The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: BrownRobin on February 17, 2018, 01:18:47 PM
-
Like all technology advancements and technology step changes in history, the belief systems of a Flat Earth will eventually die off and cease to exist. This includes belief systems such as the Zetetic Society.
Technology advancements will sooner or later see consumer space travel as a reality, just as the Industrial Revolution, the Automobile, and Powerered Flight came to to reality. Even then, just as now, there were people at the time that thought that those were conspiracies or could not possibly be true.
As we see step changes and advancements in technology, so too will there need to be matching changes and adjustments in conspiracy theories.
Once consumer orbital space travel becomes a reality to where the everyday person can see for themselves that the Earth is round, the Flat Earth belief model will have to adjust to a new and updated conspiracy belief system. Flat Earthers would, of course, concede that the Earth is round, BUT, you would likely see adjustments to their conspiracy theory(s).
I joined this site about 1 week ago just to see for my own eyes that people still believed that the Earth was flat. And, I thought that with some discussion it would be easy for me to convince them of how truely ridiculous their theories can become. Everything from NASA / Government conspiracies, to the UN putting foot guards and boats all around the perimeter of the Antarctic region to prevent common folk like you and me from seeing the edge of the Earth.
What I have realized is that Flat Earthers are so deeply entrenched in their belief (no matter how riduculous their conspiracy theory goes and no matter how much science and physics prove otherwise) that it is impossible for them to believe in anything otherwise.
Many Flat Earth believers, like Pickle, are probably really intelligent or booksmart (and not crazy) and would likely ace an SAT test or an AP Exam if they took one. But, I think that perhaps they are too smart for their own good and maybe overthinking things to the point that it takes them beyond reality or common sense.
I see so many Round Earthers, like myself, comming on this site equally perplexed and thinking they will be able to change a Flat Earthers mind by using basic logic and physics.
But, it will never happen because you cannot debate a belief system that cannot be explained or justified on the basic laws or principles of physics. Much of it is based on conspiracy.
Flat Earth belief goes back to antiquity and until the next step change in technology occurs (i.e. common space travel) it will remain what it is.
-
Like all technology advancements and technology step changes in history, the belief systems of a Flat Earth will eventually die off and cease to exist. This includes belief systems such as the Zetetic Society.
Technology advancements will sooner or later see consumer space travel as a reality, just as the Industrial Revolution, the Automobile, and Powerered Flight came to to reality. Even then, just as now, there were people at the time that thought that those were conspiracies or could not possibly be true.
Please provide some reference material there existed a person(s) who claimed the Industrial Revolution, the automobile, and/or powered flight, was a conspiracy.
As we see step changes and advancements in technology, so too will there need to be matching changes and adjustments in conspiracy theories.
Once consumer orbital space travel becomes a reality to where the everyday person...
An everyday person?
That is laughable at best.
...can see for themselves that the Earth is round, the Flat Earth belief model will have to adjust to a new and updated conspiracy belief system. Flat Earthers would, of course, concede that the Earth is round, BUT, you would likely see adjustments to their conspiracy theory(s).
It would need to be quite similar to the ones you made up relative to the Industrial Revolution, auto, and powered flight...
I joined this site about 1 week ago just to see for my own eyes that people still believed that the Earth was flat. And, I thought that with some discussion it would be easy for me to convince them of how truely ridiculous their theories can become. Everything from NASA / Government conspiracies, to the UN putting foot guards and boats all around the perimeter of the Antarctic region to prevent common folk like you and me from seeing the edge of the Earth.
Youse a "common folk?"
Cornpone and all?
You been to Antarctica?
What I have realized is that Flat Earthers are so deeply entrenched in their belief (no matter how riduculous their conspiracy theory goes and no matter how much science and physics prove otherwise) that it is impossible for them to believe in anything otherwise.
No.
What you realized is that you do not know the true definitions and differences between the words "proof," "prove," and "evidence."
Many Flat Earth believers, like Pickle, are probably really intelligent or booksmart (and not crazy) and would likely ace an SAT test or an AP Exam if they took one. But, I think that perhaps they are too smart for their own good and maybe overthinking things to the point that it takes them beyond reality or common sense.
One thing you have not learned is decency or manners.
That is part of the reason why I am here...take it up a notch or two and beoytch slap the very type of attitude you place on display with this type of post in the face.
I see so many Round Earthers, like myself, comming on this site equally perplexed and thinking they will be able to change a Flat Earthers mind by using basic logic and physics.
That is it.
You are shown to be engaging in a big, fat disingenuous lie.
You are not here to change any minds or to educate and if you are, you would not engage your class in such a manner.
Utilizing words like, "basic," common," in reference to the material you are claiming to know and present and then posting words to the class they are too stupid to understand the material, is readily understood by any dunderhead to be an exercise that is counterproductive.
Where on the scale do you fall?
But, it will never happen because you cannot debate a belief system that is not based on the basic laws of physics, nature, or anything otherwise. Much of it is based on conspiracy.
References please.
-
I cannot understand how being on the equator and watching the sun for a day would not cause anyone open to believing what they see to notice that the sun came straight from due east, went directly overhead and disappeared due west. It was not circling any point on earth. If they traveled south of the equator and looked how the sun appears to circle the south pole, anyone not dogmatically opposed to new ideas would have to consider maybe the sun circling the north pole just might not be real. It should not require space travel, just travel. On the equator the sun travels a neat straight line. But not everyone travels.
