162. Rockets never launch straight up because they never go to space
"All NASA and other “space agencies” rocket launches never go straight up. Every rocket forms a parabolic curve, peaks out, and inevitably starts falling back to Earth. The rockets which are declared “successful” are those few which don’t explode or start falling too soon but make it out of range of spectator view before crashing down into restricted waters and recovered. There is no magic altitude where rockets or anything else can simply go up, up, up and then suddenly just start “free-floating” in space. This is all a science-fiction illusion created by wires, green -screens, dark pools, some permed hair and Zero-G planes."
Dubay does not understand how rockets get into orbit. As usual he makes stuff up instead.
Gravity works over very very long distances. Gravity keeps the earth moving around the Sun and stars circling the centre of galaxies. If a rocket just flew straight up and left a satellite a long distance from Earth it would just be inexorably pulled back to Earth by gravity.
So in this respect Dubay is correct. There is no altitude where rockets can simply go up and then stay in space. That is why they do not simply go up.
Have you noticed that satellites are said to be placed in "orbit" not simply in space and that they reach "escape velocity" and not "escape altitude"? That is because to stay in space satellites must be travelling at high speed tangentially to the Earth.
The nearer to Earth the satellite is the faster its orbit must be to stop it being pulled back to Earth. In low earth orbit (240 miles above the earth) satellites such as the ISS must travel at very high speeds (17,000 miles per hour) whereas geostationary satellites in high Earth orbit (22,000 miles above the Earth) can travel much slower (6,800 miles per hour) keeping in sync with the rotation of the Earth.
One simple way of thinking about this is to say that gravity is continually pulling the satellite to Earth, but it is travelling fast enough tangentially to just keep missing.
When rockets put a satellite into space they take off vertically in order to get to the thinner atmosphere as quickly as possible where air resistance is low and they can use less fuel to accelerate.
From there on most of the effort is required to accelerate tangentially to get up to orbital speed. So this is why rockets are seen to curve soon after launch. No need for another silly conspiracy theory to explain it.
As for Dubay’s claims about what happens to rockets after take off, he gives no evidence as usual. No video's of rockets that were supposed to go to space crashing into the ocean. No videos of anyone being prevented from any part if the ocean during a launch.
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/why-do-rockets-follow-a-curved-trajectory-while-going-into-space.html
Dubay's image used for this proof is a genuine time lapse photo of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 SES-8 launch. It might seem to add credibility to Dubay's claim because the rocket trail does seem to be parabolic and heading back to Earth. However this is just perspective.
In the diagram below you can see that the rocket trajectory levels off as it approaches orbit and does not return to Earth. However from the perspective of an observer the angle of view initially increases, reaches its apex at point 3 and then begins to decrease. I.e. from the observers perspective the rocket gets to a high point in the sky and then appears progressively lower in the sky even though it is not falling back to Earth.
Undermining a belief in rockets being able to reach space is necessary for flat earthers in order to back to their claim that satellites do not exist. Satellites are a problem for flat earthers because they would disprove the existence of a firmament, a dome that covers the earth, and also by virtue of orbital mechanics indicate that gravity caused by mass exists, which is incompatible with a flat Earth.
< Prev 161-170 Next >
Dubay does not understand how rockets get into orbit. As usual he makes stuff up instead.
Gravity works over very very long distances. Gravity keeps the earth moving around the Sun and stars circling the centre of galaxies. If a rocket just flew straight up and left a satellite a long distance from Earth it would just be inexorably pulled back to Earth by gravity.
So in this respect Dubay is correct. There is no altitude where rockets can simply go up and then stay in space. That is why they do not simply go up.
Have you noticed that satellites are said to be placed in "orbit" not simply in space and that they reach "escape velocity" and not "escape altitude"? That is because to stay in space satellites must be travelling at high speed tangentially to the Earth.
The nearer to Earth the satellite is the faster its orbit must be to stop it being pulled back to Earth. In low earth orbit (240 miles above the earth) satellites such as the ISS must travel at very high speeds (17,000 miles per hour) whereas geostationary satellites in high Earth orbit (22,000 miles above the Earth) can travel much slower (6,800 miles per hour) keeping in sync with the rotation of the Earth.
One simple way of thinking about this is to say that gravity is continually pulling the satellite to Earth, but it is travelling fast enough tangentially to just keep missing.
When rockets put a satellite into space they take off vertically in order to get to the thinner atmosphere as quickly as possible where air resistance is low and they can use less fuel to accelerate.
From there on most of the effort is required to accelerate tangentially to get up to orbital speed. So this is why rockets are seen to curve soon after launch. No need for another silly conspiracy theory to explain it.
As for Dubay’s claims about what happens to rockets after take off, he gives no evidence as usual. No video's of rockets that were supposed to go to space crashing into the ocean. No videos of anyone being prevented from any part if the ocean during a launch.
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/why-do-rockets-follow-a-curved-trajectory-while-going-into-space.html
Dubay's image used for this proof is a genuine time lapse photo of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 SES-8 launch. It might seem to add credibility to Dubay's claim because the rocket trail does seem to be parabolic and heading back to Earth. However this is just perspective.
In the diagram below you can see that the rocket trajectory levels off as it approaches orbit and does not return to Earth. However from the perspective of an observer the angle of view initially increases, reaches its apex at point 3 and then begins to decrease. I.e. from the observers perspective the rocket gets to a high point in the sky and then appears progressively lower in the sky even though it is not falling back to Earth.
 |
| Source of original diagram: http://www.justatinker.com/Future/ |
Undermining a belief in rockets being able to reach space is necessary for flat earthers in order to back to their claim that satellites do not exist. Satellites are a problem for flat earthers because they would disprove the existence of a firmament, a dome that covers the earth, and also by virtue of orbital mechanics indicate that gravity caused by mass exists, which is incompatible with a flat Earth.
< Prev 161-170 Next >
Comments
Post a Comment