Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
You've had the explanation, and you know what it is: because that's teh speed required to exceed arth's gravitational pull.

Weaker is not non-existent. The pull of a HUGE body of mass on a very very small body of mass does not change significantly over a couple of hundred miles.

I put these two claims together, to show your two entirely conflicting claims.

The first claim is that rockets must gain so much more speed to 'exceed' the pull of 'gravity.

The second claim is that gravity is weaker, but not 'much' weaker, at such an altitude, where a rocket 'breaks free' or 'exceeds the pull' of 'gravity'.


If you cannot grasp that these two claims are entirely contradictory, let me help you out.....

You claim that a rocket must gain speed to 'break free' from gravity, while also claiming gravity is slightly weaker, where a rocket must gain speed to 'break free' of 'gravity'. Did the rocket not already fly straight up at launch, starting at 0 mph, to 300 mph, and 500 mph, where gravity was actually STONGER?

So why would a rocket need to fly 25,000 mph to 'break free' of 'gravity', after it launched off Earth at maybe 500 mph, where the 'gravity' was stronger, yet it was being 'broken through' by the rocket?

Isn't the rocket 'breaking through' gravity, at about 500-1000 mph, while at gravity's strongest point, and it's strongest 'pull'?

The strongest 'pull' was when it launched, so 'gravity' only gets weaker after that point, right?

So if a rocket flew straight up, the 'gravity' would be weaker and weaker, according to your own claim. It would NOT need more speed to 'break free' of it, right? It would already have enough speed to do it.

A rocket flies straight up to, say, 20,000 feet.

If the rocket kept flying straight up, for another 20,000 feet, the gravity would be the same, or slightly weaker, than during the FIRST 20,000 feet it flew.

And the NEXT 20,000 feet would be the same, or slightly weaker gravity, too.


And so would the next 60,000 feet, too. And the next 60,000 feet, and so on, all the way up from Earth.


Do you finally understand the point here?

a reply to: turbonium1

And meteorites fall to earth. By wouldn’t a rocket be able to travel into space where meteorites originate.

a reply to: turbonium1

And meteorites fall to earth. Why wouldn’t a rocket be able to travel into space where meteorites originate.

a reply to: neutronflux

Doesn't seem to make much sense.

When you can 't answer simple questions.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: neutronflux

Doesn't seem to make much sense.

When you can 't answer simple questions.

What question concerning the topic between the threads “ Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!” And “ The flat earth conspiracy” has not been repeatedly and credible answer?

But thank you for keeping the theory of trolling alive.

originally posted by: turbonium1
A rocket flies straight up to, say, 20,000 feet.

If the rocket kept flying straight up, for another 20,000 feet, the gravity would be the same, or slightly weaker, than during the FIRST 20,000 feet it flew.

And the NEXT 20,000 feet would be the same, or slightly weaker gravity, too.


And so would the next 60,000 feet, too. And the next 60,000 feet, and so on, all the way up from Earth.


Do you finally understand the point here?

Please use an actual mission where a rocket flew straight up as a bases for an example. I think orbital mechanics have repeatedly peen posted for you, and why lunching a satellite requires a curve trajectory.

originally posted by: turbonium1
A rocket flies straight up to, say, 20,000 feet.

If the rocket kept flying straight up, for another 20,000 feet, the gravity would be the same, or slightly weaker, than during the FIRST 20,000 feet it flew.

And the NEXT 20,000 feet would be the same, or slightly weaker gravity, too.


And so would the next 60,000 feet, too. And the next 60,000 feet, and so on, all the way up from Earth.


Do you finally understand the point here?

WTF does "all the way up from earth" mean?

what happens after 100k feet when the force runs out as you describe in your stupid brick theory?

Said Rocket would come straight back down... which is why it never happens except with model rockets

You don't have a point... you just don't know anything logical about.... well, anything relating to this topic

originally posted by: Akragon
Said Rocket would come straight back down... which is why it never happens except with model rockets

And why would the rocket 'come back down, if the 'gravity' is weaker, than it was, when the rocket first launched, and when it flew to 20,000 feet?

Simply saying it would 'come back down' is hardly an answer, in case you don't know that yet, or pretend to not know it, like usual.

a reply to: turbonium1

Here's a small hint - once a rocket exhausts its fuel, then inertia takes over, followed by gravity. It's very simple. No more fuel = fizzing noises and then silence.
Dude your schtick is getting weak. You need better material. You're not as amusing as you used to be.

a reply to: turbonium1

If it is orbit. It’s velocity balances out the pull of gravity.

Anyway

And meteorites fall to earth. Why wouldn’t a rocket be able to travel into space where meteorites originate.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

Here's a small hint - once a rocket exhausts its fuel, then inertia takes over, followed by gravity. It's very simple. No more fuel = fizzing noises and then silence.
Dude your schtick is getting weak. You need better material. You're not as amusing as you used to be.

Dude, the rocket would use far less fuel flying straight up, than it would by flying around your ball-Earth once, so get serious. Isn't it 24,000 miles around Earth, and about 5600 miles to 'orbit'? Guess which one uses more fuel? Need a hint?