-
I cannot understand how being on the equator and watching the sun for a day would not cause anyone open to believing what they see to notice that the sun came straight from due east, went directly overhead and disappeared due west. It was not circling any point on earth. If they traveled south of the equator and looked how the sun appears to circle the south pole, anyone not dogmatically opposed to new ideas would have to consider maybe the sun circling the north pole just might not be real. It should not require space travel, just travel. On the equator the sun travels a neat straight line. But not everyone travels.
Since Flat Earthers believe that the Sun's path follows a circular path overhead along the circular path of the equator, than I suspect the reasoning would be that you are simply seeing the sun coming from the distance of the Equatorial line in the East and disappearing off along the Equatorial line to the west. You would then ask as to why then doesn't the Sun travel overhead along that Equatorial Arc... The likely response would be perspective or that the flat earth is so large, it's hard to really see the arc.
With respect to your question about the Sun circiling the North Pole, Flat Earthers generally believe that no one is allowed to go to the North Pole (or Antarctica) because the UN/ NASA/ and the various governments won't let you go. You would likely be stopped by guards or the like. So, you really can't prove that the Sun goes around the North Pole, as you have suggested.
The reason why NASA, the UN, etc. can't let you find out that a flat Earth exists is because of profits, embezzlement, etc. It is part of a big government conspiracy or cover up.
-
Technology advancements will sooner or later see consumer space travel as a reality ...
Not in your lifetime. We've been promised space travel since the 1960s. Telling people you'll fly them to space is an age old scam to get them interested in your every day mundane products.
First used by Howard Hughes to promote TWA, every other space shyster since has promised the same thing.
(https://imgc.allpostersimages.com/img/print/u-g-F8H4JE0.jpg?w=900&h=900&p=0)
Richard Branson promised space flight in 2004 to make the first flights by 2007. We're still waiting. It is just a halo project to get you to fly Virgin Atlantic.
(https://res.cloudinary.com/www-virgin-com/f_auto,q_80/virgin-com-prod/sites/virgin.com/files/Articles/Galactic/Galactic_your_journey_starts_hereVirgin.com%20Image.jpg)
McDonalds promised a McDonalds on the moon in 2006, due to open in 2015.
McDonald's shares were up 3 1/4 on the announcement in active late-afternoon trading.
They then promised it again in 2016!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ce9QOzAXIAAL41e.jpg)
Google's X prize competition is over. No one won.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/science/google-lunar-x-prize-moon.html
And monorail salesman Elon Musk just becomes the latest in a long line of space shysters, all promising the moon whilst hawking more earthly products upon you. Space tourism is a marketing gimmick. If you are stupid enough to believe it, that's on you ... but you'll always be disappointed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM
-
Technology advancements will sooner or later see consumer space travel as a reality ...
Not in your lifetime. We've been promised space travel since the 1960s. Telling people you'll fly them to space is an age old scam to get them interested in your every day mundane products.
First used by Howard Hughes to promote TWA, every other space shyster since has promised the same thing.
(https://imgc.allpostersimages.com/img/print/u-g-F8H4JE0.jpg?w=900&h=900&p=0)
Richard Branson promised space flight in 2004 to make the first flights by 2007. We're still waiting. It is just a halo project to get you to fly Virgin Atlantic.
(https://res.cloudinary.com/www-virgin-com/f_auto,q_80/virgin-com-prod/sites/virgin.com/files/Articles/Galactic/Galactic_your_journey_starts_hereVirgin.com%20Image.jpg)
McDonalds promised a McDonalds on the moon in 2006, due to open in 2015.
McDonald's shares were up 3 1/4 on the announcement in active late-afternoon trading.
They then promised it again in 2016!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ce9QOzAXIAAL41e.jpg)
Google's X prize competition is over. No one won.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/science/google-lunar-x-prize-moon.html
And monorail salesman Elon Musk just becomes the latest in a long line of space shysters, all promising the moon whilst hawking more earthly products upon you. Space tourism is a marketing gimmick. If you are stupid enough to believe it, that's on you ... but you'll always be disappointed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM
Perhaps not in my lifetime. But, technology will continue to advance and it will happen. Likely, a very scary thought for a Flat Earther as it threatens their Societies very existence. So, a Flat Earther clings to the hopes of pseudo-science (like Zetetic Society) and conspiracy theories to help them rationalize what they are seeing and experiencing. UN government & NASA guarding the Antarctic continent so that no one can see a 150 foot ice wall, in order to protect a global conspiracy that a Flat Earth exists for reasons of profits and money embezzlement -- are you serious? Do you know how ludicrous that is? Just think about it.
When the Wright Brothers were first experimenting with flight / powered flght, they likely never could have imagined that technology would advance to Jumbo Jets (like the A380) being able to carry hundreds of passengers at a time and over long trans-oceanic distances.
Think of the advancements of automobile technology througout the years, etc.. etc..
Howard Hughes was a visionary, however the technology just didn't exist at the time. At least he tried. Like myself and a lot of people, he was / is excited about the future and where technology advancement will take us.
Just because Howard Hughes had hopes, dreams, and perhaps promises and marketing of what he could offer but didn't happen, doesn't mean it won't eventually happen. It will.
