https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8
Propaganda is a fierce mistress.
A statement with no meaning - how unexpected...
A statement with no meaning - how unexpected...
It's not supposed to have meaning.
I was being sarcastic about it being unexpected lol
I would ask 'why make a comment that has no meaning?' but I do realize there are those who just have to say something :)
I was being sarcastic about it being unexpected lol
I would ask 'why make a comment that has no meaning?' but I do realize there are those who just have to say something :)
The vast majority of things said have no meaning to find meaning we have to look at calculable observations and reasonable interpretations.
That merely means that the majority of people fall into that category of those who say things, because they need to say something :)
Typical of someone who has nothing to contribute and yet can't help that they need some spotlight.
That merely means that the majority of people fall into that category of those who say things, because they need to say something :)
Typical of someone who has nothing to contribute and yet can't help that they need some spotlight.
I'm not really demanding the spotlight when I have an audience of 1. And no, you're assuming that some people exist who never say anything unless it has meaning. All people fall into that category, the majority of things said by all people has mo meaning.
That video is just embarrassing, even by RET standards. It's fallacies from beginning to end. The #1 reason we know the Earth is round is because we have pictures of it? Does this mean RET endorses the existence of the Loch Ness monster, aliens, ghosts, and bigfoot?
A lot of misinformation in your statement.
This post already has 40 views, so you obviously have a bigger spotlight lol.
There certainly are people who make it a point that their words actually mean something.
Your statement that the majority of things said by all people has no meaning is a generalization and you have no evidence to implicate "all" people into the statement.
You are simply trolling, but hey, it keeps this thread at the top of the board :)
A lot of misinformation in your statement.
This post already has 40 views, so you obviously have a bigger spotlight lol.
There certainly are people who make it a point that their words actually mean something.
Your statement that the majority of things said by all people has no meaning is a generalization and you have no evidence to implicate "all" people into the statement.
You are simply trolling, but hey, it keeps this thread at the top of the board :)
Why can't I be 35 of those views and you 5? Am I not allowed to look at a thread many times? I actually do have a factual bases for saying the majority of things said by all people have no meaning. The majority of communications between people is of a personal nature and is therefore meaningless. You have assumed people only communicate in a professional manor when in reality we spend most of our lives communicating in a personal manor.
Declaring someone a troll is a copout to providing an actual argument, you're basically saying "I can't argue with you so I will declare myself the winner and move on".
That video is just embarrassing, even by RET standards. It's fallacies from beginning to end. The #1 reason we know the Earth is round is because we have pictures of it? Does this mean RET endorses the existence of the Loch Ness monster, aliens, ghosts, and bigfoot?
lol
How many pictures of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts and bigfoot are there out there? I do not have an exact answer, but I will say 100 (and that is probably generous). How many of these pictures have not yet been shown to be frauds? 0. There are no viable photos of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
How many pictures of Earth from space are there? Millions. And while there are always some people who can put up manufactured pictures, the pictures from reputable sources do not have a single picture that has been shown to be a fabrication.
If that is your best retort to the video, you do not have much of an argument... only denialism.
I made no such assumption. And communication in a personal manner between people does still have a purpose. Your statement had no such purpose and as you admitted, your statement had no meaning, ergo, the only reason to speak was simply to say something or get a reaction, which is the very definition of a troll. Your comments are not even on topic, so not welcome.
How many pictures of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts and bigfoot are there out there? I do not have an exact answer, but I will say 100 (and that is probably generous). How many of these pictures have not yet been shown to be frauds? 0. There are no viable photos of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
How many pictures of Earth from space are there? Millions. And while there are always some people who can put up manufactured pictures, the pictures from reputable sources do not have a single picture that has been shown to be a fabrication.
NASA has admitted to doctoring its photos before their release.
I made no such assumption. And communication in a personal manner between people does still have a purpose. Your statement had no such purpose and as you admitted, your statement had no meaning, ergo, the only reason to speak was simply to say something or get a reaction, which is the very definition of a troll. Your comments are not even on topic, so not welcome.
We're talking about meaning, not purpose. My statement has purpose but no meaning. You need to refresh your definition of purpose and meaning before we can continue.
We have to get you up to scratch with the English language before we can talk about why the Earth is flat.
That video is just embarrassing, even by RET standards. It's fallacies from beginning to end. The #1 reason we know the Earth is round is because we have pictures of it? Does this mean RET endorses the existence of the Loch Ness monster, aliens, ghosts, and bigfoot?
lol
How many pictures of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts and bigfoot are there out there? I do not have an exact answer, but I will say 100 (and that is probably generous). How many of these pictures have not yet been shown to be frauds? 0. There are no viable photos of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
How many pictures of Earth from space are there? Millions. And while there are always some people who can put up manufactured pictures, the pictures from reputable sources do not have a single picture that has been shown to be a fabrication.
If that is your best retort to the video, you do not have much of an argument... only denialism.
Can you point us to only 10? I know of only at most 5 that NASA claims to be an actual photo.
All others are composites and NASA very clearly tells you. So the challenge is to provide us and yourself at least 10 actual photographs of the earth from space.
THE ENTIRE PLANET! NOT PARTIAL IMAGES FROM THE ISS!
When you find out that you will not find even 10 photos I'd like to hear what you think about that.
Provide the links from NASA of at least 10 actual photos of earth from space. From NASA... from the NASA website!
You say there are millions. I am challenging you to put up or shutup.
If I am wrong I will shutup.
The purpose was already identified: because you had to say something to get a reaction. Again... completely off topic.
And, no.. the Earth is not flat in spite of how you want to deceive yourself. There has yet to be a single piece of evidence that points to a flat Earth (and yes, I have read this site's entire faq - there is nothing there that hasn't been debunked multiple times).
Doing things like combining multiple pictures to create a larger picture from satellites too low in orbit to see the entire Earth is not doctoring, it's editing. The same can be said of using parts of multiple pictures to create an image of the Earth without cloud cover. Not only is this editing publicized in the pictures it's done in, it is not done to every picture and even the pictures used to create the larger pictures are still available for view. There are still thousands of unedited pictures of Earth taken from space. Simply claiming they are fabrications because you do not want them to be real is denialism, it doesn't make them any less than the damning evidence against the flat Earth fallacy that they are. It only shows you are close-minded.
They are literally fabrications and you just said so yourself.
Photos can be (and are) manipulated and are therefore not admissible as evidence.Not to mention that of all the points given about why the Earth is a round and not flat, you only choose the one that you simply claim is manufactured.
I chose the proclaimed #1 "reason" of the video - apparently the main pillar of RET - and pointed out that it is indisputably manufactured. You've since agreed. What's the problem?
Mods, hasn't this ridiculous video been debunked thoroughly enough that a thread featuring it automatically belongs in Angry Ranting by now?
That video is just embarrassing, even by RET standards. It's fallacies from beginning to end. The #1 reason we know the Earth is round is because we have pictures of it? Does this mean RET endorses the existence of the Loch Ness monster, aliens, ghosts, and bigfoot?
lol
How many pictures of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts and bigfoot are there out there? I do not have an exact answer, but I will say 100 (and that is probably generous). How many of these pictures have not yet been shown to be frauds? 0. There are no viable photos of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
How many pictures of Earth from space are there? Millions. And while there are always some people who can put up manufactured pictures, the pictures from reputable sources do not have a single picture that has been shown to be a fabrication.
If that is your best retort to the video, you do not have much of an argument... only denialism.
Can you point us to only 10? I know of only at most 5 that NASA claims to be an actual photo.
All others are composites and NASA very clearly tells you. So the challenge is to provide us and yourself at least 10 actual photographs of the earth from space.
THE ENTIRE PLANET! NOT PARTIAL IMAGES FROM THE ISS!
When you find out that you will not find even 10 photos I'd like to hear what you think about that.
Provide the links from NASA of at least 10 actual photos of earth from space. From NASA... from the NASA website!
You say there are millions. I am challenging you to put up or shutup.
If I am wrong I will shutup.
I said there were millions of photos of Earth, not that there were millions of photos of the complete Earth. The composites themselves are often made of hundreds of photos themselves. And yes, every photo from the ISS is a photo of Earth and included in the millions of photos taken from space of Earth.
Shall I simply give you the link to NASA's website so you can browse pictures? I figure that is something simple enough that you do not need me to hold your hand.
