only videos, or maybe a few more, perhaps, that have shown a rocket in flight, for more than about 3-4 minutes, and they are all launched at night, and filmed at night, when they cannot be seen, other than their lights. 

We all know that this video shows only the lights of that rocket, at night. Of course, we cannot see the actual rocket itself, we only see it's lights in the dark skies, which we can easily compare to planes flying away into the distance, shot from the ground, passing across them, AT NIGHT.

Once again, we've all seen a plane flying off into the distance, at night, where only it's lights can be seen, and they have NEVER, EVER, looked like that rocket did, and I've seen many of them at night, flying away, I'm sure most of you have, too.

Many people have filmed them, of course. The only problem I see, is that it is so very common to film that, and shows nothing but little lights in a dark sky, and we've all seen that many times before, it is not easy to even FIND any videos of it, like it is not easy to find a video of it shot in daylight, either.

Even so, what you're trying to tell me, is that planes actually DO look like that rocket, while you've never shown proof for that absurd, ridiculous claim, and deny the fact that planes look completely different than that rocket does, when anyone would immediately know that planes do not look like that rocket does, and you have never seen a plane look like that, either, but you   can't even ADMIT to it, which is not my problem. I'm doing this for others who might come in, or find it on a search, etc.  You speak for the ball Earth side, I show it's all crap, and faked, and show proof that Earth is flat, and so on.




and they cut off, while the rocket is still in view, for some of the clips, anyway.

Turbonium, like most 'flat earthers' are just LARPing for shits and giggles.

Theur answers are as hocced, vague word salads that don't explain anything. Because they have zero conviction. His life must be real sad and pathetic if doing this passes for his entertainment

If you want to talk about sad, look at myself and others, addicted to refuting these flat earther bozos.

Of all the things to get addicted to in life, this is what I'm currently addicted to. This is passing for my entertainment, too, pretending these people are serious. In the time I wrote that last post, I could have done some yard work, or even put a coat of house paint on something.

Turbonium won't even acknowledhmge my posts anyway. Sceptimatic responds ocassionslly. Turbonium, the rude prick will only respond to Jack Black and Stash, and pretend my posts don't exist. Imagine being ostracized by a flat earther and being annoyed by it?

I think I need to look for a replacement addiction. I'm getting into 3d printing, and guitar paying and l hear that both can be addictive hobbies. Maybe that's what I'll start doing more of, and slowly ween myself off this time waster of a place.

Quote from: Wolvaccine on March 25, 2023, 11:56:26 PM

Turbonium, like most 'flat earthers' are just LARPing for shits and giggles.

Theur answers are as hocced, vague word salads that don't explain anything. Because they have zero conviction. His life must be real sad and pathetic if doing this passes for his entertainment

If you want to talk about sad, look at myself and others, addicted to refuting these flat earther bozos.

Of all the things to get addicted to in life, this is what I'm currently addicted to. This is passing for my entertainment, too, pretending these people are serious. In the time I wrote that last post, I could have done some yard work, or even put a coat of house paint on something.

I think I need to look for a replacement addiction. I'm getting into 3d printing, and guitar paying and l hear that both can be addictive hobbies. Maybe that's what I'll start doing more of, and slowly ween myself off this time waster of a place.

Some people like turnonium have a humiliation fetish. I guess it's also sad that we play a role in them creaming their pants as they get off on us humiliating them

The 3D printing and guitar sound like awesome hobbies. Certainly better than 'jacking' these 'flat earth' bozos off.

I mean if they had even a little conviction or believability in their debate it could be interesting. Instead their fakeness shines through in their vague, word salad non answers to anything

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 26, 2023, 12:54:14 AM

Quote from: Wolvaccine on March 25, 2023, 11:56:26 PM

Turbonium, like most 'flat earthers' are just LARPing for shits and giggles.

Theur answers are as hocced, vague word salads that don't explain anything. Because they have zero conviction. His life must be real sad and pathetic if doing this passes for his entertainment

If you want to talk about sad, look at myself and others, addicted to refuting these flat earther bozos.

Of all the things to get addicted to in life, this is what I'm currently addicted to. This is passing for my entertainment, too, pretending these people are serious. In the time I wrote that last post, I could have done some yard work, or even put a coat of house paint on something.

