[stack]

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?

Yes. Easily.

Cool. How might it work? Are there examples here on terra firma that exemplify the methods used to make it happen in the way you describe? Like Tether-Tech™ 10's of thousands of feet long? 17,000 MPH propulsion? Blimp-Tech™ that can withstand 17,000 MPH of propulsion? How to mimic its oscillating, for lack of a better term, path (I've got an idea on this one, it involves a winch)? What are the Occam-Easy solutions for these things?

[Pongo]

Cool. How might it work?

I don't know. But just as I don't need to know how my cell phone works to know that it works, I know that dirigibles exist and work. 

[stack]

Cool. How might it work?

I don't know. But just as I don't need to know how my cell phone works to know that it works, I know that dirigibles exist and work.

I don’t know either. I don’t have a cellphone, but I know they exist and work seemingly as advertised. I’ve seen videos and such showing people talk on them. Maybe they were actually using two tin cans that look like what we think cell phones would look like tethered together with a piece string. That might work. I know that tin cans and string exist and work.

[GoldCashew]

and hundreds of reasons to think it's not.

And yet you haven't mentioned one which stands up to any scrutiny at all.

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"?

It'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.

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.

Some additional feasibility considerations or questions to look into regarding the tethered theory would be:

- does one side of the ISS blimp always face the arctic circle or does the ISS tend to roll or change pitch or attitude? If the ISS tends to roll or change pitch, than how would a tether work that is attached to the arctic circle? For example, if the ISS pitches, angles, or rolls than the tether would have to pass through the ISS blimp which would not be feasible. So, your research would have to look at how the ISS is oriented over long periods of time to see if a tether could be feasible.

- there are other man made objects which can be observed from the ground orbiting Earth at over 17,000 mph, including thousands of pieces of space junk. If these are also small blimps tied to tethers, how or what is controlling and coordinating the thousands of tethers so that they do not get tangled? How does this work?

- other considerations might be to investigate the technical feasibility of a tether and blimp moving through the atmosphere (even of thin) at over 17,000 mph while able to withstand massive aerodynamic and frictional forces over a period of decades. In the vacuum of space, an orbiting ISS would experience no such forces.

Given the above, are you also open to the possibility that the ISS could indeed be a space station that is orbiting about a spherical Earth in space?

[Pongo]

Some additional feasibility considerations or questions to look into regarding the tethered theory would be:

Thank you for helping to further flat-earth theory. These questions will be looked into.

[DuncanDoenitz]

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, so we explore all avenues of flat-research until it disappears up its own monopole. 

Or not, of course. 

What's more likely? The super powers of the world put down their weapons, all collaborated together to magically - perpetuate a round-Earth myth?

It's honestly silly that we are still talking about this in 2022.

[Pongo]

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...

It may or may not surprise you to learn that many flat-earthers only come here to show round-earthers how extremely tenuous their grasp of their own theories are despite how dogmatically they cling to them.

"The only way to prove a theory is to disprove the alternatives..." smacks of a famous Doyle quote, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." While this sounds erudite on the surface, a mere sophomoric understanding of rhetoric will reveal this quote for what it is; a parade down the avenue of arguments from ignorance. Not only does the Scientific Method not teach this but nether does the Zetetic Method. Furthermore, theories aren't meant to be proven or disproven they are a body of knowledge that explains something. Like how the Theory of Evolution is true but is still called a theory. It's a semantic misunderstanding.

[stack]

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...

It may or may not surprise you to learn that many flat-earthers only come here to show round-earthers how extremely tenuous their grasp of their own theories are despite how dogmatically they cling to them.

It may or may not surprise you to learn that many globe-earthers only come here to show flat-earthers how extremely tenuous their grasp of their own theories are despite how dogmatically they cling to them.

"The only way to prove a theory is to disprove the alternatives..." smacks of a famous Doyle quote, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." While this sounds erudite on the surface, a mere sophomoric understanding of rhetoric will reveal this quote for what it is; a parade down the avenue of arguments from ignorance. Not only does the Scientific Method not teach this but nether does the Zetetic Method. Furthermore, theories aren't meant to be proven or disproven they are a body of knowledge that explains something. Like how the Theory of Evolution is true but is still called a theory. It's a semantic misunderstanding.

I agree. But if you take a quick look at the wiki, it's steeped in discrediting theories not favorable to flat earth, obviously with some exceptions. Discredit NASA, discredit modern astronomy, discredit modern physics, etc. In other words, it cuts both ways regardless of FE or GE.

