[Tau]

You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked.  Do you have any proof?   

It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.

What you just did there is a fatal flaw in logic deduction. Although you call it simple, you do not seem to grasp its mechanics. When you made the statement "One cannot actually go into space" you assumed that he is lying. This immediately invalidates your logic. Although your conclusion might be correct, this is not a proof. Unless you have empirical evidence that it is not possible to go into space, your "logic" is void.

Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.

And yet you still miss the point. The very fact that you say that space travel is impossible assumes that the FET is true. Therefore, you cannot use this argument.

No, you are missing the point. A starting premise of my argument is indeed that the Earth is flat. This is because this premise has been previously proven. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

Besides, we're discussing Flat Earth Theory. If you'd prefer, we can use the modifier "assuming the Earth is flat, this phenomenon is explainable because" in front of every sentence. However, this would be a massive waste of everyone's time.

[FlawlessLogic]

You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked.  Do you have any proof?   

It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.

What you just did there is a fatal flaw in logic deduction. Although you call it simple, you do not seem to grasp its mechanics. When you made the statement "One cannot actually go into space" you assumed that he is lying. This immediately invalidates your logic. Although your conclusion might be correct, this is not a proof. Unless you have empirical evidence that it is not possible to go into space, your "logic" is void.

Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.

And yet you still miss the point. The very fact that you say that space travel is impossible assumes that the FET is true. Therefore, you cannot use this argument.

No, you are missing the point. A starting premise of my argument is indeed that the Earth is flat. This is because this premise has been previously proven. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

Besides, we're discussing Flat Earth Theory. If you'd prefer, we can use the modifier "assuming the Earth is flat, this phenomenon is explainable because" in front of every sentence. However, this would be a massive waste of everyone's time.

You are correct. IF we assume that the Earth is flat, THEN we can make certain statements. This is a standard conditional statement. If you look at the original comment that started this discussion, then you will see that BillyBob wants PROOF. Instead of proving anything to him, you asserted "One cannot actually go into space." You have no right to this assertion because BillyBob assumes that FET is false (or at least that is how I understood it).

I would also like to see the proof of why the Earth is flat. It would be interesting to look at.

Instead of taking his question seriously, you instead brushed it aside. I would have expected better from you.

Also if space travel is impossible, what are all these satelites I see through my telescope?

[Tintagel]

You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked.  Do you have any proof?   

It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.

What you just did there is a fatal flaw in logic deduction. Although you call it simple, you do not seem to grasp its mechanics. When you made the statement "One cannot actually go into space" you assumed that he is lying. This immediately invalidates your logic. Although your conclusion might be correct, this is not a proof. Unless you have empirical evidence that it is not possible to go into space, your "logic" is void.

Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.

And yet you still miss the point. The very fact that you say that space travel is impossible assumes that the FET is true. Therefore, you cannot use this argument.

No, you are missing the point. A starting premise of my argument is indeed that the Earth is flat. This is because this premise has been previously proven. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

Besides, we're discussing Flat Earth Theory. If you'd prefer, we can use the modifier "assuming the Earth is flat, this phenomenon is explainable because" in front of every sentence. However, this would be a massive waste of everyone's time.

You are correct. IF we assume that the Earth is flat, THEN we can make certain statements. This is a standard conditional statement. If you look at the original comment that started this discussion, then you will see that BillyBob wants PROOF. Instead of proving anything to him, you asserted "One cannot actually go into space." You have no right to this assertion because BillyBob assumes that FET is false (or at least that is how I understood it).

I would also like to see the proof of why the Earth is flat. It would be interesting to look at.

Instead of taking his question seriously, you instead brushed it aside. I would have expected better from you.

Also if space travel is impossible, what are all these satelites I see through my telescope?

Experimental evidence for a flat earth is discussed at length in the Wiki, and in Earth Not a Globe.   I've never seen any compelling evidence for a spherical earth. 

As asserted in the "Satellites" thread, satellites / stratellites are not strictly prohibited by flat earth theory.  Moreover, I very seriously doubt that you're using a telescope to look at "all these satellites." Even round earth folks don't look at satellites because they "move too fast" or "are too far / small to see". 

The more likely case is, of course, that with a few exceptions which are visible to the naked eye, they simply aren't there.

[FlawlessLogic]

You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked.  Do you have any proof?   

It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.

What you just did there is a fatal flaw in logic deduction. Although you call it simple, you do not seem to grasp its mechanics. When you made the statement "One cannot actually go into space" you assumed that he is lying. This immediately invalidates your logic. Although your conclusion might be correct, this is not a proof. Unless you have empirical evidence that it is not possible to go into space, your "logic" is void.

Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.

And yet you still miss the point. The very fact that you say that space travel is impossible assumes that the FET is true. Therefore, you cannot use this argument.

No, you are missing the point. A starting premise of my argument is indeed that the Earth is flat. This is because this premise has been previously proven. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

Besides, we're discussing Flat Earth Theory. If you'd prefer, we can use the modifier "assuming the Earth is flat, this phenomenon is explainable because" in front of every sentence. However, this would be a massive waste of everyone's time.

You are correct. IF we assume that the Earth is flat, THEN we can make certain statements. This is a standard conditional statement. If you look at the original comment that started this discussion, then you will see that BillyBob wants PROOF. Instead of proving anything to him, you asserted "One cannot actually go into space." You have no right to this assertion because BillyBob assumes that FET is false (or at least that is how I understood it).

