Flat earth theory?

The first photo of earth from space shows curvature .

a reply to: turbonium1

We do know you literally make up crap...

In regards to the video of the “ice wall” you linked to in a post...

neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Really. Looks like a normal glacier to me.

You

Here's a video of the ice wall...

www.youtube.com...

That’s not the your supposed ice wall because you said:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Planes cannot fly to the wall, nor a blimp, nor anything else can do it.

The weather is very extreme, apparently, all of the time, flight is not possible. Other means of travel don't work, either.

Thanks for proving you post blatant falsehoods.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

You don't even understand what an orbit is.

The area where imaginary rockets fly around an imaginary round ball, flying through space!!

So? How’s does the “fixed” firmament account for all the visible man made objects added to the night sky visible with the unaided eye? international space station, Hubble Space Telescope, satellites....

Or the thousands of objects broadcasting down from space to earth.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

I've never seen the great wall of China.
Have you?

No, but we can both go to China, and see the Great Wall, anytime at all, if we wish to prove - in person - that the Great Wall really does exist!! Right?


Nobody can see if a rocket actually flies up towards 'orbit', though.


Nice try.

You can look up and see the ISS orbiting the Earth with your own eyes or use binoculars or a telescope. You can also see satellites exactly where they are supposed to be.

Is there no end to your nonsense?

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

GRAVITY

is how they maintain the curved trajectory

since you dont adhere to the gravitational field theory !

you just have to assume its fake ,

so leave it at that , if you arent willing to learn about orbital mechanics or gravitational field theory
you can just chalk it up to , intelligent pulling, god , or whatever other wack job theory they have invented

Or better yet , like I said , debunk it with your own theory , like I said , the onus is on you to prove that gravity isnt real , and replace it with something else that works based on your own evidence and ideas.

If you are smarter than Issac newton , then show us your own theory on how all of this works
, I find it laughable that you believe that you are smarter than the greatest minds in earths history !

but yet you havent proven anything , you just reply to people who are honestly just trying to enlighten you with knowledge which is the culmination of the greatest minds ever.

You are literally spitting in the face of human progression , for what , to be different ? to be edgy , or just to be a #

and you wonder why people treat you with contempt or disdain.

a reply to: turbonium1

right so thousands of space tourists cant goto cape canaveral and watch rockets launching into space ?

nor watch any of the space X launches since they are becoming more and more popular with space tourism
because they are breaking flight records .


Honestly mate, just because you have never personally witnessed something doesnt mean that it isnt real
for the millions who have !

a reply to: turbonium1

You've never seen a rocket fly towards 'orbit', from Earth.

You still think rockets should fly straight up because you don't understand orbital mechanics.

Please explain how we can see the ISS, exactly where it is supposed to be.

Please also post another video of your Ice Wall, taken by people on a plane flying along it where no planes, according to you, can supposedly fly. Still laughing at you about that one.

When you post so many lies I suppose it gets a bit tricky to be consistent.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

You don't even understand what an orbit is.

The area where imaginary rockets fly around an imaginary round ball, flying through space!!

Orbit is not really an "area". It's not a special place.

It's a path taken by an object. That orbital path -- theoretically speaking -- can happen at any altitude above the surface of another body if the orbiting object can move fast enough.

Hypothetically, if a planet or other body was perfectly smooth and had no atmosphere to cause friction or drag, an object could orbit that planet at, say, 10 feet from the surface, as long as the object was moving fast enough parallel to the surface.

a reply to: Box of Rain

Sure...as long as you replace Earth with something that has the same mass of the earth. Obviously there needs to be something of mass for there to be gravity.

So when did reality replace the Earth with something that has the same mass of the Earth? You keep posting hypothetical drivel to get away from the fact that the center of gravity is just a point in space, in this case the middle point of the object Earth. Of course a satellite rotates around this point because it orbits the Earth, which it can only do by falling around curvature.

You keep acting like this point in space is an object of mass. You keep confusing cause and effect. You guys say a satellite orbits Earth because it orbits the Earths center of gravity but its the other way around. It can rotate around the center of gravity, the middle point of a sphere in this case, because it is falling around the Earth. You guys are being ridiculous.

Again,

Finally, a satellite does fall towards the Earth; only it never falls into the Earth. To understand this concept, we have to remind ourselves of the fact that the Earth is round; that is the Earth curves.