I think I need to look for a replacement addiction. I'm getting into 3d printing, and guitar paying and l hear that both can be addictive hobbies. Maybe that's what I'll start doing more of, and slowly ween myself off this time waster of a place.

Some people like turnonium have a humiliation fetish. I guess it's also sad that we play a role in them creaming their pants as they get off on us humiliating them

The 3D printing and guitar sound like awesome hobbies. Certainly better than 'jacking' these 'flat earth' bozos off.

I mean if they had even a little conviction or believability in their debate it could be interesting. Instead their fakeness shines through in their vague, word salad non answers to anything

Yes, both are productive hobbies.

I maintain the most interesting discussions and debates on this forum regarding the Flat Earth, have come and gone. It peaked years ago. They've had their day. This here is just mind numbing shit.

Flat Earthers of yesteryear, that was their entire goal, wasn't it? The secret sheer guilty pleasure they derive from wasting volumes of scientific minded people's time. That being true, look at the geese that have fallen for it, here, me included!

Now, the most interesting debates here are on the daily outrage section of Angry Ranting, and have nothing to do with flat earth.

Thst will be my plan. I'll just stick to Angry Ranting and boycott all these fruitless flat earth debates.

I guess the thing is, while some of us are addicted to refuting them, the Flat earthers themselves are likewise addicted to peddling their shit and getting off on it. In a way, myself and others, are guilty of enabling these flat earthers with their mad addiction.

If you want to kill a camp fire, the fastest way is to remove the oxygen for it to burn.

It's very dishonest when you claim 'we have filmed them'

No, it isn't.
What is dishonest is you dismissing everything that shows you are wrong as fake, while happily accepting anything you think you can twist into supporting your delusional BS.

It's very unlikely that all these films, shot in daylight, didn't use a zoom lens. Some of them DID zoom in on the rockets, but when it was stlll close to them, never when it was far away

Due to their altitude and distance, a zoom lens will only get you so far.
Zoom lenses aren't magic.

The lack of zooming in doesn't really matter. What matters most, is that they all are so suddenly cut off, when the rocket is still visible to us.

This just shows the ridiculousness of your position.
If you think that shows anything, then you should be able to go to a rocket launch, with a magical zoom lens, and then follow it, and don't cut the footage off.

Once again, we've all seen a plane flying off into the distance, at night, where only it's lights can be seen, and they have NEVER, EVER, looked like that rocket did

Again, repeatedly asserting the same pathetic BS will not help you.
Clearly explain just what feature makes it so drastically different.

In the case of night time footage, the obvious difference would be the small flashing lights on a plane, vs the exhaust plume for a rocket.
But that doesn't help you with your BS.

Even so, what you're trying to tell me, is that planes actually DO look like that rocket, while you've never shown proof for that absurd, ridiculous claim

And more pathetic lies.
You have been provided plenty of evidence, and have been entirely incapable of explaining just what is meant to be so different.
Instead you just repeat the same pathetic lie that they are completely different.

If they actually were so drastically different you would have explained how by now.

Even now you just keep on repeating the same pathetic lie, claiming they are different without explaining how.

Again, just what specific thing makes these so drastically different?

I'm doing this for others who might come in

You mean other people who you can try to con with your pathetic lies?

You speak for the ball Earth side, I show it's all crap, and faked, and show proof that Earth is flat, and so on.

You have never done that.
You are yet to show anything is crap except yourself.
You have made a bunch of lies about the RE (or reality in general) which have been refuted.
And you have been entirely incapable of supporting your delusional fantasy.

Let's imagine for a moment, hypothetically ofcourse, I were a Police Officer and my job were to put a brief of evidence together to prove the Earth were a globe and not flat. The standard of proof I am tasked with is beyond a reasonable doubt. I can bring in expert witnesses to support my case, scientists mostly, and all the evidence I can gather. Now let's imagine, you Turbonium, are the Flat Earth defence. You too, can bring in your own experts and any information you can get your hands on, to refute me, and to create a reasonable doubt that the Earth is a globe, and is instead flat.

Turbonium, you'd be screwed.

