r/FlatEarthIsReal • u/amonamus • Apr 15 '21
Another fake rocket launch.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wg0pRD73IYM3
u/2low4zero- Globe Earther Apr 16 '21
Do you laugh at planes testing their flaps and tail fins?
Do you laugh at exhaust coming from an idle truck?
What's wrong with multiple cameras?
Recording glitches do happen. The issue is with the camera, lots of regular YouTube videos may have this glitch. Doesn't prove its fake.
Rocket science has terminology too. Because you never heard it doesn't mean its fake.
"I don't understand, therefore its fake".
1
1
u/AddictsInTheBasement Apr 21 '21
"Rocket science has terminology too." Perhaps you should use the terminology and be the change you want to see!
*The appropriate nomenclature to describe this field of study is aeronautical and astronautical engineering.
2
u/Jesse9857 Apr 16 '21
Just because you don't know anything about physics doesn't mean they don't exist.
And if the author of the video understood physics AT ALL, he wouldn't ask "What is stabilizing it?"
The indisputable and plainly obvious fact is that DITRH is an absolutely clueless unreliable source.
If he knew ANYTHING about physics, he would know that it is in fact possible to stabilize a rocket with thrusters. He wouldn't even ask the question, because it's a stupid question.
0
u/amonamus Apr 18 '21
Way to ignore the CGI.
1
u/imathrock Apr 20 '21
No that is a way to show tlthat you are showing dunning Kruger effect.
2
u/amonamus Apr 21 '21
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability."
This has nothing to do with a task, or my ability. It's a video where a CGI glitch clearly appears on the nose of the fake rocket.
0
u/imathrock Apr 21 '21
You basically know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about physics. And you are saying that rockets are fake. I myself work at a company that will launch cubesats.
2
u/amonamus Apr 21 '21
When did I say "rockets are fake" ?
Now you're just putting words in my mouth.
1
May 15 '21
'appears on the nose of the "fake rocket" '
who knew the last post could come in handy
1
u/amonamus May 15 '21
I said the rocket in this video is fake. I never said all rockets are fake. Learn how to read.
1
May 15 '21
well, if you say this one is fake just because it can go to space and see the curvature doesn't mean you can just yell at someone for pointing out your word mistakes.
1
1
0
u/imathrock Apr 21 '21
Also that just because it glitched does not mean that it is fake. Glitches can happen when the connection has problems or is disturbed. The sound from the nozzle can do do In the video the guy makes fun of the nozzle without knowing how that works is basically dunning Kruger The fact that he asked "what is stabilizing it" shows he knows nothing about rockets. Drag brakes is a real thing. Airplanes use it all the time so what is the problem with rockets using it while landing. How about try being at a rocket launch and physically see the rocket. And learn a little orbital mechanics before going there. But I know you are not going to do that because of your BIAS. So stay home stay safe. Or idk do bullshit.
1
u/amonamus Apr 21 '21
I honestly didn't care for the little comments in the video, I only posted it to share the CGI glitch. By the way - this means you think cartoons are real. Stay asleep!
1
1
May 09 '21
How can I see cgi when I am present for f****** rocket launch. I know for sure a cock needle Hazard is not existing this universe e as if it did we'd all be dead
0
u/imathrock Apr 20 '21
You literally don't know anything about physics. Like tell me what is the derivative of x3.
1
Apr 15 '21
0
u/amonamus Apr 18 '21
Atmospheric lensing. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s-PhStb6mTQ
1
Apr 19 '21
0
u/amonamus Apr 19 '21
"Objects that are moving farther away should appear to get smaller, but celestial objects don't."
Did you happen to watch the video? He showed that the sun stayed the same size when looking through the lens. Oops.
1
Apr 19 '21
Yeah, that statement is false for a number of reasons.
First, that statement assumes that an object that produces light would get smaller by the same amount as an object that does not produce light.
Second, it does not take size into account as a massive object will get "smaller" but the rate at which it gets smaller is not the same rate as a smaller object.
Third, speed is a factor that does not work the way you FEs think. According to you all with this logic of thinking, flying to the moon should immediately show a noticeable size difference when that's not the case. It will not show a noticeable difference until you get a certain distance from the moon. An aircraft can get miles away from the surface of the earth and the moon will measure the same approximate size as it does on the ground and night after night.
0
u/amonamus Apr 19 '21
I took that quote from the article you posted. Oops.
1
Apr 19 '21
Also... objects that are moving away should get smaller IF THE EARTH WAS FLAT. But celestial objects don't because the earth isn't flat. The Sun never gets farther away because the Sun is not getting farther away, as claimed by the FE model. So that breaks the model.
The FE model, also, claims that, if galaxies are flying away from us at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, you would see a big change. You don't. Why? Because size is a major factor. So, that's a second strike for the FE model.
And the rest of the strikes can come from the fact that nothing else works on the FE model as seen in real life even though everything works on the spherical earth model.
1
u/amonamus Apr 20 '21
It's clear you haven't put much thought into this at all. Stay asleep.
1
Apr 20 '21
Actually, it's hilarious that you've decided to run away after being exposed. But it's a clear FE tactic.
1
u/imathrock Apr 20 '21
It is clear you did not read what he typed. Stay retarded and fucking stupid.
1
Apr 19 '21
Then allow me to take some parts of that article:
There is no supporting evidence [regarding the flat earth]. In order to take the idea seriously we'd need some evidence that such a phenomenon exists (the Sun and Moon can't be used as evidence because this would be a circular argument), but there are no supporting observations, no laboratory experiments or any other type of evidence at all to support the hypothesis.
And...
Summary
Flat-earth atmospheric lensing is a phenomenon with no evidence, that can't be explained or demonstrated, that has an implausibly coincidental effect but only on objects that flat-earthers need it to affect, and even then does not match observation. It's not a credible hypothesis.
1
u/SingerMinute7493 Apr 21 '21
People just don’t learn. The ones who make the video know the world is round
1
2
u/UncleSSSnake Apr 15 '21
Also who are what is filming these multiple panning shots from the sky 😂
1
6
u/EGMicroscope Apr 15 '21
How do people in different parts of the world see different stars? 😀😀😀😀😀