521

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Beautiful recent hi-res image of Earth from the moon

« on: May 17, 2016, 10:41:08 AM »

Very far away? Foreground is sharp , grass outlines are sharp. Moon super fuzzy. This is a spectacular picture, but it does not explain the NASA picture.  Both the foreground and background are equally sharp in the NASA picture....

Moon is fuzzy in the earthbound photo because it is seen through miles and miles of atmospheric distortion.
Earth is sharp in the spaceborne photo because the moon has no atmosphere to introduce distortion.

522

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why google map showing China smaller than the real?

« on: May 14, 2016, 04:57:38 AM »

This is an important work and you should stop disturbing him with silly objections until he completes it.

You know how he could avoid disturbance?  He could stay away until he's done.  Since he has elected NOT to do so, anything he posts is fair game for reply.

523

Flat Earth Theory / Re: WHY IS EVERYONE BENT ON PROVING THE EARTH IS FLAT

« on: May 14, 2016, 04:55:37 AM »

when science fails , u are to rely on your intuition

You want some science?  Take a look at a thread that has gone uncontested by even a single Flat Earth supporter and let me know what you think.

I'm hoping that your '5th grade' comment is an allusion to the "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" TV show, and does not mean that you yourself have only gotten that far into your scholastic career.  The arguments in the thread I refer to will make more sense to a person with some high school knowledge, I'm afraid.

524

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why don't atmopsher don't fly away to space?

« on: May 14, 2016, 04:44:51 AM »

If it's just Gravity then why are is the more dense Ozone layer suspended above the less dense blend of our atmosphere?

Seems like this question should be a wash; on either a flat or a round earth, a denser gas should settle beneath a less-dense one.  In any case there is an answer: ozone is common at high altitude, above the bulk of the atmosphere, because it is generated up there.  Ozone molecules come about when ultraviolet light splits an ordinary O₂ molecule into two Oxygen atoms, one (or both) of which then go on to bind to an O₂ molecule and become an O₃ ozone molecule.  These heavier molecules are unstable, and most of them split back up when they in turn absorb some more UV.  Ozone generation at lower altitudes is far less than at high altitudes because the process that creates high altitude ozone blocks much of the UV needed to drive the process.

525

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why google map showing China smaller than the real?

« on: May 13, 2016, 04:25:41 PM »

I would hazard a guess that the projection used by the Chinese map is not the same as the projection used by the Google map.  Which proves only that different projections result in different distortions, NOT that one is right and the other is wrong.  In point of fact, neither projection is 'right' because all projections involve some compromise in the effort to portray a curved surface on a flat surface.

526

Flat Earth Theory / Re: WHY IS EVERYONE BENT ON PROVING THE EARTH IS FLAT

« on: May 13, 2016, 01:23:17 PM »

somebody has to protect their gain defendin the earth is a globe.

What gain, exactly?  Who is 'gaining' anything from hiding the true shape of the world from us?  How are they gaining anything?  What are they gaining?  If 'they' are gaining something from the world's population believing in a round earth, why do 'they' allow this site to persist?

527

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Beautiful recent hi-res image of Earth from the moon

« on: May 07, 2016, 06:15:48 PM »

That's an awful lot of explaining.

Suspension of disbelief at its finest.

Really?  You want to talk about 'an awful lot of explaining' and 'suspension of disbelief' with us?  The Flat Earth has BEST examples:

"Universal" Acceleration, which accelerates the earth, moon, sun, and other celestial objects (if not, the earth would be catching up to and passing some of them) but not any of the objects on or near the earth (as in: when I release a bowling ball in the air above the earth, why does that bowling ball not feel "universal" acceleration and begin accelerating in the same direction as the earth, which would make it appear to hover?)

The Shadow Object, the never-observed moon-like-thing that invisibly casts its shadow upon the moon during lunar eclipses, and otherwise leaves zero observational evidence of its existence.