Science can confidently say what those twinkly things in the night sky are, and how far away each of them are. You and your team can't do that. All you can say is, we don't know yet, to pretty much everything. The moon landings is actual proof beyond a reasonable doubt there is no firmament, and no invisible ceiling up there for a rocket to crash into.

I would show that the instruments on planes measure for level flight, which they remain at over  most of their flights, while at altitude, and some of those planes will fly over 2-3000 miles of Earth's surface, in a single flight, and when they land back down to the surface, it matches the starting altitude, and level flight over the surface of Earth, thousands of miles in distance, in level flight, and lands down and confirms it. 

I'll show how our instruments measure for level, and show how a laser level measures for level, because they never use the Earth's surface to measure for level, and why you're argument that level is measuring 'level to Earth's curvature', is entirely based on your argument that a made up magical force exists, within the 'core' of a ball Earth.......and that's where they stop you, and ask you to show proof of this magical force, because it is the entire foundation of your argument about level being NOT level, and so on.

But of course, you'd have to admit that there IS no actual proof of such a force even existing, you'd find no objects which attract to each other, by this made up force, and when you try to show two objects of METAL, no matter WHAT metal it is, contains magnetic properties, which attract to other metals with those properties, even if it is extremely SLIGHT in attraction to or from another object with magnetic properties. 


Then they'd say, if this force exists, and you claim your test proves it exists, then you should be able to prove it exists with any object that isn't a metal, or contains metal, or has any magnetic properties whatsoever.   

Wood, for example, in pure form, have no magnetic properties, or most woods do not, anyway.

Man-made plastics would not have magnetic properties, either, in general. Rubber is also good to use for these tests, among others.

After you claim that only lead, or an object with metal in it, must be used, because they are more dense material than other materials are, you're twisting your whole argument about 'gravity', being within ALL objects, making ALL objects attract to one another, based on their mass and density, whatever it's mass and/or density may be. You can't pick out one or two materials and say only THEY will attract to one another by 'gravity', but when you DID try to pick out one or two specific objects, because you think it would fool everyone, you're told to prove it with objects that have no magnetic properties, which you cannot do, and it is only you who ends up the fool.

I understand what science really is, what it really wants, how it really DOES work, and is based on the scientific method, and it's principles, which must always be followed, in all sciences, throughout.

And from that, I also know when something is NOT a science, and not based on science, or follows the scientific method, and scientific principles.

Those who have claimed that 'gravity' exists, and is based on science, and measurements of this or that, all of which are objects above the Earth, mean they cannot be proven in any way, and when you should be able to prove 'gravity' exists with objects on Earth, you try to pick out one or two that have magnetic properties, and cannot use any OTHER objects at all, because they will all prove your claim is nonsense.


I don't fear science, or fear scientists, or what they say, or tell me is true, or not true.

Real science is about the truth, the evidence, and facts.

Those who have created a perversion of science, is what I despise, and hold up as a perversion of true science. These are the 'anti-sciences', who claim they ARE a science, while they are the very OPPOSITE of science.

Your ball Earth fairy tale is entirely BUILT on those anti-sciences, most of all, what they deemed a science called 'Astronomy', which leads the way for all others which are based on this perversion of science.

The one, most important principle of science, that must be followed, and used, is to validate, confirm, and present all evidence, all you claim to see, must be seen by others, and confirmed by others, and anyone who wants to see what they claim to have seen.

Astronomy was the creation of a group of elite, powerful people, who were all Freemasons.
That's a good clue that 'astronomy' was created to be a complete perversion of actual science. 

Indeed it is.

blah

Your scientific ignorance is not evidence. It's just you advertising how small brained you are. Well done but we kind of already knew

If you think that shows anything, then you should be able to go to a rocket launch, with a magical zoom lens, and then follow it, and don't cut the footage off.

Yes, there should be no reason why anyone couldn't film it, the entire time, until it is NOT seen anymore.

When you see these videos, they don't show the whole footage, because all these videos are cut off as well, while the rocket in still in view.

That means they were all deliberately cut off at some point in the videos, at about the SAME point, for some specific reason, which is the same reason they never allow us to SEE them off the coast, because all of this isn't some magical coincidence, where everyone who filmed a rocket snips their videos of rockets, at the same point, like a bunch of morons.

