dirtysnowball

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #40 on: July 19, 2019, 03:34:52 PM »
Quote
If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?

Because my mind works different to yours Tom. Hence our reasons for believing something or not believing something are also different. You state that you will only accept something as true if it can be 'demonstrated' to the finest level of detail.  Whatever that means.

I haven't got a tape measure to hand that happens to be 1/4 million miles long so I cannot directly measure the distance to the Moon and demonstrate it. However the distance to the Moon has been more than adequately measured by many and different ways and all agree with the same figure. You can argue about that as long as you wish and point out yet more links to FE Wiki that dispute that but that will not change reality.

If you assume the Earth is flat then all sorts of experiments will yield different figures and distances etc compared to RE. If you introduce an error into a process at an early stage then that error will be carried through and out pops a wrong result at the end.  Garbage in Garbage out as they say.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 05:29:58 PM by dirtysnowball »

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #41 on: July 19, 2019, 05:30:16 PM »
Quote
If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?

Because my mind works different to yours Tom. I don't need absolute proof or demonstration from first principles of everything I believe or accept.
Nor does Tom. Rowbotham’s “experiments” are always accepted without question.
This is where I will never understand his mentality. The level of proof he requires or will accept depends entirely on whether the result backs up his world view.

Tom, what is your take to the OP questions?
I saw a shuttle launch back in the day. Where do you think it went if not space and what is your evidence for that?

How high do you believe the moon to be and what have you don’t to verify that?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #42 on: July 19, 2019, 08:19:42 PM »
Quote
If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?

Because my mind works different to yours Tom. Hence our reasons for believing something or not believing something are also different. You state that you will only accept something as true if it can be 'demonstrated' to the finest level of detail.  Whatever that means.

I haven't got a tape measure to hand that happens to be 1/4 million miles long so I cannot directly measure the distance to the Moon and demonstrate it. However the distance to the Moon has been more than adequately measured by many and different ways and all agree with the same figure. You can argue about that as long as you wish and point out yet more links to FE Wiki that dispute that but that will not change reality.

If you assume the Earth is flat then all sorts of experiments will yield different figures and distances etc compared to RE. If you introduce an error into a process at an early stage then that error will be carried through and out pops a wrong result at the end.  Garbage in Garbage out as they say.

I simply asked how you can believe something blindly, when you don't even know how it was derived. And you answered "because my mind works differently".

Apparently so. I like to know about what I believe and why I believe it.

dirtysnowball

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #43 on: July 19, 2019, 08:35:14 PM »
Quote
Apparently so. I like to know about what I believe and why I believe it.
Surely belief is based on individual choice. I cannot influence what you believe any more than you can influence what I believe. You have your reasons, I have mine.  We all share the same home in the Universe and the same evidence is available to all of us  How we interpret that evidence is the 'mechanism' behind what we believe.  The same principle applies to Rowbotham. As it has been implied elsewhere recently, you accept his claims and his beliefs far more easily than any RE 'claims' because they happen to coincide more with your interpretations.

For example (you like examples). I see a lunar eclipse (a couple days ago for example) and I believe that the curved shadow that crosses the Moons disk is that of the Earths disk.  You believe it is something called the 'shadow object' because in your world the Earth cannot cast a shadow on the Moon. In my opinion there is enough evidence around us that demonstrates the Earth is spherical when I take in the bigger picture.  You will disagree with that because you are a self-confessed flat Earth believer.  Your belief, your choice.

Quote
I simply asked how you can believe something blindly, when you don't even know how it was derived

I actually spend a lot of time reading about how lots of things are derived as you put it.  I then decide for myself whether to accept it or not. Again I usually take into account the available evidence for and against when it comes to making that decision.

Quote
I simply asked how you can believe something blindly

What do you mean by 'blindly' Tom? There are many people in the world who believe in God but they cannot prove that God exists. Does that mean their belief in God is 'blind' and therefore they should stop believing in God according to you? Their belief is based on faith and there is nothing wrong with that if it satisfies their needs about the existence of God. We cannot prove everything in life to ourselves can we.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2019, 04:28:33 PM by dirtysnowball »

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #44 on: July 20, 2019, 11:17:49 PM »
AllAroundTheWorld pointed out that attempting to determine the distance to the moon or sun by triangulation falls apart once you use more than two points and gives inconsistent results on a flat earth. AllAroundTheWorld then provided a link to a metabunk article about an experiment measuring solar noon sun angles on the September equinox. The experiment clearly shows that on a flat earth, attempting to triangulate the sun's position simply doesn't work, debunking the idea of a flat earth. Somerled apparently won't accept this result because it was done on an equinox. This has shifted the goalposts somewhat.
Yes, the definition of what an equinox is a diversion. I should really have reported the post as off topic but the moment has gone now.
This is why triangulation doesn't work on a FE, and why by extension the earth cannot be flat:



The angle of Polaris is the roughly the same as your latitude. Take an observation at 80 degrees north latitude and it'll be at 80 degrees. Take an observation at 60 degrees north and it'll be at 60 degrees and so on. So you can take two observations and triangulate, assuming a flat earth, to find the height of Polaris. The issue is when you add a 3rd point.
The diagram shows why this is an issue. The 3 lines don't meet at a single point.

