1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 17, 2020, 12:15:04 PM »

Gravity will pull it to earth

It will try to.
Throw a stone horizontally and it will land some distance in front of you.
Fire a bullet and it will land much further from you.
If two people did those things at the same time then which would hit the ground first, the stone or the bullet?
It’s counter intuitive but they’d hit the ground at the same time (ignoring air resistance and assuming the bullet doesn’t go far enough that the earth’s curve is a significant factor.)
They hit at the same time because gravity pulls both of them to earth at the same rate, the bullet goes further because it is going faster and so can travel horizontally further in the time.

What if you had a more powerful gun which shot the bullet faster? It would go further still. Now, if you imagine we live on a globe (I know, but humour me) then the ground would slope away from you. Let’s ignore hills and mountains. You should be able to see that if you shoot the bullet fast enough then the bullet would never land, it would fall but as it falls the ground slopes away. Get the speed right and it would go all the way around the earth (assuming it maintains a constant speed so ignoring air resistance). That is how orbit works.

Gravitational constant , oxymoronic name, changes with altitude according to the inverse square law and pulls to the centre of mass or so the theory goes.

Here you have quite succinctly shown you don’t understand English or science.
An oxymoron is two adjacent words which contradict one another. These do not.
The Gravitational constant is, as the name suggests, constant. The gravitational force the earth exerts in a body is not constant.

It 's a plane, balloon satellite, or whatever lighter than air craft they want to wow you with . It's a hologram maybe. It isn't what OP thinks it to be.

And where is your evidence for that?

The gravitational constant ,big G , is not constant . Do some research. Start here if you wish . Article from New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24180-strength-of-gravity-shifts-and-this-time-its-serious/

There's loads more on tinterweb .

Watched the ISS plane fly over last night 11.40pm. Ridiculously bright for an object 250mls or so away . Apparently it's because the solar panels cover a big area and reflect sunlight. I always thought the point of solar panels was to absorb sunlight.

Are there orbital parameters for iss that allow for the alledged spin of the earth ? Surely it must be constantly accelerating ?

Earth travels around the sun , according to theory , at 66,600mph, devilish number that . Now that is 18.5 miles per second or 30kms .Iss travels at 7kms we are led to believe . How does it keep up ? How does it maintain its orbit? How do the geostationary satellites ,thousands of miles away , cope with earths motions ? There is no wonder it took a scifi writer to dream up such nonsense or nonscience.

There is no magic velocity ,in globe theory , that allows a satellite to orbit a planet , it either escapes or is pulled back to earth .
If there is ,where is the magic formula?

The value G MAY not be constant. But this is speculative if you read the article carefully.

You are mistaken. There is such a velocity: v=\sqrt{GM/r}, which was given in the post above your reply.

Why do you think satellites care about the earth spinning? Do you suspect there is a force exerted by a spinning object? Does the earth care that the sun spins?

It is difficult to reply properly when your statements are vague. What does it mean for satellites to “cope” with earth’s motions?

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Short note on perspective : where is the sun at full moon at midnight ?

« on: May 17, 2020, 01:43:11 AM »

BRrollin,
you are good. Congrats to the hat trick. And yes, the height of the posts really does not matter except one has to check whether they are all of the same height as I claimed. If you can do it, do it. Never trust anybody's math or statements just because they seem to know what they are doing. Doesn't hurt either to brush up on your own math skills or even learn new stuff - including calculus. That's by the way where the fun really starts; before that its sometimes a real drudgery.

Anyway, concerning your comment about light from the moon being generated by something/somebody on the moon ? Haven't seen that yet. Do you know how that should work ?

Thanks man , I’ll try and practice my math skills!

I have no idea how it’s supposed to work. They propose that it’s a possibility but I haven’t seen anything more.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 16, 2020, 11:30:43 PM »

Gravity will pull it to earth

It will try to.
Throw a stone horizontally and it will land some distance in front of you.
Fire a bullet and it will land much further from you.
If two people did those things at the same time then which would hit the ground first, the stone or the bullet?
It’s counter intuitive but they’d hit the ground at the same time (ignoring air resistance and assuming the bullet doesn’t go far enough that the earth’s curve is a significant factor.)
They hit at the same time because gravity pulls both of them to earth at the same rate, the bullet goes further because it is going faster and so can travel horizontally further in the time.