That video is just embarrassing, even by RET standards. It's fallacies from beginning to end. The #1 reason we know the Earth is round is because we have pictures of it? Does this mean RET endorses the existence of the Loch Ness monster, aliens, ghosts, and bigfoot?
lol
How many pictures of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts and bigfoot are there out there? I do not have an exact answer, but I will say 100 (and that is probably generous). How many of these pictures have not yet been shown to be frauds? 0. There are no viable photos of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
How many pictures of Earth from space are there? Millions. And while there are always some people who can put up manufactured pictures, the pictures from reputable sources do not have a single picture that has been shown to be a fabrication.
If that is your best retort to the video, you do not have much of an argument... only denialism.
Can you point us to only 10? I know of only at most 5 that NASA claims to be an actual photo.
All others are composites and NASA very clearly tells you. So the challenge is to provide us and yourself at least 10 actual photographs of the earth from space.
THE ENTIRE PLANET! NOT PARTIAL IMAGES FROM THE ISS!
When you find out that you will not find even 10 photos I'd like to hear what you think about that.
Provide the links from NASA of at least 10 actual photos of earth from space. From NASA... from the NASA website!
You say there are millions. I am challenging you to put up or shutup.
If I am wrong I will shutup.
I said there were millions of photos of Earth, not that there were millions of photos of the complete Earth. The composites themselves are often made of hundreds of photos themselves. And yes, every photo from the ISS is a photo of Earth and included in the millions of photos taken from space of Earth.
Shall I simply give you the link to NASA's website so you can browse pictures? I figure that is something simple enough that you do not need me to hold your hand.
No I have already done that. I am asking you to. Under those conditions above.
Just 10 photos of the whole earth from space. It's that simple.
You've changed your wording and tone a little but haven't provide just 10 pictures of the earth from space.
You said millions. So hey I am giving you only 10.
Again when you can't find even 10 supposed photos of the earth you must ask why.
I've done my research. I have only found 5 on the NASA website. I am asking you to find just 10.
You say surely they must be there but you'll see they are not. But please provide us just 10 real photos of the earth from NASA.
You say it's not hard, so let's see it.
That video is just embarrassing, even by RET standards. It's fallacies from beginning to end. The #1 reason we know the Earth is round is because we have pictures of it? Does this mean RET endorses the existence of the Loch Ness monster, aliens, ghosts, and bigfoot?
lol
How many pictures of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts and bigfoot are there out there? I do not have an exact answer, but I will say 100 (and that is probably generous). How many of these pictures have not yet been shown to be frauds? 0. There are no viable photos of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
How many pictures of Earth from space are there? Millions. And while there are always some people who can put up manufactured pictures, the pictures from reputable sources do not have a single picture that has been shown to be a fabrication.
If that is your best retort to the video, you do not have much of an argument... only denialism.
Can you point us to only 10? I know of only at most 5 that NASA claims to be an actual photo.
All others are composites and NASA very clearly tells you. So the challenge is to provide us and yourself at least 10 actual photographs of the earth from space.
THE ENTIRE PLANET! NOT PARTIAL IMAGES FROM THE ISS!
When you find out that you will not find even 10 photos I'd like to hear what you think about that.
Provide the links from NASA of at least 10 actual photos of earth from space. From NASA... from the NASA website!
You say there are millions. I am challenging you to put up or shutup.
If I am wrong I will shutup.
I said there were millions of photos of Earth, not that there were millions of photos of the complete Earth. The composites themselves are often made of hundreds of photos themselves. And yes, every photo from the ISS is a photo of Earth and included in the millions of photos taken from space of Earth.
Shall I simply give you the link to NASA's website so you can browse pictures? I figure that is something simple enough that you do not need me to hold your hand.
No I have already done that. I am asking you to. Under those conditions above.
Just 10 photos of the whole earth from space. It's that simple.
You've changed your wording and tone a little but haven't provide just 10 pictures of the earth from space.
You said millions. So hey I am giving you only 10.
Again when you can't find even 10 supposed photos of the earth you must ask why.
I've done my research. I have only found 5 on the NASA website. I am asking you to find just 10.
You say surely they must be there but you'll see they are not. But please provide us just 10 real photos of the earth from NASA.
You say it's not hard, so let's see it.
Saying that I changed my wording to compensate for your misunderstanding of what I said is rather devious of you lol
Your question has nothing to do with this topic. If you found 5 complete pictures, then you have found some complete pictures. Congrats - you can see that the Earth is round. Asking someone else to find more for you simply because you don't think it can be done only shows that you have no argument at all. You are simply pushing the photo issue even though the fact that the Earth is round has been known thousands of years prior to the space program and the invention of the camera.
Challenging someone to find you pictures when you have already found some only shows the degree to which you wish to hold onto your fallacy.
If you have no argument, you can stay out of the discussion.
The point the poster above is making is that if we have a legitimate space program which has sent many space ships out into space, many which have escaped earth orbit to explore the solar system, why are there so few pictures of the earth as a whole?
It doesn't make sense. That would be one of the obvious things to take when you're putting billions of dollars into a space probe with cameras on it.
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/himawari/sat_img.php?area=fd_
This satellite takes an image of earth every 30 minutes.
5 images of earth? Fairytales. You should really be building theories around reality, not your reality around theories
The point the poster above is making is that if we have a legitimate space program which has sent many space ships out into space, many which have escaped earth orbit to explore the solar system, why are there so few pictures of the earth as a whole?
It doesn't make sense. That would be one of the obvious things to take when you're putting billions of dollars into a space probe with cameras on it.
There are millions of full disk images of the Earth taken from space, Since the mid 1970's geostationary weather satellites have been taking full disk images at least every half hour or so, and the latest ones are full colour high resolution full disk images every few minutes.
My rough estimate is somewhere about 4 or 5 million full disk images of the Earth have been taken from space.
In case you are too busy to actually read what NASA tells you I will post the part I am referring to:
"The color Earth images are created by combining three separate single-color images to create a photographic-quality imageequivalent to a 12-megapixel camera. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used to create the color images"
COMBINING IMAGES = COMPOSITES!!
Why so many composites?
In case you are too busy to actually read what NASA tells you I will post the part I am referring to:
"The color Earth images are created by combining three separate single-color images to create a photographic-quality imageequivalent to a 12-megapixel camera. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used to create the color images"
COMBINING IMAGES = COMPOSITES!!
Why so many composites?
Every digital camera does the much the same. There are red green and blue CCD sensing elements, so using your logic, every digital picture ever taken is a composite, and therefore not **real**
The weather satellites use multiple portions of the em spectrum to identify different aspects of atmospheric activity.
In total Himawari-8 uses 16 different spectral bands, 10 of which are in the infrared. and 6 in the visible portion of the spectrum.
In case you are too busy to actually read what NASA tells you I will post the part I am referring to:
"The color Earth images are created by combining three separate single-color images to create a photographic-quality imageequivalent to a 12-megapixel camera. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used to create the color images"
COMBINING IMAGES = COMPOSITES!!
Why so many composites?
Every digital camera does the much the same. There are red green and blue CCD sensing elements, so using your logic, every digital picture ever taken is a composite, and therefore not **real**
The weather satellites use multiple portions of the em spectrum to identify different aspects of atmospheric activity.
In total Himawari-8 uses 16 different spectral bands, 10 of which are in the infrared. and 6 in the visible portion of the spectrum.
No. Not my logic. NASA's logic. It clearly says "by combining 3 seperate images". Using seperate images and combining them is the definition of COMPOSITE.
Here is a composite image from nasa. Not a photo. Don't let the word "high definition" fool you.
It clearly says it is a composite.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/lro-earthrise-2015
As laughable as that picture looks, all other NASA images look the same.
NASA has provided us only 2 supposed photos from 1972 to 2015. How can this be?
In case you are too busy to actually read what NASA tells you I will post the part I am referring to:
"The color Earth images are created by combining three separate single-color images to create a photographic-quality imageequivalent to a 12-megapixel camera. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used to create the color images"
COMBINING IMAGES = COMPOSITES!!
Why so many composites?
Every digital camera does the much the same. There are red green and blue CCD sensing elements, so using your logic, every digital picture ever taken is a composite, and therefore not **real**
The weather satellites use multiple portions of the em spectrum to identify different aspects of atmospheric activity.
In total Himawari-8 uses 16 different spectral bands, 10 of which are in the infrared. and 6 in the visible portion of the spectrum.
No. Not my logic. NASA's logic. It clearly says "by combining 3 seperate images". Using seperate images and combining them is the definition of COMPOSITE.
Here is a composite image from nasa. Not a photo. Don't let the word "high definition" fool you.
It clearly says it is a composite.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/lro-earthrise-2015
As laughable as that picture looks, all other NASA images look the same.
NASA has provided us only 2 supposed photos from 1972 to 2015. How can this be?
