Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
So many that you couldn’t name one.
Laws pretty much by definition restrict your freedom. They dictate what you must or must not do.
Y'all, the Brits don't even know what freedom is.Yeah. You just keep on standing on the side of the road waiting till a little man tells you that you can cross, lest you get fined, while congratulating yourselves on how free you are.
Hillary might have had a far better election night had Comey not nuked her from high orbit just days before the election.
Fantastic. So glad you read the posts in here. Great mods all around, thanks for stopping by.
I wish someone would mansplain Eurovision to me. What’s it like an annual song and dance show and the winner gets crowned Dancing Queen by ABBA?It's not mansplaining if you don't know what it is and are asking for an explanation.
I hate all of you sm
I can use specialised software to see much more than a magical space station. Be bold, name what you'd like to see. Specialised software will sort it out.
How do you know it was the same object? What if ...
The overwhelming preponderence of evidence supporting it, and the total lack of any firm evidence to show that it could be anything else.
Do you have anything in support of your "What if ..."
Round-earthers say it’s moving at 17K mph.
... which is entirely consistent with both the stated orbital height, and duration of orbit.
I've seen it twice in an evening, on more than one occasion; each appearance separated by 90 mins or so. Calculate the length of orbit, based on stated speed, height and textbook radius of Earth, and you arrive at an orbital time of around 90 mins.
It's also consistent with the first orbital satellite, Sputnik 1, which was not only seen, but heard, as folks on the ground both watched it and listened to its beep-beep radio transmission. Accounts of what people saw and heard also mention an orbital time of around 90 mins, implying similar speed.
Absolutely. If you'd like to post an announcement, simply create a thread and let me know when it's ready to be moved to Announcements.
Regardless of the shape of the earth, at ground level to chase the sun one full revolution you’d have to be traveling at approximately 1000 MPH for 24 hours. Doable for let’s say some hi-tech blimp I suppose. But now you have to do the same thing in just an hour and a half. On land, to make one full revolution in 90 minutes, you’d have to be going something like 16x faster, or around 16,000 MPH. Rise in altitude, farther to travel, more speed required. Let me know if my math is wrong.
There’s a small problem with the contention that the space station is anchored to the North Pole under the flat earth theory. That’s the fallacy of the earth’s upward acceleration to ‘simulate’ gravity. In order for the space station to maintain a tension on a rope attached to the North Pole there would have to be a rocket engine on the space station to also maintain an upwards acceleration. I’ve never seen any evidence of a rocket exhaust in any of the pictures. Clearly there’s humans aboard the space station because I’ve personally heard them on the HAM radio frequencies.
By this logic birthday balloons would not stay afloat. The dirigible-station sails the upper bounds of the atmoplain like a ship anchored in a bay.
The difference being that in the ISS dirigible theory, the dirigible is traveling at over 17,000 miles per hour, is tied to tether(s) that would have to withstand 17,000 mph movement in upper atmosphere and the forces of the dirigible pulling in it, is being moved and steared by a force that would need to be defined, is attached to tethers that would have to be thousands and thousands of miles in length, and that would somehow need a plan for servicing said tether(s) if said tether(s) were to break or become damaged. Additionally, what would be the method of servicing such tethers without the billions of people on the ground knowing. Lastly, how would employees at NASA be mistaken that the ISS is orbiting the Earth vs. the ISS as a dirigible attached to tether(s)? They would be monitoring the ISS and not realize it's actually a dirigible with tether(s) attached?
There’s a small problem with the contention that the space station is anchored to the North Pole under the flat earth theory. That’s the fallacy of the earth’s upward acceleration to ‘simulate’ gravity. In order for the space station to maintain a tension on a rope attached to the North Pole there would have to be a rocket engine on the space station to also maintain an upwards acceleration. I’ve never seen any evidence of a rocket exhaust in any of the pictures. Clearly there’s humans aboard the space station because I’ve personally heard them on the HAM radio frequencies.
Whilst you may think " . . . further(ing) flat-earth theory . . ." is facetious, its actually the only reason most roundies come on here. The only way to prove a theory is to disprove the alternatives...
Some additional feasibility considerations or questions to look into regarding the tethered theory would be:
Cool. How might it work?
