21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum

« on: November 21, 2022, 01:49:49 AM »

Rockets work whether you use them to lift something off the ground, vertically, or whether you use them to drive something along the ground.  Gravity has nowt to do with this.

He’s trying to move the topic away from reaction forces. This is all readily available information he could find.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum

« on: November 20, 2022, 07:30:26 PM »

Gravity behaves differently than this, however. All bodies fall together at the same rate in a laboratory vacuum chamber regardless of their mass. No difference has been detected. This even applies to individual atoms with different masses.

Why did you come into a thread about rockets in a vacuum and start asking us questions about gravity that you can readily find the answers to elsewhere?

Do you agree or disagree that rockets work in a vacuum?

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum

« on: November 20, 2022, 03:56:45 PM »

This opposite force created by accelerating matter is new to me...  I'll investigate and thank you for your time.

We had talked about this at the beginning of the thread.

If the proposition is that rockets push off air to move, this can be disproven at home. Reaction force can be found to not rely on atmosphere.

Solving for air resistance involves knowing the cross sectional area exposed to air. Remember that.

If I throw a 10-pound metal ball of some diameter while standing on a skateboard, I will move X distance.

If I throw a 10-pound metal ball of a SMALLER diameter while standing on a skateboard, I will move the exact same distance.

The mass stayed the same, the distance stayed the same, and yet the cross sectional area changed. This experimentally shows that air resistance does not affect reaction force.

Now replace the skateboard with a rocket, metal balls with gas being accelerated EXTREMELY fast, and me “throwing” with a very violent chemical reaction.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum

« on: November 18, 2022, 09:52:22 PM »

Nobody, and I mean nobody, really goes into detail about how rockets behave in a vacuum.  They try, but nobody, not even the rocket builders go into detail about how "newton's" law of momentum explains everything...  It stills leaves a big question mark about the simple question of - how do you push against nothing?  A gun explodes against a bullet.  A rocket explodes against nothing..

The engines shut off because they’re only used to accelerate, not maintain velocity. If you burn outwards from earth, you could burn for a short period then coast out of its gravitational pull - most of that trip the engines are off.

And it’s not “pushing against nothing”, that’s a misunderstanding. That’s like saying it’s air resistance pushing you back when you fire a
shotgun, when it’s not. It’s an extremely powerful chemical reaction. The pellets go forwards, you go backwards.

No part of that process involved atmosphere - so why would it be any different in a vacuum?

And to say that nobody goes into detail about the matter is untrue, there’s thousands of books and explanations to read, and experiments that can be done by anyone.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum.

« on: November 18, 2022, 12:45:36 AM »

There’s nothing in the wiki that I can see about this, so can we conclude that the general tfes consensus is that rockets can work in a vacuum?

I believe so, but I’m ready to hear any possible responses to this. It doesn’t inherently disprove flat earth, so it may not be a problem.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: November 18, 2022, 12:26:03 AM »

This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.

Telescopes on earth can resolve images a tiny fraction of the ship’s apparent size.
There are plenty of amateur images resolving Jupiter’s bands swirling, even its moons. This is extraordinarily smaller than making out a ship. With Jupiter, there is no geometric obstacle while with a ship there clearly is. That geometric obstacle would be the curvature of the earth. No amount of optical zoom will reverse a geometric obstruction.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: November 11, 2022, 05:47:01 AM »

Observation of the world around me.

My observations would lead me to believe that it is round.

28

Flat Earth Community / Re: Solar Winds! Listen to this...

« on: November 03, 2022, 06:26:27 PM »

It’s amazing we get to hear this stuff.
For clarification, it is not wind as in blowing air, but waves within the charged particles that make up we call solar wind. It’s just reconstructed as sound, still essentially a vacuum. 

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum.

« on: October 25, 2022, 12:40:47 AM »

However, whats giving you momentum in both scenarios is the initial torque generated by throwing the bowling ball or firing a bullet out of a gun.  But rockets don't "push" a spaceship for a second or two. They continually accelerate an object over time. 