Himawari-8 has nothing to do with NASA, why do you keep referring back to them all the time?
The images from Himawari-8 and other weather satellites are just as valid as pictures taken with any digital camera. Why the obsession with composite, all digital colour images are composite.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Himawari-8_true-color_2015-01-25_0230Z.png/1024px-Himawari-8_true-color_2015-01-25_0230Z.png)
I could reduce the size, but then I suspect you'd claim the image is not original size.
It takes one of the above images every 10 minutes, as well as all the other spectral bands.
The one above IS NOT an actual photo.
The one above IS NOT an actual photo.
In what way is it not an actual photo? I can verify cloud formations and weather events that corresponds perfectly with the satellite images in real time.
You asked for a photo, then start back-pedalling, asking for an image that is not a composite.
Show me a digital colour photo that is NOT a composite. It can be a picture of anything, even of your cat if you like.
The one above IS NOT an actual photo.
In what way is it not an actual photo? I can verify cloud formations and weather events that corresponds perfectly with the satellite images in real time.
You asked for a photo, then start back-pedalling, asking for an image that is not a composite.
Show me a digital colour photo that is NOT a composite. It can be a picture of anything, even of your cat if you like.
Backpeddling? I clearly told you that the image you provided was not an actual photo taken from a camera. It is indeed a composite.
I cannot be any more clear than that.
You say those images are the same as a digital camera.
I say they are not. That image you posted was taken using a multispectral imager. Not a camera and not a digital camera.
And you are still using composite in the wrong context.
So let me try it. I just took a picture with my phone. It must be a multispectral image...
Rayzor 1 - 0 Bookish Nature
You can't keep altering the preconditions of your request to fit whatever you have planned as a reply.
You need to start wrapping your theory around reality, instead of creating your reality around a theory.
Rayzor 1 - 0 Bookish Nature
You can't keep altering the preconditions of your request to fit whatever you have planned as a reply.
You need to start wrapping your theory around reality, instead of creating your reality around a theory.
Quote my request. Then post more than 5 actual photos of earth from space.
And while you are at, quote where I have altered the conditions to my request.
Rayzor 1 - 0 Bookish Nature
You can't keep altering the preconditions of your request to fit whatever you have planned as a reply.
You need to start wrapping your theory around reality, instead of creating your reality around a theory.
Quote my request. Then post more than 5 actual photos of earth from space.
And while you are at, quote where I have altered the conditions to my request.
Rayzors most recent reply sums everything up better than I could manage.
This is comical.
NASA clearly themselves say that no actual photos were provided from 1972-2015.
This is their words not mine. So that means anything you guys are calling a photo isn't. NASA says so. Not me.
So all the images from satellites are NOT actual photos. So says NASA.
So if NASA tells you they only have a handful of actual photos, then I ask why?
And if don't believe what me or NASA tells you then go to their website and provide us with more than 5 actual photos.
This is comical.
NASA clearly themselves say that no actual photos were provided from 1972-2015.
This is their words not mine. So that means anything you guys are calling a photo isn't. NASA says so. Not me.
So all the images from satellites are NOT actual photos. So says NASA.
So if NASA tells you they only have a handful of actual photos, then I ask why?
And if don't believe what me or NASA tells you then go to their website and provide us with more than 5 actual photos.
So, you've discovered that NASA don't operate weather satellites, not all that surprising since they don't do weather forecasting. They don't broadcast TV shows either.
Why do you expect NASA to do everything space related, what about ESA, JAXA, ROSCOSMOS, CNSA, ASE, EWO, ISA, ASI, KCST, KARI, ISRO, CNES, HKAY, NSAU, RFSA.... all those agencies have launch capability... wait I think I missed one... ah yes, who could forget NASA.
I was going to list all the meteosat's and others, but I got lazy, you can find them yourself. or not.
This is comical.
NASA clearly themselves say that no actual photos were provided from 1972-2015.
This is their words not mine. So that means anything you guys are calling a photo isn't. NASA says so. Not me.
So all the images from satellites are NOT actual photos. So says NASA.
So if NASA tells you they only have a handful of actual photos, then I ask why?
And if don't believe what me or NASA tells you then go to their website and provide us with more than 5 actual photos.
So, you've discovered that NASA don't operate weather satellites, not all that surprising since they don't do weather forecasting. They don't broadcast TV shows either.
Why do you expect NASA to do everything space related, what about ESA, JAXA, ROSCOSMOS, CNSA, ASE, EWO, ISA, ASI, KCST, KARI, ISRO, CNES, HKAY, NSAU, RFSA.... all those agencies have launch capability... wait I think I missed one... ah yes, who could forget NASA.
I was going to list all the meteosat's and others, but I got lazy, you can find them yourself. or not.
NASA does operate weather satellites, and yes they do even broadcast t.v. shows. Have you ever heard of the NASA channel?
You are now suggesting that NASA doesn't operate weather satellites... And don't broadcast t.v. shows...
It's getting deep in here...
Still yet to provide the actual photos I am asking for.
We get this video a lot, so I thought I'd make an easily found thread debunking it. If a mod could sticky this that would be awesome.
1. Other planets are round
According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.
2. Time Zones
This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.
3. The Coriolis Effect
Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.
4. Triangles
This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.
5. The Sun
Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth, the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.
6. Stars Change
Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.
7. Magellan
Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.
8. The Horizon
This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.
9. Eclipses
Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.
10. Photographic Evidence
Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.
Oh man, this tired old crap again. You didn't think to actually look around before posting, did you?
From the other FES website (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58309.0):Quote from: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58309.0We get this video a lot, so I thought I'd make an easily found thread debunking it. If a mod could sticky this that would be awesome.
1. Other planets are round
According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.
2. Time Zones
This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.
3. The Coriolis Effect
Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.
4. Triangles
This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.
5. The Sun
Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth, the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.
6. Stars Change
Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.
7. Magellan
Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.
8. The Horizon
This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.
9. Eclipses
Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.
10. Photographic Evidence
Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.
Rayzor 1 - 0 Bookish Nature
You can't keep altering the preconditions of your request to fit whatever you have planned as a reply.
You need to start wrapping your theory around reality, instead of creating your reality around a theory.
Quote my request. Then post more than 5 actual photos of earth from space.
And while you are at, quote where I have altered the conditions to my request.
Rayzors most recent reply sums everything up better than I could manage.
No. You made accusations that I have changed my request. I would like you to quote my initial request, then show me where I changed my request.
I have only asked for more than 5 actual photos from NASA of the entire earth. That's all...
And guess what not even 1 has been provided. Isn't that interesting?
Can you show me at least 1?
Then move onto 5...
That video is just embarrassing, even by RET standards. It's fallacies from beginning to end. The #1 reason we know the Earth is round is because we have pictures of it? Does this mean RET endorses the existence of the Loch Ness monster, aliens, ghosts, and bigfoot?
lol
How many pictures of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts and bigfoot are there out there? I do not have an exact answer, but I will say 100 (and that is probably generous). How many of these pictures have not yet been shown to be frauds? 0. There are no viable photos of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
How many pictures of Earth from space are there? Millions. And while there are always some people who can put up manufactured pictures, the pictures from reputable sources do not have a single picture that has been shown to be a fabrication.
If that is your best retort to the video, you do not have much of an argument... only denialism.
Can you point us to only 10? I know of only at most 5 that NASA claims to be an actual photo.
All others are composites and NASA very clearly tells you. So the challenge is to provide us and yourself at least 10 actual photographs of the earth from space.
THE ENTIRE PLANET! NOT PARTIAL IMAGES FROM THE ISS!
When you find out that you will not find even 10 photos I'd like to hear what you think about that.
Provide the links from NASA of at least 10 actual photos of earth from space. From NASA... from the NASA website!
You say there are millions. I am challenging you to put up or shutup.
If I am wrong I will shutup.
The Epic camera on the Discover satellite takes a full frame picture of the entire Earth every 2 hours. http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
But since nobody on FES believe any picture of the Earth from space is real, I doubt it will convince you.
This was released by NASA Aug 2015. The images are said to have been taken July 2015.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2015/08/dscovrepicmoontransitfull-cropped2.gif)
Now go to the link you provided and click through each and every date from July 2015 to now.
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
Where is the moon in ALL the other supposed photos. I have not found one yet!!!!
Every image looks just like this:
(http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-archive/png/epic_1b_20151201092238_00.png)
Where is the moon in any image provided?
If you cannot find an image on that website with the moon in it I'd say that is very damaging evidence that it is a complete fraud.
If you cannot find an image on that website with the moon in it I'd say that is very damaging evidence that it is a complete fraud.