-
I cannot understand how being on the equator and watching the sun for a day would not cause anyone open to believing what they see to notice that the sun came straight from due east, went directly overhead and disappeared due west. It was not circling any point on earth. If they traveled south of the equator and looked how the sun appears to circle the south pole, anyone not dogmatically opposed to new ideas would have to consider maybe the sun circling the north pole just might not be real. It should not require space travel, just travel. On the equator the sun travels a neat straight line. But not everyone travels.
Since Flat Earthers believe that the Sun's path follows a circular path overhead along the circular path of the equator, than I suspect the reasoning would be that you are simply seeing the sun coming from the distance of the Equatorial line in the East and disappearing off along the Equatorial line to the west. You would then ask as to why then doesn't the Sun travel overhead along that Equatorial Arc... The likely response would be perspective or that the flat earth is so large, it's hard to really see the arc.
With respect to your question about the Sun circiling the North Pole, Flat Earthers generally believe that no one is allowed to go to the North Pole (or Antarctica) because the UN/ NASA/ and the various governments won't let you go. You would likely be stopped by guards or the like. So, you really can't prove that the Sun goes around the North Pole, as you have suggested.
The reason why NASA, the UN, etc. can't let you find out that a flat Earth exists is because of profits, embezzlement, etc. It is part of a big government conspiracy or cover up.
Not sure what you mean by not being able to see the sun circle the north pole. I have seen 24 daylight myself with the sun circling around me. I have seen the 24 hour dark night too. I mentioned on another thread that on Jan 22 when the sun is only up for about 30 minutes, after it sets you can jump on a snowmobile and go farther away from the sun for about 10 minutes, go up a hill and see the sun again. So it has nothing to do with how far away the sun is. And even when you go farther away, the sun is still the same size as it always is.
So if you can see the sun go around the north pole, and look at how the sun travels in the summer, it is an arc, just watch. Rowbotham lived in England and watched the sun in the summer and it rises in the north east and sets in the north west, just like it is circling around the north pole. So it agrees with what he saw. But he never went to the equator where the sun comes straight at you, goes directly overhead and sets straight away from you. If he had lived on the tip of Chile, he would have decided that the sun circles the south pole. I have not seen the 24 daylight in the southern hemisphere but in the summer, the sun does rise in the south east and set in the south west like it is circling the south pole. That is my point, people see this all the time if they travel at all.
As well, I have mentioned many times that just like my snowmobile thing, the sun takes a very long time to rise and set in northern latitudes and it rises and sinks very quickly near the equator. So in the north, it might look like it is coming from somewhere far away and getting closer and closer in an arc and then goes away getting dimmer and dimmer. Near the equator, it jumps up fast and sets fast like it is coming up from the edge of the earth and dropping down the other edge. If you travel, you see these things and it would require denying what you can see with your own eyes to actually believe in a flat earth with the sun only circling the north pole. Makes no sense based on what you can actually see. But just like Rowbotham, it would require going somewhere else and looking for yourself. Are you going to believe some book or something on the internet against something you see with your own eyes?
-
Perhaps not in my lifetime. But, technology will continue to advance and it will happen. Likely, a very scary thought for a Flat Earther as it threatens their Societies very existence.
Well if it isn't going to happen in our life times, who the hell cares? How is that a scary thought for a flat earther? That's like worrying about the universe coming to an end, an alien invasion in the year 8000AD, the second coming of Christ or WW3. When I'm dead, I won't even own the money in my bank account. You lose everything when you are dead. Why would you care about TFES any more than losing your family who will also die, your home, your dog or even your favourite pair of socks? None of these things keep me up at night, and neither does the thought of someone one day potentially proving the earth round. Right now all the evidence points to earth being flat ... and that's good enough for me.
-
Perhaps not in my lifetime. But, technology will continue to advance and it will happen. Likely, a very scary thought for a Flat Earther as it threatens their Societies very existence.
Well if it isn't going to happen in our life times, who the hell cares? How is that a scary thought for a flat earther? That's like worrying about the universe coming to an end, an alien invasion in the year 8000AD, the second coming of Christ or WW3. When I'm dead, I won't even own the money in my bank account. You lose everything when you are dead. Why would you care about TFES any more than losing your family who will also die, your home, your dog or even your favourite pair of socks? None of these things keep me up at night, and neither does the thought of someone one day potentially proving the earth round. Right now all the evidence points to earth being flat ... and that's good enough for me.
Your uploaded video's and content implied that many people (like Howard Hughes, McDonald's, etc.) had advertised space travel and that if promised and advertised consumer space travel hasn't happened by now that it's not going to happen. It was a weak argument because technology, of course, evolves.
My reply was that eventually it will happen (whether your alive or dead to see it).
As far as the Earth being flat, there is no evidence / zero evidence to support.
- There is no evidence that a large 150 - 200 foot ice wall extends around a flat Earth disk model
- There is no evidence of an edge to a flat Earth Disk model
- There is no evidence that a firmament exists
- There is no evidence to support a small Earth sun that is only about 3000 km away and that it is only about 30-35km in diameter.
- There is no observed evidence or pictures to support the UN / US government / NASA guarding a theoretical 150 - 200 foot ice wall. Where are they?
- etc..
It's all conjecture and hypothesis by an outdated and antiquated Pseudo-science Society, whose Flat Earth belief system is threatened by technological advancement. When Space X Heavy recently launched, one could tell from this site just how much Flat Earth "damage control" was being done, especially with the Tesla in the foreground and what was clearly a non-fish eyed lens view of a Round Earth.