What if you had a more powerful gun which shot the bullet faster? It would go further still. Now, if you imagine we live on a globe (I know, but humour me) then the ground would slope away from you. Let’s ignore hills and mountains. You should be able to see that if you shoot the bullet fast enough then the bullet would never land, it would fall but as it falls the ground slopes away. Get the speed right and it would go all the way around the earth (assuming it maintains a constant speed so ignoring air resistance). That is how orbit works.

Gravitational constant , oxymoronic name, changes with altitude according to the inverse square law and pulls to the centre of mass or so the theory goes.

Here you have quite succinctly shown you don’t understand English or science.
An oxymoron is two adjacent words which contradict one another. These do not.
The Gravitational constant is, as the name suggests, constant. The gravitational force the earth exerts in a body is not constant.

It 's a plane, balloon satellite, or whatever lighter than air craft they want to wow you with . It's a hologram maybe. It isn't what OP thinks it to be.

And where is your evidence for that?

I’ll add that you can compute the muzzle speed needed to put a bullet in orbit if fired horizontally:

v=/sqrt{GM/R}

This neglects air resistance, which would kill that orbit very quickly.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 16, 2020, 08:18:11 PM »

How does ISS stay in orbit ? How do you know how far away it is when you see it pass by ?

Several questions were just asked of FE with respect to the ISS. Your response is then to ask questions of RE. This implies:

a) you do not have answers to the questions, and so you are trying to

b) shift the burden of proof

Fine with me! I accept the implication that you lack these answers. But feel free to correct me

Answers to YOUR questions:

By gravity.

One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

Gravity will pull it to earth . Gravity does not provide centripetal acceleration. Gravitational constant , oxymoronic name, changes with altitude according to the inverse square law and pulls to the centre of mass or so the theory goes.

You have no  independent way of proving what you say . Angular velocity doesn't give you distance. It 's a plane, balloon satellite, or whatever lighter than air craft they want to wow you with . It's a hologram maybe. It isn't what OP thinks it to be.

Even Kepler couldn't explain where he derived his "laws" from. They are not natural laws.

This is in disagreement with history, with every physics textbook I have personally read, and fundamental physics.

Since you requested an independent verification of what I said, I googled derivation of kepler’s third and below find the first return from a university:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/KeplersLaws.htm

These topics are covered in Undergraduate physics courses all over the world. If you wish, I can extend my list of references if you wish to cross reference.

Now. You claim all of this is false. Can you please provide sources that back up your claim?

I would also be happy to reference Kepler’s original writings on this subject, if you wish to pursue your claim that “he didn’t know where he derives his laws from.” I happen to own a copy

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 16, 2020, 05:55:34 PM »

One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

Okay, so with some quick Google searches, I'm thinking this has something to do with parallax?  You measure the distance it is traveling in an amount of time and somehow calculate angles with trigonometry or something?  I'm really extra dumb when it comes to math and physics.  But at a basic level, knowing how fast it travels is really all you need to calculate its distance?

No parallax. Hard to explain without math.

Gravitational force keeps ISS in centripetal acceleration. You can express that in terms of its speed. Speed can be expressed in terms of the time period.

Then by knowing the radius of the earth, that’s gives you the altitude.

You did a great job of explaining without math!   I had to read it twice, but I think I get it.  Thanks!

So, the elements needed would be to know how much gravitational force there is (I guess the gravitational constant?), how fast the satellite is going, the size of the earth, and with all of these elements, there's basically only one altitude it could be at?

The only variables you need numbers for are: Earth radius, time period, Earth mass, Newton’s gravitational constant.

What I have explained previously is really just how you derive kepler’s third law. A quick google if you are interested.

This explanation holds for circular orbits, but also describes the semi major axis for elliptical orbits. Since ISS orbit has rather low eccentricity, the difference between its semi major and minor axes are small.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 16, 2020, 04:56:43 PM »

One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

Okay, so with some quick Google searches, I'm thinking this has something to do with parallax?  You measure the distance it is traveling in an amount of time and somehow calculate angles with trigonometry or something?  I'm really extra dumb when it comes to math and physics.  But at a basic level, knowing how fast it travels is really all you need to calculate its distance?

