21

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA is not fake.

« on: April 12, 2017, 04:59:53 PM »

I'm referring to Tom's continuing statements that this is about "Military superiority with nukes in orbit". The nukes aren't in orbit, ever, only trajectories, and that's only when they are launched. And nuclear showdowns are not about "domination", they are world-ending events.

How the #### do you know? Do you know exactly what each and every "satellite" is equipped with when it is launched? Either "Star Wars" exists or space travel isn't possible or feasible. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE IN HELL that we haven't Weaponized space if it is even remotely possible.

What exactly is the strategic advantage?

22

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA is not fake.

« on: April 12, 2017, 03:21:08 PM »

A simple argument can dispel all conspiracies about NASA

Hoo boy, whenever someone opens a post with "here's this ONE WEIRD TRICK that proves me right", you know it's gonna be top quality reasoning and not an old argument that's already been beaten to death.

Why didn't the Soviets disprove it? And why wouldn't America disprove soviet successes such as Sputnik to give themselves a more prominent position?

Two possible reasons: Either they thought the other side is actually succeeding, or they already claimed they're totally going to space and felt slightly awkward about telling their governments that all those millions they laundered were, well, laundered. Going to jail/a labour camp was probably fairly low on their to-do list.

Before Tom Bishop says something about the "Domination of space" and "ICBMs in orbit", let me tell him that ICBMs are stored in silos firmly rooted in the ground. If they have launched and are in orbit, that means that someone has started a nuclear war. There are no nukes in orbit.

So, by your ace logic, since there are currently no nukes in orbit, it makes no difference whether or not nukes are at all feasible. I love it.

I guess we can de-escalate that whole North Korean thing then. After all, no North Korean nukes are in orbit, so it doesn't matter whether they're close to being able to launch one or not! Quickly, Rekt, get Trump on the line before it's too late!

I'm referring to Tom's continuing statements that this is about "Military superiority with nukes in orbit". The nukes aren't in orbit, ever, only trajectories, and that's only when they are launched. And nuclear showdowns are not about "domination", they are world-ending events.

23

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA is not fake.

« on: April 12, 2017, 03:19:18 PM »

The Space Race wasn't about science, it was about getting your missiles into earth orbit first and claiming military superiority.

If the Soviets lie and say "space travel is possible, and we were able to get rockets there," why would the Americans then admit "actually, we found out that space travel does not seem feasible" in contradiction to popular science which had been postulating that space travel should be possible for hundreds of years? That is tactically disadvantageous.

The Space Race started immediately after WWII.  The competition was raging for 12 years from 1945 to 1957, with many failed rocket launches on both sides. Is it a coincidence that the US happened to achieve success with the Explorer I within just three months after Sputnik?

The missiles are not in orbit, Tom! ICBMs never go into orbit! They are just extremely long ranged missiles!
That aside, Explorer 1 could have BEATEN sputnik if we weren't being morally righteous. We wanted to use a civilian rocket, the Juno 1, which was a derivative of the Redstone. We didn't want to use the Jupiter ICBM family due to it being developed chiefly by Werner Von Braun, a Nazi scientist.
Is it a coincidence that others developed planes right after the Wright Brothers' first flight? Is it a coincidence that any technology that is being vigorously pursued can happen several times, with only the first one being remembered?
There IS NO MILITARY SUPERIORITY in space. ICBMs do not give superiority, they end the world.
And ICBMs don't go into space until launched! They aren't in orbit! Nobody is trying to "get your missiles into earth orbit first" Until they are actually being USED to launch nukes they never move from their silo!

24

Flat Earth Community / NASA is not fake.

« on: April 12, 2017, 12:56:44 PM »

A simple argument can dispel all conspiracies about NASA: Why didn't the Soviets disprove it? And why wouldn't America disprove soviet successes such as Sputnik to give themselves a more prominent position? A rebuttal of an entire space program that is a main source of national pride would be a HUGE propaganda coup, and why wouldn't the Americans disprove the Soviet's missions or the Soviets disprove NASA's missions? You could say that they wanted to preserve themselves, but what about North Korea? They have no space program, the technology to show that there is nothing in space, and the hatred of America as a motive!
(Before Tom Bishop says something about the "Domination of space" and "ICBMs in orbit", let me tell him that ICBMs are stored in silos firmly rooted in the ground. If they have launched and are in orbit, that means that someone has started a nuclear war. There are no nukes in orbit.)

25

Flat Earth Community / Re: Russia Wants To Send People Back To The Moon In 2031

« on: April 06, 2017, 12:51:56 PM »

If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it? Or why haven't we done it since Apollo Missions?

