Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?  (Read 20939 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46813
  • Reputation: +27669/-5138
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
« Reply #90 on: February 26, 2022, 08:38:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A wave is a movement of a medium. Nothing doesn't move. To say otherwise, like physicist do since 1905, is simply nonsensical.

    Wow, we actually agree on something.  After Michelson-Morley, they decided that they had to do away with the concept of the "luminiferous ether" (the medium through which light travels) and decided that light is the only known wave that travels through nothing, somehow.  Now that their theories of gravity are falling apart at the cosmic level, they've had to posit "Dark Matter", yet they'll do anything but admit that they were wrong about getting rid of ether.  Problem with reintroducing a medium in which light travels is that Michelson-Morley becomes a renewed problem for the atheistic cosmologists.

    For all the money NASA spends, they could simply have put a Michelson-Morley apparatus on the moon and run the experiment there (since they believe there's a moon), as Sungenis pointed out, to determine once and for all whether the earth moves.  But, if the moon's motion were detected, then that would men 1) the earth does not move and 2) there is in fact a luminiferous ether.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46813
    • Reputation: +27669/-5138
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #91 on: February 26, 2022, 08:47:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • So here we have one more 'Croix'.

    Other flat earthers, like Ladislaus, chuck up if I mention Dubay. They prefer Lady Elizabeth Anne Mould Blount.

    I'm neither here nor there on Dubay.  I recall seeing Dubay's "200 proofs" video at some point and I didn't find it particularly convincing, and didn't really know who the guy was at the time.  It was other evidence presented by other groups that made me a believer in FE.


    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 435
    • Reputation: +238/-265
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #92 on: February 28, 2022, 03:06:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A wave is a movement of a medium. Nothing doesn't move. To say otherwise, like physicist do since 1905, is simply nonsensical.
    Light / EM waves are not just a mechanical wave like sound.

    The massless particles called photons don't need a medium to traverse space.

    Wave-particle duality - EM waves have characteristics of both a wave and a particle.

    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 435
    • Reputation: +238/-265
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #93 on: February 28, 2022, 03:08:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, the speed of light can be measured. The distance of stars cannot be measured. Given Einstein's lot says heliocentrism and geocentrism cannot be confirmed by science, then the distance of stars, calculated only by the heliocentric method, is mere speculation.
    Not all distance measurements depends on the heliocentric model.

    Stellar parallax would also happen in a geocentric universe, but it still allows for distance calculations due to the parallax.

    Redshift of starlight also works.

    There are more methods which are quite interesting, perhaps you want to look them up.

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3844
    • Reputation: +2882/-275
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #94 on: March 01, 2022, 06:21:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not all distance measurements depends on the heliocentric model.

    Stellar parallax would also happen in a geocentric universe, but it still allows for distance calculations due to the parallax.

    Redshift of starlight also works.

    There are more methods which are quite interesting, perhaps you want to look them up.
    Once stellar parallax was found and said to be a heliocentric fact, they then claimed the distance between the Earth and these near stars showing annual parallax could be measured for certain. Using a non-proven heliocentric parallax, angles can be measured. This way, they say, the distance between the earth and a near star can be calculated geometrically. The 149.5 times 1,000,000 km semimajor axis of the Earth’s orbit provides a base line for trigonometrically determining the distance of these near stars. This method, they claim, can measure stars up to 400 light years away. In the geocentric system, with the rotating universe showing stellar parallax, there are no such angles with the sun to calculate distances. So, only if a heliocentric solar-system was proven could we say the up to 400 light-year distances of stars can be known.

    As for the distance of further stars, well, here is what the experts tell us:
    ‘There is no direct method currently available to measure the distance to stars farther than [their unproven parallax] 400 light years from Earth, so astronomers instead use brightness measurements. It turns out that a star's color spectrum is a good indication of its actual brightness. The relationship between color and brightness was proven using the several thousand stars close enough to earth to have their distances measured directly. Astronomers can therefore look at a distant star and determine its color spectrum. From the color, they can determine the star’s actual brightness. By knowing the actual brightness and comparing it to the apparent brightness seen from Earth they can determine the distance to the star.’ --- (Howstuffworks website)

    Star distances then remain unproven, a fact that makes Einstein’s space-time as a scientific fact redundant before he was born. Here again we have a case of trying to confirm something from a consequent when there are different movements that can cause such a consequent. That is like saying because an eclipse of the sun causes dark streets, then dark streets prove there is an eclipse of the sun. 