The Epic camera on the Discover satellite takes a full frame picture of the entire Earth every 2 hours. http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
But since nobody on FES believe any picture of the Earth from space is real, I doubt it will convince you.
This was released by NASA Aug 2015. The images are said to have been taken July 2015.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2015/08/dscovrepicmoontransitfull-cropped2.gif)
Now go to the link you provided and click through each and every date from July 2015 to now.
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
Where is the moon in ALL the other supposed photos. I have not found one yet!!!!
Every image looks just like this:
(http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-archive/png/epic_1b_20151201092238_00.png)
Where is the moon in any image provided?
If you cannot find an image on that website with the moon in it I'd say that is very damaging evidence that it is a complete fraud.
Click Galleries and click Lunar Transit, you'll find 20 photos of the transit taken at 16 July 2015.
The Epic camera on the Discover satellite takes a full frame picture of the entire Earth every 2 hours. http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
But since nobody on FES believe any picture of the Earth from space is real, I doubt it will convince you.
This was released by NASA Aug 2015. The images are said to have been taken July 2015.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2015/08/dscovrepicmoontransitfull-cropped2.gif)
Now go to the link you provided and click through each and every date from July 2015 to now.
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
Where is the moon in ALL the other supposed photos. I have not found one yet!!!!
Every image looks just like this:
(http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-archive/png/epic_1b_20151201092238_00.png)
Where is the moon in any image provided?
If you cannot find an image on that website with the moon in it I'd say that is very damaging evidence that it is a complete fraud.
Wow look how the clouds don't move at all, and these were taken over how many days? That's AMAZING truly
In case you are too busy to actually read what NASA tells you I will post the part I am referring to:You really have the naivety to ask "Why so many composites?"
"The color Earth images are created by combining three separate single-color images to create a photographic-quality imageequivalent to a 12-megapixel camera. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used to create the color images"
COMBINING IMAGES = COMPOSITES!!
Why so many composites?
Wow look how the clouds don't move at all, and these were taken over how many days? That's AMAZING truly
Wow look how the clouds don't move at all, and these were taken over how many days? That's AMAZING truly
You need to look more carefully. The clouds move. The pictures were taken over less than 4 hours.
Wow look how the clouds don't move at all, and these were taken over how many days? That's AMAZING truly
You need to look more carefully. The clouds move. The pictures were taken over less than 4 hours.
I still don't see any movement. I would like to see the date of those photographs and then correspond to the wind forecasted on that day. Allthough even then the wind is measured at ground level but still it would be interesting.
This video shows cloud movement over just two hours
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EztaokGdzbk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The clouds do move, your eyes just refuse to believe it.
Bookish Neptune will not do as he promised. Because he doesnt want to! clear and simple.
He asked for pictures, we showed him, he told us those werent pictures, that they are fake.... ??? We explained to him what composite pictures were. He started complaining about what why there was no moon, we showed him the moon. Apparently the clouds don't move. so it must be CGI....... ::)
Even if you fly him up to the ISS and point him to a window with a view of the planet, he will probably say its a projection or CGI or something like that.
Wow look how the clouds don't move at all, and these were taken over how many days? That's AMAZING truly
You need to look more carefully. The clouds move. The pictures were taken over less than 4 hours.
I still don't see any movement. I would like to see the date of those photographs and then correspond to the wind forecasted on that day. Allthough even then the wind is measured at ground level but still it would be interesting.
This video shows cloud movement over just two hours
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EztaokGdzbk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Without going into too much detail because of obvious reasons, there's a bit of a difference in the distance of your recording and the recording in question. Just a tad.
Bookish Neptune will not do as he promised.
He asked for pictures, we showed him, he told us those werent pictures, that they are fake.... ??? We explained to him what composite pictures were. He started complaining about there was no moon, we showed him the moon.
You and a lot of other people have missed the my point about the moon anomaly COMPLETELY!
So I shall try again. Now please pay close attention.
NASA released the following gif:
(http://i.imgur.com/rXEJoQ4.gif)
These images were taken supposedly from the EPIC (DSCOVR) Satellite.
Located here at this link:
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
This supposed satellite takes a picture of earth from space every 2 hours.
NASA publishes all of the pictures taken each day.
At the link above, you will find a calendar for every day since July 2015.
Click on EVERYDAY from July 2015 until now Feb 2016.
You WILL NOT see the moon in any other image published!
This CANNOT be!
Munky and all the others commenting, please take a moment and actually read what I have written, and then click through every image provided by NASA from this supposed satellite and tell me why no moon appears.
This supposed satellite has been taking images of the earth since JULY 2015 and we have been provided just one image with the moon in view???
HOW CAN THIS BE?
I submit this as proof this satellite is a fraud. And all the images that come along with it.
Instead of emotionally posting, please take a minute to see this anamoly yourself!
Then give a response to:
Why do no other images show the moon?
You and a lot of other people have missed the my point about the moon anomaly COMPLETELY!
So I shall try again. Now please pay close attention.
NASA released the following gif:
(http://i.imgur.com/rXEJoQ4.gif)
These images were taken supposedly from the EPIC (DSCOVR) Satellite.
Located here at this link:
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
This supposed satellite takes a picture of earth from space every 2 hours.
NASA publishes all of the pictures taken each day.
At the link above, you will find a calendar for every day since July 2015.
Click on EVERYDAY from July 2015 until now Feb 2016.
You WILL NOT see the moon in any other image published!
This CANNOT be!
Munky and all the others commenting, please take a moment and actually read what I have written, and then click through every image provided by NASA from this supposed satellite and tell me why no moon appears.
This supposed satellite has been taking images of the earth since JULY 2015 and we have been provided just one image with the moon in view???
HOW CAN THIS BE?
I submit this as proof this satellite is a fraud. And all the images that come along with it.
Instead of emotionally posting, please take a minute to see this anamoly yourself!
Then give a response to:
Why do no other images show the moon?
I'll repeat the question that I asked you earlier in the thread:
Why would you think there must be further images of the moon? The images go back only 8 months. How often do you think the moon passes between earth and the satellite?
One pass of the moon in 8 months seems reasonable to me. I'm sure there'll be further passes along in due course.
What does the moon have to do with this discussion. you asked for photos of earth, they were provided. Now you are fixating on the moon. Why do you keep jumping from one thing to the next? are you actively asking for a science lesson?
In that case I recommend you go and do your own research instead of asking why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Study the link very carefully that I posted, and the answer shall be revealed to you.Oh , you mean inclination, obliquity, the elliptical orbit and all?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Study the link very carefully that I posted, and the answer shall be revealed to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Study the link very carefully that I posted, and the answer shall be revealed to you.Oh , you mean inclination, obliquity, the elliptical orbit and all?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Minor details.
I'll repeat the question that I asked you earlier in the thread:
Why would you think there must be further images of the moon? The images go back only 8 months. How often do you think the moon passes between earth and the satellite?
One pass of the moon in 8 months seems reasonable to me. I'm sure there'll be further passes along in due course.
I didn't see that question. I apologize.
Here is your answer.
The RE suggests that the moon rotates around the earth!!
I read that somewhere... let me think... oh yes, every single book published about the moon and earth.
Now. You want to answer my question???
Why do no other images of the moon exist from that satelitte?
If the moon rotates around the earth it should be in almost ever image.
Remember that website shows you everyday that's its logged images and that supposed satellite takes a supposed image every 2 hours, yet no images of the moon?
How can this be explained?
I'll repeat the question that I asked you earlier in the thread:
Why would you think there must be further images of the moon? The images go back only 8 months. How often do you think the moon passes between earth and the satellite?
One pass of the moon in 8 months seems reasonable to me. I'm sure there'll be further passes along in due course.
I didn't see that question. I apologize.
Here is your answer.
The RE suggests that the moon rotates around the earth!!
I read that somewhere... let me think... oh yes, every single book published about the moon and earth.
Now. You want to answer my question???
Why do no other images of the moon exist from that satelitte?
If the moon rotates around the earth it should be in almost ever image.
Remember that website shows you everyday that's its logged images and that supposed satellite takes a supposed image every 2 hours, yet no images of the moon?
How can this be explained?
For the moon to appear in the image it must pass directly between the satellite and the earth. Now, the satellite is positioned at a Lagrangian point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) between the sun and the earth, so the moon only has an opportunity to be seen by the satellite once every month. But since the moon's orbit is inclined by about 5 degrees to the ecliptic, most months the moon will pass either above or below the satellite's field of vision. So to have only one sighting of the moon in 8 months isn't really unusual.
