Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you look down on earth from space, doesn;t it still look like a flat disc?

But you should be able to see all the continents.... unless we are claiming all maps everywhere are also a lie.

Maybe America is a lie?

 Pacific wrote:
Self-taught rocket scientist that doesn't believe in science plans to launch himself in steam-powered rocket to prove that the world is flat

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/22/self-taught-rocket-scientist-plans-launch-to-test-flat-earth-theory

I'm about as old fashioned as they come, and I don't automatically buy into everything just because it's "peer reviewed", but this is friggin' stupid. It's been pretty much established by numerous high altitude experiments and space flights that the Earth IS NOT FLAT. Morons who still buy into that flat earth crap need to take off the tinfoil hat, and smell the bull they're shoveling.

My questions are:
Does he make money off of it?
And, if so, how?

Because, let us be honest, there is at least a 50/50 chance that it is a con of some variety or another.

The Auld Grump - ever since the days of The American Museum.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
My questions are:
Does he make money off of it?
And, if so, how?

Because, let us be honest, there is at least a 50/50 chance that it is a con of some variety or another.

The Auld Grump - ever since the days of The American Museum.

Well he's already been paid by the flat-earth research group. Chances are this is the kind of guy who'd likely have built the rocket anyway - so if some nuts group is going to pay you to build it and all you have to do is say its to prove the Earth is flat - well its a win win

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
My questions are:
Does he make money off of it?
And, if so, how?

Because, let us be honest, there is at least a 50/50 chance that it is a con of some variety or another.

The Auld Grump - ever since the days of The American Museum.

You bring up an interesting point. It could be a con game. Or it would be for anybody with the self-preservation gene God gave us.


The "steam-powered rocket" might be a giveaway. It sounds too Jules Verne-y to me. Unless I'm missing some amazing development in rocketry that makes such possible.

The worse part is that even if it does work and he admits to reason then the flat-heads will STILL believe otherwise, say he was bribed by NASA to keep quiet and any photos he took were edited by the government.(because they're making tons of money fooling people it's round.....somehow....)

These are people who believe the edges of the world are covered in ice that keeps the sea from flowing over the edges and into space.

Just smile at them and move on.

I don't think most flat-earthers really believe the Earth is flat, mostly I think they're just trolling. To some extent I think it's an attempt to lampoon conspiracy theories, as if those weren't stupid enough. Somehow it went viral and people heard about flat-earthism, and here we are.

 jhe90 wrote:
550m is high but it's not cuveture of earth high as such.

A plane costs alot less to rent a few flight hours and fly up.
Get alot higher too.

Actually it's not even that high, there are several buildings around that are taller. So you can literally take an elevator rather than a rocket Not to mention mountains, on my last hiking trip I climbed a couple of thousand meters in a day through a mountain range.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The "steam-powered rocket" might be a giveaway. It sounds too Jules Verne-y to me. Unless I'm missing some amazing development in rocketry that makes such possible.

It's a real thing. Heat a tank of water under pressure, then allow it to escape as steam through the exhaust nozzle. It's not particularly efficient as a rocket design for in-atmosphere use*, as you might guess given the extremely low altitudes involved in this case, but it does produce thrust. He's actually flown a previous design before: http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/03/steam-powered-rocket-ready-for-its-next-manned-flight/

*It is, however, quite useful in space because of the ease of obtaining ice as reaction mass.

In space, no one can hear you steam.

 Skinnereal wrote:
"I know about aerodynamics and fluid dynamics and how things move through the air, about the certain size of rocket nozzles, and thrust. But that's not science, that's just a formula."

So when this man triumphantly proves NASA wrong, will all the people there have to change their job titles to 'rocket formulas'?

 d-usa wrote:
In space, no one can hear you steam.

Bravo, sir. You owe me a cup of coffee and a keyboard now.

 sebster wrote:
So when this man triumphantly proves NASA wrong, will all the people there have to change their job titles to 'rocket formulas'?

I dunno, "rocket formulist" sounds kind of cool I think they were all called "rocket engineers", "chemical engineers", "mechanical engineers", "fluid dynamicists", etc. to begin with anyway, lol.

 Easy E wrote:
If you look down on earth from space, doesn;t it still look like a flat disc?

