[andruszkow]

Have fun, and actually LISTEN.

[andruszkow]

And here's a little lesson in history as well.

[huh?]

Actually I think that the way it really is in my reality (round earth orbiting the sun)  is much simpler

No need for a conspiracy, no mysterious and unfindable edge, gravity works predictably, the sun travels as observed, etc..

Simply hiding the true shape of the Earth with a population of over 6 billion would be next to impossible.
(at least in my alternate reality) In your reality where physics follows different rules it is most likely perfectly reasonable.

So in that light my alternate reality theory makes perfect since.


Ancient people could certainly add and subtract and that is pretty much the only science involved in predicting an eclipse.

Yes, modern science also uses addition and subtraction but I do not see how that validates a flat earth.

[huh?]

Well done vid, good find

And here's a little lesson in history as well.

[inquisitive]

What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and could predict cosmic events to precision.

I'm not sure that's a relevant connection.   After all you can make predictions of eclipses and other cosmic events without referring to the shape of the earth. 

The Babylonians didn't have GPS, Satellite TV,  weather satellites.  Scientific Research Stations at the South Pole.  They hadn't even seen the southern skies,  and, If they did,  I'm pretty sure the Babylonians would have concluded the earth was a globe,  as the Greeks did.

Many modern FE'ers support the bi-polar model, so criticisms about stars in the south and Antarctic bases are moot.

NASA's fraudulence is well documented. If the Babylonians had access to all of the sketchy and questionable errors in NASA's media, they would conclude that NASA is a fake, too.

Round Earth astronomy is hokey and appalling. Today if you go onto NASA's Lunar Eclipse website, the method given for finding when the next eclipse will occur involves looking at the Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle, a method created by Flat Earthers. Pathetic.

please explain the use of satellites for communications and location information.  With documentation.

[geckothegeek]

What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and could predict cosmic events to precision.

I'm not sure that's a relevant connection.   After all you can make predictions of eclipses and other cosmic events without referring to the shape of the earth. 

The Babylonians didn't have GPS, Satellite TV,  weather satellites.  Scientific Research Stations at the South Pole.  They hadn't even seen the southern skies,  and, If they did,  I'm pretty sure the Babylonians would have concluded the earth was a globe,  as the Greeks did.

Many modern FE'ers support the bi-polar model, so criticisms about stars in the south and Antarctic bases are moot.

NASA's fraudulence is well documented. If the Babylonians had access to all of the sketchy and questionable errors in NASA's media, they would conclude that NASA is a fake, too.

Round Earth astronomy is hokey and appalling. Today if you go onto NASA's Lunar Eclipse website, the method given for finding when the next eclipse will occur involves looking at the Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle, a method created by Flat Earthers. Pathetic.

please explain the use of satellites for communications and location information.  With documentation.

Both the unipolar and bi-polar flat earth "models" are simply copies of projections made from the globe and have inaccuracies in some areas.

[shaunm1963]

We have hundreds of thousands of pics from space and hundreds of actual eye witnesses who have been in space and seen it.

Firstly, the pics from space are dubious at best (no moving clouds/clone-tooled clouds/overly-large continents, and so on). Eye witness accounts?.....anyone NOT affiliated with NASA to corroborate these NASA accounts? No!

Oh, and as far as going into space is concerned....please go to: BBC iWonder - What makes space travel so dangerous? Dara O-Briain (you know, Prof. Cox's side-kick) comments:

In Earth's orbit, astronauts might experience temperatures as low as -129C (-200F) and as high as 121C (250F). Spacesuits have been cleverly designed to protect us from these extreme
conditions. They also provide air pressure to prevent our bodily fluids from boiling in the hard vacuum of space. But astronauts can only travel so far in the spacesuits that exist today. Even
our best suits are limited to a ‘low-Earth orbit’. To push farther into the Solar System we will need a new suit – one that will shield us from the lethal hazards of deep space. But even then,
are we sturdy enough to survive a long mission?

Yet, we are expected at the same time to believe that humans have been to the moon??!! This moon business is a lie.....what else is? The moon-landings are real but we don't as of today have the space-suit tech to get us there!! What gives, Man; what gives?