I hope that makes sense.
I'll repeat the question that I asked you earlier in the thread:
Why would you think there must be further images of the moon? The images go back only 8 months. How often do you think the moon passes between earth and the satellite?
One pass of the moon in 8 months seems reasonable to me. I'm sure there'll be further passes along in due course.
I didn't see that question. I apologize.
Here is your answer.
The RE suggests that the moon rotates around the earth!!
I read that somewhere... let me think... oh yes, every single book published about the moon and earth.
Now. You want to answer my question???
Why do no other images of the moon exist from that satelitte?
If the moon rotates around the earth it should be in almost ever image.
Remember that website shows you everyday that's its logged images and that supposed satellite takes a supposed image every 2 hours, yet no images of the moon?
How can this be explained?
For the moon to appear in the image it must pass directly between the satellite and the earth. Now, the satellite is positioned at a Lagrangian point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) between the sun and the earth, so the moon only has an opportunity to be seen by the satellite once every month. But since the moon's orbit is inclined by about 5 degrees to the ecliptic, most months the moon will pass either above or below the satellite's field of vision. So to have only one sighting of the moon in 8 months isn't really unusual.
I hope that makes sense.
So if I put a camera in between the sun and the earth in the model below, you are saying we should only see the moon 1 time in the camera every 8 months?
(http://www.f-lohmueller.de/pov_tut/animate/im/planet_00ani.gif)
How can that be so?
Are you also suggesting the moon's orbit changes so dramatically from July 16-17 to not be able to see it?
So on July 16 the moon appeared in between the supposed camera and earth. And the very next day, the moon's orbit changed so much as to not be able to see it at all?
The moon's orbit also changed so much in one day that we will not see it for another 8 months?
So if I put a camera in between the sun and the earth in the model below, you are saying we should only see the moon 1 time in the camera every 8 months?
(http://www.f-lohmueller.de/pov_tut/animate/im/planet_00ani.gif)
How can that be so?
Are you also suggesting the moon's orbit changes so dramatically from July 16-17 to not be able to see it?
So on July 16 the moon appeared in between the supposed camera and earth. And the very next day, the moon's orbit changed so much as to not be able to see it at all?
The moon's orbit also changed so much in one day that we will not see it for another 8 months?
So if I put a camera in between the sun and the earth in the model below, you are saying we should only see the moon 1 time in the camera every 8 months?
(http://www.f-lohmueller.de/pov_tut/animate/im/planet_00ani.gif)
Yes I'm saying that. When thinking about this remember that the model above isn't remotely to scale.
Also remember that the satellite camera only has a very narrow field of vision - enough to just cover the earth from around a million miles out.How can that be so?
Are you also suggesting the moon's orbit changes so dramatically from July 16-17 to not be able to see it?
So on July 16 the moon appeared in between the supposed camera and earth. And the very next day, the moon's orbit changed so much as to not be able to see it at all?
The moon's orbit also changed so much in one day that we will not see it for another 8 months?
After the appearance on July 16 it would be another month before the moon was anywhere near the satellite's field of vision - because the moon orbits the earth once a month.
And because of the angle of the moon's orbit, in most months the moon will pass either above or below the camera view. So the moon will come into view relatively rarely.
So if I put a camera in between the sun and the earth in the model below, you are saying we should only see the moon 1 time in the camera every 8 months?
(http://www.f-lohmueller.de/pov_tut/animate/im/planet_00ani.gif)
Yes I'm saying that. When thinking about this remember that the model above isn't remotely to scale.
Also remember that the satellite camera only has a very narrow field of vision - enough to just cover the earth from around a million miles out.How can that be so?
Are you also suggesting the moon's orbit changes so dramatically from July 16-17 to not be able to see it?
So on July 16 the moon appeared in between the supposed camera and earth. And the very next day, the moon's orbit changed so much as to not be able to see it at all?
The moon's orbit also changed so much in one day that we will not see it for another 8 months?
After the appearance on July 16 it would be another month before the moon was anywhere near the satellite's field of vision - because the moon orbits the earth once a month.
And because of the angle of the moon's orbit, in most months the moon will pass either above or below the camera view. So the moon will come into view relatively rarely.
Ok so the moon came Into view on July 16. And as it passed/orbited back "hehind" the earth over the next approx 4-7 days, as i assume would be viewed, the camera would not pick up this image?
Clarification:
At some point you should see the moon "setting" behind the earth and at many different angles as it progresses its supposed orbit. And then days later you should see it "rising" until out of view of the satellite. Rinse and repeat every single day.
I am curious why this isn't observed in any of the images provided?
Also, if you would give me a model that is to scale or one that is more acceptable I'd appreciate it. I just chose a random one to ask my question. Thanks.
Yeah, I wonder why people wouldn't pay much attention to you ::)
Ok so the moon came Into view on July 16. And as it passed/orbited back "hehind" the earth over the next approx 4-7 days, as i assume would be viewed, the camera would not pick up this image?
Clarification:
At some point you should see the moon "setting" behind the earth and at many different angles as it progresses its supposed orbit. And then days later you should see it "rising" until out of view of the satellite. Rinse and repeat every single day.
I am curious why this isn't observed in any of the images provided?
Also, if you would give me a model that is to scale or one that is more acceptable I'd appreciate it. I just chose a random one to ask my question. Thanks.
I'm not targetting you at all. I'm simply approaching a certain type of entitled RE'ers, of which you happen to be a prominent example.
I'm not targetting you at all. I'm simply approaching a certain type of entitled RE'ers, of which you happen to be a prominent example.
The moon orbits the earth every 27/28 days so after July 16 it will be nearly 14 days before it goes to the directly opposite side of the earth from the satellite's point of view. On this day the moon may come into view but this is again dependent on the inclination of the moon's orbit.
but I don't think you understand the word.Honey, I've already asked you to stop resorting to cheap personal attacks. It's cute that you consider foreigners to be "disabled", but try to take it down a notch.
What do you think the word "entitled" actually means?I like the definition that pops up on Google, so I'll roll with it: believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
I don't know where you got that from, but I already explained this to you via PM: Once you stop acting like an entitled child, people will stop calling you out on it, and maybe they'll even treat you with respect.I'm not targetting you at all. I'm simply approaching a certain type of entitled RE'ers, of which you happen to be a prominent example.
So harrassment, basically.
The moon orbits the earth every 27/28 days so after July 16 it will be nearly 14 days before it goes to the directly opposite side of the earth from the satellite's point of view. On this day the moon may come into view but this is again dependent on the inclination of the moon's orbit.
Ok let's talk about the field of view provided to us by the moon passing clips...
You will see in the first pic that there is indeed PLENTY of field of view:
(http://handymanofgermantown.com/pica.jpg)
And so, considering what I observe as a substantial amount of Field of View seen, we should at some point see something that resembles this:
(http://handymanofgermantown.com/picb.jpg)
As you can see I was very generous on the field of view and I reduced the moon from the clip down to more than half.
The fact that we do not see any images resembling this, nor ANY images of the moon at all from this supposed satellite has me more than just a little suspicious.
So we have determined that the field of view argument is invalid. What say ye?
The model you've shown is completely false, the Moon's orbit is inclined about 5.145 degrees to the ecliptic that's why Solar and Lunar eclipse doesn't happen every month.
I'll repeat the question that I asked you earlier in the thread:
Why would you think there must be further images of the moon? The images go back only 8 months. How often do you think the moon passes between earth and the satellite?
One pass of the moon in 8 months seems reasonable to me. I'm sure there'll be further passes along in due course.
I didn't see that question. I apologize.
Here is your answer.
The RE suggests that the moon rotates around the earth!!
I read that somewhere... let me think... oh yes, every single book published about the moon and earth.
Now. You want to answer my question???
Why do no other images of the moon exist from that satelitte?
If the moon rotates around the earth it should be in almost ever image.
Remember that website shows you everyday that's its logged images and that supposed satellite takes a supposed image every 2 hours, yet no images of the moon?
How can this be explained?
For the moon to appear in the image it must pass directly between the satellite and the earth. Now, the satellite is positioned at a Lagrangian point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) between the sun and the earth, so the moon only has an opportunity to be seen by the satellite once every month. But since the moon's orbit is inclined by about 5 degrees to the ecliptic, most months the moon will pass either above or below the satellite's field of vision. So to have only one sighting of the moon in 8 months isn't really unusual.
I hope that makes sense.
So if I put a camera in between the sun and the earth in the model below, you are saying we should only see the moon 1 time in the camera every 8 months?
(http://www.f-lohmueller.de/pov_tut/animate/im/planet_00ani.gif)
How can that be so?
