Flat earth theory?

a reply to: oldcarpy

Perhaps you should contact the rocket scientists at NASA, ESA etc and put them straight about where they have been going wrong all these years?

Perhaps you can answer the question instead of saying it would be dumb? Why dont you "put me straight". So angry over a question.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: Box of Rain

A rocket that flies straight up will not get into orbit. If it's trajectory is generally straight up (on a path that is generally perpendicular to the ground), then that rocket likely would not achieve orbit. Instead, gravity would crash it back to the ground.

Why not let it fly straight up taking the shortest path possible through the atmosphere then have it turn 90 degrees and use engines to reach orbital speed in the dragless vacuum?

It's done that way because it's easier you dont drive round a corner by going in a straight line then change direction and move off in another straight line. Gravity pulls it into a curve.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Happy to put you straight, your question is answered here:

www.scienceabc.com...

Where do you get "angry" from?

a reply to: oldcarpy

Where do you get "angry" from?

Because of calling it stupid and your unwarranted rant about me not believing the NASA officials. It was just a question and you could have posted this link, that is btw dedicated to this question, right away.

Short answer: Because they want to get into the orbit around the Earth using as little fuel as possible.

If you understood my post then you would have known that this was the point of debate. Why do you think I mentioned the shortest path through the atmosphere and the dragless vacuum?

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

I was going to reply and explain why its nearly impossible for a rocket to do a 90 degree turn on a dime within the earths atmosphere before reaching orbit

as WMD pointed out , gravity will pull the rocket into a natural curve as it accelerates away from the surface of the earth.

You would need to get the rocket out of earths atmosphere, then slow it down , then turn it using small maneuvering thrust then fire off more engines again otherwise you would continue in the already established trajectory based on the thrust produced from the main burn engines , this all requires fuel , and somewhere to store that fuel
and that eats into your launch weight etc and then you need bigger or better engines etc

the way we currently launch rockets is the most efficient , but that was then improved by space X and make them all recoverable now and re enter and land by themselves.


To do the maneuver you suggest in earths atmosphere before an orbit is reached would require technology that actively ignores gravity ! Such as we see in UFO videos.

Once we get the rocket into space it's alot easier to maneuver.

Doing it in vacuum is a lot easier as there is no resistance to the small maneuvering thrust jets. Ones that the ISS has for example , or the small thrusters you see on the space x rockets

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Because of calling it stupid and your unwarranted rant about me not believing the NASA officials. It was just a question and you could have posted this link, that is btw dedicated to this question, right away.

No, I said that a rocket going straight up and then doing a 90 degree turn would be a "dumb" way to get it into orbit - which it would be.

You, of course , could have simply googled "Why do rockets launch straight up" or similar and got your answer but instead you come on here in a Flat Earth thread spoiling for an argument.

"Unwarranted rant"? You think that was a "rant"? My, we are a sensitive little soul, aren't we?

Lighten up a bit.

a reply to: sapien82

To do the maneuver you suggest in earths atmosphere before an orbit is reached would require technology that actively ignores gravity ! Such as we see in UFO videos.

I didnt suggest such a manoeuvre in Earth's atmosphere.

Once we get the rocket into space it's alot easier to maneuver. Doing it in vacuum is a lot easier as there is no resistance to the small maneuvering thrust jets.

That was my point.

So why not shoot it straight up into space and maneuver it into an orbit of your liking, mostly using the gravity pulling you back in?

a reply to: oldcarpy

Can you respond to the point I made?

No, I said that a rocket going straight up and then doing a 90 degree turn would be a "dumb" way to get it into orbit - which it would be.

Because? Your argument still hasnt evolved past "stoopit".

Btw, I am obviously not talking about an instant 90 deg turn.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Perhaps you have not actually read the article that I posted a link to, just for you?

That article answers your questions and more so I have no intention of indulging you in any "argument", "stoopit" or otherwise, thank you.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Why do you think I mentioned the shortest path through the atmosphere and the dragless vacuum?

Because you don't understand what you are talking about and are too lazy to do a bit of Googling and/or you prefer to come on here spoiling for a pointless argument?

I think that just about covers it.

a reply to: oldcarpy

No, it does not. They even say,

Hence, it’s not that rockets simply want to reach ‘space’; they can actually do that using much less fuel.

So again I ask, why not shoot it straight up into space, and let it drift back into the desired orbit using the gravity and a bit of thruster.

a reply to: oldcarpy

No Im pretty sure I mentioned it because my point is that it would cost less fuel to shoot it straight up into space. Really, this should have been clear after reading my initial post.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Because, as you could see from the article if you had read it, the aim is not to get the rocket into space but to get it into orbit.

why not shoot it straight up into space, and let it drift back into the desired orbit using the gravity and a bit of thruster.

Because that would probably result in it falling straight down rather than achieving orbit?

Do some research into it if you really are that interested.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Because that would probably result in it falling straight down rather than achieving orbit?

Do geostationary satellites fall straight down?

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux

I don’t think Einstein believed items sunk through the firmament based solely on the property of density to settle on the earth’s surface either.

No what he thought was even more bizarre, nonsensical and untestable. Of course, believing in "buoyancy and density" as a force is indeed ridiculous because you still need some kind of force that governs it.
But believing in the warping of the non defined spacetime concept as the cause for the phenomenon that we call gravity is the same as a Flat Earther claiming that things just fall down due to Geflavitty, also refered to as Droppitty.

Yet, coupling relativity with gravity calculations results in accurate, reliable, and usable calculations.

Your not here for intellectually honest debate are you.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Do geostationary satellites fall straight down?

Obviously not. They are not really stationary, they are orbiting the Earth, which is spinning, at the same speed as the Earth spins. Here is a handy guide which should answer your question in a bit more detail:

www.nesdis.noaa.gov...

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

They are falling down, the whole time.

They just keep missing earth and stay in their orbit, because their lateral velocity is *exactly* high enough to miss earth and stay in that distance.

Lateral velocity, that is the key some people are missing here.

You cannot stay in orbit without getting shot up in an angle different from 90° towards earths ground.
Look, its really simple: shoot a target with a gun aimed parallel to ground - your projectile hits ground in the distance.
Now, aim straight up, 90° towards ground: the projectile reaches maximum height, but will drop on your head. No distance.
Aim at the middle, 45° = maximum distance. But not in orbit?! Because your nozzle velocity was too low.

Now, point that gun/rocket at the correct angle with enough velocity, and the flying curve of the projectile *just* misses earth. Math is helping here. You can calculate the perfect speeds and angle for every orbit, where that projectile falls around earth instead of missing.

Ignore this posting on your own.

a reply to: neutronflux

"But the math matches up"

Lol, of course it does. The math is based on observation of the effects and says nothing about how it actually works and what it really is, which is what we were discussing.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: oldcarpy

No Im pretty sure I mentioned it because my point is that it would cost less fuel to shoot it straight up into space. Really, this should have been clear after reading my initial post.

How?

Why Do Rockets Follow A Curved Trajectory While Going Into Space?

www.scienceabc.com...

Short answer: Because they want to get into the orbit around the Earth using as little fuel as possible.

Probably along the same lines of logic why you want to launch a rocket at the equator.....

a reply to: oldcarpy

Obviously not. They are not really stationary, they are orbiting the Earth, which is spinning, at the same speed as the Earth spins.

They cannot be orbiting the Earth and be geostationary at the same time.

An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object in space takes around another one.

www.nasa.gov...

A geostationary satellite takes no path around Earth. It stays above the same location relative to the surface.

Game over.