Celestial Gears, which supposedly explains both why we have wind on the earth's surface, and how the stars rotate one direction in the northern hemisphere while rotating the other way in the southern hemisphere, but fails to address the fact that such a system would look truly bizarre at the equator (the two halves of the sky would have to diverge from each other as they set, in order to rotate in opposite directions from northern and southern latitudes).  And fails to address the fact that such a system is incompatible with the most popular flat earth 'map' on the site.

Bendy Light, a convenient hypothetical construct that allows FE to completely ignore the fact that light travels in straight lines except where it is subject to refraction, and even there refraction functions to move light from one straight-line path to another straight-line path, is well understood, and shows no experimental justification for working differently over long distances than short distances.  Ignore it, that is, until a flat earther uses perfectly-straight-line sun elevation observations to calculate the sun's elevation above a plane earth.  For some reason, when doing that math, the light of the sun doesn't bend or curve at all.

528

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: May 07, 2016, 05:12:05 PM »

I haven't been to Antarctica, but once I get there and if I can see it, I'll post a photo.

Is this a hypothetical, or are you really going?  If so I'm jealous, that would be awesome to go there!

529

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Great NASA Conspiracy

« on: May 06, 2016, 03:41:32 AM »

Question, are there lunar astronauts or was that just some kind of hypothetical scenario described in that article.

Those are hpothetical future astronauts, as indicated by the use of the future tense in all the verbs referring to them.  "lunar astronauts will see..."   "what will farside explorers think with no Earth overhead?"   

And by the use of the sentence "Future astronauts will see the continents....."

I honestly couldn't follow that odd ball explanation of how the picture was created, maybe that was the point.

I wonder if this is an effect of disbelieving the spacecraft idea.  Those of us who accept spaceflight may have internalized some concepts that we unconsciously incorporate into our understanding of the explanation; concepts which you have not internalized (or once had, but have since rejected) and therefore no longer form a portion of your thought process and are unavailable to assist.  In the same way that particle/wave duality might be incomprehensible to someone stuck with the "billiard balls in circular orbits" Bohr atomic model, instead of the more modern "quantum probability shells" model of atomic structure?  It's a reach, I know, don't bother expending a lot of energy arguing about it.

530

Flat Earth Community / Re: Curvature ?

« on: May 05, 2016, 12:50:48 PM »

Of course it is a composite photo in the sense that it is the combination of signals from a number of sensors. I believe these satellites have sensors for eight separate wavelengths, covering at least the infra-red and visible ranges.

You're right about that, the visible-light images are a three channel composite of red, blue, and green, while the infrared and the water vapor images are composites of multiple infrared wavelengths.  Color-compositing is not unique to satellite photography, either.  It is how CCD and CMOS sensors in all digital cameras work.  In essence, EVERY photo taken today is a color-composite photo!

But of course when most people say "composite" they're not talking about color-composite, they're talking about stitching multiple small images into one large image, which is not how the Advanced Himawari Imager aboard these satellites is achieving the full-disk image.  The field of view is wide enough to capture the image in one shot.

531

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: May 04, 2016, 02:50:42 PM »

Is polaris everytime 60 degrees angle to North Pole?

No, it is presently inclined at +89° 15′ 50.8″

532

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Great NASA Conspiracy

« on: May 04, 2016, 05:27:23 AM »

It is worth noting also, in response to the satellite dish question, those dishes are aimed higher than they might appear to be.  The horn is offset, so the aim isn't along the low angle seen between the dish and the horn

533

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why does Australia need huge radio telescopes like "the dish" ?

« on: May 03, 2016, 11:16:09 PM »

May I assume from your post above that you believe in BOTH a flat earth AND satellites?  If so, that will be unusual among flat earthers, which is why I ask.  Want to be sure I'm understanding correctly.

534

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: May 03, 2016, 04:19:23 PM »

Same is true on the sunward side as well.

