apnews.com
>Hughes is a 61-year-old limo driver who’s spent the last few years building a steam-powered rocket out of salvage parts in his garage. His project has cost him a total of $20,000, which includes Rust-Oleum paint to fancy it up and a motor home he bought on Craig’s List that he converted into a ramp.
>On the morning of the launch, Hughes will heat 70 gallons of water in a stainless steel tank and then blast off between 2 and 3 p.m. PT. He plans to go about a mile — reaching an altitude of about 1,800 feet — before pulling two parachutes. They’re discouraging fans — safety issues — but it will be televised on his YouTube channel . He said he’s been in contact with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Bureau of Land Management.
>His future plans include an excursion into space. He and Stakes have already brain-stormed on a “Rockoon,” which is a rocket that, rather than being immediately ignited while on the ground, is carried into the atmosphere by a gas-filled balloon, then separated from the balloon and lit. This rocket will take Hughes about 68 miles up.
Tick tock Round Earthers....soon your lies will be revealed
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
coolest suicide ever
why not just use a plane baka
planes are obviously part of the conspiracy.
/x/ and /pol/ just keeps BTFOing Veeky Forums, how will they recover?
>1800 feet
An off-the-shelf model rocket would be better
Why steam powered? That like the most inefficient and dangerous type of rocket you could build. I bet the thing just explodes on the launch pad, sending shrapnel and boiling water everywhere.
How did he calculate his "1800 feet" figure if these fags believe that somehow "density" alone is responsible for being forced down toward the ground
Id love to see his calculations kek.
Who cares? You could go to the top of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai and have more altitude than he hope to achieve in his wildest dreams with that steam powered death trap. 1800 feet is nothing. The sad part is, if he manages not to kill himself his video recording from 1800’ isnt high enough to show any curvature of the Earth. Morons will almost certainly claim this is evidence for flat Earth even though the results are what should be expected on a globe Earth too.
That guy might be wrong but it's respectable to see that he's willing to experimentally prove or disprove his theory, instead of just citing the bible on a youtube video over Requiem for a dream.
On a globe, the horizon should get lower and decrease in size the higher you get, but this doesn't happen on planes or cameras attached to weather balloons, the horizon stays at eye level, which is evidence of a flat plane (that's why they called them aeroplanes by the way).
Oh yeah sure I already considered your points it's just in terms of internal consistency the height figure he pulled out of his ass is the strangest/funniest, considering he probably he used standard physics (not flat earth "gravity isn't real" retardation) to estimate it.
I think sugar candy rocket would work better.
>spent 20 grand on a deathtrap that will take him a third of a mile up
>could have spent $300 on round-trip tickets that take him almost 7.5 miles up
what a maroon
He'd say commercial flights have LCD screens in the window/curved to make the earth look round
>implying failing isn't part of the plan to prove you can't go that high
btw it's moron and your retarded.
>wants to prove the earth is flat
>decides to make a suicide steam jet instead of just renting a small plane
>$20000 suicide machine
Not impressed.
You've never heard of Bugs Bunny?! What a maroon.
Also, it is "you're," not "your."
Have you never flown in an airplane before? The horizon doesnt stay at eye level.
On a flat Earth it is physically impossible for both the arctic and antarcitc circles to experience periods of 24+ hours of uninterrupted sunlight during certain times of the year while all latitudes between the two experience normal day/night cycles. This is how it works on our planet though. You can drive from Alaska to Ushuaia (proving your pilot isnt tricking you) and then take a boat ride to Antarctica (the duration of which would prove they aren’t taking you back to the north pole unless they travel faster than the speed of sound on a boat) and go on a guided tour of Antarctica. Yes it is guided so you dont die, but even if you claim thats because of the conspiracy, if you go around February you can see 24+ hours of sunlight. If you go to Alaska 6 months later you can see 24+ hours of sunlight aswell. At no other latitudes will you ever witness this. If you can explain how that works on a flat Earth i will send $1000 USD to a paypal account of your choosing. Ive had this open challenge in a few flat Earth threads in the past week and nobody has even attempted to figure it out yet. Probably because it’s impossible. Good luck.
It's a superior mirage caused by temperature differences between the warm air of the Earth and the surrounding ice wall.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Yes it does.
How do you know you're seeing the same sun?
A mirage doesnt emit EM radiation, its just the refraction of it. Nice try though.
>We invented the highest resolution screens ever! The individual pixels cannot be seen!
>Let's use them to make fake airplane windows
I wish you weren't right
Light is EM radiation, Einstein.
Because if there was more than one sun on a flat Earth there would be some latitude where both, or neither of them, are visible. The only latitude where you could claim that to be the case would be BOTH the arctic and antarctic circles, because they also have 24+ hours of uninterrupted darkness. If you use the method I described in my first post (driving Alaska to Ushuaia) you can prove they are not the same place. Try to draw a map that fits this description on a flat Earth, with included solar cycles. You can even use more than one sun. You will find you either cant draw the map or you end up with areas where both suns are visible at some point.
