1
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision
« on: May 25, 2023, 07:30:50 PM »Fantastic. So glad you read the posts in here. Great mods all around, thanks for stopping by.
You're welcome!
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.
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?
If I declare something silly, for example, "The earth is round" then plug my ears and scream every time someone brings up evidence that contradicts my predetermined world-view, would you think I could say with integrity that there is no evidence that, "stands up to any scrutiny at all"?Quoteand hundreds of reasons to think it's not.And yet you haven't mentioned one which stands up to any scrutiny at all.
I can honestly say that I don't know the answers to your questions. However, that is a good thing because rather than Googling searching something like "What is the ISS wingspan" then running back here and blindly parroting the answer after giving myself a "well-earned" pat-on-the-back for my extensive "research", I can say that I do not know and it's an area for further study.QuoteIt's honestly silly that we are still talking about this in 2022.Well, agreed there. The idea that the ISS is anchored to the North Pole is obviously ludicrous. How long is this tether supposed to be? What material is it made of which could be strong enough at that length? Why can't it be observed? Surely people close to the Arctic Circle would be able to see it? You have made an argument from incredulity and then presented an alternative idea which is (in my view although it is admittedly subjective) significantly more incredible and provided zero evidence for it.
The super powers of the world put down their weapons, all collaborated together to magically launch lego-esque space station parts, assembled them while careening around the earth at a blistering 17,000 miles per hour all in a weightless and airless environment completely hostile to human life. OR, that the space station is just a dirigible spinning around and anchored to the North Pole?
From an Occam's perspective, do you really think making a blimp travel at 17,000 MPH attached to a rope at the North Pole is the simpler explanation?
Why? Could the tether not be slackened and tightened? Surely it is not beyond the grasp of humanity to adjust the length of a tether.
Why would that be done? To give the impression that is in orbit around a globe, even when it is not?
Occam's Razor goes both ways. Either;
1. everyone involved in the ISS is either deliberately generating a fiction, manufacturing data, photos, videos, managing to make astronauts disappear from their families for months at a time, but set up comms where they 'look' weightless, but are in some form of simulation, or being duped by those who are generating this fiction .... OR
2. it's all real, and the sum total of 60+ years of orbital space flight and experience has gone into it.
... no reason to think it's a space station and hundreds of reasons to think it's not. A simple application of Occam's Razor cuts this space station nonsense to ribbons. What's more likely? The super powers of the world put down their weapons, all collaborated together to magically launch lego-esque space station parts, assembled them while careening around the earth at a blistering 17,000 miles per hour all in a weightless and airless environment completely hostile to human life. OR, that the space station is just a dirigible spinning around and anchored to the North Pole?
If the latter, it would have to maintain the same distance from the North Pole in every sighting. But it does not.
This photo has just been released of the ISS, taken from the ground in Germany
https://www.space.com/space-station-spacewalking-astronauts-telescope-photo
The structure of it is very clear and it claims to show one of the astronauts doing a spacewalk. It's admittedly just a dot, but what would you expect from that distance.
It's an interesting avenue of investigation for those of you who think the ISS is fake, there's clearly something up there and with not that expensive equipment you can see the structure of it from the ground. If it's not an orbiting space station then what is it, how did it get up there and what keeps it up there and travelling on the path it does?