501

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 22, 2015, 06:46:05 PM »

We don't know anything. The matter-wave controversy in atomic theory is but one controversy of many.

Science cannot be relied on as an arbiter of truth. There are so many questions, so many inconsistencies, one is left to fend for themselves in a sea of uncertainty. The Flat Earth Theory is our interpretation of physical phenomena, and we have gathered supporting evidence to demonstrate it.

No, you actually haven't.

502

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ask Tom Bishop

« on: September 22, 2015, 09:14:54 AM »

Would you care to explain how a ground based GPS signal's relative velocity changes so as to cause a blue shift as the "satellite" appears to move towards the observer, change to neutral as it appears overhead and then shifts towards red as it appears to move away?

I already have. Again, it's up to you to actually follow up the links I sent you and catch up on the elementary principles behind the Doppler effect and the atmolayer's existence. Trying to explain things to a guy who thinks air doesn't exist is not something I'm interested in.

No, that's not how you do. If you interpret scientific fact, and your understanding of it is questioned, you cannot simply say "I provided the same facts, read them yourself", simply because the facts that you refer to are used to support a theory that is, with all fairness, wildly frowned upon and from a scientific standpoint, very far fetched.

This is why, you as a provider of facts, HAVE to explain how these are to be interpretted, and add a reference as to how they support the theory you're standing up for. Science is about supplying evidence that are to CONVINCE your fellow scientists about the correctness of your facts, which through appropiate methodology and observation can be reproduced. This is a mantra, and the only rational mantra.

Flat earthers have a tendency to just leave links to articles they dont give the impression to really understand themselfs, and imply bigotry to those they address. That's why you, on the convincing side of the table, HAVE to explain.

With what you've said so far, all you do is leave the impression that you, in fact, don't really know, which is why it is so easy to disregard what Flat earthers say in general; Because of the lack of any evidence what so ever.

503

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the Advantage of a Globe Theory?

« on: September 22, 2015, 06:27:12 AM »

Why do people ignore Rayzors post? He just gave you the most simple proof that the Earth is not flat. It's as simple as a sunset at the oceanside. Beautiful isn't it?

In ALL my years investigating all of these arguments to understand just WHY people would believe in the FET, I have never, EVER seen one piece of evidence to support your claims.

All I see is lousy pictures taken with crappy cameras of complete unrelated stuff proving nothing but said people having the ability to push a button. Then I see said people link to youtube videos stuffed with proofs. Lousy, trailer-park productions done in Movie maker with extremely bad voice overs and edits with text done in bubblegum colours.

Hey, did you know the Chemtrail and Flat Earth theories is a billion dollar business? It's incredible how much can be made by semi-smart people, just because you're gullible.

I'm still listening though. Provide HARD evidence, not pseudo-science.

504

Flat Earth Community / Re: Sun set, Is the sun moving away?

« on: September 22, 2015, 06:14:05 AM »

Why during a sunset can I see the sunlight on the bottom of clouds?

Light does not always travel in straight lines.  It is not more complicated than that. 

Plus, the sunrays reflect off of the earth.

... What? I seriously lol'ed, IRL.

Explain night skies then. Pitch black darkness, bright shiny clouds.

505

Flat Earth Community / Re: If they wanna say the earth is a ball...

« on: September 22, 2015, 06:05:28 AM »

Whatever you want to believe. I hear santa clause is real too.

But anyway, you and your people fail. People visit here to see if we have solid arguments... and anyone coming here and seeing this post (and many others) will see how full of NASA crap you are. They will chalk this up to another solid evidence. And all your trolling and shillery won't stop it. Your job is just a waste of tax money.

Your existence on this and other flat earth sites, attests to the fact that someone does't want people to believe this, strong enough that they're willing to pay people to dissuade others—you yourself are proof of the validity of these proofs.

It's amazing - if you go onto a website talking about lizard people and the hollow moon, you don't find these shills over on those websites. The government and powers don't seem to care if people believe in those things, because they don't care if we believe in lies. Someone posts a video on how the moon is a hologram and... what do you know, no shills! The same goes with hollow earth theory. I've seen websites where the government posts information, where people talk about hollow earth theory, and no one discourages it - there are no shills arguing against hollow earth theory - the powers don't have a problem if people believe the earth is hollow, and they even encourage it. But flat earth? Noooooo! That's too taboo. That's OFF LIMITS!

Your existence here attests the fact we're right. And if you want to prove me wrong, simply go away. lol


—

I'm one of those who join to test out how solid your arguments are. I don't have my head up science's ass. You do not make any sense, as it seems that you leave a lot of critical facts out to solidify your claims.