One quick example of Flat Earth "damage control" was the article Pete wrote on the home page entitled "It's true, I saw it on the Internet".
-
It's all conjecture and hypothesis by an outdated and antiquated Pseudo-science Society, whose Flat Earth belief system is threatened by technological advancement. When Space X Heavy recently launched, one could tell from this site just how much Flat Earth "damage control" was being done, especially with the Tesla in the foreground and what was clearly a non-fish eyed lens view of a Round Earth.
One quick example of Flat Earth "damage control" was the article Pete wrote on the home page entitled "It's true, I saw it on the Internet".
We weren't the ones performing damage control.
https://youtu.be/0gniIVc504Q?t=2m8s
-
It's all conjecture and hypothesis by an outdated and antiquated Pseudo-science Society, whose Flat Earth belief system is threatened by technological advancement. When Space X Heavy recently launched, one could tell from this site just how much Flat Earth "damage control" was being done, especially with the Tesla in the foreground and what was clearly a non-fish eyed lens view of a Round Earth.
One quick example of Flat Earth "damage control" was the article Pete wrote on the home page entitled "It's true, I saw it on the Internet".
We weren't the ones performing damage control.
https://youtu.be/0gniIVc504Q?t=2m8s
This is awesome. I would have never imagined that I would be debating a person that thought the Earth was flat.
It's like I am talking to someone that lived 200-300 years ago.
Except that this person is probably sitting in front of a computer with tin foil on his/her head.
-
'his'.
I hope that helps.
-
Right now all the evidence points to earth being flat ... and that's good enough for me.
That's only really true if you ignore the tsunami of evidence for a globe earth.
Where is your evidence that a rocket launch witnessed by thousands was somehow faked. Just declaring it fake because it doesn't fit with your world view isn't evidence
-
No one said the launch was fake. Just the bit about being in space. Sure, you can get a rocket really high, but once the words 'orbit' or 'escape velocity' are used, we're into the realms of fantasy.
-
No one said the launch was fake. Just the bit about being in space. Sure, you can get a rocket really high, but once the words 'orbit' or 'escape velocity' are used, we're into the realms of fantasy.
Where does all the helium go that is released into the atmosphere? It seems to leave and if there is no escape velocity what is happening there?
-
No one said the launch was fake. Just the bit about being in space. Sure, you can get a rocket really high, but once the words 'orbit' or 'escape velocity' are used, we're into the realms of fantasy.
Where does all the helium go that is released into the atmosphere? It seems to leave and if there is no escape velocity what is happening there?
Who proved it leaves? Why can't it all be on top of the heavier gases?
The outermost atmospheric layer extends to 10,000 kilometers (6,214 miles) above Earth and is mainly hydrogen and helium.
-
No one said the launch was fake. Just the bit about being in space. Sure, you can get a rocket really high, but once the words 'orbit' or 'escape velocity' are used, we're into the realms of fantasy.
Where does all the helium go that is released into the atmosphere? It seems to leave and if there is no escape velocity what is happening there?
Who proved it leaves? Why can't it all be on top of the heavier gases?
The outermost atmospheric layer extends to 10,000 kilometers (6,214 miles) above Earth and is mainly hydrogen and helium.
So now the sun and moon are travelling within the earth's atmosphere? Do we believe this claim that the atmosphere is 10,000 kms thick or maybe it is one of these NASA hoaxes we hear so much about? How do we know the above source is not lying?
If we are allowed to use mainstream science as proof, then I offer this reference about the helium leaving:
MacDonald, G. J. (1963). The escape of helium from the earth's atmosphere. Reviews of Geophysics, 1(3), 305-349.
or this one:
Axford, W. I. (1968). The polar wind and the terrestrial helium budget. Journal of Geophysical Research, 73(21), 6855-6859.
or this one:
Lie-Svendsen, Ø., Rees, M. H., & Stamnes, K. (1992). Helium escape from the Earth's atmosphere: The charge exchange mechanism revisited. Planetary and space science, 40(12), 1639-1662.
or this one:
Turekian, K. K. (1959). The terrestrial economy of helium and argon. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 17(1-2), 37-43.
Do I need to supply more?
As well, when I get drunk with people that work at NASA, I find that they must be very well trained because they will divulge secrets about themselves that they would not say when sober. However, none of them has ever mentioned that they are actually a part of a giant conspiracy. You would think that out of 50 people, one would not be able to keep the secret. I also figure that if the conspiracy has to hire all the scientists that are supposedly working in astronomy, chemistry, physics, geology, aerospace, aviation, meteorology, astrophysics, engineering, etc etc etc, the budget of NASA must be many magnitudes greater than congress would be told. Where is all this money coming from?
And the bribe money must be astronomical (excuse the pun), which by my calculations would have to be about 1 trillion dollars if you paid every faculty member and grad student around the world working in these fields about $50k each to keep quiet. And you would probably have to keep paying them so they will stay loyal, so it would be an annual budget.
-
No one said the launch was fake. Just the bit about being in space. Sure, you can get a rocket really high, but once the words 'orbit' or 'escape velocity' are used, we're into the realms of fantasy.
Why? What evidence do you have that both of those are "realms of fantasy"?
-
When the Wright Brothers were first experimenting with flight / powered flght, they likely never could have imagined that technology would advance to Jumbo Jets (like the A380) being able to carry hundreds of passengers at a time and over long trans-oceanic distances.