Are you also suggesting the moon's orbit changes so dramatically from July 16-17 to not be able to see it?
So on July 16 the moon appeared in between the supposed camera and earth. And the very next day, the moon's orbit changed so much as to not be able to see it at all?
The moon's orbit also changed so much in one day that we will not see it for another 8 months?
You forgot to click the "Galleries" button.
Bookish Neptune will not do as he promised.
He asked for pictures, we showed him, he told us those werent pictures, that they are fake.... ??? We explained to him what composite pictures were. He started complaining about there was no moon, we showed him the moon.
No. You nor anyone else has "showed me the moon".
You and a lot of other people have missed the my point about the moon anomaly COMPLETELY!
So I shall try again. Now please pay close attention.
NASA released the following gif:
(http://i.imgur.com/rXEJoQ4.gif)
These images were taken supposedly from the EPIC (DSCOVR) Satellite.
Located here at this link:
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
This supposed satellite takes a picture of earth from space every 2 hours.
NASA publishes all of the pictures taken each day.
At the link above, you will find a calendar for every day since July 2015.
Click on EVERYDAY from July 2015 until now Feb 2016.
You WILL NOT see the moon in any other image published!
This CANNOT be!
Munky and all the others commenting, please take a moment and actually read what I have written, and then click through every image provided by NASA from this supposed satellite and tell me why no moon appears.
This supposed satellite has been taking images of the earth since JULY 2015 and we have been provided just one image with the moon in view???
HOW CAN THIS BE?
I submit this as proof this satellite is a fraud. And all the images that come along with it.
Instead of emotionally posting, please take a minute to see this anamoly yourself!
Then give a response to:
Why do no other images show the moon?
From: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall)Presumably the distance from the north pole out to the equator can be taken as one quarter of this, 6,225 miles or 10,018 km.
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world; the area which the light from the sun affects.
A sea mile or nautical mile is, strictly, the length of a minute of arc measured along a meridian. It represents a minute of longitude only at the equator.Currently the Nm is defined as exactly 1,852 meters.
but I don't think you understand the word.Honey, I've already asked you to stop resorting to cheap personal attacks. It's cute that you consider foreigners to be "disabled", but try to take it down a notch.What do you think the word "entitled" actually means?I like the definition that pops up on Google, so I'll roll with it: believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
A certain group of Round Earthers, very notably including andruszkow, are deeply convinced that their posts are more deserving of a response than those of anyone else. Everyone gets ignored sometimes, but when it happens to an entitled RE'er, they go out of their way to announce their objection to it. This is due to their extreme sense of entitlement, superiority, and a complete lack of humility.
Here's a thread that illustrates it quite well - http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3449.0 - note how upset he gets when he doesn't get what he wants.I don't know where you got that from, but I already explained this to you via PM: Once you stop acting like an entitled child, people will stop calling you out on it, and maybe they'll even treat you with respect.I'm not targetting you at all. I'm simply approaching a certain type of entitled RE'ers, of which you happen to be a prominent example.
So harrassment, basically.
All the argument here seems to be between one side saying that we should see the moon more often in certain photos than we do.
Just to use your own terminology, it's cute that you try to publicly humiliate me based on a post that peaked after a long period of belittleling in previous posts.Nah, that thread is a perfect example of your usual posting habits. You attack everyone you disagree with, and when people point it out, you cry harassment.
Do I need to pull out the whole "The notion of letting syrian refugees in" threadOh my god this is absolutely priceless. You're upset over an AR thread. A thread located in the Angry Ranting subforum.
Skipping the fact completely that I'm not acting like a "entitled child"No, sweetheart, the post you've just made illustrates it perfectly.
Just to use your own terminology, it's cute that you try to publicly humiliate me based on a post that peaked after a long period of belittleling in previous posts.Nah, that thread is a perfect example of your usual posting habits. You attack everyone you disagree with, and when people point it out, you cry harassment.Do I need to pull out the whole "The notion of letting syrian refugees in" threadOh my god this is absolutely priceless. You're upset over an AR thread. A thread located in the Angry Ranting subforum.
I'll try to be polite and helpful, just for a moment: In case you weren't aware, this is where we go to throw insults at one another. If you don't like that, don't go there.Skipping the fact completely that I'm not acting like a "entitled child"No, sweetheart, the post you've just made illustrates it perfectly.
You obviously didn't read all of it.Oh, no, I did read it. It's the most beautiful childish tantrum I've ever seen. "No, I'm not entitled, but even if I am, I have so many good reasons!" Absolutely spectacular.
You obviously didn't read all of it.Oh, no, I did read it. It's the most beautiful childish tantrum I've ever seen. "No, I'm not entitled, but even if I am, I have so many good reasons!" Absolutely spectacular.
Note that we're not "reaching out" to anyone. You're the one hunting for FE-related articles and commenting on them. You're the one barging into threads demanding that everyone treats you like some sort of special child.
You're the one with a problem here, not us.
I was under the apparently mistaken impression that OP was:How do we know the Earth is spherical?
I made a post http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4499.msg88069#msg88069 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4499.msg88069#msg88069)where I stated that the earth we live on simply cannot be flat.
All the argument here seems to be between one side saying that we should see the moon more often in certain photos than we do.
What I am doing here is essentially repeating the earlier post, with a little different wording.
But, what about the crucial question? Let's look at the accepted dimensions of the earth.
From the TFES Wiki we have:Quote from: Flat Earth WikiFrom: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall)Presumably the distance from the north pole out to the equator can be taken as one quarter of this, 6,225 miles or 10,018 km.
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world; the area which the light from the sun affects.
I will use a rounded figure for the north pole to equator distance of 10,000 km, which is closer to the currently accepted value.
Then to get a figure for the equatorial circumference of the earth, we can look at the "definition" of the Nautical Mile:QuoteA sea mile or nautical mile is, strictly, the length of a minute of arc measured along a meridian. It represents a minute of longitude only at the equator.Currently the Nm is defined as exactly 1,852 meters.So the circumference of the equator must be (1,852 m) x 60' x 360° = 40,003 km.
Again I will use a rounded figure for the equatorial circumference of 40,000 km.
But, on any flat earth map I have seen the equatorial circle circumference is simply thecircumference of a circle of radius 10,000 km, or 62,830 km.
I do not see any possible way of reconciling the quite accepted equatorial circumference of 40,000 km of the earthwith the flat earth equatorial circle circumference of 62,830 km.What are your thoughts? Are my distances wrong?
It seems strange to me that so many flat earth supporters send post after post quibble about tiny problems they see in a satellite photo, or some feature of the globe, yet are simply quite unwilling to tackle (what to me are) glaring holes in their own model.Part of this must be that so many of flat earth supporters simply do not understand the implications of what they claim to support.
All the argument here seems to be between one side saying that we should see the moon more often in certain photos than we do.
It appears you haven't been keeping up with the thread. Nearly the entire first page is about pictures and the rest of the thread....
And contrary to what you may believe, all that transpired BEFORE you entered the discussion.
The OP posted a video. 10 reasons earth is round... #10 We have pictures...
Someone said "We have pictures of lochness monster and big foot, so should believe those pictures are real".
So.. if you would kindly go back and read, you will CLEARLY see the bulk of this thread is about images.
The funniest part is that as long as there is one irrefutable reason why the Earth is round, then the flat Earth fallacy is wrong.
The funniest part is that as long as there is one irrefutable reason why the Earth is round, then the flat Earth fallacy is wrong.
And that one irrefutable reason is what?...
Drumrolllllll.... Let's have it!
Give us your "nail in the coffin".
The funniest part is that as long as there is one irrefutable reason why the Earth is round, then the flat Earth fallacy is wrong.
And that one irrefutable reason is what?...
Drumrolllllll.... Let's have it!
Give us your "nail in the coffin".
You mean that there is only one of the points left that hasn't been refuted? lol
Only 10 points have been given and none have been refuted.
You drive drunk all the time??? wow I hope you stop. you are endangering people.
I'v been keeping up with the thread and seen it getting like a kindergarten "Yes it does", "No, it doesn't" spat - useless!All the argument here seems to be between one side saying that we should see the moon more often in certain photos than we do.It appears you haven't been keeping up with the thread. Nearly the entire first page is about pictures and the rest of the thread....
And contrary to what you may believe, all that transpired BEFORE you entered the discussion.
The OP posted a video. 10 reasons earth is round... #10 We have pictures...
Someone said "We have pictures of lochness monster and big foot, so should believe those pictures are real".
So.. if you would kindly go back and read, you will CLEARLY see the bulk of this thread is about images.