Well for one, torque is a twisting force unrelated to gas leaving a nozzle or bowling balls being thrown.
As for the bowling ball/rocket analogy, imagine instead of just throwing the bowling ball I have 1000 bowling balls and I’m throwing them at a very fast rate. Now imagine instead of bowling balls and throwing force, it’s just gas and chemical energy!
If you like the pushing off air idea, you could say that the rocket is “pushing off” its own gases. Or if you’re throwing a bowling ball, you’re “pushing off” the bowling ball’s mass. You can see how atmosphere isn’t involved in this process!

And for the people (not you) that say “show me a repeatable experiment where rockets work in a vacuum”, I would say just look at the the thousands of rockets that have been to space. It is, in fact, repeatable if you have millions of dollars. What FE’ers are really saying is “it’s not repeatable without having millions of dollars”, which is an easy trap to fall into.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Rockets work in a vacuum

« on: October 24, 2022, 03:28:29 PM »

I would like to make the case that rockets working in a vacuum is compatible with FE but a troubling part of some people’s FE belief.

It is conservation of momentum that propels a rocket and there’s no element of this that would require an atmosphere. If I fire a bullet out of a handgun, the force imparted on the bullet (small mass) to send it at muzzle velocity is also imparted onto my body (larger mass).

And you could argue: you’ve never been to space and can’t objectively prove a rocket works in space!
Which is, of course, a loaded argument and takes you nowhere. You can’t reasonably expect a random person to have gone to space.
The ONLY reason you would “assume” a rocket is nonfunctional in space is because it’s not pushing off air, and won’t move. However, you can prove this from home!

If I stand on a skateboard and throw a large 10 pound ball, I will move some distance. If I throw a smaller 10 pound ball with a smaller surface area, according to “rockets don’t work in vacuum theory” its lower air resistance would move me a smaller distance. But you can prove for yourself that the large 10 pound ball and the small 10 pound ball move you the same distance! This is conservation of momentum at work, and it DEMONSTRABLY does not require atmospheric conditions.

Proponents of the “rockets don’t work in a vacuum” theory like to describe the scenario of a rocket shooting off its propellant in space and “not moving” because there’s “nothing to push off”. This would violate the law of conservation of momentum, which as we established can be proven AT HOME to not require atmosphere. If you fire a 12 gauge shotgun, it is not the force of “air resistance” beating up your shoulder but the chemical force sending small pellets at muzzle velocity imparted into the shotgun sending it backwards!
The same would apply to a can full of air, or hypergolic fuels, or liquid fuel/oxygen fuel and there’s no reason to believe otherwise other than being intentionally obtuse.



If your basis in believing space is fake is because of X, once X is proven to be a null point, why continue using X as a point?

The whole “rockets don’t work in a vacuum” problem seems pretty clearly rooted in stubbornness. I’m not even saying “earth is globe because rockets work in a vacuum”. I am making the point that if you’re going to argue for the case of FE, rockets are not your winning case! I could write a book on how the earth could be flat, and still I know it’s not.


TL;DR Even FE must concede that rockets work in a vacuum, believing that they don’t is misunderstanding why.

31

Flat Earth Investigations / What are astronomers observing?

« on: April 13, 2022, 05:25:47 PM »

Why would I be an astronomer if it was apparent that (as some FE-ers will propose) the sky was a projection, rendering astronomy useless?

You can observe binary star systems, planets, gravitational lensing, nebulae, etc. These observations lend themselves to a now-obvious inference about our place in the universe.

I can predict the transit of celestial bodies using the well-established model that includes the earth being a planet among countless other planets.

You would simply need a mountain of evidence to “disprove” such observable, predictable things as binary star systems. Are astronomers just completely wrong? Can I apply the band-aid fix of “they could be wrong” and call it a day?