I'm sure they didn't. But in the years following the invention of the airplane, technological advancements and innovations flowed at a natural rate. Commercial airlines sprang up throughout the 1910s and 20s. Flight quickly became a key element of warfare. The jumbo jet wouldn't come around for a long time, true, but thousands of people all over the world were still directly witnessing and taking part in the phenomenon, all within just a few decades of the invention.
In contrast, commercial space travel is stagnant. It's been over sixty years since the first man supposedly flew in space, and yet the prospect is still as extraordinarily expensive, risky, and tightly-regulated as ever. What progress have these space entrepreneurs made? How are they any closer to launching space tourism as a viable industry than when Hughes first hawked the idea?
-
Like all technology advancements and technology step changes in history, the belief systems of a Flat Earth will eventually die off and cease to exist. This includes belief systems such as the Zetetic Society.
Technology advancements will sooner or later see consumer space travel as a reality, just as the Industrial Revolution, the Automobile, and Powerered Flight came to to reality. Even then, just as now, there were people at the time that thought that those were conspiracies or could not possibly be true.
Please provide some reference material there existed a person(s) who claimed the Industrial Revolution, the automobile, and/or powered flight, was a conspiracy.
http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Aviations_Attic/They_Wouldnt_Believe/They_Wouldnt_Believe_the_Wrights_Had_Flown.htm
Excerpt:
But the Wrights' belief that they had achieved something of great scientific importance was not bolstered by the attitude of the general public. Not only were there no receptions, brass bands, or parades in their honor, but the neighbors paid less attention to the history-making feat than if the "boys" had simply been on vacation and caught a big fish or shot a bear.
One neighbor, Mr. Webbert, father of the man from whom they rented their bicycle shop, did concede:
"I know you boys are truthful and if you say you flew through the air in a machine, I believe you. But then," he added, "down there on the Carolina coast you had special conditions to help you. Of course you couldn't do it anywhere else."
Then the brothers remembered that this man was a spiritualist.
Other neighbors thought if the thing had been done at all it must have been an accident, because of unusually powerful winds, and at best was just a stunt, not likely to happen again. One had remarked, just before the Wrights went to Kitty Hawk: "People will fly at the same time they hit on perpetual motion."
The invention of the automobile was also met with skepticism:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Rackham
the president of the Michigan Savings Bank infamously told Rackham "The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty – a fad,"
As for the industrial revolution, have you not heard of the Luddites?
-
No one said the launch was fake. Just the bit about being in space. Sure, you can get a rocket really high, but once the words 'orbit' or 'escape velocity' are used, we're into the realms of fantasy.
Yet SpaceX has, prior to the Falcon Heavy, launched a number of satellites for the likes of Orbcomm, Iridium, SES, and a selection of others.
It has a queue of others waiting for the same services.
What do you think these other companies are doing, given that some of them existed long before SpaceX did, and at least one has had satellites launched by other operators? You don't really think they're all "in on the hoax too", do you?
-
I'm sure they didn't. But in the years following the invention of the airplane, technological advancements and innovations flowed at a natural rate. Commercial airlines sprang up throughout the 1910s and 20s. Flight quickly became a key element of warfare. The jumbo jet wouldn't come around for a long time, true, but thousands of people all over the world were still directly witnessing and taking part in the phenomenon, all within just a few decades of the invention.
In contrast, commercial space travel is stagnant. It's been over sixty years since the first man supposedly flew in space, and yet the prospect is still as extraordinarily expensive, risky, and tightly-regulated as ever. What progress have these space entrepreneurs made? How are they any closer to launching space tourism as a viable industry than when Hughes first hawked the idea?
I'm not really sure what point you're making. When I was a kid we used to dream about moon bases and flying cars. Hasn't happened.
There was talk of cold fusion which would produce limitless clean energy. That hasn't happened either.
We used to dream about robot servants and automated houses and that is closer to reality.
I guess my point is some technical problems simply turn out to be harder to solve than others and it's next to impossible to predict these things.
The aviation industry has gone backwards in terms of speed - Concorde was in the 60s and nothing since has been anywhere near as fast.
Why? Because it is fundamentally difficult and expensive to accelerate large things to high speeds.
F=ma
For an object with a large mass - like an airplane or rocket - you need a LOT of F to generate that a. And we still don't have a particularly efficient way of generating that.
Where the airline industry has progressed though is comfort and entertainment. Having a screen in the back of the seat in front of you on which you can choose to show a load of films, TV shows or play music was the stuff of dreams when I first started flying, now it's routine.
Technology often advances quickly in times of war when a lot of resources are put into research. The Space Race came out of the Cold War and two super-powers trying to gain dominance of space.
I don't entirely agree that commercial space travel is stagnant. 7 "space tourists" have now visited the ISS. Now companies like Virgin are in the race it will happen if it is commercially viable. I'd say it's closer to reality than it was when I was a kid.
-
Further to my earlier post, SpaceX has around 14 launches scheduled for later this year, including two more Falcon Heavy launches.
The payloads include;
a Bangabandhu 1 communications satellite for the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission,
a Crew Dragon spacecraft on an uncrewed test flight to the International Space Station,
the U.S. Air Force’s first third-generation navigation satellite for the Global Positioning System,
10 satellites for the Iridium next mobile communications fleet,
the SES 12 communications satellite for SES of Luxembourg,
the 17th Dragon spacecraft mission on its 15th operational cargo delivery flight to the International Space Station,
the 18th Dragon spacecraft mission on its 16th operational cargo delivery flight to the International Space Station,
the Arabsat 6A communications satellite for Arabsat of Saudi Arabia, and
the U.S. Air Force’s Space Test Program-2 mission with a cluster of military and scientific research satellites.