Oh you mean the video, I gotcha...
So the very first reason in the video...
1. "All other heavenly bodies are round and there is no reason to think the earth isn't the same."
Let me try it....
"I have 2 boys and that means there is no reason to think I will ever have a girl".
It's kindergarten childsplay at best.
The very first argument is not even an argument, its a gross and negligible statement...
Here's another example....
"I drive drunk all the time and have never got into a wreck, so therefore I will never get in a wreck while driving drunk".
See, but the drunk driver forgot that there may be other drunks on the road... you follow?
So, in short, the first "proof" is "this is this way, so this must be this way."
Can you explain the logic that makes #1 in the video a fact?
Then I will personally move onto #2 in the video...
No I don't follow... Those statements make absolutely no sense to what we are talking about. Which Might I remind you, is how we know the earth is round. The earth being round has nothing to do with children or driving drunk.
I ask for proof of the earth being flat. You point me to the FAQ, we look through the FAQ,
1. I did not post a video that started this thread. AMAN did...
2. I have not seen the video in question. I only know that the earth is Round. So I have no way to tell you if the video is proof or not.
3. Your examples that you said in your own words, do not contrast correctly with the statements provided.
4. So if you are not claiming that the earth is flat, then what is it?
5. I am not erroneously quoting you. You did indeed make those contrasts, did you not?
Oh you slipped in there while Amann and I were going back and forth. I apologize.
And I don't know the shape of the earth.
And you said for 1, said that I pointed you to the wiki link.
I know what you meant, you meant the FE community in general. I understand.
But problem is you said that I pointed you there. As I made clear in my last post I never have.
I was just clarifying for discussion purposes only.
Ok let's talk about the field of view provided to us by the moon passing clips...
You will see in the first pic that there is indeed PLENTY of field of view:
(http://handymanofgermantown.com/pica.jpg)
And so, considering what I observe as a substantial amount of Field of View seen, we should at some point see something that resembles this:
(http://handymanofgermantown.com/picb.jpg)
As you can see I was very generous on the field of view and I reduced the moon from the clip down to more than half.
The fact that we do not see any images resembling this, nor ANY images of the moon at all from this supposed satellite has me more than just a little suspicious.
So we have determined that the field of view argument is invalid. What say ye?
The funniest part is that as long as there is one irrefutable reason why the Earth is round, then the flat Earth fallacy is wrong.
And that one irrefutable reason is what?...
Drumrolllllll.... Let's have it!
Give us your "nail in the coffin".
You mean that there is only one of the points left that hasn't been refuted? lol
Only 10 points have been given and none have been refuted.
Oh you mean the video, I gotcha...
So the very first reason in the video...
1. "All other heavenly bodies are round and there is no reason to think the earth isn't the same."
Let me try it....
"I have 2 boys and that means there is no reason to think I will ever have a girl".
It's kindergarten childsplay at best.
The very first argument is not even an argument, its a gross and negligible statement...
Here's another example....
"I drive drunk all the time and have never got into a wreck, so therefore I will never get in a wreck while driving drunk".
See, but the drunk driver forgot that there may be other drunks on the road... you follow?
So, in short, the first "proof" is "this is this way, so this must be this way."
Can you explain the logic that makes #1 in the video a fact?
Then I will personally move onto #2 in the video...
To add to this argument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmGGBVR2Ru8
The content is within the video. The video conforms to what is being discussed in this Thread. "How do we know the Earth is spherical?"
The content is within the video. The video conforms to what is being discussed in this Thread. "How do we know the Earth is spherical?"
That is not what I said at all. You are reasonably new, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you are posting a video, give a brief explanation of what it is and why it is relevant. Saying it is relevant and the content is in the video is not what I was suggesting. All you need to do is edit your previous post (the one with the video) and provide some context.
You having 2 boys and expecting to always have girls is a ridiculous counterargument.
Please stay on topic. This thread is about how we know the earth is Spherical.
You having 2 boys and expecting to always have girls is a ridiculous counterargument.
Slight mistake in your quoting me there...
Always should be replaced by the word never.
I said "I have 2 boys and that means there is no reason to think I will ever have a girl".
But more importantly, I'd like to save you some time.
Myself and I am positive most of the people here understand all the principles you pointed out and then some.
You have to keep in mind "we" all know what mainstream science/school teaches us.
I myself excelled throughout school.
So, I don't aim to sound harsh, but there is little to "teach" anyone here.
RE'rs have a notion that flat earthers are uneducated. I think if you asked around you'd find that's not the case at all.
The fact that people who support flat earth do not subscribe to mainstream science, doesn't mean they don't understand it.
And in relation to your post, that was a good response to the question.
Now if that or even a bit of that was was said for #1 in the video then it would at least have an argument.
The kindergarten like statements of that video are just laughable. Truly, I was out and about today mocking it with some friends, to me it is just that funny.
Some education systems are better than others of course.
Simply writing off an answer because it is simple without using the reasoning skills you were supposed to be taught in school is beneath an educated person...
Some education systems are better than others of course.
Simply writing off an answer because it is simple without using the reasoning skills you were supposed to be taught in school is beneath an educated person...
Ok. Here is what you first attempted to "teach" me:
Now, try to realize that there are 30 billion trillion stars just in the visible universe. 3x10^22 (that's a 3 followed by 22 zeroes).
If you were a "teacher", would you teach this to children as fact?
I hope not... I am about to dismantle that erroneous statement very easily.
Here is how that calculation came about:
"The team carried out two sets of observations in the same region"
Source:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/02/the-visible-universe-seven-trillion-dwarfs-and-billions-of-undetected-galaxies-weekend-feature.html
SAY WHAT?
So they point their telescope into space only 2 times into THE SAME REGION...
And BOOM, they know how many stars are in space, and so do you!!
You can't use this mainstream nonsense as fact. It is not. And it's very easy to point that out.
So on point one of your "lesson", you taught me nothing other than how easily one can believe what they hear/read and, so easily spread that hearsay as fact... But really i already knew that...
Here is how that calculation came about:
"The team carried out two sets of observations in the same region"
Source:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/02/the-visible-universe-seven-trillion-dwarfs-and-billions-of-undetected-galaxies-weekend-feature.html
SAY WHAT?
So they point their telescope into space only 2 times into THE SAME REGION...
And BOOM, they know how many stars are in space, and so do you!!
You can't use this mainstream nonsense as fact. It is not. And it's very easy to point that out.
Reading the article, it's very clear that they deliberately looked at the same region twice in order to compare two different observation techniques. I'm not sure why you would think there's a problem with that.
How is this research nonsense? I'd agree that the resulting figures are not facts - they are estimates based, no doubt, on many assumptions. But the article gives no reason to question the basis of the techniques nor the earnestness of the investigation. To call it nonsense is unjustified.
You wanting to put stress on a number that you want to not be true still does nothing for any argument you are trying to make.
SAME REGION.. That's the keyword.
It doesn't matter if they pointed their telescopes 1 Billion times into THE SAME REGION.
I pointed mine into the same region more than 8 times last night. Does that give me right to say there are 40 Billion trillion stars in our viewable universe?
Even more so, does that give me the right to spread that statement as fact?
While it might be fine that you are including the word estimate, the original person I was quoting, whom was attempting to "school" me, DID NOT.
You wanting to put stress on a number that you want to not be true still does nothing for any argument you are trying to make.
No. I am putting stress on:
SAME REGION..
I've been very clear about that.
Again, you can try to teach me about things such as comets, but sorry I was taught that when I was around 4 years old.
So, let's see if we can sum up this conversation so far...
" You immediately latch onto the pictures point and make a claim that doesn't even fit that loch ness and nonsense must be true then."
No. Incorrect. I never was in any conversation about the Loch Ness monster. You are wrong. Reread the thread before you quote me please.
"but you show a lack of understanding about science and the scientific method."
Ok I'm learning how to be more scientific by your standards.
I've been practicing all day. Here you go.
You got to realize that there are 5 Billion earth like planet's in the viewable solar system. So therefore the earth is flat. "Science".
Oh and there is this stuff in space, we call it space dust. And when space dust collides it forms galaxies! "More Science".
But wait kids, there's more! There are these things in space we call Black Holes! You know, its a hole, and its black! They suck things in! And all those things disappear!
Still can't get the public into space, still no life forms found. But there's hope! We found some water on Mars! We will send astronauts to Mars before the taxpayers that made it possible gets to even go to supposed lower earth orbit. "Science".
How are my science teaching skills coming along?
So, let's see if we can sum up this conversation so far...