This is effectively what the metabunk experiment did, taking observations of the sun by people all round the world. With a globe model these observations all point in a common direction which is what you'd expect with a distant sun. Try and plot those observation on a flat earth and they point all over the place. Now, you could say that the flat earth map isn't known. And in the above you could move the 3 points to different distances and make them converge at a common point but the more points you add the more challenging that becomes to the point you are surely forced to conclude that the model of a flat earth is incorrect.
I would like to point out that the metabunk experiment of triangulation of the sun is not equivalent to triangulation to Polaris  .Globe theory has the earth rotating whilst orbiting around the sun  - triangulation from moving points as observed ( according to metabunk ) is problematic to say the least - a fact which is ignored by metabunk and the experimenters . Also globe defenders  seem to assume that the sun revolves on a flat trajectory over the flat earth

The statement that equinox definition is a diversion is amusing . The heliocentric model is quite specific in it's prediction of when equinox occurs , the two instances when the sun crosses the celestial equator on the ecliptic plane - resulting in equal day/night lengths ( allowance is made for assumed refraction )  and also resulting in sun rising due east 90 degrees and setting 270 west all over the globe  . No refraction mentioned but this occurs on different days therefore the heliocentric model cannot be correct .
 
Observation of these phenomena do not agree with prediction of the heliocentric model (see timeanddate ).


*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #45 on: July 21, 2019, 12:26:11 AM »
Again, equal day and night is the definition of the equilux, not the equinox.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

dirtysnowball

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #46 on: July 21, 2019, 02:27:45 PM »
This is what the UK Met Office has to say on the distinction between the equinox and the Equilux.  Interpret it as you will and decide for yourself whether it agrees with what you say.  Needless to say the UK Met Office bases what it says on the conventional and mainstream heliocentric model with the Earth tilted at 23.5 degrees.

The sections about equinox and equilux are quite clearly sub-headed.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/seasons/equinox-and-solstice

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #47 on: July 22, 2019, 09:21:10 AM »
The heliocentric model is quite specific in it's prediction of when equinox occurs , the two instances when the sun crosses the celestial equator on the ecliptic plane

Quite correct

- resulting in equal day/night lengths

No - incorrect. This is the part you make up and keep tacking on to everything you say. The minute you start talking about equal lengths of day and night you are no longer talking about equinox, this is equilux.

Here's a concise definition of equilux https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/equilux

Quote
equilux: a date when day and night are of exactly equal length

Please point out where this definition of equilux differs in any way from your personal definition of equinox. If the two are identical, then please say so and maybe reflect on why we need two separate words at all.


 ( allowance is made for assumed refraction )


Even if there were no atmosphere and no refraction, equinox and equilux would still be different simply because one measures from the two occasions where a single point on the sun (it's centre) crosses the horizon and the other doesn't (it uses two different points).
 

Observation of these phenomena do not agree with prediction of the heliocentric model (see timeanddate ).


I agree completely with timeanddate's prediction of when the equinox happens (and according to them it's the same time everywhere). Problem is you are not using their predictions, you are making your own equinox predictions, inappropriately using sunrise and sunset times, which without any corrections are completely useless for equinox predictions.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2019, 09:22:42 AM by robinofloxley »

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #48 on: July 23, 2019, 08:23:56 AM »
QUESTION 1
When the Space Shuttle program used to be active, it would launch and then the Orbiter would return a few days or a few weeks later.

If Flat Earthers believe that space travel is not possible / is a hoax, where does a Flat Earther believe that the Orbiter goes for the few days or weeks after it launches before it then re-appears and glides in for a landing? Does the shuttle launch/ glide to a secret undisclosed location without radar detection/ and then NASA somehow launches it again in secret or a clone of it so that it can re-appear and land?

I would be curious to get feedback from a Flat Earth believer on how they believe this hoax to work.

Has someone replied to this?
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #49 on: July 23, 2019, 12:14:55 PM »
Hoax is possible . Typical rocket launch.

 https://floridarussian.com/featured/shuttle-discovery-launch-4-5-10-2/

Shuttle glides down to unknown destination - Tristan de Cuna or some such other base - after all we can't track worldwide .

Refuel shuttle . Send it back up on it's transporter plane . Release at altitude and let it glide down to the waiting photographers .Not difficult really .

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2019, 01:22:43 PM »
Hoax is possible . Typical rocket launch.

 https://floridarussian.com/featured/shuttle-discovery-launch-4-5-10-2/

Shuttle glides down to unknown destination - Tristan de Cuna or some such other base - after all we can't track worldwide .

Refuel shuttle . Send it back up on it's transporter plane . Release at altitude and let it glide down to the waiting photographers .Not difficult really .
So without going into orbit, the shuttle is going to have to use powered flight, burning fuel the whole way. This is a heavy vehicle with tiny wings, the aerodynamics of a large truck, powered by rockets. How much fuel is this going to need to power its way from Florida to Tristan de Cuna (about 10,000km)? And when it gets there? Does it have retractable floats, because there sure isn't an airport there. Do the several hundred people who live there get hypnotized or something, so they don't remember a space shuttle dropping in?

