International Space Station

  • 121 Replies
  • 11684 Views
*

FlatEarthDenial

  • 303
  • FE is anti-science.
International Space Station
« on: October 04, 2014, 06:56:47 AM »
Astronauts at the ISS are weightless because of centrifugal force from the rotation around the Earth, and not because of their altitude. The illusion of the centrifugal force cannot be caused by aetheric wind from stars simply because they are 3100 miles up in the sky, and the ISS is less than 300 miles. You can claim that ISS is a part of conspiracy, but you cannot claim the same for thousands of artificial satellites relying on the centrifugal force.
Try to give me some explanation of weightlessness of astronauts (and artificial satellites) in the space.
A former Flat Earther.
This is my story, which I'd encourage every Flat Earther to read:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67051.0

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2014, 08:41:08 AM »
Astronauts appear "weightless" because they're in free fall. That is, their environment (the ISS or whatever) is continually falling toward the center of the Earth at the same rate every non-attached object inside it is falling.

You can have the same effect for about 1 second if you jump off a 5m diving platform. If, after you jump, you hold an object like an orange in front of you and let go, it'll fall at the same rate as you and appear float in front of you (until you hit the water). The "Vomit Comet" can achieve the same effect for longer by going into a dive that matches the acceleration of gravity for thousands of meters.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22796
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2014, 01:19:40 AM »
Astronauts appear "weightless" because they're in free fall. That is, their environment (the ISS or whatever) is continually falling toward the center of the Earth at the same rate every non-attached object inside it is falling.

You can have the same effect for about 1 second if you jump off a 5m diving platform. If, after you jump, you hold an object like an orange in front of you and let go, it'll fall at the same rate as you and appear float in front of you (until you hit the water). The "Vomit Comet" can achieve the same effect for longer by going into a dive that matches the acceleration of gravity for thousands of meters.
It actually makes no sense at all for the supposed ISS. It makes perfect sense for a vomit comet. The supposed ISS is not acting like the vomit comet, though.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2014, 05:25:25 AM »
It actually makes no sense at all for the supposed ISS. It makes perfect sense for a vomit comet. The supposed ISS is not acting like the vomit comet, though.


Q1)   Are you indirectly claiming that the ISS does not exist?

Q2)   Do you possess hitherto publicly undisclosed information supporting that claim?

Q3)   Can you provide a link to that information?


Re: International Space Station
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2014, 06:33:43 AM »
Astronauts appear "weightless" because they're in free fall. That is, their environment (the ISS or whatever) is continually falling toward the center of the Earth at the same rate every non-attached object inside it is falling.

You can have the same effect for about 1 second if you jump off a 5m diving platform. If, after you jump, you hold an object like an orange in front of you and let go, it'll fall at the same rate as you and appear float in front of you (until you hit the water). The "Vomit Comet" can achieve the same effect for longer by going into a dive that matches the acceleration of gravity for thousands of meters.
It actually makes no sense at all for the supposed ISS. It makes perfect sense for a vomit comet. The supposed ISS is not acting like the vomit comet, though.
They, and everything inside them, are both following ballistic trajectories. Sorry if this doesn't make sense to you; it's still true.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22796
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2014, 07:08:29 AM »
Astronauts appear "weightless" because they're in free fall. That is, their environment (the ISS or whatever) is continually falling toward the center of the Earth at the same rate every non-attached object inside it is falling.

You can have the same effect for about 1 second if you jump off a 5m diving platform. If, after you jump, you hold an object like an orange in front of you and let go, it'll fall at the same rate as you and appear float in front of you (until you hit the water). The "Vomit Comet" can achieve the same effect for longer by going into a dive that matches the acceleration of gravity for thousands of meters.
It actually makes no sense at all for the supposed ISS. It makes perfect sense for a vomit comet. The supposed ISS is not acting like the vomit comet, though.
They, and everything inside them, are both following ballistic trajectories. Sorry if this doesn't make sense to you; it's still true.
No they aren't following ballistic trajectories at all. People are just conned into believing they are, yet it comes down to using common sense to see it's nonsense.

It's easy to see why a plane  can mimic what's known as so called zero gravity but in truth it's mimicking terminal velocity, only falling marginally faster than the persons/objects inside of it which gives them the feeling of what's known as zero gravity or weightlessness.

If the ISS was really in space it would literally have to fall towards Earth in the very same way the plane does.
Of course, we get told that "no, no, it falls around the Earth because it's going 18,000 mph."
Anyone using their common sense should understand that to fall around a ball like we are told, the ISS would have to keep losing altitude because we are told so called gravity is pulling them into the centre of Earth.

What's their answer for why it doesn't?
Well, it's the old centripetal force effect or to put it plainly, the ISS is going so fast that it would normally just fly off into space...but, the old swing ball string of gravity keeps pulling it back in every time it tries to take that slingshot, because the ISS is the tennis ball attached to the swing ball string.

Now think about what I've just said. You see there are two forces at work with this fantasy model.
1. You have the ISS wanting to piss off into space at 18,000 mph sling shot speed.

2.Earth gravity tensions the invisble string to make sure this does not happen.