Who cut the videos? Maybe they all did, or were told to cut them off, or whatever, who knows?

All I do know, is that they were cut off while the rocket was still visible, around the same point.
There's obviously only one reason they were all cut off there, but if you prefer to believe they were all cut off at the same point by mistake, which all of them did at the same point by mistake, that's just living in denial of the reality, no?

But of course, you'd have to admit that there IS no actual proof of such a force even existing,

The topic is "Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?" So stick to the topic. The topic is, what is preventing space travel by man in FE. So, you say it's a dome.

The topic is not about gravity, rockets do this or do that. The topic is what in FE is stopping rockets. You have no evidence of anything stopping rockets. No dome evidence. You have admitted this. You've already admitted that you have no evidence for a firmament, a dome...

To prove it, either way, can easily be done, by launching a rocket straight up, and find out if it stops going up, or keeps going up, into 'space'.....

You've already been shown an uncut video of a rocket going straight up 307k' and coming straight back down which meets your above test criteria. So your dome must be higher, right? So where is it?

All I do know, is that they were cut off while the rocket was still visible, around the same point.
There's obviously only one reason they were all cut off there, but if you prefer to believe they were all cut off at the same point by mistake, which all of them did at the same point by mistake, that's just living in denial of the reality, no?

Again, uncut...



Try and be honest and take a cold, hard look at the topic at hand and provide evidence for a dome. You're always on about zooming into rockets. Why can't I zoom in and see a dome?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 25, 2023, 03:36:25 AM

Fuel to dense mass ratio and a lift off at full thrust to gain a fairly consistent altitude gain before burn out and fall back to the ground or the sea.
All over with in seconds or minutes.

There are mountains of evidence that satellites are in space.

There's mountains of evidence there are star ship enterprises and star wars fighter craft in space. We get to see many pictures of them.
Or aren't they real but your space rockets are?

And none that the rockets just fly up for a little bit before crashing back to the ground or sea.

That's what really happens to missiles.
Space rockets do not exist to lift off in the first place to crash back into the sea....just simple rockets/missiles.

Care to provide any justification at all for your claims?

Just pay attention to the arcing and pay attention to the slow motion lift off of supped space rockets against real lift off of actual missiles and real rockets.
The model one's give enormous clues out for those who bother to observe.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 25, 2023, 03:58:39 AM

And I'm talking about real rockets not pretend space rockets.

You mean you are dismissing real rockets as pretend, and instead want to focus on tiny model rockets.

Focusing on model rockets shows a reality against the silly slow lift off of pretend space rockets.
Just understand full thrust of a rocket at lift off and then you'll understand there's no slow lift off, so something else is at play which is fairly easy to grasp once the bias of space rocket is out of a person's system.
I'm not including you in this as I know how rigid you are with all the space stuff.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 25, 2023, 09:35:48 AM

How about 3 minutes vertical flight and I believe I'm being generous in offering that. Maybe I should've said a couple of minutes and be ever so slightly generous.

And what you believe doesn't really matter.

It doesn't, you're right, to people like yourself. It does matter to me and those who actually have a mind to think outside of the space rocket box.

Can you justify it at all?

To you...no. To myself....yes.

Why do you limit it to 3 minutes?
Why not 5?
Why not 10?
Why not 100?

Because vertical rockets will rarely operate for longer. They burn up too much fuel too fast.
The model rockets and firework rockets offer a reality.
The space rocket engines are simply a fantasy.

You are just pulling numbers from no where to dismiss reality.

I am offering low numbers, yes and I can't verify exact so take it for whatever you wish to.

"Your side", refers to globe Earth believing people, as opposed to flat Earth believing people, yes? So, just to clarify, when you say "your side", you're referring to 8 000 000 000 + people, as opposed to the side you barrack for, which is, what, 500 uneducated people? (I usually cheer for the underdog, but not in this case)

Do you think 8 billion people share the same religious beliefs?
Do you think 8 billion people like lobster?
And so on.
You're offering what you think  not what is a reality.