No one claimed that it was easy. In fact, it was really, really expensive, which is why no one else has done it since, including us.

I can imagine many different scientific benefits to experimenting technology or developing it on the moon.

Like what? We already have the ISS for zero-g experiments.

The other problem was that the success of the moonlandings was getting there and getting back safely. UNfortunately, the moon offers little else beyond a place to plant a flag. Mars however...

What does Mars offer? Besides no atmosphere and no magnetic field...

What does Mars offer? Maybe you should aquaint with the reasons so many countries and agencies want to go there. It DOES have an atmosphere albeit thin. It has gravity and a near 24hr rotational cycle. Also, it is the only planet we can reach capable of supporting life.

So what does Mars offer???  A chance to explore and increase our knowledge. it has ice caps, probable water in aquifers.

Why is everyone so worried about making Mars the new Earth instead of the fact that we're making Earth the new Mars?

Wouldn't it make much more sense to build a survival camp on the moon? It's a lot closer, and don't we have a track record of landing on the moon, somehow taking back off of the moon, and returning gently to Earth? Seems like the more logical choice to me. Any system we would plan for mars should probably be tested closer to home first, wouldn't you agree?

"Should be tested closer to home first"
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#SLS_mission_schedule
EM-1
Send Orion capsule on trip around the Moon, deploy 6 other small cubesats
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
It's almost as if... they ARE doing that!

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2+2

« on: April 06, 2017, 12:40:57 PM »

This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.

Yeah, I feel that the government has really pulled the wool over our eyes on this one. 2+2 is obviously fish, your millennia old proof can't dispute my cold hard observations.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Conspiracy theories and Occam's Razor

« on: April 06, 2017, 12:39:04 PM »

The general attitude that I have seen is.... strange. I have had a discussion with someone who legitimately believes that the Cold War was a fake. A bit far-fetched, for me.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall

« on: April 06, 2017, 12:36:32 PM »

In the Flat Earth theory, the world is ringed by a giant wall of ice. It cannot be traversed and anyone who approaches it is met by resistance from a conspiratorial border patrol.

So what are the dimensions of this ice wall that surrounds the disc?
Has anyone circumnavigated it?
If not, how has its coastline been drawn on Flat Earth maps?
Also if not, how do we know it is contiguous around the entire circumference?

I'd love to talk to someone who has actually seen it too.

Stay scientific - government conspiracies aside, if one is going to assert it is there then it must have been observed somehow.

I hate it when I try to cross the Ice Wall then get assassinated by the UN SS Death Squad.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Huh?

« on: April 06, 2017, 12:35:46 PM »

Are you a REr or a FEr? I can't tell by that post

Only interested in Truth. Either way you look at it the Sun is really far away.

Because it's far away

The other stars are further away but we can clearly see them. It's almost like somethings blocking our view of it haha...

Well FE theory, as far as I know, doesn't consider the Sun a star. Besides knowing that there are blinking lights in the sky, we really don't know what, or how far away, stars are.

Could very well be an atmospheric phenomenon.

One interesting theory I've seen is that the magnetic north pole behaves like a mirror ball and scatters the light from the sun onto our ionosphere. From the perspective of the observer, in their relative position, the rotation of our Stars is intrinsically linked to the perceived rotation of our Sun. That is true on FE and RE.

"Besides knowing that there are blinking lights in the sky"
Gee I love it when Flat Earthers don't understand airplanes.
Star's don't "Blink"

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion on Flat Earth

« on: April 06, 2017, 12:33:41 PM »

Those passages do not have anything to do with the shape of the Earth. They are metaphorical, representing that the Earth, at least at that time, was seen as a huge, immovable, and solid object.

31

Flat Earth Community / Re: This wiki entry though......

« on: April 06, 2017, 12:29:55 PM »

Could you at least point us to the part that looks like it is "loosely held together"? I honestly have no idea what part you are talking about.

The general answer is this: making something air tight is more time consuming, heavier, and costlier than not making it air tight. If there is no reason to make it air tight, then they aren't going to bother. Electronics don't need an airtight compartment.

You are aware that when the craft landed it allegedly made large clouds of lunar dust that went everywhere. Are you telling me that NASA didn't really care about the then unknown properties of the lunar dust getting into the many gaps in the exterior hull, and onto all of the electronics?

We had sent several landers to the moon before this, the Surveyor series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program
Gave us a pretty good idea of the properties of the moon.

32

Flat Earth Community / Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics

« on: April 05, 2017, 01:48:42 PM »

This is one of the many flaws in the FE moon refutations. They only look at the supposed flaws in the pictures that "Top 10 moon fake proofs" show, and no other evidence. All of the engineering numbers and such work, and the Russians said it happened, why would they say that?

