Quote:
|
Quote:
Hans |
Quote:
Hans |
Quote:
|
Well, I think the fun of this one is almost exhausted, without obtaining any propulsion.
Hans |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
FTFY - it didn’t answer the question. |
Quote:
How do satellite phones work? Why can we see the ISS fly over? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's pretty clear at this point which of us is exhibiting the religious-style belief. |
Quote:
ISS flyovers? Satellites visible in the sky at the times they are scheduled to fly over? |
Quote:
Also, the Hubble photos must be faked. And other things too ... |
Quote:
(video doesn't count, I mean with your own eyes) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Dave |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Dave |
Quote:
Or maybe s/he means that the water is actually above us! Explains why the sky is blue, of course. |
Too late
|
Quote:
I'll take JU for the win. |
Quote:
If the argument is, "X doesn't exist," and the rebuttal is, "But Y is a consequent of X. If not by X, then whence Y?" and the answer is "I don't know," the argument fails and the rebuttal succeeds. The claimant is on the hook to show other alternative antecedents, and generally to prove that the alternatives are more favorable or parsimonious in context. Here he just says we can't place limits on technology we don't know about, so it's not possible to categorically deny the existence of alternatives. It's still "I don't know." And he's still on the hook to show how "I don't know" is more parsimonious in context. I can't imagine how even the very concepts of parsimony and "I don't know" are compatible. By definition if you don't know the answer, it can't be the parsimonious explanation. Very often this sort of argument becomes circular. He accepts axiomatically his own belief. And he is forced to accept observation that appears to be things like satellites and space stations. But to that sort, this pair of premises constitutes proof that there "must" be some secret alternative technology being employed. The observation must be explained, and the axiom cannot be violated, so that proves there "must" be alternative technology even if we can't immediately discern what it must look like. |
I don't understand why we don't just do rocket launches from Australia so they can just fall into space. Seems like it would save a lot of fuel.
|
I didn't think we got new posters like this anymore. Seems straight out of the mythical age of 2005.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I want to know, if they didn't go off into space, where the hell did they go? And if the complaint is that these were just low-earth orbit, then what about the Apollo missions? These guys were gone for days and days after take off before landing in ocean. Where were they if not in space? They couldn't have been flying around in the atmosphere. If the physics of rockets in space, imagine the engineering to keep a craft floating around the atmosphere for 10 days? Rockets flying in space is a far simpler explanation than any alternative. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Okay so what if Theseus launches a rocket to space, but on the way to space every single piece is replaced so by the time it gets to space every single part of the rocket has been replaced?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Just North of Watford, I expect. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That was because the smoke was in air that was denser than the ambient air mass. It had nothing to do with an atmospheric pressure gradient. |
Quote:
I’ve personally built (as part of a team), integrated, tested, observed the launch of, and operated spacecraft, including postflight testing. Your claim is observed to be wrong. Any response? Or are you going to continue ignoring refutations like this one? Ya know, if it was me, and I was getting my head handed to me by people who actually do spaceflight for a living, as well as an assortment of educated laymen, I would stop and ask myself if maybe I was wrong, and investigate the criticisms of my claims, because it’s more important to me to get it right than to cling to my beliefs on an anonymous Internet forum. How about you? Would you like to learn something? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Smoke expands up rather than down because the particles of which it is comprised are thrust upwards by thermal convection caused by the heat of the fire. You can observe this when the smoke comes down again once it is clear of the updraft.. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xrzy3kdu4s...moke.jpg?raw=1 Try camping out more often. It will do you some good |
Quote:
I do wonder if hey knows about the big gun experiments done in the 60's for the US army and Canadian space agency where they were looking to shoot small projectiles into orbit. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.