Let's imagine for a moment, hypothetically ofcourse, I were a Police Officer and my job were to put a brief of evidence together to prove the Earth were a globe and not flat. The standard of proof I am tasked with is beyond a reasonable doubt. I can bring in expert witnesses to support my case, scientists mostly, and all the evidence I can gather. Now let's imagine, you Turbonium, are the Flat Earth defence. You too, can bring in your own experts and any information you can get your hands on, to refute me, and to create a reasonable doubt that the Earth is a globe, and is instead flat.

Then you create a stalemate and nothing more and nothing less, unless you rely on the side of a biased judging panel who you think will offer your side a favour because actual attempts to prove a reality will come down to the best stories and the best stories cannot be realistically offered as beyond reasonable doubt.

Science can confidently say what those twinkly things in the night sky are, and how far away each of them are.

No it cannot. Science is the truth and only those who can offer a reality can only offer a truth.
Twinkling lights in the sky offer nothing to the observer in terms of distance.

You and your team can't do that. All you can say is, we don't know yet, to pretty much everything.

Nobody can offer accurate distances to a sky light until they know what that skylight is and how big it is against something known.
This is why light years were offered because it simply dazzles the ordinary Joe with science and baffles them all with the bull behind it.
It helps hides a multitude of nonsense.

The moon landings is actual proof beyond a reasonable doubt there is no firmament, and no invisible ceiling up there for a rocket to crash into.

Another silly story for the people of the 50's and 60's to be mesmerised with but the people of today and since access to computers and playback, people start to see the utter nonsense that they were back then and the nonsense of what we are dealt with today.Obviously indoctrination of the mind by authority is a strong thing so many still follow the pied pipers.

Nobody can offer accurate distances to a sky light until they know what that skylight is and how big it is against something known.

So you're saying that you don't know what those sky lights are and how far away they are?

I would show that the instruments on planes measure for level flight

No, you blatantly lie about what planes measure, pretending they magically measure to some magical flat reference plane, rather than merely measuring their altitude and the direction to down; so you can further lie by claiming they show Earth is flat.

That is a lie based upon a lie.
Truly pathetic.

And this was just provided as an example of your dishonesty and how you are the one just providing lie after lie after lie.

It has nothing to do with this thread.

So how about you stop with the pathetic deflections and start trying to justify your lies regarding this topic?

I don't fear science, or fear scientists, or what they say, or tell me is true, or not true.

You most certainly seem to.
You really hate reality and avoid it at all costs.

Those who have created a perversion of science, is what I despise, and hold up as a perversion of true science. These are the 'anti-sciences', who claim they ARE a science, while they are the very OPPOSITE of science.

So people like you and other FEers? You despise yourself?

Or is what you really meant is that you despise actual science and love this pathetic perversion of science from FEers?

Yes, there should be no reason why anyone couldn't film it, the entire time, until it is NOT seen anymore.

So go do it.
No one is stopping you.
No one is under the obligation to do it for you.
People not doing it for you is not evidence your delusional BS is true.

If you want this footage, go get it yourself.

That means they were all deliberately cut off at some point in the videos, at about the SAME point, for some specific reason

No, it doesn't.
That is an entirely baseless assertion to further promote your delusional BS.
You have no evidence that shows they were cut at the same point, nor that there is a specific reason.

Yet again, you can't support your delusional BS, so you just make more pathetic claims.

There's obviously only one reason they were all cut off there

No, there are plenty of reasons, coming down to the individual preferences of the people filming and putting together the video.
But that doesn't fit your delusional fantasy so you lie.

But the simplest is that it becomes beyond the camera's resolution, i.e. the camera is unable to film it in significant detail so it just looks like a dot.

Again, where is your footage?
You have admitted there is nothing stopping you. So why don't you film a rocket launch?
Is it because you will have then run out of excuses?

There's mountains of evidence there are star ship enterprises and star wars fighter craft in space.

No, there isn't.
The only "evidence" is from a known TV franchise and a known movie franchise, with so many flaws it isn't funny.
There is no explanation of how any of it works.
And plenty of props.
No one is able to go watch them launch and fly.
No one is able to observe them in orbit.

So no, there are not mountains of evidence for them.