So are these images genuine? If THE space body has lied about the singular most important space venture ever, do you believe everything else they tell you? WHY?

Cheers.

[andruszkow]

We have hundreds of thousands of pics from space and hundreds of actual eye witnesses who have been in space and seen it.

Firstly, the pics from space are dubious at best (no moving clouds/clone-tooled clouds/overly-large continents, and so on). Eye witness accounts?.....anyone NOT affiliated with NASA to corroborate these NASA accounts? No!

Oh, and as far as going into space is concerned....please go to: BBC iWonder - What makes space travel so dangerous? Dara O-Briain (you know, Prof. Cox's side-kick) comments:

In Earth's orbit, astronauts might experience temperatures as low as -129C (-200F) and as high as 121C (250F). Spacesuits have been cleverly designed to protect us from these extreme
conditions. They also provide air pressure to prevent our bodily fluids from boiling in the hard vacuum of space. But astronauts can only travel so far in the spacesuits that exist today. Even
our best suits are limited to a ‘low-Earth orbit’. To push farther into the Solar System we will need a new suit – one that will shield us from the lethal hazards of deep space. But even then,
are we sturdy enough to survive a long mission?

Yet, we are expected at the same time to believe that humans have been to the moon??!! This moon business is a lie.....what else is? The moon-landings are real but we don't as of today have the space-suit tech to get us there!! What gives, Man; what gives?

So are these images genuine? If THE space body has lied about the singular most important space venture ever, do you believe everything else they tell you? WHY?

Cheers.

If the Earth isn't a globe, how do you explain the picture in the bottom of this blogpost?

http://andruszkow.dk/blog/2015/10/09/aha-oplevelse-2/
(ignore the language)

I was following this HAB from start and until it landed, and you could easily see how the curvature got more and more clear the higher the balloon got. If it's not curvature, and the camera has no extended FOV settings applied, then what explains this?

[shaunm1963]

If the Earth isn't a globe, how do you explain the picture in the bottom of this blogpost?

If it's not curvature, and the camera has no extended FOV settings applied, then what explains this?


Firstly, the Flat Earth idea does NOT mean a Square Earth. Try taking a circle, a dinner plate for example, look at the edge...what shape is it? It's curved!!

The image you present could either be a ball or a disc......?

[andruszkow]

If the Earth isn't a globe, how do you explain the picture in the bottom of this blogpost?

If it's not curvature, and the camera has no extended FOV settings applied, then what explains this?


Firstly, the Flat Earth idea does NOT mean a Square Earth. Try taking a circle, a dinner plate for example, look at the edge...what shape is it? It's curved!!

The image you present could either be a ball or a disc......?

Ok, so that at least rules out the "eternal plains" model of Flat Earth.

However, this picture is taken above the east coast of England at 24 km. If the Earth was a disc, I would have to be pretty close to the edge to get this sort of curvature, and according to Flat Earth, England is pretty close to the center of the so-called disc. If you would be able to see this much curvature from 24 km (almost 3 degrees), that would mean that the Earth would have a radius of a little less than 2000km, which isn't even close to the truth even according to Flat Earth models.

"The horizon is flat!" - "No, here's curvature" - "Oh, but it's because it's a disc" - "No, that would be mathematically incorrect" - "Oh, but it's something to do with perception" - "Yes, but that doesn't even fix your plothole with this particular picture" - "Oh, but that's because <insert new excuse here>".

Truth is, you're so set on your misguided beliefs that you will come up with any excuse or unsound mathematical or scientific fact to support an idea that's so firmly nailed to your very existence, that you reject to accept the one and only proven truth: The Earth is a globe.

[Disgraced_Shield]

If the Earth isn't a globe, how do you explain the picture in the bottom of this blogpost?

If it's not curvature, and the camera has no extended FOV settings applied, then what explains this?


Firstly, the Flat Earth idea does NOT mean a Square Earth. Try taking a circle, a dinner plate for example, look at the edge...what shape is it? It's curved!!

The image you present could either be a ball or a disc......?

Ok, so that at least rules out the "eternal plains" model of Flat Earth.