[Pete Svarrior]

It may or may not surprise you to learn that many globe-earthers only come here to show flat-earthers how extremely tenuous their grasp of their own theories are despite how dogmatically they cling to them.

Coming from someone whose grasp of FE is non-existent and whose grasp of RE is somewhere between "poor" and "mediocre", that would be surprising. Nah, who am I kidding? You're exactly the type Pongo was talking about, and you just couldn't stop yourself from proving him right.

All that for a quick "UHHHH I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I???" quip.

I agree. But if you take a quick look at the wiki, it's steeped in discrediting theories not favorable to flat earth, obviously with some exceptions. Discredit NASA, discredit modern astronomy, discredit modern physics, etc. In other words, it cuts both ways regardless of FE or GE.

The Wiki addresses the most common arguments RE'ers come to us crying about. The only thing that "cuts both ways" here is your inability to ever be content. You pompously demand that we discredit your dogma, and then you complain that we humour you.

[RonJ]

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.   

[stack]

It may or may not surprise you to learn that many globe-earthers only come here to show flat-earthers how extremely tenuous their grasp of their own theories are despite how dogmatically they cling to them.

Coming from someone whose grasp of FE is non-existent and whose grasp of RE is somewhere between "poor" and "mediocre", that would be surprising. Nah, who am I kidding? You're exactly the type Pongo was talking about, and you just couldn't stop yourself from proving him right.

All that for a quick "UHHHH I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I???" quip.

Where have a demonstrated my grasp of FE is non-existent and that of RE is poor-mediocre? I'll totally cop to it if I've been misinformed or wrong about some aspect of each. I'm sure I have at some point. It's a vast subject that covers many disciplines, some of which I'm sure I have a poor-mediocre understanding of. However, I'm not sure exactly where a blanket non-existent and poor-mediocre come from. But you're allowed your opinion.

I agree. But if you take a quick look at the wiki, it's steeped in discrediting theories not favorable to flat earth, obviously with some exceptions. Discredit NASA, discredit modern astronomy, discredit modern physics, etc. In other words, it cuts both ways regardless of FE or GE.

The Wiki addresses the most common arguments RE'ers come to us crying about. The only thing that "cuts both ways" here is your inability to ever be content. You pompously demand that we discredit your dogma, and then you complain that we humour you.

I wasn't "complaining". I don't know exactly how you are able to gauge my level of contentment, but I guess you think you have that ability. I was just merely pointing out that both sides of the debate go about it pretty much the same way.

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't know exactly how you are able to gauge my level of contentment

It's pretty simple - I assume you express your emotions truthfully. If you're lying, hey-ho, you've got me.

I was just merely pointing out that both sides of the debate go about it pretty much the same way.

Yes, which is why I presented you with evidence to the contrary. I guess you're just gonna ignore that and restate your "point". That's cool.

[GoldCashew]

It may or may not surprise you to learn that many globe-earthers only come here to show flat-earthers how extremely tenuous their grasp of their own theories are despite how dogmatically they cling to them.

Coming from someone whose grasp of FE is non-existent and whose grasp of RE is somewhere between "poor" and "mediocre", that would be surprising. Nah, who am I kidding? You're exactly the type Pongo was talking about, and you just couldn't stop yourself from proving him right.

All that for a quick "UHHHH I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I???" quip.

I agree. But if you take a quick look at the wiki, it's steeped in discrediting theories not favorable to flat earth, obviously with some exceptions. Discredit NASA, discredit modern astronomy, discredit modern physics, etc. In other words, it cuts both ways regardless of FE or GE.

The Wiki addresses the most common arguments RE'ers come to us crying about. The only thing that "cuts both ways" here is your inability to ever be content. You pompously demand that we discredit your dogma, and then you complain that we humour you.

There are many FE concepts that you are absolutely correct; that RE'ers like myself don't grasp.

Pongo's suggestion of the ISS as a dirigible attached by a tether(s) to the North Pole is one example and it was fair for me to raise some initial feasibility questions.

This FE theory along with other concepts such as how the FE simplified animation model shows the Sun's spotlight projection as distorted on a flat earth model are FE theory items I don't have a grasp on but am trying to understand how they work.

[stack]

I don't know exactly how you are able to gauge my level of contentment

It's pretty simple - I assume you express your emotions truthfully. If you're lying, hey-ho, you've got me.

I guess in addition to claiming I have no grasp of FE and a poor-mediocre understanding of RE concepts and your ability to gauge my contentment, you also can divine and assess my emotional state. Impressive.