Conversely, if you want to, YOU can go and watch a rocket launch.
Not just rely upon footage from countless other people, but you personally can go watch it.
Likewise, you personally can observe objects in orbit around Earth, including resolving the ISS with binoculars.
You personally can use devices which communicate with them, such as satellite TV and GPS.

Space rockets do not exist to lift off in the first place

Your wilful rejection of reality wont help you.

Just pay attention to the arcing and pay attention to the slow motion lift off of supped space rockets against real lift off of actual missiles and real rockets.
The model one's give enormous clues out for those who bother to observe.

None of that supports your delusional BS.

Instead, it just demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on your part.

Firstly, the "arcing" is to go from a vertical launch to entering orbit.
That is expected, and in no way demonstrates the rocket is crashing back to Earth.
The slow liftoff is due to the massive weight of rockets going to orbit vs sub-orbital missiles.
They need so much fuel to launch that their thrust to weight ratio is initially quite close to 1, so it will launch slowly, and as it burns off fuel it will go faster and faster.

Focusing on model rockets shows a reality against the silly slow lift off of pretend space rockets.

Once more, doing that just shows a complete lack of understanding on your part.
It doesn't show any problem with orbital rockets.

Just understand full thrust of a rocket at lift off and then you'll understand there's no slow lift off

Try to actually understand it.
Something which helps is the square-cube law.

If you were to take a tiny model rocket, and simply scale it up, the force provided will go up with the square of the scaling factor, but the mass goes up with the cube.

So lets pretend gravity doesn't exist, and the rocket just flies up by itself.
You have a rocket that is 1 cm wide, and it lifts off at 100 m/s^2 (quite fast, over 10 g).
We now scale that rocket up to be 10 m wide.
That is a factor of 1000.
That means the force will be 1000*1000 times as great.
But the mass will be 1000*1000*1000 times as great.

And as acceleration is given by force divided by acceleration, that will be a factor of 0.001 (1/1000) of what it originally was.
So by merely scaling up this rocket you have reduced the acceleration down to 0.1 m/s^2. Incredibly slow.

And it gets worse if you factor in gravity.
If we take that toy and scaled up version as above and put it in 1 g, then the lift off of the small one will accelerate at a rate of ~90.2 m/s^2, while the scaled up version wont take off at all.

Another option which is fairly easy to do is just look at the specs.
The Falcon 9 maximum thrust is 7.6 MN.
And its mass is 549 t, of which I'm not sure if that includes the payload.
Without gravity that would result in an initial acceleration of ~13.8 m/s^2.
But then taking gravity into account, it will drop to ~4 m/s^2.

So yes, a slow lift off is expected.

But as the fuel burns, it will accelerate faster as there is less mass to accelerate.

So yet again, all you are demonstrating is your complete lack of understanding.

I'm not including you in this as I know how rigid you are with all the space stuff.

You  mean with how rigid I am with reality, and how I'm not going to discard it and replace it with your entirely unjustified, delusional BS, just because you hate reality?

Anyone who chooses to think can easily see through your BS.

It does matter to me and those who actually have a mind to think outside of the space rocket box.

It matters to you, but not to those who actually care about reality.
It might initially, but once they see you just continually spout the same refuted BS, they would stop caring.
What matters is evidence and ability for a model/claim to explain reality.
You don't have that, and you believing something wont give you that.

To you...no. To myself....yes.

You could have just said "No, you cannot justify it".
Being able to "justify" it to yourself is entirely worthless.

Because vertical rockets will rarely operate for longer.

This is just further deflection.
Again, why this particular number?
Why not any other?
For this, you need to show the math that results in this number, or provide an actual justification which leads to it.
Not merely vague claims.

If you want to claim it is due to burning up too much fuel, you need to show how you arrived at that number, i.e. show how much fuel it has and the burn rate.

The space rocket engines are simply a fantasy.

Again, you not liking it because it destroys your delusional BS doesn't make it a fantasy.

I am offering low numbers, yes and I can't verify exact so take it for whatever you wish to.

You can't verify AT ALL.
You just making up numbers to dismiss reality.

If you can't verify it, then we can dismiss it as pure BS.

Do you think 8 billion people share the same religious beliefs?
Do you think 8 billion people like lobster?
And so on.