506

Flat Earth Community / Re: Do Rockets Work in Space?

« on: September 21, 2015, 07:23:31 AM »

i/no-one's ever been up there to prove they do!

Plenty of probes has been up there to prove this. If you chose to disregard all the evidence and facts as manipulated, then there's not really anything one can tell you to prove otherwise. I guess you have to make an effort of disproving the known facts instead. Everybody can do it, it's just a matter of budget.

ii/they could never penetrate through the upper layers of the thermo-sphere any-way

Wait, what? I didn't know the thermosphere was a impenetrable titanium shield.

iii/they won't work in a vacuum ......and there's no real proof that they can
(assuming, of course, that the very upper regions of 'the atmosphere' are a vacuum, as such....again....no-one's been up that high)

There's plenty of proof that they do. This have been proven numerous times, and been tested to death in vacuum chambers on the Earth. Again, this is something which is possible for everyone, it's just a matter of budget.

507

Flat Earth Community / Re: Do Rockets Work in Space?

« on: September 18, 2015, 07:11:36 AM »

The exhaust is NOT a high pressure fluid

Actually, it is.  In physics, both gasses and liquids are considered to be fluids (along with plasma and plastic solids, to some extent).  So rapidly expanding, hot exhaust gasses are, indeed, fluid in nature.

The fuel is 2 compressed fluids, where one is an oxidizer.

Close, but not quite.  In liquid fuel rockets, the fuel and oxidizer are (as the name suggests) liquids being fed under pressure.  Unlike gasses, most liquids don't compress very well.

I stand corrected. It's a language barrier - Liquids and fluids are more or less the same translated to my language, so I get them mixed up. However, the point of my reply doesn't change at all.

508

Flat Earth Community / Re: Do Rockets Work in Space?

« on: September 17, 2015, 01:55:59 PM »

In that photo the tension/resistance is rippling up the water stream in waves at the speed of sound. Imagine if we had a string stretched taught for 3000 miles across the USA, between California and New York. If we pull the string in California, will New York feel it instantly? No, it takes time for the message to be communicated.

In the jetpack photo there are trillions of streams of water in communication with the surface and resistance of the air. Some parts may not have a constant connection, and some may be disconnected below at some points, but the water is rushing so fast and in such quantity that there is always some kind of communication of resistance communicated to the wearer. A small gap in the water means only that the wearer will dip a little once that gap of resistance is communicated up to the jetpack.

This is scientifically very, very unsound claims, I have to say.

509

Flat Earth Community / Re: Do Rockets Work in Space?

« on: September 17, 2015, 01:53:41 PM »

I think this could be a subject worth further investigation. I would like to see one more experiment tried, with a barrier that is not attached to the vehicle. For instance, what would happen if he put his outstretched palm following the exhaust pipe at a distance of two inches as the car sped away? Would the car speed up since his hand is more solid than the atmosphere? I think that might be more conclusive evidence.

Are there any other ways which can prove or disprove his theory which seems to suggest that Newton's Third Law is false?

Note how much force is pushing back against your hand while operating a garden hose nozzle.  Now place that same nozzle in a bucket of water.  Does the force increase or decrease?

Do we care that the density of water is 784 times greater than air at sea level?

510

Flat Earth Community / Re: Do Rockets Work in Space?

« on: September 17, 2015, 01:51:26 PM »

The exhaust is a high pressure fluid. It is connected to the vehicle. As the exhaust encounters resistance, that resistance will trickle back to the vehicle.

It's like one of those water jetpacks. The jetpack does not rise in altitude until the water has hit the surface. The high pressured water is connected to the jetpack as a single entity. Resistance on the water results resistance on the jetpack. The tension ripples upwards through the whole entity.

The exhaust is NOT a high pressure fluid. The fuel is 2 compressed fluids, where one is an oxidizer.

The fuel is fed into a combustion chamber. The combustion chamber is closed in the top, fed with fuel through nozzles in the sides, and open in the bottom (the rockets nozzle). When the combustion of the fluids occur, it expands under extreme conditions multiple of times, thus filling the combustion chamber with exhaust gas (expansion = energy).

Now, the exhaust exists the nozzle at the bottom of the chamber, pushing against the top of the chamber (action/reaction), which ultimately is the thrust that is pushing the rocket, since the combustion chamber is rigidly connected to the rest of the vessel.

So yes, rockets do very much work in space.