Obviously NASA took the picture through a piece of A4 card with a hole punched out!

Seriously tho, the Earth isnt flat but these peoples brains could well be. They are definitely a couple hemispheres short.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I dunno, "rocket formulist" sounds kind of cool I think they were all called "rocket engineers", "chemical engineers", "mechanical engineers", "fluid dynamicists", etc. to begin with anyway, lol.

I've actually seen some young earth anti-science screeds that say all the achievements of the modern world, like mobile phones, aircraft, medicine etc, were all actually 'engineering', as distinct from 'science', which is all theoretical and bad. So this guy would probably say they are rocket engineers or something like that. And I agree 'rocket formulist' does sound like a pretty sweet job.

RIP (TBA)

 d-usa wrote:
I realized that the fact that we have cats is proof that the earth couldn't be flat. Because all the cats would be hanging out near the edge, constantly pushing things off the planet into the darkness of space.

I see a flaw in your theory, the antarctic wall that surrounds the earth is itself entirely bordered by sea, so those cats would have to get their paws wet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The "steam-powered rocket" might be a giveaway. It sounds too Jules Verne-y to me. Unless I'm missing some amazing development in rocketry that makes such possible.

It's a real thing. Heat a tank of water under pressure, then allow it to escape as steam through the exhaust nozzle. It's not particularly efficient as a rocket design for in-atmosphere use*, as you might guess given the extremely low altitudes involved in this case, but it does produce thrust. He's actually flown a previous design before: http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/03/steam-powered-rocket-ready-for-its-next-manned-flight/

*It is, however, quite useful in space because of the ease of obtaining ice as reaction mass.

You are missing the point, you can achieve 1800 altitude by a balloon, or even if your calculations allowed some hill walking.

Steam powered rockets are not there to penetrate the atmosphere, any rocket can do that, instead you need steam power to fly through the aether.

It might not work though, methinks the rocket itself has insufficient brass for aether penetration.

 d-usa wrote:
In space, no one can hear you steam.

I'd like everyone to stop and appreciate this little play on words.

 sebster wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I dunno, "rocket formulist" sounds kind of cool I think they were all called "rocket engineers", "chemical engineers", "mechanical engineers", "fluid dynamicists", etc. to begin with anyway, lol.

I've actually seen some young earth anti-science screeds that say all the achievements of the modern world, like mobile phones, aircraft, medicine etc, were all actually 'engineering', as distinct from 'science', which is all theoretical and bad. So this guy would probably say they are rocket engineers or something like that. And I agree 'rocket formulist' does sound like a pretty sweet job.

Was "rocket science" ever actually a term outside of pop culture? I feel like NASA engineers would have always called themselves, well, engineers.

I don't really have a problem with people making a distinction between engineering and science as long as it's within reason. Science is the building of knowledge to understand and predict the universe, engineering is the building and application of knowledge to create machines, structures, systems, etc.

All the Universities I've worked at have separate research facilities for science and engineering. If you go to a few engineering PhD defence/confirmation/review the examiners will often ask about practical application and will hound grad students for picking a parameter set that doesn't apply to an actual engineering problem.

I work as a researcher in an engineering department and have always described myself as either an engineer, a researcher or a research engineer rather than a "scientist" (not that I'm opposed to the label, but everything I do is very much focused on application of knowledge rather than just the knowledge itself).

 Peregrine wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The "steam-powered rocket" might be a giveaway. It sounds too Jules Verne-y to me. Unless I'm missing some amazing development in rocketry that makes such possible.

It's a real thing. Heat a tank of water under pressure, then allow it to escape as steam through the exhaust nozzle. It's not particularly efficient as a rocket design for in-atmosphere use*, as you might guess given the extremely low altitudes involved in this case, but it does produce thrust. He's actually flown a previous design before: http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/03/steam-powered-rocket-ready-for-its-next-manned-flight/

*It is, however, quite useful in space because of the ease of obtaining ice as reaction mass.

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of this.

Wait... There are people that believe in a flat earth? That is something that actually exists? The Ancient Greeks already figured out that the Earth wasn't flat. Come on, even in the Middle Ages people did not believe in a flat earth...

 sebster wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I dunno, "rocket formulist" sounds kind of cool I think they were all called "rocket engineers", "chemical engineers", "mechanical engineers", "fluid dynamicists", etc. to begin with anyway, lol.