Notice a problem with that?
You are appealing to fantasy and personal preferences.

Try it with reality.
How many people think you need water (or something containing water) to live?
Do you think 8 billion people think that?
What about thinking you need to eat to live?

Then you create a stalemate and nothing more and nothing less

How?
Your side is unable to present anything to honestly challenge the mountains of evidence showing you are wrong.
You resort to extreme paranoia, dismissing everything that shows you are wrong as fake and part of a massive conspiracy.

The evidence shows beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round and rockets go to space.

because actual attempts to prove a reality will come down to the best stories and the best stories cannot be realistically offered as beyond reasonable doubt.

No, that is your deslusional BS way.
The real way is based upon evidence. The RE has mountains of it. You have none.

No it cannot. Science is the truth and only those who can offer a reality can only offer a truth.
Twinkling lights in the sky offer nothing to the observer in terms of distance.

You hating reality, doesn't mean science can't say what reality is, and be confident about it.

Nobody can offer accurate distances to a sky light until they know what that skylight is and how big it is against something known.

Your inability to understand parallax is your own problem, not ours.

Another silly story for the people of the 50's and 60's

No, another fact, backed up by mountains of evidence, which requires extreme paranoia to dismiss as fake.

If any side is indoctrinated it is your side.
Dismissing everything that shows you are wrong at all costs, with no valid justification at all; instead appealing to whatever insane BS you need to pretend your fantasy is true and reality is wrong.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 25, 2023, 11:50:42 PM

"Your side", refers to globe Earth believing people, as opposed to flat Earth believing people, yes? So, just to clarify, when you say "your side", you're referring to 8 000 000 000 + people, as opposed to the side you barrack for, which is, what, 500 uneducated people? (I usually cheer for the underdog, but not in this case)

Do you think 8 billion people share the same religious beliefs?
Do you think 8 billion people like lobster?
And so on.
You're offering what you think  not what is a reality.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Let's imagine for a moment, hypothetically ofcourse, I were a Police Officer and my job were to put a brief of evidence together to prove the Earth were a globe and not flat. The standard of proof I am tasked with is beyond a reasonable doubt. I can bring in expert witnesses to support my case, scientists mostly, and all the evidence I can gather. Now let's imagine, you Turbonium, are the Flat Earth defence. You too, can bring in your own experts and any information you can get your hands on, to refute me, and to create a reasonable doubt that the Earth is a globe, and is instead flat.

Then you create a stalemate and nothing more and nothing less, unless you rely on the side of a biased judging panel who you think will offer your side a favour because actual attempts to prove a reality will come down to the best stories and the best stories cannot be realistically offered as beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Science can confidently say what those twinkly things in the night sky are, and how far away each of them are.

No it cannot. Science is the truth and only those who can offer a reality can only offer a truth.
Twinkling lights in the sky offer nothing to the observer in terms of distance.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

You and your team can't do that. All you can say is, we don't know yet, to pretty much everything.

Nobody can offer accurate distances to a sky light until they know what that skylight is and how big it is against something known.
This is why light years were offered because it simply dazzles the ordinary Joe with science and baffles them all with the bull behind it.
It helps hides a multitude of nonsense.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

The moon landings is actual proof beyond a reasonable doubt there is no firmament, and no invisible ceiling up there for a rocket to crash into.

Another silly story for the people of the 50's and 60's to be mesmerised with but the people of today and since access to computers and playback, people start to see the utter nonsense that they were back then and the nonsense of what we are dealt with today.Obviously indoctrination of the mind by authority is a strong thing so many still follow the pied pipers.

I was going to boycott these flat earth threads but whatever.

About 8 billion people accept Earth is a ball, for very obvious reasons. I didn't create a stalemate with my hypothetical courtroom saga, as the jury would be half flat earthers and half globe earthers.

Look, I know a lot about flat earthers as it is a concept that interests me.

Without sounding like a put down, your flat earth ideas are simply based on very basic scientific misunderstandings. They are all easily refuted.

Other people would say you're obsessed, but to me, you're "possessed". The Flat Earth idea has possessed you, like some kind of evil entity possesses people in horror movies. The Flat Earth idea is controlling you, and you're a slave to it. Are you even really you anymore?