Nice try. Any other excuses you'd like to try out? You are the one who needs much better material.

a reply to: neutronflux

You still didn't answer the question.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

Here's a small hint - once a rocket exhausts its fuel, then inertia takes over, followed by gravity. It's very simple. No more fuel = fizzing noises and then silence.
Dude your schtick is getting weak. You need better material. You're not as amusing as you used to be.

Dude, the rocket would use far less fuel flying straight up, than it would by flying around your ball-Earth once, so get serious. Isn't it 24,000 miles around Earth, and about 5600 miles to 'orbit'? Guess which one uses more fuel? Need a hint?

Nice try. Any other excuses you'd like to try out? You are the one who needs much better material.

Oh no, you're the one who seriously needs the new material. You either don't understand basic science or (and more likely) you like to drag these nonsense threads out a lot because you've made a bet with someone to see how many pages you can extend the argument out to, with you denying facts, twisting science until it squeaks or pretending that your nonsense hasn't been refuted into extinction long before. C'mon, who did you place the bet with? I really want to know!

a reply to: turbonium1

Uh-huh, so you're arguing that by ascending vertically 200 miles it is automatically and magically in orbit.

If only those actual rocket scientists knew that, they could save so much money. Still, I'm sure you can supply calculations and so on to support this.

We'll wait.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Uh-huh, so you're arguing that by ascending vertically 200 miles it is automatically and magically in orbit.

If only those actual rocket scientists knew that, they could save so much money. Still, I'm sure you can supply calculations and so on to support this.

We'll wait.

If a rocket went straight up it would come straight down when it ran out of fuel. Luckily he was not in charge of the space program he would have never figured out how to put something in orbit.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

If it is orbit. It’s velocity balances out the pull of gravity.

The rocket would be in weaker gravity, so it wouldn't need more velocity, that's the problem.

Consider just the first 20,000 feet altitude, where gravity is supposed to be strongest. The next 60.000 feet up has far less air resistance than going 60,000 feet across, at the same 20,000 feet altitude, right? Right, that's why airplanes fly at 50,000 feet, because it uses far less fuel than flying at 20,000 feet.

So when a rocket veers off at LOWER than 50,000 feet, that shows it is NOT flying into 'orbit', because if it DID, then it would fly to at LEAST 50,000 feet altitude straight up, because the gravity would be weaker, and there would be less and less air resistance at the same time. And the rocket would also be able to go faster - just like airplanes can, flying at 50,000 feet, where there is much less air resistance.
i

Use your brain for once, this is not hard to understand. The whole thing is BS, stop looking for any excuse to try and defend their ridiculous fairy tale.

a reply to: turbonium1

And you failed to grasp a fairly simple point, again:

Earth very big mass. Very big mass very big gravitational pull.

Rocket very small mass. Very small mass not that far away from very big mass.

Rockets and satellites orbit at a point where their angular momentum balances out the gravitational pull of Earth. Any slower, the fall back to Earth. Any faster, they escape it.

Please supply your calculations to demonstrate that a rocket 200 miles up is experiencing significantly less gravitational pull from Earth than it did on the ground. Until you do that, we'll just carry on with the assumption that you know nothing.

a reply to: turbonium1

Ok let me say sending a rocket straight up requires more fuel. Even with apollo they did what is called a slingshot. What you do to reach escape velocity is use half an orbit to acelerate. On satellites your trying to put them in orbit so you have to trade hieght for volocity. The escape velocity for Earth's surface is about 36,700 feet per second.You could do a direct launch to say the moon but going straight up prolongs that flight.

With apollo They used something called a “gravitational slingshot” it is a gravity assist that will speed up an actual spacecraft. This is how voyager made its way to the edge of our solar system we stole energy from the planets it visited. I really not going to go into how the space craft steals energy from the planet as i have the feeling this will be well beyond your understanding. But i will say we can steal energy from the planet because its in motion.

originally posted by: turbonium1
So when we look at ball-Earth maps from the 1800's, or earlier, they do NOT show any sort of 'continent' called Antarctica on them. They show the Antarctic Sea, and something called the 'Icy Sea', directly at the 'South Pole', in and 1816 map. Other maps show nothing but a Southern Sea, others have some variation on it, but none of them show land, or a continent, on the ball-Earth maps.

Turbonium was busy spewing spam in the thread he nearly got away with this.

Here's a couple of nice Victorian globes showing Antarctica:

jasonclarkeantiques.co.uk...

www.worthpoint.com...

The fact is that there are maps from the 1800s showing what was known.

This site explains the history of Antarctica in maps:

oceanwide-expeditions.com...

including many very old examples all based on Earth being a sphere and all showing a southern landmass.

Here's another collection relating to Scott's ill fated expedition:

oshermaps.org...

and it includes maps from the mid-19th century clearly showing an Antarctic landmass. Other parts of the site show much older maps also showing an antarctic landmass:

oshermaps.org...

Bogus FE maps showing some sort of land mass around the edge of a mythical disc do not prove the Earth is flat, and turbonium's claim is, as usual, completely false.