Ok, so what do we have from this?
Well, it's neither falling nor slingshotting into space.
If that is the case, then it should be sensible to assume that the occupants inside of the (cough) ISS would actually feel the force of the part of the ISS panelling that faces away from the Earth. In other words, they should be stuck to it like limpets.

Not convinced?

Ok, then let's shrink you down and put you inside that swing ball tennis ball then set this swingball into motion.

Question: Where do you think your body will be inside that balls inner skin.

1. Floating about enjoying yourself?

2. Stuck to the inner skin of the ball facing away from the string and pole?

People: your minds have been totally battered and mashed up with fantasy science.
You see: mainstream science does explain all these things but they are explained using fantasy not logic and common sense.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2014, 07:11:54 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2014, 09:07:50 AM »
What the fuck are you rambling on about now?

Your understanding of basic physics is so horrible it makes my dog cry.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22796
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2014, 09:31:47 AM »
What the fuck are you rambling on about now?

Your understanding of basic physics is so horrible it makes my dog cry.
It's about all I can expect to be honest. It's not your fault I suppose.

*

macrohard

  • 139
  • IQ over 180
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2014, 12:39:55 PM »
The reason astronauts are not thrown against the far wall of the ISS is because the string (gravity) is also attached to them.  They are falling towards the earth at the same rate that the station is.

Analogies are fine to explain some things but should not be taken too literally.

Next question!

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2014, 09:50:53 AM »
I'm sure by now everyone will have noted that sceptimatic has conveniently avoided responding to my three simple questions (above)...

Quote
Q1)   Are you indirectly claiming that the ISS does not exist?

Q2)   Do you possess hitherto publicly undisclosed information supporting that claim?

Q3)   Can you provide a link to that information?

      Q4)   Are you unable to adequately address any of these questions sceptimatic?



?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22796
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2014, 09:57:37 AM »
The reason astronauts are not thrown against the far wall of the ISS is because the string (gravity) is also attached to them.  They are falling towards the earth at the same rate that the station is.

Analogies are fine to explain some things but should not be taken too literally.

Next question!
Never mind, next question. This one has not been answered with anything that makes sense at all.


Re: International Space Station
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2014, 10:58:47 AM »
Nothing, aside from your own fantasies, makes much sense to you.  Then again macrohard's explanation was pretty poor.

Just google it.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2014, 12:52:44 PM »
Never mind, next question. This one has not been answered with anything that makes sense at all.


Is there any particular reason you've ignored my questions to you sceptimatic?  (Directly above your last post.)

It should be easy stuff for a renowned research scientist such as yourself surely?    ???


*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2014, 01:51:58 PM »
Never mind, next question. This one has not been answered with anything that makes sense at all.


Is there any particular reason you've ignored my questions to you sceptimatic?  (Directly above your last post.)

It should be easy stuff for a renowned research scientist such as yourself surely?    ???

I will venture a guess: You are ignored because you are annoying as fuck.  If this was a cocktail party you would not have been invited.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2014, 02:22:10 PM »
I will venture a guess: You are ignored because you are annoying as fuck.  If this was a cocktail party you would not have been invited.


Oh gee whiz, golly gosh... now you've really cut me to the hyponychium my dear stalker.  Such clever repartee.

    ;D


*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2014, 07:32:37 PM »
I will venture a guess: You are ignored because you are annoying as fuck.  If this was a cocktail party you would not have been invited.


Oh gee whiz, golly gosh... now you've really cut me to the hyponychium my dear stalker.  Such clever repartee.

    ;D

After your smug sense of superiority subsides you will realize that you have helped no one and learned nothing here.... I hope. Otherwise you will remain in your egotistical purgatory.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2014, 07:35:07 PM »
Astronauts at the ISS are weightless because of centrifugal force from the rotation around the Earth, and not because of their altitude. The illusion of the centrifugal force cannot be caused by aetheric wind from stars simply because they are 3100 miles up in the sky, and the ISS is less than 300 miles. You can claim that ISS is a part of conspiracy, but you cannot claim the same for thousands of artificial satellites relying on the centrifugal force.
Try to give me some explanation of weightlessness of astronauts (and artificial satellites) in the space.

How do you know the properties of aetheric wind well enough to tell what it can and can't do?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2014, 09:21:49 PM »
Astronauts at the ISS are weightless because of centrifugal force from the rotation around the Earth, and not because of their altitude. The illusion of the centrifugal force cannot be caused by aetheric wind from stars simply because they are 3100 miles up in the sky, and the ISS is less than 300 miles. You can claim that ISS is a part of conspiracy, but you cannot claim the same for thousands of artificial satellites relying on the centrifugal force.
Try to give me some explanation of weightlessness of astronauts (and artificial satellites) in the space.

How do you know the properties of aetheric wind well enough to tell what it can and can't do?

No one knows the properties of Aetheric Wind.  Some people hope to know its properties one day though.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2014, 09:57:02 PM »
After your smug sense of superiority subsides you will realize that you have helped no one and learned nothing here.... I hope. Otherwise you will remain in your egotistical purgatory.


