1261

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: February 18, 2020, 01:31:40 PM »

I notice that the vacuum we were previously discussing is now "nothingness". Wonder why?

1262

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How GPS Works and what about 64 satellites claimed by NASA

« on: February 18, 2020, 01:20:33 PM »

I have denied the existence of satellites circling above the earth.

I don't believe they are what is claimed however, and I don't believe that GPS is transmitted to us from these satellites for the reasons I have stated in the thread.

... then why are you taking issue with whether or not they are geostationary? Why was your first response "they don't exist" rather than correcting me on their orbit type?

1263

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: February 18, 2020, 01:17:40 PM »

Plus, if an object is freely expanding into nothingness, define the frame of reference to determine its exact velocity...

The frame of reference is the rocket. The exhaust gas starts out within it, and moves to a position outwith. It therefore covers some distance, over a period of time. Distance and time are used to compute velocity.

Unless you're suggesting that we are unable to determine the position of something(s) within a vacuum, because it's "nothingness" ... ?

1264

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How GPS Works and what about 64 satellites claimed by NASA

« on: February 18, 2020, 01:00:57 PM »

A geostationary satellite =/= a GPS satellite.

Define the inequality, please.

Also, do you accept that the photographers above have actually captured photos of geostationary satellites, since you're now trying to say that they are not the same as GPS?

If you protest that A does not equal B, isn't that tacit acceptance that A and B actually exist?

I wrote you cannot see a GPS satellite at 22k miles above the earth (it is not like I believe they are that high anyway, but that is another thread).

You posted a video of a geostationary satellite.

GPS satellites are not geostationary.

OK, I accept they are not geostationary.

How can you argue they are not, whilst also claiming they do not exist? They must exist in order to have an orbital attribute, do they not?

1265

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: February 18, 2020, 12:08:53 PM »

A gas has no velocity when ejected, expelled, released into a vacuum...

So if we took that engine test rig that I linked to earlier, and placed it in a vacuum, the engine exhaust would switch from having 418,000 lb/f of thrust to simply having exhaust that stood still?

1266

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 18, 2020, 11:56:14 AM »

... yet he’s done so much for the country.

"The Trump administration wants to spend billions of dollars it doesn’t have building thousands of plutonium cores it doesn’t need for nuclear warheads that experts say will only destabilize the balance of power between the United States and Russia.

And here’s the kicker. It’s unlikely the U.S. atomic-arms industry has the capacity to build all the plutonium “pits” the administration is determined to order.

But the United States even trying to acquire all those new nukes could spur Russia and China to match the expansion, potentially fueling a nuclear arms race that none of the countries can afford and which would benefit no one. "


Sure, that's really "doing stuff for the country" ....

1267

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How GPS Works and what about 64 satellites claimed by NASA

« on: February 18, 2020, 11:29:34 AM »

A geostationary satellite =/= a GPS satellite.

Define the inequality, please.

Also, do you accept that the photographers above have actually captured photos of geostationary satellites, since you're now trying to say that they are not the same as GPS?

If you protest that A does not equal B, isn't that tacit acceptance that A and B actually exist?

1268

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 18, 2020, 10:57:36 AM »

The path followed by Blunham during Earth's rotation, shown in blue.

The larger portion of this path is on the sun side of the globe, showing Tom that this model has shorter night, not longer ....

Also, the five degree inclination of the Moon's orbit could place it above the centre line of the Earth, and thus make it easier to see from Blunham.

EDIT - another go; colour coded to match the blogger's graphic that I edited above

1269

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 18, 2020, 10:46:46 AM »

I look forward to Tomeni's model.

Here you are;



The sun is at zero degrees, the axial tilt approx 30 degrees off that, and the Moon, at this stage in its cycle, would be approx 70 degrees off the line to the sun.

Blunham is under the green cocktail stick, and the green continuation line to the left of this shows how this location would have a sightline to the Moon.

I may have the alignment of the camera slightly off, but it's showing the principle, and it's more realistic than the blogger's graphics....

1270

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: UK to Australia & back

« on: February 18, 2020, 10:17:31 AM »

I'm based in the UK.  In April I'll be travelling to Australia.

Nearest city would be ...?

What would you suggest ?

I was simply enquiring where you would be, not suggesting you travel to anywhere specific. I'm not going to plan your holiday for you, no .....

1271

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 18, 2020, 09:06:00 AM »

In the wordpress blog, he goes off the rails when he takes the horizon definitions from below "Note from the below, how the visible horizon as depicted in modern education (Albeit in the context of so-called celestial parallax)" and then arbitrarily draws them onto unspecified locations on the globe.

