Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If you want anyone to believe you that the surface of Jupiter has a spherical shape, then you must explain both the faint young sun paradox and the dating of the comets' tails paradoxJupiter is observably a sphere.
Bobby even admits that this is evidence is not consistent with a globe.He did, but then he got out there and did his own tests, which is more than most people on here do, and was unable to reproduce the result. So now what?
Like, the earth was observed to be flat. Then we went to space and saw that it's not flat, and instead is actually an oblate spheroid.We'd actually, as a species, long since worked that out.
Planes make unscheduled stops for fuel on supposed "nonstop" flight all of the time.
Seargant does say that there are a few claimed direct nonstops in the video.So what is the issue then?
The earth is observably flat by default. The possibility of it being a big ball, or whatever you imagine it to be, needs to be proven.Correct. And it has been proven.
There is no real evidence for the ball earth.Only if you continue to not understand the evidence or call the bits you do understand fake. But you could do that about anything.
Of course Mark Sargent gives and explanation of flight paths for the flat earth and the very accepted map.
first off when I checked the distances on other websites they were different than the OP.I imagine that if others try to repeat what I did they will get slightly different distances - people might put their “pins” in slightly different places to where I did.
Correct, and for thousands of years we have had justification and “reasons”. And since we have had rocket technology we now have definitive proof, were there any lingering doubt.That is exactly what you would expect isn't it regardless of whether the Earth is round or flat? Same thing applies to me but I still acknowledge I live on a spherical Earth. I also know the reasons why.
It seems to me that you need justification and "reasons" for your position while totallackey just simply needs to look out his window and see that the earth is flat.
It's notable that neither side disputed the claims of the other side.Sure. But not around the time of the bay of pigs when Pluton did it's Venus radar ranging.
The space race started with them one-upping each other with claims. One side would claim to do one thing, and the other would quickly follow up with the same claim.
That's why the US claimed to put their first satellite into orbit within three months after the USSR claimed to put up Sputnick. The US had been trying to get into orbit since the end of WWII, with one spectacular rocket failure after the next. Yet was able to succeed immediately after Sputnick.
Who knew that the managers just had to tell their rocket scientists to "work harder!" and the right engineering and equations would manifest into existence to be immediately implemented?
The distances Google claims between places are only theoretical until someone uses the system to get around. Luckily we have millions of people testing it every day, including you, and building confidence in their data.I just used distances given on Google Earth, a product you say you use "daily" and therefore must trust.
I don't know how they calculate distances, but I do know it is used by millions of people every day, including you, so if their data is inaccurate then you'd think that would have been noticed.
If you are now claiming that the distances are inaccurate then what is your basis for that? How they are calculated is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether they are correct.
It should be pretty clear that they did not send a little robot with a measuring wheel to go and measure the distance when you made the online request, nor have they ever done that. Next you should probably consider if anyone has ever done that. If you decide that no one has done that then we must be talking about something theoretical that has to do with how the latitude and longitude numbers are determined.
What proper filters? Solar filters are just doing the same thing as sun glasses, as mentioned earlier.All filters simply eliminate some of the light coming through them. A proper solar filter eliminates enough that you can safely view and photograph the sun through it and when doing so you see just the circle of the sun and not any glare around it.
Ah yes. Polarized glasses.Hardly a coincidence. The article shows that the constant growing effect happens to all intense lights that recede into the distance.No, the article merely claims it and shows some photos with glare.
What experiments have you done with the appropriate filters to demonstrate the effect?
In other threads you have demanded demonstration. This is your claim. Demonstrate it.
Those photos are evidence and demonstration. The "glare" was tested with two brands of polarized glasses, and remained in tact.
I have, in the thread in the other section about the FE Map. My research demonstrates that no flat earth map is possible - if the distances on Google Maps are accurate.- If all distances and continental positions are unknown, then why proudly post an inaccurate map on your site, if you are a movement founded in opposition to inaccurate maps?
The website presents several possible maps in the maps section. The truth is for you, the interested investigators on this forum, to research.
Hardly a coincidence. The article shows that the constant growing effect happens to all intense lights that recede into the distance.No, the article merely claims it and shows some photos with glare.
Prove that the flare is in the camera lens and that it's not an enlargement in the sky. The article also includes versions of the effect as seen in polarized lenses.So your claim is there is some effect which by pure co-incidence makes the sun appear a constant angular size even though its distance from us varies so much that it should appear less than half the size at sunset as it does when overheard? It's weird how selectively you argue, previously I've seen you argue against big "co-incidences" like this.
It appears that the article has provided evidence, while you have provided none. A massive failure to persuade or to support your argument on your part.