No parallax. Hard to explain without math.

Gravitational force keeps ISS in centripetal acceleration. You can express that in terms of its speed. Speed can be expressed in terms of the time period.

Then by knowing the radius of the earth, that’s gives you the altitude.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 16, 2020, 04:20:11 PM »

How does ISS stay in orbit ? How do you know how far away it is when you see it pass by ?

Several questions were just asked of FE with respect to the ISS. Your response is then to ask questions of RE. This implies:

a) you do not have answers to the questions, and so you are trying to

b) shift the burden of proof

Fine with me! I accept the implication that you lack these answers. But feel free to correct me

Answers to YOUR questions:

By gravity.

One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 16, 2020, 02:47:25 AM »

I see. So you agree that EA has been invented without any evidence to match the observations you'd expect on a globe?

In this case, looking South to see the Sun was already there in FE with a close sun before EA. EA doesn't really have anything to do with that one.

thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I  still have  in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:

Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon

Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below

It illuminates the Earth like a spotlight (spot of light) but I don't believe that we ever wrote that it's a directional spotlight.

I don't even know how to have a meaningful debate anymore with a flat Earth proponent.

The Electromagnetic Accelerator theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've recently come across as a rationale explanation. I don't even know what to say. It's like the Flux Capacitor on Back to the Future.

"I think it's ridiculous" does not seem like a very compelling argument. I could say the same about the thought of a particle or a wave traveling in a straight line for a long distance. Since straight line trajectories are not really known anywhere in nature, that could easily be ridiculed as special pleading.

I would not consider this special pleading, but common. Indeed, most particles created in the universe travel in a straight line, with the mean free path being longer than the Hubble radius. I am of course talking about photons. On large scales, space is flat (from cosmology) - so this implies straight trajectories relative to the CMB.

9

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 15, 2020, 03:32:59 PM »

The “imagined observation” is in fact a geometrical consequence. The burden is on FE to provide an explanation on this direct consequence from their claim.

The reference to the wiki does not provide such an explanation, hence this reply is a dodge and against forum rules.

Needing to look South to see the Moon from a location in the North is what occurs. It is also what occurs in RET. I would suggest trying to educate yourself on this matter.

Again, a geometrical consequence is the current status. Unless a geometric rebuttal is forthcoming, calls to “educate yourself on the matter” are empty and off-topic, which is against forum rules.

Also, the EA wiki was used originally to create the geometrical consequence. Linking it for a rebuttal is self-referential and provides no new information to the discussion. This is also against forum rules.

10

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 15, 2020, 03:23:38 PM »

Tom, I don't think you read his post very carefully.  He's not showing a diagram of what RET predicts, but what FET predicts, and stating that it doesn't match observation.

What observation would that be? His imagined observation which contradicts Round Earth Theory's prediction that observers in the North would have to look South and observers in the South would have to look North?

You've also failed to respond to the ORIGINAL question from the OP despite multiple posts, as well as the two addenda questions I've repeated a few times now.  Care to respond to those?

Those were discussed. You were directed to the FE's celestial model of EA Theory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

The “imagined observation” is in fact a geometrical consequence. The burden is on FE to provide an explanation on this direct consequence from their claim.

The reference to the wiki does not provide such an explanation, hence this reply is a dodge and against forum rules.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses

« on: May 15, 2020, 02:05:48 PM »

Thank you, both. All that REALLY helps clarify a few things.

As I wrote in other threads, I'm NOT a math guy. But I am a logic guy.

And doesn't this argument of Tom/FEers completely destroy their own FET?

Let me rephrase it to see what I mean (although I'm sure you already do, but for the sake of others who read this thread) -

The argument goes:
"Since this one thing [3 body problem] cannot be fully mathematically described, it must therefore mean physics is wrong, so we cannot rely on it to determine that gravity and the solar system operate the way science says it does." 