However, this picture is taken above the east coast of England at 24 km. If the Earth was a disc, I would have to be pretty close to the edge to get this sort of curvature, and according to Flat Earth, England is pretty close to the center of the so-called disc. If you would be able to see this much curvature from 24 km (almost 3 degrees), that would mean that the Earth would have a radius of a little less than 2000km, which isn't even close to the truth even according to Flat Earth models.

"The horizon is flat!" - "No, here's curvature" - "Oh, but it's because it's a disc" - "No, that would be mathematically incorrect" - "Oh, but it's something to do with perception" - "Yes, but that doesn't even fix your plothole with this particular picture" - "Oh, but that's because <insert new excuse here>".

Truth is, you're so set on your misguided beliefs that you will come up with any excuse or unsound mathematical or scientific fact to support an idea that's so firmly nailed to your very existence, that you reject to accept the one and only proven truth: The Earth is a globe.

I'm seeing more reliance on proof of concept science and math as gospel, giving a lot of weight to possibility, simply because it supports a theory.

A lot of the cited experiments and scientific theory seem to work well in a lab or on a smaller scale. Quick research though, finds that a lot of the relied upon experimentation to support a flat-earth theory have been flawed in execution, or disproved through repetition. (ie: Bedford-level experiement)

I very much like the idea that there's something we don't know, and that there's a possibility of some grand secret- that's why I'm here. But scope of the claims being made, the cherry-picking of data, and the refusal to cite real-world or large-scale application of these supporting scientific theories has been incredibly disappointing.

Some of the FE's make strong points, but as soon as they're pushed, you're called a troll, a shill, and a screwball.

[huh?]

"Yet, we are expected at the same time to believe that humans have been to the moon??!! This moon business is a lie.....what else is? The moon-landings are real but we don't as of today have the space-suit tech to get us there!! What gives, Man; what gives?"

The moon actually has an atmosphere -it is not "deep space"

[shaunm1963]

To Andruszkow

YOU SAID:
Truth is, you're so set on your misguided beliefs that you will come up with any excuse or unsound mathematical or scientific fact to support an idea that's so firmly nailed to your very existence, that you reject to accept the one and only proven truth: The Earth is a globe.

(sorry, I'm still struggling with the quote part of the forum; I'm not technically minded)

However, I do find it offensive that, despite the ongoing debate here in this forum which is seeking to find the truth, you seem to know me so well that you know the TRUTH about what I actually believe and accept to be true or not. Please stick to the debate/argument(s) in question and don't attempt to make assumptions about me especially in a way that is insulting. I have lived a long and interesting and at times difficult life. I have had experiences that make the subjects discussed in this forum seem petty by comparison. I have seen things that most people (perhaps yourself included) would dismiss out-right, calling me a liar to boot, if not a deluded lunatic. Let me tell YOU, sir, that the world is not just what the 'experts' would have us accept as truth and final. So, please be aware that nothing is set, nothing is final, nothing is proven with absolute total certainty. If you believe that to be the case then you are no different to those that believe any other idea or concept as true and final. There has to be questions and the answers have to be sought and if you believe that you know all the answers because others have told you that those answers are true and final then you aren't looking for yourself and you certainly aren't asking the right questions.

Thank you for your time.

[shaunm1963]

"Yet, we are expected at the same time to believe that humans have been to the moon??!! This moon business is a lie.....what else is? The moon-landings are real but we don't as of today have the space-suit tech to get us there!! What gives, Man; what gives?"

The moon actually has an atmosphere -it is not "deep space"

If the moon has an atmosphere could be please direct me to any link that verifies this. What kind of atmosphere?

Here's one for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon

[huh?]

You just linked to a reference

For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum. The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelopes surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar system—less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level. Otherwise, the Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment due to the high rate at which its atmosphere is lost to space.

Although it is very little it is not "deep space".

[Sup3rbuck]

Shouldn't this thread be in "flat earth general" ?
Is a debate on FE not to DEBATE the flat earth and
Not IF the earth is round Ball. ?

Maybe I'm understanding the rules wrong!

[shaunm1963]

You just linked to a reference

For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum. The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelopes surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar system—less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level. Otherwise, the Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment due to the high rate at which its atmosphere is lost to space.

Although it is very little it is not "deep space".