That, to me, is quite some assembly of fakery, even IF - IF - you could realistically allege that all of these organisations are "in on the hoax" .....
-
Get people watching the rocket, meanwhile add the payload to a balloon and launch elsewhere from the public's gaze.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_balloon_satellite
https://worldview.space/fly-your-payload/
-
And where is your evidence that this is what is going on with, say, GPS or TV or weather satellites? The second linke says:
Stratollites can maintain position over specific areas of interest for days, weeks, and eventually months on end.
That wouldn't really cut it for things like TV satellites, or are you claiming that they're sending a new one up there every few months? Where is your evidence for any of this? You're just desperately reaching rather than considering that your world view may be wrong.
-
Get people watching the rocket, meanwhile add the payload to a balloon and launch elsewhere from the public's gaze.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_balloon_satellite
https://worldview.space/fly-your-payload/
would would could would. Laser broadband???
-
Get people watching the rocket, meanwhile add the payload to a balloon and launch elsewhere from the public's gaze.
Can you provide any meaningful proof that any SpaceX payload has been launched in this manner?
-
Many things are just ground based.
Loran was repurposed to provide GPS ... television is usually provided by TV masts ... you don't have to keep running for "they float in orbit around the earth".
Can you provide any meaningful proof that any SpaceX payload has been launched in this manner?
(https://fsmedia.imgix.net/46/1d/0e/26/b82b/401e/b3b0/e88cecd2b9f0.jpeg?rect=0%2C572%2C3000%2C1001&auto=format%2Ccompress&w=650)
-
Many things are just ground based.
Loran was repurposed to provide GPS ... television is usually provided by TV masts ... you don't have to keep running for "they float in orbit around the earth".
Can you provide any meaningful proof that any SpaceX payload has been launched in this manner?
(https://fsmedia.imgix.net/46/1d/0e/26/b82b/401e/b3b0/e88cecd2b9f0.jpeg?rect=0%2C572%2C3000%2C1001&auto=format%2Ccompress&w=650)
We have tv from masts and from satellites, which use dishes.
GPS that we all use is nothing to do with Loran.
The existance of a does not prove the non existance of b.
-
Many things are just ground based.
Loran was repurposed to provide GPS ... television is usually provided by TV masts ... you don't have to keep running for "they float in orbit around the earth".
Where is your evidence for that?
You can't just keep asserting stuff like this without a scrap of evidence.
-
The design of GPS is based partly on similar ground-based radio-navigation systems, such as LORAN and the Decca Navigator, developed in the early 1940s and used by the British Royal Navy during World War II.
-
The design of GPS is based partly on similar ground-based radio-navigation systems, such as LORAN and the Decca Navigator, developed in the early 1940s and used by the British Royal Navy during World War II.
And uses satellites for neat universal coverage.
-
Many things are just ground based.
By implication, then, others (the 'not many') are not .....
Yes, I KNOW we (for instance) in the UK received terrestrial TV from ground-based transmitters for many years. This led to the construction of many transmitters, because a single ground-based transmitter cannot cover the whole UK. The evidence that many transmitters are in use comes from travelling around the country and seeing TV aerials pointing in different directions, such that they are beamed on their nearest transmitter.
Satellite TV covers the whole of the country from one transmitter, above the equator, as evidenced by millions of satellite dishes, all pointing the same way - even those on the South Coast, which point out to sea.
television is usually provided by TV masts
Usually. But not always.
-
And uses satellites for neat universal coverage.
Actually no. It seems is you want to plug the holes in GPS you add further ground based aerials.
http://www.locata.com/technology/locata-tech-explained/locatas-inventions/
television is usually provided by TV masts
Usually. But not always.
So says the indoctrinated.
-
The design of GPS is based partly on ....
So some of it, by implication, is NOT based upon that which you quoted?
-
The design of GPS is based partly on similar ground-based radio-navigation systems, such as LORAN and the Decca Navigator, developed in the early 1940s and used by the British Royal Navy during World War II.
Why are you quoting from a Wiki pages which goes into a lot of detail about the satellites which make GPS work?
-
The design of GPS is based partly on ....
So some of it, by implication, is NOT based upon that which you quoted?
Sure. They came up with a new co-ordinates system that made the earth seem round. Loran-C made the earth seem awful flat.
The design of GPS is based partly on similar ground-based radio-navigation systems, such as LORAN and the Decca Navigator, developed in the early 1940s and used by the British Royal Navy during World War II.
Why are you quoting from a Wiki pages which goes into a lot of detail about the satellites which make GPS work?
I have to pick a source you'd be happy with and focus on the bits where the mask slips.
-
You have yet to provide any evidence for a mask existing.
-
So says the indoctrinated.
I've been receiving TV in the UK for many years. I know where the TV transmitters are. I know where my local cell masts are. I can look them all up from online sources to confirm what they are.
I've moved between locations, and had to retune analogue and digital terrestrial TVs because of those changes, but whenever it came to installing a satellite system - it always points to that same spot in the sky. 20-odd degrees elevation, and South. Never toward a transmitter or a mast.
Please, please, tell me the source of my 'indoctrination' ....