I would also like to see the proof of why the Earth is flat. It would be interesting to look at.

Instead of taking his question seriously, you instead brushed it aside. I would have expected better from you.

Also if space travel is impossible, what are all these satelites I see through my telescope?

Experimental evidence for a flat earth is discussed at length in the Wiki, and in Earth Not a Globe.   I've never seen any compelling evidence for a spherical earth. 

As asserted in the "Satellites" thread, satellites / stratellites are not strictly prohibited by flat earth theory.  Moreover, I very seriously doubt that you're using a telescope to look at "all these satellites." Even round earth folks don't look at satellites because they "move too fast" or "are too far / small to see". 

The more likely case is, of course, that with a few exceptions which are visible to the naked eye, they simply aren't there.

Thank you for giving me some place to start on my quest to understand FET. Don't misinterpret my comments to you as aggression. I was just frustrated that many comments on this site are made either without empirical evidence or with logical falacies.

About satellites: why is it that if satellites are allowed, space travel is not? As my proof: there are many "average Joes" that have seen a satellite (Sputnik comes to mind).

[Tau]

As Tint said, FET does not expressly forbid satellites or, more likely, stratellites: high atmosphere contraptions similar to weather balloons.

[Lord Dave]

How does the "average Joe" see a ball no bigger than a toaster several miles through the atmosphere? 

I think you're the one making statements without proof.  And impossible ones at that.

[Rama Set]

Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.

Which laws of physics state that space travel is impossible.

How does the "average Joe" see a ball no bigger than a toaster several miles through the atmosphere? 

I think you're the one making statements without proof.  And impossible ones at that.

Who has claimed a satellite is the size of a toaster?  This feels like a straw man.

[Lord Dave]

Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.

Which laws of physics state that space travel is impossible.

How does the "average Joe" see a ball no bigger than a toaster several miles through the atmosphere? 

I think you're the one making statements without proof.  And impossible ones at that.

Who has claimed a satellite is the size of a toaster?  This feels like a straw man.

Logic up there claimed that the average Joe saw sputnik, which is only 28inches in diameter.

[Tau]

Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.

Which laws of physics state that space travel is impossible.

Universal Acceleration

[Rama Set]

Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.

Which laws of physics state that space travel is impossible.

Universal Acceleration

What about this law prevents someone from achieving escape velocity?  Also, is there a formalized law for universal acceleration?  Could I see it?

[spank86]

Universal Acceleration

I'm not sure that's a law so much as a hypothesis, and it doesn't necessarily negate space travel anyway, after all it's not a theory consistent with an external static frame of reference.

[markjo]

How does the "average Joe" see a ball no bigger than a toaster several miles through the atmosphere? 

With lots of contrast.  I have seen traffic lights several miles away at night on long stretches of straight road.

Logic up there claimed that the average Joe saw sputnik, which is only 28inches in diameter.

28" is awfully big for a toaster.

[Rama Set]

Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.

[markjo]

Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.

Or the size of a football field.

[Tintagel]

Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.

Or the size of a football field.

The object in question is Sputnik, and it was neither.

[Lord Dave]

How does the "average Joe" see a ball no bigger than a toaster several miles through the atmosphere? 

With lots of contrast.  I have seen traffic lights several miles away at night on long stretches of straight road.

Are you comparing a bright light in the dark to a solid metal sphere in orbit?

Logic up there claimed that the average Joe saw sputnik, which is only 28inches in diameter.

28" is awfully big for a toaster.

It was 22.8". Or smaller than a beach ball.

Point is, its too small to see with the naked eye from that distance.  During the day, the sky would wash it out anyway.  And at night, it has no light source to shine onto Earth.

[Rama Set]

Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.

Or the size of a football field.

The object in question is Sputnik, and it was neither.

Sputnik was one instance that came to the poster's, but that surely does not preclude other instances does it?

EDIT: Sputnik, at its apogee of 939kms, would have an angular diameter of 0.054 arc seconds to the naked eye. The star Deneb has an angular diameter of 0.0024 arc seconds and is visible to the naked eye. Of course Deneb is much brighter, but Sputnik as a polished metal sphere would reflect a decent amount of the sun's light. Couple that with the use of binoculars, or a telescope and I think you could see Sputnik in orbit.

[Tintagel]

Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.

Or the size of a football field.

The object in question is Sputnik, and it was neither.

Sputnik was one instance that came to the poster's, but that surely does not preclude other instances does it?

Of course not.  Some satellites / stratellites exist and can be easily seen.  We've already said this.

[Rama Set]

Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.

Or the size of a football field.

The object in question is Sputnik, and it was neither.

Sputnik was one instance that came to the poster's, but that surely does not preclude other instances does it?

Of course not.  Some satellites / stratellites exist and can be easily seen.  We've already said this.

Then why are we even talking about Sputnik?  The more relevant point of contention would be the reported altitudes of satellites no?

[Tintagel]

Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.

Or the size of a football field.

The object in question is Sputnik, and it was neither.

Sputnik was one instance that came to the poster's, but that surely does not preclude other instances does it?

Of course not.  Some satellites / stratellites exist and can be easily seen.  We've already said this.

Then why are we even talking about Sputnik?  The more relevant point of contention would be the reported altitudes of satellites no?

Indeed.  I maintain that they cannot orbit at the reported altitudes.  I don't leap immediately to 'conspiracy' to explain this; I rather consider the possibility that the measurements are simply wrong.