Finally, craft such as the X15 and SpaceShipOne do use motherships and air-launch, but guess what, the launch vehicle is carried underneath so it can simply drop clear. The modified 747 carrying the shuttle carries it on top, so how does that work? Maybe the 747 does a barrel roll and drops the shuttle when upside down?

To be honest you might as well have just said use tractor beams and teleporters, it's no less credible than your explanation. "Not difficult really". Wow.

dirtysnowball

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2019, 04:29:18 PM »
There is a well known (to astronomers anyway) astrophotographer who has imaged the ISS with the Space Shuttle docked to it.  Just wish I could manage to take images like this!

http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-134.html

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #52 on: July 23, 2019, 05:12:01 PM »
The shuttle was a glider with rockets .The scenario is possible and far easier/cheaper and more profitable to those who steal public money.

And space photography is routinely subjected to CG imagery

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #53 on: July 23, 2019, 06:10:00 PM »
Ascension island airport - military airfield built by USA world war two -later airstrip lengthened to two miles to accommodate spaceships !!

Still in use 2011 as an emergency landing site for the space shuttle up till mid year .
 
Googled "did the space shuttle land at Ascension island military airbase " and there it was - top o the page. Makes interesting reading since there is also a radar station there linked with one in Florida. Tracks rocket launches from Cape Canaveral too . The facility is home to a detachment of part of USAF 45th Space Wing .Who'd a thunk it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Ascension_Island

It's a possibility . Mix that with hologram and there you go.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2019, 06:12:32 PM by somerled »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1229
    • View Profile
Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #54 on: July 23, 2019, 06:57:17 PM »
Ascension island airport - military airfield built by USA world war two -later airstrip lengthened to two miles to accommodate spaceships !!

Still in use 2011 as an emergency landing site for the space shuttle up till mid year .
 
Googled "did the space shuttle land at Ascension island military airbase " and there it was - top o the page. Makes interesting reading since there is also a radar station there linked with one in Florida. Tracks rocket launches from Cape Canaveral too . The facility is home to a detachment of part of USAF 45th Space Wing .Who'd a thunk it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Ascension_Island

It's a possibility . Mix that with hologram and there you go.

And maybe the guys playing the back nine at the golf club a couple of miles away got a free round and a drink ticket at the 19th hole as long as they didn't mention seeing a lumbering space shuttle come in for a landing at the base.

Aren't you just sorta grasping at straws here?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #55 on: July 23, 2019, 09:22:53 PM »
Merely pointing out that if they want to do so then everything is in place to carry out a deception. No straw clutching at all .

dirtysnowball

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #56 on: July 23, 2019, 09:32:28 PM »
So do you have any proof or evidence that a deception is actually being carried out?   Or are you merely speculating. 

There is plenty of evidence out there to show you that shuttle has gone into orbit. The link provided earlier is any example. I can assure you that the photographer in this case has no interest whatsoever in FE theory or trying to deceive anyone.  Flat Earthers seem to be obsessed with the idea that the rest of the world is trying to deceive them. Fair enough if that's what you think. He is just using his equipment to image what he knows is up there. No ulterior motive whatsoever.

 

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #57 on: July 23, 2019, 09:43:40 PM »
And space photography is routinely subjected to CG imagery
Space photography is also subject to peer review.  Decent telescopes that can resolve the ISS in orbit aren't all that expensive, so just about anyone can personally see for themselves if the ISS is there or not with only a modest investment.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

dirtysnowball

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #58 on: July 23, 2019, 10:00:26 PM »
Absolutely. As I write this I am imaging a target in the constellation Cygnus called NGC 7000 (North America Nebula) and the ISS has just swept through the FOV of one of my subs. Looking up the ISS pass timings on Heavens Above for my location I see there is a listed pass exactly at the time and point on the sky where my telescope is pointed.  Confirmation of prediction by observation.  That is science at work!  I will post the image if anyone is interested.

Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #59 on: July 23, 2019, 10:39:59 PM »
So do you have any proof or evidence that a deception is actually being carried out?   Or are you merely speculating. 

There is plenty of evidence out there to show you that shuttle has gone into orbit. The link provided earlier is any example. I can assure you that the photographer in this case has no interest whatsoever in FE theory or trying to deceive anyone.  Flat Earthers seem to be obsessed with the idea that the rest of the world is trying to deceive them. Fair enough if that's what you think. He is just using his equipment to image what he knows is up there. No ulterior motive whatsoever.

Of course I'm speculating but those facts show the possibilities - don't you understand plain English? You wanted a reply (not personally ) about the the original post so I gave one with evidence how the deception could be carried out . Now you demand proof - we are in a court of law now apparently .   Well evidence is not proof , not even in a court of law . If you don't want a FEr's opinion ,don't ask . If you don't want a debate then don't post .