I thank you for at least acknowledging my superior intellect my dear stalker.  And I'm more than certain that my comments have enlightened a lot of people (other than your good self of course) about some of the scientific truths that govern out planet and our universe.  Rather than post your childish one-liner put-downs ad nauseam, it may be more worth your time to post some sort of constructive comments to these forums.

—Assuming you're capable of that LOL.

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2014, 07:08:37 AM »
Astronauts at the ISS are weightless because of centrifugal force from the rotation around the Earth, and not because of their altitude. The illusion of the centrifugal force cannot be caused by aetheric wind from stars simply because they are 3100 miles up in the sky, and the ISS is less than 300 miles. You can claim that ISS is a part of conspiracy, but you cannot claim the same for thousands of artificial satellites relying on the centrifugal force.
Try to give me some explanation of weightlessness of astronauts (and artificial satellites) in the space.

How do you know the properties of aetheric wind well enough to tell what it can and can't do?
I think we can get a good idea from this photo:

Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2014, 08:52:48 AM »
I think we can get a good idea from this photo:




Is that a genuine photograph?  Looks more like just a diagram to me.  And I don't think there's any leaves in the upper atmoplane is there?

—Any flat earther care to verify, or refute this photo?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22796
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2014, 09:36:33 AM »
I think we can get a good idea from this photo:




Is that a genuine photograph?  Looks more like just a diagram to me.  And I don't think there's any leaves in the upper atmoplane is there?

—Any flat earther care to verify, or refute this photo?
It's probably a photo of a drawing. No way is that real wind though.

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2014, 03:11:59 AM »
It's an actual photo - I use very specialist lenses.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22796
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2014, 03:19:47 AM »
It's an actual photo - I use very specialist lenses.
Luckily I trust you, so I'll take your word for it. ;)

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #24 on: October 17, 2014, 09:46:24 AM »

If the ISS was really in space

Do you believe that the ISS is not up there in space? The ISS can be seen by the naked Eye. It's up in space alright. You can see for yourself using the help of this web site:

http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/#.VEFDdvnF-z9

I'm curious how FErs explain the fact that the ISS does not come crashing down to earth. How does it stay up there for years?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22796
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #25 on: October 17, 2014, 09:50:21 AM »

If the ISS was really in space

Do you believe that the ISS is not up there in space? The ISS can be seen by the naked Eye. It's up in space alright. You can see for yourself using the help of this web site:

http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/#.VEFDdvnF-z9

I'm curious how FErs explain the fact that the ISS does not come crashing down to earth. How does it stay up there for years?
You don't have a clue what it is up in that sky. All you can go on is seeing some kind of object of unknown shape, unless you want to hang onto the pathetic ones put on the net, supposedly taken by random amateurs.
I wasted my time typing all that to you in your OP, didn't I?  ::)

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #26 on: October 17, 2014, 10:09:30 AM »

You don't have a clue what it is up in that sky. All you can go on is seeing some kind of object of unknown shape, unless you want to hang onto the pathetic ones put on the net, supposedly taken by random amateurs.
I wasted my time typing all that to you in your OP, didn't I?  ::)
[/quote]

Well... I have a small telescope and I have seen it zip by on top of me. It sure looks like the space station to me. Not sure what else it would be. Whatever it is, how does it stay up there and not come crashing down?

As for wasting time, if you are interested in debating, it is not a waste of time. If you were looking to convince me on FE based on "common sense", then you might be wasting time as for me, it makes much more common sense for the earth to be a sphere.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22796
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2014, 10:27:46 AM »
Well... I have a small telescope and I have seen it zip by on top of me. It sure looks like the space station to me. Not sure what else it would be. Whatever it is, how does it stay up there and not come crashing down?

As for wasting time, if you are interested in debating, it is not a waste of time. If you were looking to convince me on FE based on "common sense", then you might be wasting time as for me, it makes much more common sense for the earth to be a sphere.
Then you stick to what you were going to anyway. You're not here to find the truth, that much is clear.
Just join the rest of the indoctrinated.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 10:29:26 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2014, 11:16:58 AM »
Then you stick to what you were going to anyway. You're not here to find the truth, that much is clear.
Just join the rest of the indoctrinated.

I am here to find out a certain truth: Why is it so important to you that the earth be flat? It is not common sense to think the earth is flat when you consider how much needs to be explained with very convoluted answers. There are so many household experiments that could be done to prove to yourself that the earth is not flat. This is what I am really curious about and why I came to this site.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22796
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #29 on: October 17, 2014, 11:20:50 AM »
Then you stick to what you were going to anyway. You're not here to find the truth, that much is clear.
Just join the rest of the indoctrinated.

I am here to find out a certain truth: Why is it so important to you that the earth be flat? It is not common sense to think the earth is flat when you consider how much needs to be explained with very convoluted answers. There are so many household experiments that could be done to prove to yourself that the earth is not flat. This is what I am really curious about and why I came to this site.
Name me the household experiments that PROVE the Earth is not flat. Now when you tell me these, I want you to explain why it shows the Earth is not flat. The only thing I ask is - do it on your topic, because this is about the so called, international space station.