" You immediately latch onto the pictures point and make a claim that doesn't even fit that loch ness and nonsense must be true then."
No. Incorrect. I never was in any conversation about the Loch Ness monster. You are wrong. Reread the thread before you quote me please.
"but you show a lack of understanding about science and the scientific method."
Ok I'm learning how to be more scientific by your standards.
I've been practicing all day. Here you go.
You got to realize that there are 5 Billion earth like planet's in the viewable solar system. So therefore the earth is flat. "Science".
Oh and there is this stuff in space, we call it space dust. And when space dust collides it forms galaxies! "More Science".
But wait kids, there's more! There are these things in space we call Black Holes! You know, its a hole, and its black! They suck things in! And all those things disappear!
Still can't get the public into space, still no life forms found. But there's hope! We found some water on Mars! We will send astronauts to Mars before the taxpayers that made it possible gets to even go to supposed lower earth orbit. "Science".
How are my science teaching skills coming along?
IMO opinion what I see displayed in this forum is we do not believe what we do not witness ourselves, unless the picture, experiment, video, etc conforms to the Earth being flat.
IMO opinion what I see displayed in this forum is we do not believe what we do not witness ourselves, unless the picture, experiment, video, etc conforms to the Earth being flat.
Actually, that is exactly right. Confirmational bias. Any evidence contrary to their belief is ignored and ridiculous made-up explanations are used as arguments. Their FAQ is full of fabrications and outright lies that they try to push as truth even though they have no evidence to back anything...
I had to laugh at the "educated guy" who posted that black holes were "holes" lol
IMO opinion what I see displayed in this forum is we do not believe what we do not witness ourselves, unless the picture, experiment, video, etc conforms to the Earth being flat.
Actually, that is exactly right. Confirmational bias. Any evidence contrary to their belief is ignored and ridiculous made-up explanations are used as arguments. Their FAQ is full of fabrications and outright lies that they try to push as truth even though they have no evidence to back anything...
I had to laugh at the "educated guy" who posted that black holes were "holes" lol
Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?
Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?
The one who chooses to ignore evidence.
Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?
The one who chooses to ignore evidence.
Obviously you can't follow a question very well, because that wasn't an answer at all.
I asked a straight forward question and got a deflection, nice one.
Yes, but numerous time I could say about you:Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?
The one who chooses to ignore evidence.
Obviously you can't follow a question very well, because that wasn't an answer at all.
I asked a straight forward question and got a deflection, nice one.
The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
Yes, but numerous time I could say about you:Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?
The one who chooses to ignore evidence.
Obviously you can't follow a question very well, because that wasn't an answer at all.
I asked a straight forward question and got a deflection, nice one.
"Obviously you can't follow a question very well, because that wasn't an answer at all.
I asked a straight forward question and got a deflection, nice one."
Numerous times I asked you direct questions. Never an answer!
Don't say don't have "confirmation bias":QuoteThe issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
A statement as biased (and utterly inaccurate) as this can only can only come from from someone so indoctrinated that he cannot objectively look at evidence. You just ignore my replies when I point out your errors!
Who is more likely to have confirmation bias? The person adhering to something they were taught since kindergarten, or the person who just learned about a re-emerging model for our universe?
The one who chooses to ignore evidence.
Obviously you can't follow a question very well, because that wasn't an answer at all.
I asked a straight forward question and got a deflection, nice one.
I still don't understand how gravity, an attraction of two different objects, can make one circle around the other. So it isn't a leap for me to begin to question things and research with an open mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_W280R_Jt8
Propaganda is a fierce mistress.
Fact: No you won't.
That video is just embarrassing, even by RET standards. It's fallacies from beginning to end. The #1 reason we know the Earth is round is because we have pictures of it? Does this mean RET endorses the existence of the Loch Ness monster, aliens, ghosts, and bigfoot?
lol
How many pictures of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts and bigfoot are there out there? I do not have an exact answer, but I will say 100 (and that is probably generous). How many of these pictures have not yet been shown to be frauds? 0. There are no viable photos of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
How many pictures of Earth from space are there? Millions. And while there are always some people who can put up manufactured pictures, the pictures from reputable sources do not have a single picture that has been shown to be a fabrication.
If that is your best retort to the video, you do not have much of an argument... only denialism.
Can you point us to only 10? I know of only at most 5 that NASA claims to be an actual photo.
All others are composites and NASA very clearly tells you. So the challenge is to provide us and yourself at least 10 actual photographs of the earth from space.
THE ENTIRE PLANET! NOT PARTIAL IMAGES FROM THE ISS!
When you find out that you will not find even 10 photos I'd like to hear what you think about that.
Provide the links from NASA of at least 10 actual photos of earth from space. From NASA... from the NASA website!
You say there are millions. I am challenging you to put up or shutup.
If I am wrong I will shutup.
DSCOVR? Isn't that the one which took a picture of the earth with the word SEX spelled in the clouds?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc7FvDnKEGc
It's also the one a million miles away, just so luckily launched at the exact right moment, velocity, and trajectory to find a theoretical still spot in space to get the perfect shot of earth.
And Al Gore came up with it and it only costed $100,000,000.
DSCOVR? Isn't that the one which took a picture of the earth with the word SEX spelled in the clouds?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc7FvDnKEGc
It's also the one a million miles away, just so luckily launched at the exact right moment, velocity, and trajectory to find a theoretical still spot in space to get the perfect shot of earth.
And Al Gore came up with it and it only costed $100,000,000.
DSCOVR? Isn't that the one which took a picture of the earth with the word SEX spelled in the clouds?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc7FvDnKEGc
It's also the one a million miles away, just so luckily launched at the exact right moment, velocity, and trajectory to find a theoretical still spot in space to get the perfect shot of earth.
And Al Gore came up with it and it only costed $100,000,000.
It still needs to have corrections made.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/noaas-dscovr-going-to-a-far-out-orbit/#.Vt33LpwrKUk
"At L1, the gravitational forces between the sun and Earth balance the centrifugal forces of a satellite to provide a quasi-stable orbit point requiring fewer orbital corrections (and therefore reducing fuel consumption) for the spacecraft to remain in its operational location for a longer period of time."
It is also not just chance they put it in the right spot. Do you really think they just launch multi-million dollar craft and hope things just work out? Maybe there were some calculations involved as to when to launch and where the satellite needs to be.
Here is a link to the NOAA site that provides information on points of Lagrange and their usefulness for different types of observations.
http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news_archives/points_of_lagrange.html#
DSCOVR? Isn't that the one which took a picture of the earth with the word SEX spelled in the clouds?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc7FvDnKEGc
It's also the one a million miles away, just so luckily launched at the exact right moment, velocity, and trajectory to find a theoretical still spot in space to get the perfect shot of earth.
And Al Gore came up with it and it only costed $100,000,000.
It still needs to have corrections made.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/noaas-dscovr-going-to-a-far-out-orbit/#.Vt33LpwrKUk
"At L1, the gravitational forces between the sun and Earth balance the centrifugal forces of a satellite to provide a quasi-stable orbit point requiring fewer orbital corrections (and therefore reducing fuel consumption) for the spacecraft to remain in its operational location for a longer period of time."
It is also not just chance they put it in the right spot. Do you really think they just launch multi-million dollar craft and hope things just work out? Maybe there were some calculations involved as to when to launch and where the satellite needs to be.
Here is a link to the NOAA site that provides information on points of Lagrange and their usefulness for different types of observations.
http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news_archives/points_of_lagrange.html#
I bet you are a huge Star Trek fan... this is nothing but science fiction as far as I'm concerned. I know it's a noble thought that humanity is capable of this level of engineering prowess, but I just don't buy it. Maybe if they would release all the operational notes, calculations, and data and research that was involved in this project to peer review I'd be more credulous. But a link to their own website with 3 paragraphs and a rudimentary graphic is not enough for me.
I bet you are a huge Star Trek fan... this is nothing but science fiction as far as I'm concerned. I know it's a noble thought that humanity is capable of this level of engineering prowess, but I just don't buy it. Maybe if they would release all the operational notes, calculations, and data and research that was involved in this project to peer review I'd be more credulous. But a link to their own website with 3 paragraphs and a rudimentary graphic is not enough for me.
I havent seen any legitimate evidence the world is round on this thread yey
I havent seen any legitimate evidence the world is round on this thread yeyOne of the simpler points that comes indirectly from Geodetic Surveyors work is that shape of the earth simply will not fit on a plane surface!
I havent seen any legitimate evidence the world is round on this thread yey
Then you failed to even watch the original video posted. It is simple enough for even those of sub-par IQ scores to understand.