-
So says the indoctrinated.
I've been receiving TV in the UK for many years. I know where the TV transmitters are. I know where my local cell masts are. I can look them all up from online sources to confirm what they are.
I've moved between locations, and had to retune analogue and digital terrestrial TVs because of those changes, but whenever it came to installing a satellite system - it always points to that same spot in the sky. 20-odd degrees elevation, and South. Never toward a transmitter or a mast.
Please, please, tell me the source of my 'indoctrination' ....
Satellite dishes point south ... but they don't point up.
(http://dfbaerials.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/tv_satellite_dish_solihull.jpg)
The transmitters face north so you always point your receiver dish south. Kind of obvious. Makes it easy to always find a transmitter if the TV companies all point them the same way.
-
Why are Sky in on the great globe earth conspiracy? What's their interest in this?
-
(http://www.nairaland.com/attachments/1310090_angle_gifbc190f3a3dc5d0f79f222ede3b3c64d5)
Angle of elevation is above the centre line of the dish.
Please show examples of these TV transmitters which "face North".....
Here's the Kirk O'Shotts transmitter in Central Scotland - which is the North face of it? Nearest the camera? Left? Right?
(https://www.thebigtower.com/live/KOS/011101000902042-008.jpg)
Here's the Crystal Palace transmitter. Which is North?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Cp_mast.jpg/250px-Cp_mast.jpg)
-
So says the indoctrinated.
I've been receiving TV in the UK for many years. I know where the TV transmitters are. I know where my local cell masts are. I can look them all up from online sources to confirm what they are.
I've moved between locations, and had to retune analogue and digital terrestrial TVs because of those changes, but whenever it came to installing a satellite system - it always points to that same spot in the sky. 20-odd degrees elevation, and South. Never toward a transmitter or a mast.
Please, please, tell me the source of my 'indoctrination' ....
Satellite dishes point south ... but they don't point up.
(http://dfbaerials.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/tv_satellite_dish_solihull.jpg)
The transmitters face north so you always point your receiver dish south. Kind of obvious. Makes it easy to always find a transmitter if the TV companies all point them the same way.
You are wrong, completely wrong. GPS works in the middle of oceans, please give details of the, typically 15, transmitters.
-
Those aren't dish transmitters for your 'satellite' dish.
(http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/caergybi-rc-594z1.jpg)
I think at this stage you have strayed some way from the OP. We've been through space tourism, spacex, balloons, TV dishes, now ocean navigation ... you are going to keep moving the goal posts ad finitum.
-
Those aren't dish transmitters for your 'satellite' dish.
(http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/caergybi-rc-594z1.jpg)
I think at this stage you have strayed some way from the OP. We've been through space tourism, spacex, balloons, TV dishes, now ocean navigation ... you are going to keep moving the goal posts ad finitum.
The picture is a point to point microwave link. Please provide a link to GPS documentation.
-
After 3 pages, I'm done giving you links. How about you do a little research on your own? Spoon feeding is for babies.
-
After 3 pages, I'm done giving you links. How about you do a little research on your own? Spoon feeding is for babies.
There is plenty of information on satellite communication and GPS. Why do you ignore it??
Tv dishes point to a location above the equator.
-
Those aren't dish transmitters for your 'satellite' dish.
Those are actual TV transmitters in the UK. I didn't say they were broadcasting satellite TV. You're the one claiming that all satellite TV transmitters point North, I'm showing you what TV transmitters look like, without any compass orientation.
Can you provide a specific verifiable instance of a TV transmitter in the UK with a Northerly orientation?
-
After 3 pages, I'm done giving you links. How about you do a little research on your own?
... but you're not linking to anything which supports your case. You say all sat transmitters in the UK point North, and back this with a single microwave link, which may even be a receiver, not a transmitter, and provide NO indication of its orientation or location .....
To others, all you're doing is indulging in idle speculation.
-
You'll be unsurprised to learn I've done a thread on TV transmissions before. It ran for 30 odd pages. I did one on GPS before ... in fact I did many. I know your objections, I know the sources I'll have to dig up again ... and I don't want to. I joined this thread because it was about the end of TFES due to space tourism. You no longer want to talk about that and I have lost interest.
This thread is destined to talk about skywaves, the ionoplane, the temperatures in the exoplane, it could run for another 30 pages. Just search the forum for my thoughts.
-
You'll be unsurprised to learn I've done a thread on TV transmissions before. It ran for 30 odd pages. I did one on GPS before ... in fact I did many. I know your objections, I know the sources I'll have to dig up again ... and I don't want to. I joined this thread because it was about the end of TFES due to space tourism. You no longer want to talk about that and I have lost interest.
This thread is destined to talk about skywaves, the ionoplane, the temperatures in the exoplane, it could run for another 30 pages. Just search the forum for my thoughts.
Is it better we all agree how clever you are to prove that satellites do not exist and the bits of metal on the sides of houses don't receive from the sky, but some unidentified other transmitter that even the broadcasters do not know about?
-
You'll be unsurprised to learn I've done a thread on TV transmissions before. It ran for 30 odd pages. I did one on GPS before ... in fact I did many. I know your objections, I know the sources I'll have to dig up again ... and I don't want to. I joined this thread because it was about the end of TFES due to space tourism. You no longer want to talk about that and I have lost interest.
I'm just following on from what you said at #13 and #23. i.e. space is fake, and SpaceX payloads get to their destinations using balloons... so I think you led the thread here.