A.  Usually the moon passes the sunward point above or below the center of the band and we have a New Moon without an eclipse, as the moon's shadow passes above the North pole or below the south pole
B.  Sometimes it passes the sunward point in or near the middle of the band and we get some form of Solar Eclipse:
       1.  If it passes above or below dead-center, we get a partial eclipse
       2.  If it passes dead center and near Apogee (farther from earth) with get an annular eclipse
       3.  If it passes dead center closer to perigee (nearer to earth) we get a total eclipse.  The closer to earth, the wider the shadow.

535

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Google map debunk: Shangai to New Delhi is closer than Beijing to New Delhi

« on: May 03, 2016, 02:27:00 PM »

Hey, İntikam?  Rabinoz?  You do know it is not necessary to quote entire replies, right?.  You can either edit them down, as you can see from many of my replies, or you could simply reply without quoting.  We will be able to follow the conversation, I promise you.

536

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: May 03, 2016, 02:21:46 PM »

I heard this reason befor that "the moon is very far away". This means nothing.

It actually means EVERYTHING.  The distance between Moon and Istanbul is effectively the same as the distance between Moon and Sydney, or the Moon and Tokyo.  This means that the light of the Moon should be no different at those places, because the light is travelling the same distance, subject to the same inverse-square law. 

Also important to note: that drawing of sun, earth, and moon is not to scale.  That drawing shows a ridiculously close moon, which would occupy an enormous amount of sky if that's where it really orbited.  ThatsNice chose that drawing, no doubt, so as to have a moon large enough to see it for the purpose of illustrating the lunar phases.  Here is a scale drawing to illustrate lunar distance:



See how tiny the moon is?  See how far away?  The difference in distance between lunar Apogee and lunar Perigee is almost eight times the largest possible distance between the moon and two far-apart spots on earth, which means that the distances between cities on earth is insignificant.  And the difference in distance between the moon and two far-apart spots on earth is only 2% of the shortest possible earth-moon distance, not enough to make a visible difference in the moonlight at those two locations.

537

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: May 03, 2016, 12:52:32 PM »

Is earth continuesly turning, spinning and moving with sun? The angle must continuesly changin.  Why does'nt this happen?

This is disprove of the earth spinnig, rotating and moving. It is impossible to see the polaris as same place if everything is moving.

Now that you've said this same thing twice, I'm sure I understand you and will reply.  As you say, we claim the earth is continuously turning, spinning, rotating, yes.  And for everything else in the sky, it is true that they will not be in the same place, and the angle would change.  Polaris happens to be located in a unique position, however: the rotational axis of the earth points at the spot in the sky occupied by Polaris.  This is why its angle never changes, and it appears to spin in place (in actual fact, it is slightly off-axis, a little less than 45 arc-minutes, or 3/4 of a degree.  This means it does actually describe a very small apparent circle in the sky, but very tiny) and the whole northern hemisphere sky appears to rotate around it.

Consider an analogy: place a video camera on a record player's turntable, pointing at a wall.  If you film the room while turning the record, everything in the image will be moving.  Point the camera upwards at a 45 degree angle, same result.  But if you point the camera along the spin axis (at the ceiling) and run the test, you will find a spot on the ceiling that does not move within the image, but turns in place.  THAT'S where Polaris would be.

538

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 02, 2016, 05:47:00 PM »

Thanks for yet another knee-jerk "Earth Not a Globe" reference, Tom, those aren't getting old at all.  Also, do you even know what is written there?  Go back and read it again, it isn't the great rebuttal you seem to think it is.  He pretends to have scored a big victory by pointing out that the distance, mass, and orbit were inaccurate.  This, for an object that had never been known to be a planet at all.  (The blue object later known to be Neptune had been observed and recorded before, but each time it was thought to be a star)  Of course you're going to have some math errors when you don't have much data yet!  The math was a long, laborious, manual process at the time, they were doing just enough math as they could do on as little data as they had (this was based on observations of Uranus, for which there was a lot less observational history than what exists for the inner planets.)  The fact that Neptune was exactly where the math said it would be, the fact that the math led to the discovery, and the math came from the heliocentric model, is never "addressed in Earth Not a Globe" much less refuted!