Yeah no shit, Sherlock. Mirages dont emit light. They are a refraction of it.
Exactly. Then what are you supposing? That the flat earth argument is that there are two emitters of sunlight in "both" poles? I said it was a superior mirage of the "other" pole's light. It's one emitter with a refraction to the other end of the Earth.
We don't know how far the plane stretches, it could be infinite. When a boat sails off "over" the horizon, and disappears, it comes straight back when you use binoculars/telescope. Our eyes are limited on how far they can see. Proof: youtube.com
Once the sun gets far away enough, we cannot see it any more. We don't know where the sun goes beyond what we can see with our limited vision. Plus we're not allowed to go to Antarctica to actually study what the fuck is going on.
Notice how mirages always occur at the horizon and are spotty at best. Also as mentioned before they dont emit light, but are a refraction of it. This is not a mirage.
>pic related
Looks like it's coming closer and further away. The further away it is, the closer to the horizon it gets, which is evidence of a flat plane.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Again, the argument isn't about two emitters but one emitter's light being spread around the edge of the Earth.
For 1800ft he could just drive to Vegas.
>that's why they called them aeroplanes by the way
Why (and more pertinently, how) would the light refract in a ring around the Antarctic, and what kind of magical force prevents it from refracting into the Arctic circle and the side of the world experiencing night time
>steam powered rocket
Holy shit when is the launch and please tell me its livestreamed.
I would love to see it fail or explode.
This sort of effect cannot be accurately shown with video cameras, and must be experienced with your own two eyes and a pair of binoculars. From personal experience, ships that have fallen partially below the horizon when viewed with the naked eye do not suddenly become fully visible when viewed with a pair of binoculars. I encourage you to buy some cheap binoculars and try this for yourself.
Then the binoculars are too limited. If it's going over the curvature of the earth then it shouldn't work with cameras either.
>That like the most inefficient and dangerous type of rocket you could build
But maybe one of the easiest to obtain parts and fuel and stuff.
That'd be sweet, dude!
Rent a ride in a Cessna, roll down window. (Hell, it cheaper than most plane tickets, and sure as hell less than $20K).
Though he would miss out on creating the most elaborate case of Death by Darwin ever.
>btw it's moron and your retarded.
underage b&
>please tell me its livesteamed.
FTFY.
...
Off the shelf model rockets were made by big Globe and can't be trusted to return non-CGI images.
meant for
if he dies in the rocket, will it become part of the Flat Earth conspiracy? They wanted to stop him from seeing the truth?
Obviously.
To you flat earth believers.
Imagine that you are actually standing under a FIXED gigantic bowl. Would you expect it to tilt, flip upside down or to its side or even rotate as you walk around under it? Would you?
The night sky hints to the true shape of the planet, friends.
Nope, the stars rotate around us, it's not the earth rotating: youtube.com
That curved cockpit glass is an excuse waiting to happen
Lock him in a garage, make sure it is airtight and leave the engine running.
I'm sure he might then understand why emissions are bad, whilst he's busy trying to philosophize (not experiment, because that's apparently bad) his way out of the trunk of a car with his legs, arms; hands and mouth bond.
Good luck, faggot.
>steam
That Jules Verne feel
>Why steam powered? That like the most inefficient and dangerous type of rocket you could build.
Why would it be dangerous? It's the same principle that most of our power generation runs on, and most of our vehicles used to run on, for hundreds of years. The engineering is very mature.
You superheat it in the tank, from an external heat source, such as an electric heating element or propane burner. You can measure the temperature and pressure as you do so. Then all you do is turn off the heat, load up the payload, and open the valve. The steam flash boils as it hits the lower pressure. If you're thrusting to depletion, you don't even have to worry about how to close the valve and stuff like water hammer effects.
As for efficiency, it's easily good enough for a hop like this. For example, even with an easily-achieved Isp of 45s the vehicle only needs a propellant mass fraction of about 50% to provide a delta-v of mach 1.
Alright, since you have it figured out, could you help me understand why this happens?
L-lights o-on t-the... ehm... eeeeh... ICE WALL?!
You're retarded.
Hey all flat earthers, if you're trying to use the vanishing point as evidence for a flat earth, you don't understand what vanishing point is. You're all retarded or trolling though so I don't know what I expected
Good day, my good sir! Would you like to make me company in my steam powered rocket machine as we unveil the true shape of our beloved steampunk home? I'm just gonna grab my top hat and my gatling musket made out of bronze and steam!
Remove yourself from the gene pool
I'm kind of amazed he's survived this long. This does not look like a well maintained parachute.
It's how perspective works. The further something is away, the closer to the horizon it becomes.
I like it. Sure its a stupid idea and he's going to die, but atleast he isn't committing mass murder.