I was just merely pointing out that both sides of the debate go about it pretty much the same way.

Yes, which is why I presented you with evidence to the contrary. I guess you're just gonna ignore that and restate your "point". That's cool.

The way I see it, it's not evidence to the contrary. Of course, the wiki, in part, is meant to address RE arguments. And in doing so, goes about it in different ways. Sometimes, just simply stating the FE theories or POV's as more worthwhile explanations for phenomena. In others, attempts to discredit the RE side of things. The latter of which is what I thought Pongo was referring to. As in both perspectives play in the same space of sometimes simply trying to discredit the other. Maybe I was wrong in my interpretation. In any case, I don't think it's that controversial of an opinion to warrant insult. But that's just me.

As to the topic at hand, if there are better explanations as to what the ISS is, or if it even exists, then have at it. In terms of not being able to grasp a potential FE explanation of blimps and tethers, yes, I don't grasp it. Guilty as charged.

[Pete Svarrior]

you also can divine and assess my emotional state

Considering I was just calling you unperceptive, you're really not making this easy for yourself. Allow me to repeat myself: I assume that your expression of your own emotional state is truthful. This is no divination. If you don't want to sound like you're whining, you can just stop whining.

The way I see it, it's not evidence to the contrary.

I'm sorry to hear about your predicament.

In any case, I don't think it's that controversial of an opinion to warrant insult.

You could have simply not started shit if you weren't willing to take it yourself. 🤷‍♂️ The "NUH UH NO U" post didn't exactly set the scene for your now-revised "oh nooooo I wasn't trying to be controversial" approach.

[Pongo]

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.

[stack]

you also can divine and assess my emotional state

Considering I was just calling you unperceptive, you're really not making this easy for yourself. Allow me to repeat myself: I assume that your expression of your own emotional state is truthful. This is no divination. If you don't want to sound like you're whining, you can just stop whining.

The way I see it, it's not evidence to the contrary.

I'm sorry to hear about your predicament.

In any case, I don't think it's that controversial of an opinion to warrant insult.

You could have simply not started shit if you weren't willing to take it yourself. 🤷‍♂️ The "NUH UH NO U" post didn't exactly set the scene for your now-revised "oh nooooo I wasn't trying to be controversial" approach.

I don’t recall saying that Pongo lacks any knowledge of FE and RE. In other words, I don’t believe I insulted him or was “starting shit”. Nor do I recall addressing you. I perceived some hypocrisy and pointed it out. Could my perception have been wrong? Sure. I don’t think so, but I’ve been wrong before. For some reason you've embarked on a critical assessment of my intentions, honesty, and intelligence and I’m unclear why that’s a necessity for you and what that has to do with the topic.

My point was that both sides, at times, simply try and discredit the other. It’s not a mystery, nor is it controversial. Like I said, if my grasp of how blimps and tethers could adequately explain the presence of an ISS as opposed to the more common explanation for its existence, then yes, my grasp on this particular FE perspective is, in fact, lacking. Maybe Pongo can clear up my understanding, or lack thereof, on the FE perspective.

[stack]

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.

My understanding of the FE acceleration is that it pushes the plane up, the plane shields us here on terra ferma from being pushed up above the earth. But that acceleration kind of curves back in far above us and pushes up the celestial bodies in concert with the plane. So if something, like an ISS, was high enough, it too would be accelerated upwards in unison with the celestial bodies and the plane. No rockets required.

[GoldCashew]

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?

[RonJ]

Could you imagine what the weight of a rope would be that would be heavy enough and long enough to restrain the space station in orbit?  So whatever fictitious force is causing the acceleration of the earth would also have to accelerate the heavy line that extends from the North Pole all the way up to the space station.  That would be a very tall order, don’t ya think?  The force would have to vary with the altitude.  Even if you could consider all that it still wouldn’t explain the forces necessary to keep the space station circling.  That would require a force vector that also had a horizontal component.  So, is that horizontal component constant, or variable?  What would happen if an airliner flew into the rope while on a great circle route between the USA and Asia.  I know they fly in that general area because I’ve been on flights that did, many times.  I know of no airspace restrictions on the air navigational charts because of space station ropes.  If the force horizontal components are constant, then the Sun couldn’t change its orbital diameter to explain the seasons.  If the forces are variable, then you could expect the space station’s obit to vary.  Wouldn’t it be easier to just accept the globe earth and gravity?  Occam’s  razor, don’t ya know? .