The exact same reasoning would immediately lead anyone to conclude that FET is wrong.       There's almost nothing in FET that is mathematically described in a consistent/coherent way. Almost everything follows a short road, then ends with "well, beyond this point we aren't sure."  Examples are endless (what's the size of any celestial body we see? What's the actual path that even ONE of them take that also accounts for every single phenomena that all humans observe?).

From a non-scientist's standpoint, it seems like the more they push this argument while failing to fully mathematically describe basically all parts of their theory, the more it's clear they're missing the galaxy for the trees (so to speak  ).

BUT, I do have one question -

What's up with the idea that it says in the Wiki on this site that 3+ bodies become inherently unstable over time?  Is that a red herring?  Is it a "given zillions of years" issue?  The 3 body problem section of the Wiki here devotes quite a bit of space to it, so I'd like to understand a  bit more.

Thanks!!!!

(EDIT: also, and I say this with complete sincerity, I am thrilled that I am learning tidbits of actual science on a website where I expected to be informed of none).

Yes, well, from my experience FEers tend to hold different standards for their own claims. I’ve witnessed a FEer criticize a piece of published RE evidence detailing valid mathematical prescriptions to a level where they pick out certain technical terms and compare them to what Poincare said, yet post a hazy video from some person of a shoreline and claim it proves the earth is flat!

So you can make your own conclusions about that.

In terms of stability, the FE argument, IMO, becomes unfocused quickly. First, there are known (and proven) stable 3-body systems. So the fundamental claim they make is untrue.

However, they are correct in that most 3-body systems are unstable, but they don’t seem to recognize what that means. Stability means that a perturbation from an equilibrium point will return. That’s all. So it’s not a question of whether systems are stable, but what timescales the instability will manifest observable differences.

For example, it is known that the earth is in an unstable orbit around the Sun. If you wait long enough, the Earth will spiral into the Sun. The time it will take to do this is longer than the lifetime of the Sun.

Hence, the whole focus on stability doesn’t aid the FE objective, IMO. Effectively, they are arguing a detail that never presents a problem in RE scenarios.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses

« on: May 15, 2020, 03:27:26 AM »

A fairly recent published scientific article is provided below, which analyzes possible bounded orbits using Newtonian central force in the case of 3 bodies.

The analysis demonstrates evidence that:

1. Closed bounded orbits arise from central force considerations

2. The bounded orbits identified have also been verified using numerical computations (see references therein)

3. There is a demonstrably mathematical distinction between analytical solutions, the application in numerical methods, and the application to chaotic dynamics.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0410149.pdf

I'm very new to this site, and this seems to represent a neat opportunity for me to learn some cool physics. 

I have no personal background in science, but I do love to learn - to wit, can you help elaborate, in simple terms, the "3 body problem" ?  Regularly Wikipedia is too dense for me. And in reading the Wiki on this site, I'm still pretty confused about certain things.  What makes it a "problem"?  And what are its implications for astrophysics?  And why is it such a hangup for the FET? 

Here's an example of why it's hard for a laymen like me to wrap my head around:  I get that it's referring to three bodies in orbit with each other, but how does that exactly matter for the solar system anyway?  The moon isn't directly orbiting the sun, it's orbiting the earth, right? So, my very limited understanding of physics makes me think that in terms of gravitational forces it's really just "two" bodies we're dealing with - the sun, and the earth/moon as if it were ONE body.  "3 bodies in orbit with each other" sounds like a system that has three stars all orbiting each other or something odd? 

I'd love to understand - but with as little actual math as possible 

Diddo what JSS said.

Also, when you have 3 bodies interacting gravitationally, the differential equations become tangled. So mathematicians like to worry about this and try to find mathematical solutions for them that are “analytical.” That is, the solutions are completely describable using the algebraic structures in math.

In physics, they don’t really care about that, so they find solutions that are not analytically closed, but solve the differential equations to the desired accuracy that is needed.

The reason FEers get stuck on this, and really it’s just Tom Bishop, is that in order to promote their FE idea, they want to show that modern science is somehow wrong.