539

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are there other known or visible flat planets with domes?

« on: May 02, 2016, 05:30:05 PM »

If the evidence from NASA is any actual indication of reality, then it appears that flatness is the normal shape for objects in the known universe.  We have observed both the moon and Mars from right at the surface and in both cases the surface is shown to be flat.  It is inconclusive as of yet, but (again, assuming NASA can be trusted) it seems that large objects tend to flatness as a general rule.

It sounds like you are referring to photos taken at the Martian surface by Viking, Spirit, and Opportunity, for example?  If so this is an acknowledgement of the reality of spaceflight, which is unexpected (I guess you DID bracket that statement with a pair of 'if' statements, which I included, but still...).  It also serves to illustrate what we round earth folks have been saying all along: from the ground, from the perspective of a puny human and his tiny machines, the shape of a vast, round, planet-sized object APPEARS to be flat, even though it is NOT flat.  From the great distance of earth, look at the moon with the naked eye and look at Mars with a telescope: they are both round.  Look at them from ground level: they appear to be flat.

If you google "surface of Mars" you will find plenty of images that show conclusively that the surface of Mars is every bit as flat as that of Earth, and a google search for "surface of the Moon" will yield similar results.  The most likely explanation is that those astronomers you mention are merely witnessing an optical illusion, possibly caused by EA, much like that viewed by NASA of Earth.

I put it to you that the 'optical illusion' you speak of has nothing to do with EA, but instead is caused by the enormous difference in scale from the tiny human/machine sized object to the vast moon/mars sized object.  And having shown that the round-from-a-distance moon and Mars appear flat-from-the-surface, perhaps one can conclude that the same flat-from-the-surface appearance earth does not eliminate the possibility that it too is round-from-a-distance?  (I won't go so far as to claim proof, merely that the possibility is not eliminated)

540

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation of sun's motion

« on: May 02, 2016, 05:00:33 PM »

The Ancient Babylonians, a flat earth society, could predict the paths of the planets in the sky very well. Their path is a celestial event which comes in patterns, and is easily predicted. Astronomers still use the same methods to predict celestial events today.

Pretty sure those patterns are the planets orbiting the sun.
Or maybe they're a result of the celestial gears???

We RE supporters spill a lot of digital ink pointing out that planetary orbits and their apparent paths through the sky are well modelled and accurately predicted by the heliocentric, elliptical, gravitational, Keplerian system we use today.  However, we would do well to remember that the geocentric, circular, epicyclic, Ptolemaic system also accurately predicted the planets's movements.  In fact it will likely surprise many a round earther to learn that it actually is mathematically possible to combine enough epicycles to duplicate an elliptical orbit to whatever degree of predictive accuracy you want.  Wikipedia puts it this way:

Any path—periodic or not, closed or open—can be represented with an infinite number of epicycles.  This is because epicycles can be represented as a complex Fourier series; so, with a large number of epicycles, very complicated paths can be represented in the complex plane.

This is not to say that the two models are on equal footing with respect to their explanatory value, merely that the ability to predict planetary motion is not limited to the RE model.   The best example of the superior explanatory value of the heliocentric, elliptical, gravitational, Keplerian system has to be the discovery of Neptune.  Under the geocentric, circular, epicyclic, Ptolemaic system, no amount of adding epicycles would lead you to think "Uranus moves strangely, maybe there is an as-yet undiscovered planet infuencing it?"  No, you would just keep adding the epicycles, get a good fit, and stop.  What really happened was that after nearly three years of manual regression analysis undertaken independently by two astronomers from 1843-1846, a position in the sky was calculated for the hypothetical object.  When a telescope was pointed there for the express purpose of finding that object, it was found in less than an hour.  It was observed for the next two nights, it was seen to move against the background stars, and the model was confirmed.