You think the masses accepting the Earth is a ball is just herd instinct and conforming. But is it? Ask questions. Find out for yourself.

I know you think you're awake to the truth, but you're actually blind to the truth because you've allowed yourself to be possessed by an old idea and it's having it's expression through you. You've given it power. You are one if it's tentacles. You are it's mouthpiece.

Ofcourse you deny the moon landings or the existence of space, that's what the Flat Earth idea demands you must do. So you do it.

How has the Flat Earth idea improved your life? What's it ever done for you? All the time and energy you've invested in it, for what?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2023, 06:21:31 AM

Nobody can offer accurate distances to a sky light until they know what that skylight is and how big it is against something known.

So you're saying that you don't know what those sky lights are and how far away they are?

Reflected light through cenralised crystal due to the central Earth energy we call the sun.

I'll tell you what they're not. They're not trillions of miles away burning giants.

Quote from: Stash on March 26, 2023, 09:19:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2023, 06:21:31 AM

Nobody can offer accurate distances to a sky light until they know what that skylight is and how big it is against something known.

So you're saying that you don't know what those sky lights are and how far away they are?

Reflected light through cenralised crystal due to the central Earth energy we call the sun.

I'll tell you what they're not. They're not trillions of miles away burning giants.

That's the best your colon could come up with huh?

Well you seem so sure that's correct. So tell us how you arrived at that conclusion. Take us through the steps you did

Quote from: Stash on March 26, 2023, 09:19:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2023, 06:21:31 AM

Nobody can offer accurate distances to a sky light until they know what that skylight is and how big it is against something known.

So you're saying that you don't know what those sky lights are and how far away they are?

Reflected light through cenralised crystal due to the central Earth energy we call the sun.

I'll tell you what they're not. They're not trillions of miles away burning giants.

So you're saying that you're the only person who knows what the sky lights are and that they are not massive? So you know their size? How do you know you're right? What measurements have you done to determine this?

Reflected light through cenralised crystal due to the central Earth energy we call the sun.

I'll tell you what they're not. They're not trillions of miles away burning giants.

So?  When a few millimeters of window glass blocks UV B to prevent sunburn, how is UV B radiation from the sun reaching earth to give me sunburns?  Especially if it’s reflected then passed through crystal?

Quote from: Stash on March 26, 2023, 09:19:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2023, 06:21:31 AM

Nobody can offer accurate distances to a sky light until they know what that skylight is and how big it is against something known.

So you're saying that you don't know what those sky lights are and how far away they are?

Reflected light through cenralised crystal due to the central Earth energy we call the sun.

I'll tell you what they're not. They're not trillions of miles away burning giants.

You don't know that. The flat earth idea has intoxicated you. You're impaired.

How have you falsified the scientific explanation on this? Please don't say you got your light bulb moment whilst inside a planetarium, looking at the projector?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2023, 09:45:14 PM

Quote from: Stash on March 26, 2023, 09:19:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2023, 06:21:31 AM

Nobody can offer accurate distances to a sky light until they know what that skylight is and how big it is against something known.

So you're saying that you don't know what those sky lights are and how far away they are?

Reflected light through cenralised crystal due to the central Earth energy we call the sun.

I'll tell you what they're not. They're not trillions of miles away burning giants.

That's the best your colon could come up with huh?

Well you seem so sure that's correct. So tell us how you arrived at that conclusion. Take us through the steps you did

It surely won't interest you. You're not here for that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2023, 09:45:14 PM

Quote from: Stash on March 26, 2023, 09:19:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2023, 06:21:31 AM

Nobody can offer accurate distances to a sky light until they know what that skylight is and how big it is against something known.

So you're saying that you don't know what those sky lights are and how far away they are?

Reflected light through cenralised crystal due to the central Earth energy we call the sun.

I'll tell you what they're not. They're not trillions of miles away burning giants.

So you're saying that you're the only person who knows what the sky lights are and that they are not massive? So you know their size? How do you know you're right? What measurements have you done to determine this?

I never said I'm right and nor did I ever say I knew the distance or size and nor do I think I'm the only person to know.
Try again.