To avoid hitting the Earth, an orbiting projectile must be launched with a horizontal speed of 8000 m/s. When launched at this speed, the projectile will fall towards the Earth with a trajectory which matches the curvature of the Earth.

As such, the projectile will fall around the Earth, always accelerating towards it under the influence of gravity, yet never colliding into it since the Earth is constantly curving at the same rate. Such a projectile is an orbiting satellite.

Can someone now respond to this.

A geostationary satellite does not do that. Your hilarious excuse that it is rotating around the center of gravity is not an explanation. Its an observation. Yes it obviously rotates around a point in space, the problem is that you have no mechanism to explain it since it isnt orbiting the Earth.

It seems you guys dont even understand what the words center of gravity and orbit mean.


Oh and geostationary orbits debunked.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

Sure...as long as you replace Earth with something that has the same mass of the earth. Obviously there needs to be something of mass for there to be gravity.

a reply to: Box of Rain

So when did reality replace the Earth with something that has the same mass of the Earth? You keep posting hypothetical drivel to get away from the fact the center of gravity is just a point in space, in this case the middle point of the object Earth. Of course a satellite rotates around this point beause it orbits the Earth, which it can only do by falling around curvature.

We are talking mechanics that can be applied to any situation or scenario. So hypothetical scenarios can help us fully understand how those mechanics work. Thought experiments are our friends.

You said the diameter of the Earth matters when it comes to how a satellite at an altitude of approx 27,000 miles from the center of Earth's gravity (such as a geostationary satellite you mentioned) is affected by the gravity of the Earth.

My hypothetical (but valid) scenarios show that the diameter of the Earth doesn't matter. A satellite orbiting at 27,000 miles from the center will orbit the Earth the same way if the Earth were 8000 miles in diameter or only 5 miles in diameter, as long as the mass stays the same.

Mass matters. Diameter does not. The thought experiments help us see this.

Do you agree or disagree that it's the mass of a body and not the diameter that matters when it comes to orbital mechanics (that is, as long as that orbit is larger than the diameter)?

a reply to: Box of Rain

InfiniteTrinity debunked. It's over!

a reply to: Box of Rain

Sorry nothing you say relates to the points I made.

Geostationary satellites debunked.

a reply to: Box of Rain

Do you agree or disagree that it's the mass of a body and not the diameter that matters when it comes to orbital mechanics (that is, as long as that orbit is larger than the diameter)?

Exactly, the body. Not the center of gravity of the body. Thank you.

Geostationary satellites debunked.

Again, do you even know what center of gravity means. You guys are hilarious.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Height over Earth = 3rd root of (Gravitationalconstant/(4*pi^2) * MassEarth * OrbitalPeriod^2) - RadiusEarth

Set OrbitalPeriod = 86160 s (23hrs 56 mins)
Set MassEarth = 5.972 * 10^24 kg
Set Gravitationalconstant = 6.664 * 10^-11 m^3/(kg*s^2)
Set RadiusEarth = 6.371 * 10^6 m

Done.

Edit: "Height over Earth" = Distance from Earth's surface to the orbit of the satellite.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Well, that's going to baffle a certain troll.

a reply to: oldcarpy

I have no real hopes here, anymore. I'm trying.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

What is your point? I am asking you to explain HOW it is there. Sheesh. Can you say something relevant now in response to the points I made.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

You are a better man than me! I can just picture our friend frantically Googling away whilst scratching it's pointy little head.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Well, that's going to baffle a certain troll.

Ooh. Because of teh numbers Old Derpy?

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

Do you agree or disagree that it's the mass of a body and not the diameter that matters when it comes to orbital mechanics (that is, as long as that orbit is larger than the diameter)?

Exactly, the body. Not the center of gravity of the body. Thank you.

Geostationary satellites debunked.

Again, do you even know what center of gravity means. You guys are hilarious.

If you jump to inaccurate conclusions like that, no wonder you are still confused.

The "body" i mentioned above could have a diameter of 1000 miles or 1 mile. If the mass is the same regardless of diameter, the orbital mechanics of objects measured from the center would be the same.

Instead of finding things that [you believe] are "gotcha! moments", why don't you just focus and simply answer this question:

"Would Earth's orbit through the solar system change if the Sun were replaced by an object with a diameter of 10 miles but with the same mass of the Sun?"