33

Flat Earth Community / Re: Shaquille O'Neil believes that the earth is flat

« on: March 19, 2017, 08:59:53 PM »

I'm almost certain that Shaq is not loved for his intelligence. That's like saying that Kim Kardashian supporting Flat Earth makes it more truthful.

34

Flat Earth Community / Re: How orbits work.

« on: March 19, 2017, 08:59:01 PM »

Does anyone know how to start an original post?

Yes. Use the "New Topic" button.

35

Flat Earth Community / Re: How orbits work.

« on: March 17, 2017, 12:22:26 AM »

MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.

Galaxy rotations don't involve orbits in RET? 

I was simply describing the small-scale orbits of planets and spacecraft. I am not qualified to answer this question, I was merely providing an anecdotal description of orbits on a small scale.

Well, thanks for nothing I guess.

If you don't want the information than don't listen, I was just providing my 2 cents.

Do you really consider your anecdotal, unqualified opinions information?

A point on a spinning disk does not have an apogee, as it is a fixed distance from the center at all times, hence a "uniform apogee". My point is that the galaxies spin as if they were solid disks, not massive stars orbiting around each other.

Do any of the astrophysicists here have an answer for this that doesn't contradict their beliefs?

It's not opinion, it's an ancedotal description of a fact. And dark matter is a concept for how this galaxy spin discrepancy works

36

Flat Earth Community / Re: How orbits work.

« on: March 16, 2017, 12:40:30 AM »

MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.

Galaxy rotations don't involve orbits in RET? 

I was simply describing the small-scale orbits of planets and spacecraft. I am not qualified to answer this question, I was merely providing an anecdotal description of orbits on a small scale.

Well, thanks for nothing I guess.

If you don't want the information than don't listen, I was just providing my 2 cents.

37

Flat Earth Community / Re: How orbits work.

« on: March 15, 2017, 12:40:07 PM »

MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.

Galaxy rotations don't involve orbits in RET? 

I was simply describing the small-scale orbits of planets and spacecraft. I am not qualified to answer this question, I was merely providing an anecdotal description of orbits on a small scale.

38

Flat Earth Community / Re: How orbits work.

« on: March 14, 2017, 11:19:12 PM »

The "gravity" invented to explain the rotation of planets around the sun under RET cannot explain the rotation of galaxies, which rotate at a set uniform speed and apogee, much like a solid disk. Describing the movements of galaxies have been a challenge to astronomers.

See this article on softpedia.com:

"According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk – as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

See this article on Wikipedia:

"In 1959, Louise Volders demonstrated that spiral galaxy M33 does not spin as expected according to Keplerian dynamics,[1] a result which was extended to many other spiral galaxies during the seventies.[2] Based on this model, matter (such as stars and gas) in the disk portion of a spiral should orbit the center of the galaxy similar to the way in which planets in the solar system orbit the sun, that is, according to Newtonian mechanics. Based on this, it would be expected that the average orbital speed of an object at a specified distance away from the majority of the mass distribution would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line in Fig. 1). At the time of the discovery of the discrepancy, it was thought that most of the mass of the galaxy had to be in the galactic bulge, near the center.

Observations of the rotation curve of spirals, however, do not bear this out. Rather, the curves do not decrease in the expected inverse square root relationship but are "flat" -- outside of the central bulge the speed is nearly a constant function of radius (the solid line Fig. 1). The explanation that requires the least adjustment to the physical laws of the universe is that there is a substantial amount of matter far from the center of the galaxy that is not emitting light in the mass-to-light ratio of the central bulge."

MAybe because galaxy rotations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from orbits? Hence why they are not called "Galaxy Orbits?" This is a big strawman.

39

Flat Earth Community / How orbits work.

« on: March 14, 2017, 08:57:32 PM »

Some may not understand how the Earth is kept rotating around the sun, in its orbit. I am not an astrodynamicist, but here is a simple explanation: The earth is pulled towards the sun at all times by gravity, therefore giving it speed towards the sun. However, the earth is moving sideways so fast that it misses. This is repeated over and over again, with the pull not strong enough to pull it all the way in but the sideways movement not fast enough to allow the earth to escape.

40

Flat Earth Community / Re: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger Disaster...

« on: February 16, 2017, 05:34:41 PM »

There's again no motive. Why would they fake a failure?

The motive is covering up a prop malfunction.

But why wouldn't they just cover up that there was any failure at all?

Millions of people saw an alleged space ship full of people blow up spectacularly on live TV. They had to do something about that.

But couldn't they have just made a fake segment to show to the TV companies? Why would they have a REAL prop that ALSO could blow up?