It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Flat earth theory?

page: 151
14
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 01:26 PM

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

According to your logic we could remove the whole Earth around this point, leaving only this mere point in space, and everything will just keep spinning around it like it was

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.

It doesn't matter if that body has a different diameter than the earth, as long as the mass is the same.

If the Earth had twice its diameter (if it were 16,000 miles in diameter rather than 8,000) but had the same mass, then satellites orbiting beyond that diameter (say geosynchronous satellites that have 27,000-mile diameter orbit) would still orbit the exact same way as if they were orbiting an 8,000-mile diameter Earth. The same idea holds if the Earth were smaller, but with the same mass.

The same goes if the sun were replaced by a black hole with the same mass as the sun but a much smaller diameter. The current orbit of the planets around the Sun only depend on the mass of the sun, not its diameter. So if the Sun were replaced with a tiny object with the mass of the Sun, the planets would just keep going as if the Sun were still there.

edit on 2019/8/18 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 01:58 PM

You

Then why do you keep making the same mistake.

What mistake? You don’t have a clear statement on what the mistake is. All you have is an erroneous opinion that has no logic, and keep posting debunked with no actual proof or evidence.

Orbit

en.m.wikipedia.org...

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object,[1] such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet. Normally, orbit refers to a regularly repeating trajectory, although it may also refer to a non-repeating trajectory. To a close approximation, planets and satellites follow elliptic orbits, with the central mass being orbited at a focal point of the ellipse,[2] as described by Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

One, “In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object,“. Does a geostationary satellite have a curved trajectory? It’s does by definition to stay above the same point on the rotating curved surface of the earth. To do this, a geostationary satellite is orbiting the central mass of the earth. Is that false.

Two, “Normally, orbit refers to a regularly repeating trajectory, although it may also refer to a non-repeating trajectory”. For a geostationary satellite, the orbit has the same period as the rotation of the earth. As a point on earth completes a full rotation, a geostationary satellite completes one full rotation of its obit. Is that false.

Three, “To a close approximation, planets and satellites follow elliptic orbits, with the central mass being orbited at a focal point of the ellipse,[2] as described by Kepler's laws of planetary motion.” Geostationary satellites complete one orbit around the earth’s central mass every 24 hours. Is that false.

Four. Now, what your hung up on. “such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet.“ a geostationary satellite completes one orbit ever 24 hours as the earth completes one rotation. It’s that false.

By definition, a geostationary orbit is an orbit. If a geostationary satellite did not complete one full circle of its orbit every 24 hours, it would not stay above the same point on earth. That full circle orbit is around the earth’s central mass.

With the definition of orbit having noting to do with earth’s rotation.
edit on 18-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Removed

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:27 PM

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

They always claim these rockets have been launched into 'orbit', and show rockets fly over the ocean, out of sight. They always claim they 'track' these rockets after they launch from Earth, where they go, from launch, to 'orbit'...

And that is exactly consistent with what a rocket launched into orbit around a globe would do.

Why would I expect a rocket launched from Cape Canaveral to do anything else?

Why, if all that is true, would they NEVER, before now, or in future, have mentioned where to SEE rockets fly upward into 'orbit'!!

Because rockets don't fly up, into 'orbit', obviously. Had a rocket ever really flown into 'orbit', they'd have shown us, and told us where to see it from Earth, fly up towards 'orbit'. This would prove rockets fly into 'orbit', and promote space flight, merely by showing a rocket flying up towards 'orbit', from Earth, seen by everyone on Earth, as it really happens...

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.

Instead, a rocket needs to move generally parallel to the ground (after achieving some height), because the craft's/satellite's eventual orbit would be generally parallel to the ground.

Consider "Newton's Cannonball":

Newton's Cannonball

www.eg.bucknell.edu...

You didn't address the issue -

We've never seen - from Earth - a single rocket fly up towards 'orbit'.

They've never once told us where we could see a rocket, from Earth, fly up towards 'orbit'.

Saying why a rocket doesn't fly straight up is ridiculous, because nobody - including you - has ever seen a rocket fly up towards 'orbit', in the first place.

