Why hide it?

JackRT · May 20, 2019

JacksBratt said:
Tie a ball to the end of a rope. Fix another one half way down the rope. swing the rope around parallel to the ground. You will observe both balls in perfect line while the outer ball travels farther and faster.

Not true --- try it for yourself. What happens will depend on the relative masses of the two balls. Simple Physics.

JackRT · May 20, 2019

The real problem is that there is no self consistent model of a flat earth cosmology that has ever been published. What we get instead are some rather vague hand waving arguments but nothing of real substance. Moreover what is totally lacking is any observationally based, experimentally verified system of physics that enable exact calculations that conform to the observed data.

For example the Coreolis Effect is not a fraud a real observable phenomenon. If you start with Newton's Laws Gravity and Motion and apply them to a globular rotating planet, gyroscopic effects become obvious with Coreolis effects as a consequence. We observe this not only on earth but in the storms visible in Jupiter's atmosphere particularly the gigantic storm known as the Great Red Spot. Another consequence of the gyroscopic effects is the observed precession of the earth on its axis.

Tanj · May 20, 2019

Tanj said:
Good grief mate, way to obscure the conversation. I'll add that to the list of flat earth defenses.

Let's see if you can address the actual point:
--------------------
Someone in the northern hemisphere sees all stars, regardless of where they are looking, rotate counter clockwise around a central point (the north pole)

Someone in the southern hemisphere sees all stars, regardless of where they are looking, rotate clockwise around a central point (the south pole)
-----------------------

This cannot happen in a flat earth model. flat earth has no south pole. in a flat earth model, everyone everywhere sees the stars rotating in the same direction.

Tanj said:
In fact, it is such a nail in the flat earth coffin I have only ever seen two responses:

1) Ignore it, and pretend the post never happened.
2) Call everyone that lives in the southern hemisphere a liar.

For the record, JB went with option 1.

Trogdor the Burninator · May 20, 2019

JacksBratt said:
I have seen the midnight sun for myself, in the north.. Have not yet seen any proof of it in the south... There are many videos but all are edited.

You're defaulting to the conspiracy rather than looking at the evidence. You've seen the midnight sun yourself, yet all videos from the south must be edited, because conspiracy.

Well I've seen the days lengthen in the south, no video editing required. And if you want to see midnight sun, there are endless options for tours to the Antarctic to see it for yourself.

The problem with the seasonal lengthening of days in the southern hemisphere is that it blows the FE model out of the water - the FE sun movement simply can't describe it. Sure, you can say that the sun takes a shorter orbit to give longer days in the northern summer, since the FE model has the north pole at it's centre. But for it to work in the south, the sun would have to be everywhere at once, since the FE model describes the southern part of the Earth as an outer ring.

Rick Otto · May 22, 2019

JacksBratt said:
...

You cannot explain any of the things that I have mentioned... Just as you cannot explain how the stars move... or any of the hundreds of mysterious but observable and repeating events here on our own earth.

Oh, by the way, I did sneak in an easy one... and you missed it..

The whole "roots grow down and stems grow up" Yeah... that's already a very simple phenomenon that I learned in grade 12 biology.....and... you missed it...

So..... you're on your own.

God bless.

Have any of "them" explained how rockets work in "a vacuum of space"?

Yttrium · May 22, 2019

Rick Otto said:
Have any of "them" explained how rockets work in "a vacuum of space"?

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you shove stuff out one end of a rocket, the rocket body moves in the opposite direction. It works better in space, since there's no wind resistance.

You believe me, right? I used to work in the satellite industry, so of course I'm completely trustworthy on this.

Kate30 · May 22, 2019

Rick Otto said:
Have any of "them" explained how rockets work in "a vacuum of space"?

Probably not. The only explanation I can think of. Is a ample supply of oxygen on the rocket or craft itself. But how much air would be required I’m not sure. And even if it is feasible once in space. Rockets need air to burn and function do they not ?

Yttrium · May 22, 2019

Kate30 said:
Rockets need air to burn and function do they not ?

That's what those big liquid oxygen tanks are for.

Kate30 · May 22, 2019

Yttrium said:
That's what those big liquid oxygen tanks are for.