Then why doesn't the stars around Polaris converge into a single point?
Because they're only a few miles away.
If the Earth is flat how do you explain Eratosthenes' Calculation of Earth's Circumference?
trolling ≠ BTFOing, retard
They're not very far away. We don't know what they are, they are flickering multicoloured lights: youtube.com
If you a point of light is out of focus it will turn into a diffraction pattern that is the same shape as the shape of the aperture.
This is an image I took through my telescope of a LED light 200m away. Notice the dark fringes inside the blob. It's an interference pattern and you can see the same pattern in the video you posted.
This is mathematics based on many false assumptions about observable reality, so it's not proof of anything.
because rocket fuel costs billions of dollars, while water is free
Also, why if you're on the southern half of the earth can't you see Polaris at all?
This is also the phenomena behind "spirit orbs". They are diffraction patterns caused by an illuminated dust particle or water droplet.
Veeky Forums being extremely underage and often autistic is one of the easiest boards to troll. So yes, it counts as getting btfo.
Was it dancing and flickering around too like "stars" are?
And here's how a point of light that is out of focus looks like with different aperture shapes. Notice the interference pattern, the dark fringes.
The heat from my hand caused it to do it. Now is it possible that there exist temperature differences in the atmosphere?
youtube.com
Have you never observed lights from a city far away and see them flicker?
This is just proof that the "stars" are lights which we already know.
An LED is not a giant gaseous ball that is shooting through space.
Maybe they are just tiny lights, all I want to do is demonstrate that the flickering of those lights and the "shape" are caused by turbulence and lack of focus.
It could well be caused by that, but the source of the light remains unknown.
You can use spectrography to determine what elements are causing the light from a star or a nebula.
Spectrography is science and therefore a lie by Big Globe. Easy to say elements make up "stars" when you make up a "science" that tells you what you want stars to be made off
If you look at the light spectrum of ionized hydrogen you will see that it only emit specific wavelengths of light and one of those colors is a red one at a wavelength of around 656.28nm.
If you look at the spectrum of a nebula in space you will notice that the majority of the visible light that it emits is of that wavelength and that is why nebulae are mostly red colored.
I took this image of the Rosette nebula using a filter that only let light of that wavelength through, +-3.5nm.
Without the filter the nebula was drowning in light pollution and it was not visible but as soon as I switched to the filter... *boom* there it was!
Put two and two together, nebulae are made out of a high amount of glowing hydrogen.
>Because they're only a few miles away.
That changes nothing. You said that it was perspective that causes Polaris to appear near the horizon when you stand at the equator.
Imagine 3 lamp posts and that you are standing under the middle one so from your point of view it will be straight above you. That would be Polaris and the two lamps next to it would be two other stars. Since it's above you that would be like standing on the North pole according to you. Now you start walking away from the lamp posts and that would be like walking towards the equator and due to perspective the lamp posts will seem to move closer to the horizon. So far so good but here's the problem. Not only will the lamps angular distance from the horizon decrease but also the angular distance between themselves. They will seem to move closer to each other but we don't see this reality. The stars angular distance to Polaris stays constant as we get closer to the equator so perspective cannot be the cause.
I'm sorry but it just doesn't work with what we see in reality.
Flat earthers will never tackle the problem of the celestial sphere. Perspective does not solve the problem since the stars angular distance to each other is always constant.
Try again
we have resolved images of many stars, clearly revealing that they are disks. pic related is an image of the star Betelgeuse.
Nice idea, how about you try making it from Antarctica to your "North Pole" without ending up in Mossad custody? I'll hold on to the $1000 til you get back.
Have you seen the resolved image of Antares?
It's crazy. Flat earthers actually believe that they will be able to resolve an image of a distant star with a camera like the P900 that only as an aperture size of 67mm. The Hubble telescope has an aperture of 3 meters which is 448 times greater and it can only produce a pixly image of a star. You need an INSANELY big telescope if you want to have enough angular resolution to resolve a good image of a star.
Daily reminder that Quantum physics proves god!
>daily reminder
>literally just says if youre educated you'll have an understanding in the pic
How's about if youre going to make that point explain it?
>2000 year old "prime mover" meme
Maybe this board was a mistake
The sunlight bends upwards over distance so that places sufficiently far from the sun are left in darkness. It also bends toward the center of the earth a little. Objects are length dilated as they get closer to the ice wall, so the light can reach farther there.
...
That light is bent too.
Why does the light bend? Why is this effect totally unobservable with other light sources?
This is also the explanation for
>Why does the light bend?
There is some sort of force that bends the light.
>Why is this effect totally unobservable with other light sources?
See
I'm talking laser pointers. Their light doesn't bend at the rate it would have to in order to produce this effect. And when it does bend, it bends down because of gravity. How does the force know what kind of light comes from the sun and what doesn't. There's nothing special about light from the sun.