You don't have any proof of a rocket actually flying up towards 'orbit', and never will have proof of it. Because rockets do NOT fly up towards 'orbit', and you'll never find proof of something that doesn't happen in the real world.

It's like saying they've built a 'time machine', everyone can see it working, for themselves, as an actual 'time machine', but they never, ever SHOW it to us, as an actual 'time machine', to confirm their claim is true. They have 'experts' claiming the 'time machine' works, but they never, ever show their 'time machine' actually works, to the public.

All they show are images and videos of what supposedly happens AFTER using their 'time machine', which everyone is supposed to believe happened out of everyone's sight, which is the same crap used to sell the story that all of their rockets are actually flying into 'orbit', yet never, ever SHOWING a rocket actually fly up towards 'orbit', and without ever saying where we could SEE a rocket actually fly up towards 'orbit'!!

Excuses for why a rocket cannot fly straight up don't address the issue above.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:29 PM

We've never seen - from Earth - a single rocket fly up towards 'orbit'.

Speak for yourself.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:34 PM

yeah we addressed the issue several times...

1. You don't understand what you're watching... proven by you

2. You believe orbit means space above the take off spot...

3. Ye can't fix stupid

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:43 PM

originally posted by: Phage

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.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:44 PM

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

Incorrect.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:46 PM

originally posted by: Phage

We've never seen - from Earth - a single rocket fly up towards 'orbit'.

Speak for yourself.

And everyone else, too.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:48 PM

And everyone else, too.

Incorrect.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:50 PM

originally posted by: Phage

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

Incorrect.

It's an absolute fact, without a doubt.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:50 PM

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage

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

Incorrect.

It's an absolute fact, without a doubt.

Incorrect.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:16 PM

originally posted by: Akragon

yeah we addressed the issue several times...

1. You don't understand what you're watching... proven by you

2. You believe orbit means space above the take off spot...

3. Ye can't fix stupid

Watch a rocket fly over the ocean, out of sight, sells such crap, I understand that, very well!

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

A fantasy tale.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:17 PM

You don't even understand what an orbit is.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:37 PM

originally posted by: Phage

You don't even understand what an orbit is.

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

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:39 PM

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

Incorrect.
Satellites do not fly.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:51 PM

originally posted by: Phage

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

Incorrect.
Satellites do not fly.

'Orbit' doesn't exist, nothing can fly in a non-existent place, then.

posted on Aug, 19 2019 @ 12:01 AM
If you cannot see what would easily be seen, yet believe it is true, it's called a religion

posted on Aug, 19 2019 @ 12:02 AM

'Orbit' doesn't exist, nothing can fly in a non-existent place, then.

Oh.

So only Earth and the "dome" exist.

My mistake.

How high is the dome again? How high is Polaris?

edit on 8/19/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2019 @ 12:15 AM

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

With my own eyes no... but i've posted a few videos of it and others have too

Which means you have also seen it... you just couldn't comprehend what you were seeing because you believe orbit is straight up... lol

Which brings us back to # 3

posted on Aug, 19 2019 @ 02:47 AM
Only the smartest of the smart, and the most brilliant members of ATS realize that all videos are real and truthful, and constitute 100% proof of whatever phenomena that they show.

That's why they are allowed to call others stupid, morons, and idiots.

Deep fake.

( Try not to hurt yourselves dancing to the soundtrack, please. )

"Top 10 Famous but fake videos of Youtube"

And finally: since the thread category is LOL:

From the last video's publisher notes:

THIS VIDEO IS SATIRE! IT'S A JOKE. I KNOW IT'S REAL. UPDATE: There seem to be three types of people commenting on this video. 1. Those who think I'm serious and think I'm an idiot. These people obviously have no sense of humor and did not learn the word Satire in high school. 2. Flat Earthers who think I am on their side and at some point realize I am mocking them. Then they get super pissed and resort to name calling. Thanks for the engagement. 3. And those who find the humor in this video and understand that it's just for fun. To those people I want to say thanks ...

top topics

14