Yes that’s true with the initial launch . But what about in deep space. Those tanks are pretty well spent and ejected before they leave our atmosphere.

Yttrium · May 22, 2019

Kate30 said:
Yes that’s true with the initial launch . But what about in deep space. Those tanks are pretty well spent and ejected before they leave our atmosphere.

You can slap an oxidizer tank on any ol' spacecraft. They're not just for the boosters.

St. Helens · May 22, 2019

MOD HAT ON
Address the content of the post and not he poster
Please do not denigrate the other side of the argument.
MOD HAT OFF

Kate30 · May 22, 2019

Yttrium said:
You can slap an oxidizer tank on any ol' spacecraft. They're not just for the boosters.

Thank you Yttruim I shall look into I shall look into that more.

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith · May 23, 2019

Check out these videos OP:

Rick Otto · May 23, 2019

Yttrium said:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you shove stuff out one end of a rocket, the rocket body moves in the opposite direction. It works better in space, since there's no wind resistance.

You believe me, right? I used to work in the satellite industry, so of course I'm completely trustworthy on this.

Of course, but how can you not see you're only looking at half the equation?
There's no resistance ANYwhere, hence nothing for our rocket to push against except itself.
Pretty shocking, right?
You worked in a windowshop operation. Best in the world.
Be proud. I'm sure you did for the best of intentions.

Rick Otto · May 23, 2019

Kate30 said:
Probably not. The only explanation I can think of. Is a ample supply of oxygen on the rocket or craft itself. But how much air would be required I’m not sure. And even if it is feasible once in space. Rockets need air to burn and function do they not ?

Not a fuel problem, a basic physics problem. They push against gravity and / or density, neither of which are present on a scale to provide resistance for lift. Pretty simple.
I wonder what it was like for the guy who invented the wheel, lol.
Some thought he was genius, some thought he was crazy, some wanted to kill him, etc.

Yttrium · May 23, 2019

Rick Otto said:
Of course, but how can you not see you're only looking at half the equation?
There's no resistance ANYwhere, hence nothing for our rocket to push against except itself.

So let me see here. If a rocket is traveling through the air, the propellant is shoved out the back and pushes against the air, which pushes the rocket forward?

Hmm. That seems tricky to me. I mean, the propellant is behind the rocket now, so it would have to bounce back after hitting the air and push the rocket forward, right? But then it runs into more propellant getting pushed out. Would air even provide enough resistance to bounce the propellant back hard enough anyway?

Hmm. Hmm. I dunno. When we say "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", it doesn't really say it needs something to push against. Push one way, move the other. Does it need to be more complicated than that? Then again, physics is strange and hard to figure out.

I'm sure you did for the best of intentions.

Muhahaha!

Rick Otto · May 23, 2019

Kate30 said:
Probably not. The only explanation I can think of. Is a ample supply of oxygen on the rocket or craft itself. But how much air would be required I’m not sure. And even if it is feasible once in space. Rockets need air to burn and function do they not ?

Not a fuel problem, a basic physics problem. They push against gravity and / or density, neither of which are present on a scale to provide resistance for lift. Pretty simple.
I wonder what it was like for the guy who invented the wheel, lol.
Some thought he was genius, some thought he was crazy, some wanted to kill him, etc.

Rick Otto · May 23, 2019

Yttrium said:
So let me see here. If a rocket is traveling through the air, the propellant is shoved out the back and pushes against the air, which pushes the rocket forward?

Hmm. That seems tricky to me. I mean, the propellant is behind the rocket now, so it would have to bounce back after hitting the air and push the rocket forward, right? But then it runs into more propellant getting pushed out. Would air even provide enough resistance to bounce the propellant back hard enough anyway?

Hmm. Hmm. I dunno. When we say "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", it doesn't really say it needs something to push against. Push one way, move the other. Does it need to be more complicated than that? Then again, physics is strange and hard to figure out.

Muhahaha!

OK. It pushes against the rocket. lol
Long day behind a chainsaw here.

Why hide it?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Redefined comfortable middle class

Senior Veteran

The Dude Abides

Independent Centrist

Active Member

Independent Centrist

Active Member

Independent Centrist

I stand with Israel

Active Member

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Independent Centrist

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Similar threads