So called Deep Space is full of gases, but we couldn't go there in the space suits we currently have. Neither can we go to the Moon (lending assumption that it is what the official bodies say it is). Please refer to my earlier thread which included this:

BBC iWonder - What makes space travel so dangerous? Dara O-Briain (you know, Prof. Cox's side-kick) comments:

In Earth's orbit, astronauts might experience temperatures as low as -129C (-200F) and as high as 121C (250F). Spacesuits have been cleverly designed to protect us from these extreme
conditions. They also provide air pressure to prevent our bodily fluids from boiling in the hard vacuum of space. But astronauts can only travel so far in the spacesuits that exist today. Even
our best suits are limited to a ‘low-Earth orbit’. To push farther into the Solar System we will need a new suit – one that will shield us from the lethal hazards of deep space. But even then,
are we sturdy enough to survive a long mission?

So, writing this frustratingly, if we don't yet have the tech to go to the moon which despite it's leaking gases does not have a human atmosphere pray, tell me, how did we manage to get to and jump-around on the moon in the 60's....

If you reply that we did go to the moon then answer including the BBC iWonder reference above. These guys are on TV pushing the whole space mission saga to millions of keen viewers so they must be telling the truth, right?

[huh?]

I suppose that would be valid if you can show that conditions on the moon are outside of the operating parameters of the suits.

"if we don't yet have the tech to go to the moon"

...except for the fact that we have been there proves that we have had the technology for 46 years.

"despite it's leaking gases does not have a human atmosphere"

-low Earth orbit also does not have a "human atmosphere.

No. Simply because someone says something does not make it true.

In the case of the moon landings we also have a large mountain of cooberating evidence.

 

[andruszkow]

To Andruszkow

YOU SAID:
Truth is, you're so set on your misguided beliefs that you will come up with any excuse or unsound mathematical or scientific fact to support an idea that's so firmly nailed to your very existence, that you reject to accept the one and only proven truth: The Earth is a globe.

(sorry, I'm still struggling with the quote part of the forum; I'm not technically minded)

However, I do find it offensive that, despite the ongoing debate here in this forum which is seeking to find the truth, you seem to know me so well that you know the TRUTH about what I actually believe and accept to be true or not. Please stick to the debate/argument(s) in question and don't attempt to make assumptions about me especially in a way that is insulting. I have lived a long and interesting and at times difficult life. I have had experiences that make the subjects discussed in this forum seem petty by comparison. I have seen things that most people (perhaps yourself included) would dismiss out-right, calling me a liar to boot, if not a deluded lunatic. Let me tell YOU, sir, that the world is not just what the 'experts' would have us accept as truth and final. So, please be aware that nothing is set, nothing is final, nothing is proven with absolute total certainty. If you believe that to be the case then you are no different to those that believe any other idea or concept as true and final. There has to be questions and the answers have to be sought and if you believe that you know all the answers because others have told you that those answers are true and final then you aren't looking for yourself and you certainly aren't asking the right questions.

Thank you for your time.

You can not talk about me making assumptions as a negative thing, when you yourself are making assumptions. You keep assuming I believe what I've been told, even though I've been linking to a blog I'm running plenty of times on this forum, where I document my experiments with HAB (High altitude ballooning), taking special care about NOT using devices that FE'ers can disregard as manipulated etc. Avoiding any and all effects of Lens abberation, so that FE'ers can't claim my images are faulty.

I'm doing EXACTLY the opposite of what EACH and EVERY Flat Earther is doing: Spending money out of my own pocket to observe the world around me, taking extra care that I dont post moronic images taken over water only accounting for Pythagoras as my main calculation to support my claims, cherry picking science to support my ideas, without taking EVERYTHING into account, delivering reproducable results for you guys to peer-review and try out for yourself.

Even then it always ends up with: "I wasn't there, so cant confirm" - "There's no evidence you didn't manipulate bla de bleh" etc.

Flat Earth Model isn't a theory, it's a religion. End of freaking story.

[Earthstone232]

I am pretty much convinced that the earth is flat. I do however have a question . How do asteroids enter the earths atmosphere if the firmament is blocking anything from entering our atmosphere?