Their approach here is to take the fact that since analytic solutions to the 3 body problem have not been found by mathematicians, that then Newton’s laws (which produce the equations) are wrong, and hence the fundamental basis for physics is wrong.

It really is not a problem, but FEers have a vested interest in maintaining that it somehow is.

If you can’t solve the 3 body problem, then how can you describe the solar system (which has many more bodies)?

Hope this helps. And this is all my take on it.

13

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 15, 2020, 01:10:38 AM »

Tom is trying to claim that because we don't know how to solve the 3-body problem using algebraic equations, that somehow means we can't use analytic, numeric or simulations to solve them (which we do all the time).

Lets see a source from a physicist on that.

As I have mentioned to you several times (though you elect to ignore it), the working examples have been posted (with active links for cross reference) for both computational and analytical cases.

I want to see your sources from physicists telling us that the three body problem has solutions or works for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

Why does everything distill down to the 3 body problem for you? Look at it this way, from a practical real world example of 3 body scenario predicted and solved: The 2017 North American Total Solar Eclipse.

Eclipses can be predicted in ways that do not involve the three body problem. Lets see a source from a physicist that the three body problem has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system, or that a three body problem can solve for an eclipse.

I don’t think you really do want to see them. The reason why I say this is because they are already there!

I’ve posted two threads for 3-body solutions. The sources are linked.

...just go look.

14

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 14, 2020, 11:47:33 PM »

You love to spam every subject with this 3-body problem problem, but it's not, you know, a problem.

Then find a single physicist who says that it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

I am a little new and so not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the three body problem regarding the Sun-Moon-Earth.

I'm referring to the Three Body Problem: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Alright. “it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.”

- BRrollin, physicist.

As I have mentioned to you several times (though you elect to ignore it), the working examples have been posted (with active links for cross reference) for both computational and analytical cases.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9

« on: May 14, 2020, 11:44:30 PM »

Now, can FET do what Helio did and calculate the when and where each of the comet shards impacted Jupiter? That is the question.

I don't see that Helio did anything except use the discredited epicycles to make data fit a theory.

Please see my post for the analytic solutions to the 3 body problem. It stands as evidence that the statement: “being forced to use approximations,” is in error.

Please provide a source for your arguments other than your own self.

I find this to be an obvious empty reply, which goes against forum rules, and quite dishonest. The post provides a link to a source.

If you choose not to discuss the source, that is your prerogative. Yet to claim it is not there is incredibly poor form.

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 14, 2020, 10:11:36 PM »

existoid,

Your exactly correct in re-summarizing my query about the Wiki animation model.

It presents a problem with the FE model in that if the moon is moving INSIDE of the perimeter of the Earth and moving INSIDE the tips of say South America // Africa // Australia (as the Wiki model shows), than folks living at these locations would see the "bottom face" or a portion of the "back side face" of the Moon which doesnt occur in real life. Hence, the potential flaw. For the FE model to be consistent with how people at every location on Earth actually see the same face of the Moon, the Moon would have to be moving about the flat Earth outside of the Earth's perimeter. The dome firmament that contains the Moon would look kind of funky, like a large expanded Jiffy Pop bag, if viewed from the side. So. I am just trying to get clarity on the FE model as depicted in the Wiki.

"you're" (sorry, I used to teach HS English) 

Thank you!  Do you have any thoughts on my other two questions?  I can't find anything about them anywhere in the Wiki, but it seems like those would really need to be addressed.  How is at least SOME light of the "spotlight" not seen anywhere at night?  And the sun and moon, if moving around a perimeter as depicted, would have to be constantly shrinking and growing as they get closer and further to where you are on the flat earth. But they don't.  I have read about the sunset solution, but as described that can only explain it at sunset, not at all other times, right?  Or am I missing something.

The closest in the Wiki that explains this is Electromagnetic Acceleration.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

The issues are it doesn't really have any working math on how light bends to produce any, or all of the effects we see. Just that, light bends somehow. Not that just a formula would help without knowing the distance to the moon and sun, how big they are and how they move, none of which is also known.

I agree, and imo that’s the entire issue with current FE status. It seeks to provide a descriptional account for its claims - which it has yet to fully do. While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework.