    The search for stellar parallax also assumes astronomers can tell whether a star is a near star or a far star. Now search as much as you like and you will not find anything specific. It seems modern cosmologists decide such nearness and farness by using yet another assumption; that near stars are brighter than far stars, which I suppose will be correct in most cases. The possibility that their brighter near-stars are actually far-stars that are intrinsically bigger and more brilliantly lit, and that their fainter far-stars are actually nearer stars that are intrinsically smaller or less illuminated seems not to have bothered them. What, just for argument’s sake, if many visible stars reside at around the same distance from Earth, bright ones and faint ones together, just like different wattage bulbs attached to the roof of a large dark theatre? There are many possibilities that could explain why some bright stars and faint stars are not near stars or far stars. We throw this in just to show how presumptuous this science can be. 



    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4718/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #95 on: March 10, 2022, 08:25:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let's give this pot a quick stir....

    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 435
    • Reputation: +238/-265
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #96 on: March 11, 2022, 10:43:05 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well actually it doesn't show a flat earth.




    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46813
    • Reputation: +27669/-5138
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #97 on: March 11, 2022, 11:34:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well actually it doesn't show a flat earth.



    Nope.  There was one shot in which the "edge" that happened to be captured was pointing up.  Any tiny movement at the edges when picked up the right angle is do nothing more to geographical elevation of the land mass.  In fact, you can see it undulating up and down even across the center due to nothing more than geography.

    That simulation is also a lie, from 360,000 feet.  I've seen one simulation after another from globetards that was simply faked and made up.  Also made up is the allegation that the camera had a "narrow field of view".  This shot here just get cut off because it's in the corner, but you stop the video in other spots and it's got a much narrower vield of view.  I'll find the shot from the original video where the edges actually slightly point UP.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46813
    • Reputation: +27669/-5138
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #98 on: March 11, 2022, 11:46:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Look at the lower Left.  At the very corner, the line is practically touching the land, and then it drops lower as it moves toward the center of the line-length.  You can see the black between the line and the earth.  Toward the center there's still some black.  Then as you move toward the upper right, the land mass or geography gets higher and comes closer to the line, and then in the far upper corner it slips slightly down.

    So the lower left tip actually moves upward and touches the line, and it's only again close to the upper right where the land touches the line.  It just happens to dip back down a tad at the upper right corner, but no more so than it did in the center.  That undulation of geography is what the globetard who made the graphic above is claiming to be "curvature.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46813
    • Reputation: +27669/-5138
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #99 on: March 11, 2022, 11:49:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And then the globers try to pass this off as proof of curvature, even though this guy was at 1/3 the elevation as the V-2 rocket.


    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 435
    • Reputation: +238/-265
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #100 on: March 11, 2022, 11:57:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, the footage does indeed show a curving horizon. This is the uncropped image, rotated to horizontal.


    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 435
    • Reputation: +238/-265
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #101 on: March 11, 2022, 12:03:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And then the globers try to pass this off as proof of curvature, even though this guy was at 1/3 the elevation as the V-2 rocket.


    Well, this is obviously a fisheye lens and doesn't prove anything as such.

    But, if we know the camera which took the image, we can correct for barrel distortion (usually fisheye distortion).

    Using Adobe Lightroom for example.

    Some interesting info here:
    http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Lens+Distortion+and+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth#H_Lens_Correction

    So we can take a distorted image and correct the lens distortion to get an undistorted image to see the actual, geometric curvature (shape) in a photo.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46813
    • Reputation: +27669/-5138
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #102 on: March 11, 2022, 12:22:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's an earth curve simulator.



    Let's compare what the eye level would look like at ground level vs. what it would be at 120,000 feet, which is the altitude from which Baumgertner made the Red Bull jump.  Screenshots below are taken from the simulator above.



    Now let's compare the view from within Baumgertner's capsule when he was down on earth and then when he was up at 128,000 feet (my earlier screenshot was from 120,000 ... so giving him a bit of an edge here).


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32872
    • Reputation: +29143/-594
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #103 on: March 11, 2022, 01:16:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I like this one too

    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    My accounts (Paypal, Venmo) have been (((shut down))) PM me for how to donate and keep the forum going.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46813
    • Reputation: +27669/-5138
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Why no Space Travel, not even LEO?
    « Reply #104 on: March 11, 2022, 04:15:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, this is obviously a fisheye lens and doesn't prove anything as such.

    But, if we know the camera which took the image, we can correct for barrel distortion (usually fisheye distortion).

    Using Adobe Lightroom for example.

    Some interesting info here:
    http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Lens+Distortion+and+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth#H_Lens_Correction

    So we can take a distorted image and correct the lens distortion to get an undistorted image to see the actual, geometric curvature (shape) in a photo.

    That's not what this guy says.