This may be one of the weakest parts of the wiki. The relatively short articles that make up The Cosmos section don’t constitute any argument against the gigantic volume of data and studies that countless people and organizations have created. The wiki relies too much on the basis that RE is a philosophical model rather than an observable one. Some cherrypicked and contextless quotes from random figures don’t change that.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: April 05, 2022, 03:10:22 AM »

If pictures, videos, launch documentation, press releases, names of project contributors, project timelines, budgets, etc etc are not high enough quality evidence to be accepted, what is?

Exactly.
All the evidence that could exist, DOES. It cannot physically get any better. (Except, perhaps, for cheaper space tourism. This is likely happening soon, but that’s besides the point)

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: April 01, 2022, 11:51:21 PM »

This thread is about photographs?

The video is a timelapse of individual frames, yes. So it could be regarded as such.

The original broadcast was a live stream, as far as I can gather.

Correct. Action80 would rather argue semantics than actually read what I said. It was a broadcast but they may as well be called “photographs” because it was every 5 minutes. Or call it footage. I don’t care.

Again:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.

You have already decided that no evidence will make you happy, because all the possible evidence does in fact exist.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: April 01, 2022, 05:22:53 PM »

Even if we had one, we wouldn't share with RE-adherents.

If you had the knowledge, you wouldn’t share it? Is that not completely antithetical to the point of science and knowledge?

Let’s be absolutely clear:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.

There’s photographs in the OP. Your beliefs won’t stop the rest of humanity from living in reality.

In fact, your disbelief is exactly my point. You can’t lean on any inaccuracies in the footage, because there aren’t any. All you can do is disbelieve.

There is nothing they can do to make literal photographs more real. Nothing will make you happy here.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: April 01, 2022, 04:37:42 AM »

In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an sudio here on earth.

The OP said "There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water.", and you seem to be lacking a substantive argument.

Claiming that it "could have" been done in a studio is not a substantive argument. So ...

Do you have a substantive argument to make?

Yes, the timelapse, as admitted by the OP, could have just as well been recreated in a studio here on earth.

Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth.

I guess we are done here.

I said that… clearly in reference to the specks specifically. I know you’re doing this on purpose though. Even Pete or Tom would be amazed at this level of deflection.

If I’m understanding correctly, what you’re NOW claiming is that footage, as presented, looks completely legitimate and has no flaws EXCEPT that it “could be faked”.

Which is not what I was originally talking about.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 31, 2022, 11:53:33 PM »

I can't see how they would work as they do if the earth was flat.

Maybe you need to go learn some things then.

Please provide some links.

Ask the op for help.

Or don't.

Please make it a LITTLE less obvious when you’re willfully making ridiculous leaps.
Saying that you can see the effect of radiation on camera lenses is NOT saying “RE admits that this could be faked in a studio!”

If those specks are your best argument against the legitimacy of the video provided, then there’s not much to lean on for you.
I would be honestly more surprised if I WASN’T seeing radiation artifacts. It is known that there is more radiation bombardment in space.

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 31, 2022, 03:02:31 PM »

I wish you "two," would make up your mind.

What? You just asked him what he saw, and that’s what it looked like, and he gave you his answer.

Yes, it is radiation bombarding the lens. Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth. This isn’t us “making up our mind”. You’re running out of straws to grasp at here.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 31, 2022, 02:26:17 PM »

Is that a Yes or No?

That is a "I am no longer going to engage you in this thread."

Have a good day.

I’m not sure what your point is. The specks are from radiation. You can literally see the same “specks” effect on a phone camera.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 30, 2022, 11:59:15 PM »

What's your concern about the footage?

They keep avoiding this and bringing up external factors about how the government is involved etc.
I want to know if the footage itself has flaws that would help FET?

I would like to add that I find it noteworthy that lots of people start “investigating” FET based on some misinterpretation, such as “well why don’t they burn up in the thermosphere! Huh, must be fake!”

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 30, 2022, 09:58:50 PM »

Posting UN nonsense and claiming it that somehow disconnects US Government involvement is just absurd.

We don't need to take our concerns anywhere else, most certainly anywhere you suggest.

How about a more direct question: are there any problems with the EchoStar video provided in the original post? Any errors that would suggest it’s not real? This is what I wanted to know.