Proponents then seek to elevate FE and hold an equal comparison of it to RE claims. But it’s not even in the same ballpark yet.

The lion-share of the justification reads as an attempt to poke holes in RE explanations, in the hopes that this will support the FE construction. But it never will, because each claim inherits its own burden of proof. 

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: Rocket Propulsion

« on: May 14, 2020, 04:23:19 PM »

No rebuttal there.
 
Any change in momentum requires application of a force - always . Defined by the equation ,  F = ma as stated by the laws of physics .

The Principle of Conservation of Momentum applied to rockets stems from theoretical physics , Neorems theory applied to Newton's laws , which allows calculation of velocities from change of momentum and other variables , but the starting point is always that F must be greater than zero , no force = no change in momentum .

Your first link generalizes this but omits to point out the fact that expansion of hot gas into a vacuum produces no work or force and ignores the fact that thrust is reactive force that requires pressure .

Nasa ignores the laws of science and this neat math trickery which leads to such statements as " rockets work better in a vacuum",
which anyone carrying out an actual experiment in vacuum chamber can see is wrong.

You’re sort of right. Except in order to get an acceleration you need a NET force, not just a force. Two forces can act on an object and cancel each other out. Won’t get any acceleration in that case.

Conservation of momentum derives from theory by Newton’s third law. When you have a third law force pair, and a next external force of zero, then momentum is conserved in that system.

It does not mean that the internal forces are zero! Heck, that’s the third law to begin with!

Also, the expansion of gas is a thermodynamic issue, but the momentum transfer that provides the gas with a velocity is a Newtonian issue.

Lastly, thrust is defined in theory as the mass loss rate times the exhaust velocity. There is no pressure involved here.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: May 14, 2020, 01:19:42 PM »

No. There is NO absolute velocity in Einstein's theory. This is why is called “Theory of relativity”, and that is the meaning of the word “relativity” in the theory.

The Speed of light in the theory of relativity IS the speed of the entropy. That’s mean the maximum speed of an object with mass will travel in the vacuum, and this speed is the same for every point of reference and it is RELATIVE to the observer only.

That does not mesh with what I have read at all. Just look up the postulates of special relativity and I think you’ll see right away that the constancy of the speed of light is fundamental to it.

In reading Einstein’s 1905 paper, I don’t see any mention of entropy at all.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 14, 2020, 01:17:16 PM »

In other news, Fauci is doing exactly as Trump wishes.

You people cheering on for the end of the Trump presidency and the American way of life should be proud!

Trump is giving you guys exactly the type of world you have been clamoring for!

1. Is Trump's presidency the same as the American way of life, or are they mutually exclusive?

Is it to you?

You have been cheering on for both of them (The Trump presidency AND the American way of life) to end.

Your question to answer, not mine.

2.what are we getting?

An end to the Trump presidency and the American way of life.

Ok, I'll bite: what is this The American Way of Life, that I want to end?  Is it greed, hatred, and arrogance? Or something else?

I didn't offer up anything for you to bite on.

I am leaving the definition up to you, but the thing is...

Just keep in mind your past comments regarding the American way of life.

And why do you think his presidency is ending?

It is, is my thoughts.

Many reasons.

The “American way of life” is imo an idealised American dream a la 1950s that no longer exists, and never really existed in the manner it is envisioned.

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 14, 2020, 04:31:45 AM »

The moon must be much, much further away from earth than any distance between two points on earth. There are at least two reasons why we actually can see a little bit of the far-side of the moon. 1) The moon's orbit is an ellipse (albeit very close to a circle) and 2) the moon is not infinitely far away.
By the way, the effect you mentioned (that at the same time we all see the same face of an object in space irrespective of location on earth) applies also to the sun and planets when we can identify some distinct features. That would be sun-spots on the sun, great red spot on Jupiter, moon around planets  and phases of the planets all look the same when viewed at the exact same time from different positions on earth.

Well, no that’s not quite correct. The reason we see the same side of the moon is that it is tidally locked to the earth in its stable equilibrium. The reason we see the same features on the sun and Jupiter is because of the distance - but those features change as we orbit (but we still agree everywhere on earth about what they are).