-
1) It seems that once again, the Flat Earth proposals work well for someone sitting in their basement using deductive reasoning to dream up ways things could work on a Flat Earth. If someone traveled to say Fiji and wondered if satellites were fake, they should be quickly corrected. And they would see the sun circle the south pole not the north.
2) One thing I noticed when traveling was how satellite dishes point straight up (more or less) near the equator compared to the ones I often see that point almost horizontally (in the far north). It is stupid to put all these satellites directly above the equator unless there was a damn good reason for that.
3) Anyone old enough to remember what it was like before the internet knows how expensive satellite uplinks are. If you ever played any interactive games before the internet, the link was typically about $1000 a month. If this was just a conspiracy and the satellite uplink was not actually that, some entrepreneur would have undercut that price, unless the cost really did relate to satellites. Capitalists do not forego making money just to perpetuate conspiracies.
4) If telecommunications companies are now in on the conspiracy, I think the number of people in on the conspiracy must be getting to be the majority. If more people know the truth than the number that are being conspired against, I am not sure it counts as a conspiracy anymore. Only those people sitting in their basements are being fooled, and they probably don't have as much money as those working within the system anyway.
5) If the sun at 3000 miles cannot cover the planet with light all the time, a few TV towers nowhere near that high would do a particularly bad job. Especially something like GPS if light bends (so it can light the underside of clouds). If light bends, how can I figure out where I am?
6. I point my antenna almost straight west to the TV tower I get my signal from. (I use free TV so the conspiracy is not even making money off me for this TV).
7. This is relevant to the OP since all these things mean that if anyone gets out of their basement they will either be stubbornly sticking to a belief that disagrees with what they actually see or they will change their mind. Just like Baby Thork who did not know that correction lines are used to correct for the curvature of the earth when you are subdividing farm land, practical experience is all that is required to end foolish beliefs. Correction lines were required since Thomas Jefferson did not think about that from his basement when he first proposed nice square farms in the Western US. Thork wanted a reference since he was skeptical that it was even a thing. How do we know what we know? We leave our basements.
-
You'll be unsurprised to learn I've done a thread on TV transmissions before. It ran for 30 odd pages. I did one on GPS before ... in fact I did many. I know your objections, I know the sources I'll have to dig up again ... and I don't want to. I joined this thread because it was about the end of TFES due to space tourism. You no longer want to talk about that and I have lost interest.
I'm just following on from what you said at #13 and #23. i.e. space is fake, and SpaceX payloads get to their destinations using balloons... so I think you led the thread here.
Hi Baby Thork,
Do you genuinely believe that space is fake and that Space X got it's payloads up to their destinations via balloons?
Not trying to be difficult, just curious in understanding if this is what you truely think happened VS. a potential hypothesis that you are proposing could have happened.
If this is what you think truely happened, are your fellow Flat Earth believers tracking these via telescopic images or pictures on these ballons carrying the payloads? Do you have pictures to support?
Also, my father used to be a Ham Radio operator about 10 years ago or so and enjoyed the hobby very much; i.e. he enjoyed talking and meeting people all around the world. Do you think he is in on the conspiracy? I don't remember him ducking out of the house late at night to go to secret NASA / US Government agency meetings to ensure that all Ham Radio operators were properly managing the conspiracy.
-
You'll be unsurprised to learn I've done a thread on TV transmissions before. It ran for 30 odd pages. I did one on GPS before ... in fact I did many. I know your objections, I know the sources I'll have to dig up again ... and I don't want to. I joined this thread because it was about the end of TFES due to space tourism. You no longer want to talk about that and I have lost interest.
I'm just following on from what you said at #13 and #23. i.e. space is fake, and SpaceX payloads get to their destinations using balloons... so I think you led the thread here.
Hi Baby Thork,
Do you genuinely believe that space is fake and that Space X got it's payloads up to their destinations via balloons?
Not trying to be difficult, just curious in understanding if this is what you truely think happened VS. a potential hypothesis that you are proposing could have happened.
If this is what you think truely happened, are your fellow Flat Earth believers tracking these via telescopic images or pictures on these ballons carrying the payloads? Do you have pictures to support?
Also, my father used to be a Ham Radio operator about 10 years ago or so and enjoyed the hobby very much; i.e. he enjoyed talking and meeting people all around the world. Do you think he is in on the conspiracy? I don't remember him ducking out of the house late at night to go to secret NASA / US Government agency meetings to ensure that all Ham Radio operators were properly managing the conspiracy.
That just adds to the number of people that have to be in on the conspiracy. Just like the other new thread that mentioned how there is a theory that the rich secretly control the world, this is good until one realizes that almost everyone reading this will belong to the 1% of the world's richest people. So are you in on that conspiracy?
-
No one said the launch was fake. Just the bit about being in space. Sure, you can get a rocket really high, but once the words 'orbit' or 'escape velocity' are used, we're into the realms of fantasy.
Where does all the helium go that is released into the atmosphere? It seems to leave and if there is no escape velocity what is happening there?
Who proved it leaves? Why can't it all be on top of the heavier gases?
The outermost atmospheric layer extends to 10,000 kilometers (6,214 miles) above Earth and is mainly hydrogen and helium.
Is the ice wall tall enough to contain helium that is 10,000 kms above the flat earth surface? How else will the air stick around? When I over fill my beer mug it spills over the side.