I've actually seen some young earth anti-science screeds that say all the achievements of the modern world, like mobile phones, aircraft, medicine etc, were all actually 'engineering', as distinct from 'science', which is all theoretical and bad. So this guy would probably say they are rocket engineers or something like that. And I agree 'rocket formulist' does sound like a pretty sweet job.

I always thought of engineering as a form of science, just practical and applied, as opposed to theoretical and empirical. I may be wrong.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 sebster wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I dunno, "rocket formulist" sounds kind of cool I think they were all called "rocket engineers", "chemical engineers", "mechanical engineers", "fluid dynamicists", etc. to begin with anyway, lol.

I've actually seen some young earth anti-science screeds that say all the achievements of the modern world, like mobile phones, aircraft, medicine etc, were all actually 'engineering', as distinct from 'science', which is all theoretical and bad. So this guy would probably say they are rocket engineers or something like that. And I agree 'rocket formulist' does sound like a pretty sweet job.

Was "rocket science" ever actually a term outside of pop culture? I feel like NASA engineers would have always called themselves, well, engineers.

I don't really have a problem with people making a distinction between engineering and science as long as it's within reason. Science is the building of knowledge to understand and predict the universe, engineering is the building and application of knowledge to create machines, structures, systems, etc.

All the Universities I've worked at have separate research facilities for science and engineering. If you go to a few engineering PhD defence/confirmation/review the examiners will often ask about practical application and will hound grad students for picking a parameter set that doesn't apply to an actual engineering problem.

I work as a researcher in an engineering department and have always described myself as either an engineer, a researcher or a research engineer rather than a "scientist" (not that I'm opposed to the label, but everything I do is very much focused on application of knowledge rather than just the knowledge itself).

Science and engineering are different things, but you can't be an engineer without science. To be an engineer you need to have a very good knowledge of the science of your field. But in a very general sense, yeah. Scientists are people who work to increase knowledge, engineers are people who apply said knowledge to build stuff. A research engineer kinda straddles the border I guess. THB, I fail to see the use of really making a distinction, since science and engineering are so inseparable.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Wait... There are people that believe in a flat earth? That is something that actually exists? The Ancient Greeks already figured out that the Earth wasn't flat. Come on, even in the Middle Ages people did not believe in a flat earth...

I'm not sure anybody really believes it, its more of a 4chan meme, I think. That said, I am not sure some of the people there get irony, or satire, or if they really believe the stuff they are saying. It's sort of like, "you won't really elect that person, will you?". And then it happens, and people have to pick up the pieces.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Wait... There are people that believe in a flat earth? That is something that actually exists? The Ancient Greeks already figured out that the Earth wasn't flat. Come on, even in the Middle Ages people did not believe in a flat earth...

I'm not sure anybody really believes it, its more of a 4chan meme, I think. That said, I am not sure some of the people there get irony, or satire, or if they really believe the stuff they are saying. It's sort of like, "you won't really elect that person, will you?". And then it happens, and people have to pick up the pieces.

I have no doubt that there are some people out there who believe it. People believe all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons. Some people still believe the moon landings were faked.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Wait... There are people that believe in a flat earth? That is something that actually exists? The Ancient Greeks already figured out that the Earth wasn't flat. Come on, even in the Middle Ages people did not believe in a flat earth...

But, who told you they thought that back then...? If they make out that those-who-came-before were more enlightened, you're more likely to go along with it.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I have no doubt that there are some people out there who believe it. People believe all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons. Some people still believe the moon landings were faked.

 Skinnereal wrote:
But, a plane can be fitted with fish-eye windows, or be a sound stage in Houston...

I don't see why people are so shocked by the idea that legitimate flat-earth believers could exist. After all, a significant percentage (up to ~40%, depending on the poll question!) of people in the US believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and evolution is a lie, a belief that is at least as absurd and obviously false as flat-earth theory.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


I have no doubt that there are some people out there who believe it. People believe all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons. Some people still believe the moon landings were faked.

They were. NASA hired Kubrick to do it, and being the perfectionist he was, Kubrick insisted they film on location.