The parallax diagram is drawn as a side-on view of an observer at an idealised polar position, and the blogger has applied this to a number of views which represent the Earth top down. So he's 90 degrees out of whack every time. And he placed the horizons in locations which do not correspond to the mooncalc location. So that's out of whack too.

I have no issue with the observer at the true position of Blunham (orange dot) having a sightline to the Moon (green lines). I can show with the 3D globe that Blunham was approximately there at that date and time.

1272

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 18, 2020, 08:12:59 AM »

We already have a RE model for May 10. The image you edited is a model the author retrieved from the NASA Scientific Visualization Studio for May 10.

The "model" is not defined by a single "visualisation" on a single date.

1273

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 18, 2020, 07:50:57 AM »

We already have a RE model for May 10. The image you edited is a model the author retrieved from the NASA Scientific Visualization Studio for May 10.

The author edited it first, with his yellow and red lines.... Agree?
The author placed the red line in the wrong place ... Agree?

You appear to be telling us that the axis and other elements of the model is wrong and requires some Microsont Paint corrections. What you drew also apparently shows the nights in the NH getting longer after the March Equinox, rather than shorter as commonly believed, in order to get the Moon above the horizon so that you can explain this.

The illustration is not to scale.

 I agree his pointer to the sun. I added the axial tilt, since the author had not shown it, and whether or not the grey line points exactly to the Moon is moot, as the Moon is so far off scale as to be laughable. Give or take a few degrees, the Moon was out there in that general direction.

The point is ... whether or not Blunham had a sightline to the Moon. The author simply drew a line on the opposite side of the Sun, as far away from the sun as possible. The red line. That's not where Blunham is, or was, at that time. It's not even a correct representation of midnight on that night. Midnight on the clock did not occur at a midpoint between sunset and sunrise.

The black dot shows the North Pole, the orange dots the general path of Blunham. Given the sunset and sunrise times quoted, it would be nearer sunset, more toward the left-hand orange dot, than sunrise, at the right.

Why do you think the night is represented as being longer? The axial tilt pointing in the direction of the sun makes it shorter. I've written out the sunset and sunrise times which correspond to that date, and these show night as 8h36m; so a short night, compared to a day of around 15.5 hours....

1274

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 18, 2020, 12:59:30 AM »

Back in 8 hours or so, Tom. Please don't talk about me when I'm gone.

1275

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 18, 2020, 12:51:51 AM »

In the NH after the March 21st Equinox the nights get shorter, not longer, until summer comes.

You appear to have drawn some arbitrary lines, making the night longer for May 10, in a vain attempt to salvage an explanation for your model. Not convincing.

The video author drew arbitrary lines, with the horizon line for Blunham in totally the wrong place.

I modelled it in 3D with a replica globe, and based the overlay onto his graphic on this 3D picture (upload tomorrow)

10 May is at roughly 2/3 of the timespan between equinox and solstice, so the axial tilt is 30 degrees away from the reference line to the sun. On the equinox it would be 90, 1/3 of the way is 60, and at the solstice it would be zero.

The black dot is the North Pole. 

The sun set on the 10th at 20.42, rose at 5.16 on the 11th. A night of 8h36m. Sunset to midnight = 3h18m, midnight to sunrise 5h16m. So midnight on the clock occurred nearer to sunset than sunrise. 3/8 of the way through the night. Which places Blunham nearer the Moon, as opposed to further round. Nearer the leftmost orange square. Making it easier to see the Moon

If you disagree the lines, let's see your modelling of it.

1276

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 18, 2020, 12:31:35 AM »

I've modelled it in 3D with a tabletop globe, and here's an approximation, limited by 2D drawing.



A.T. = Axial Tilt

Blunham is in the vicinity of the three orange dots as it crosses midnight, not at the red line

I see no issue with Blunham having a sightline to the Moon at this point.



Talking of midnight, it's well after that in the UK. Back in 8 hours or so

1277

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 17, 2020, 11:38:06 PM »

The author goes to lengths to explain that it doesn't really matter.

What "doesn't really matter"?

1278

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 17, 2020, 11:16:28 PM »

Tom, have you tried taking a standard desktop or table top globe, setting it up with model moon and sun, aligning it according to the correct axial tilt for that day of the year, and sighting manually from Milton Keynes (MK44 postcode) toward the Moon?

I know I can do this for myself, but before I do, I'd like to know if you, the author, or anyone else has done it yet. 



... or are we relying totally on the author's second diagram, which apparently attempts to show a visible horizon in an equatorial region, a region which is nowhere near Milton Keynes, thus rendering the diagram invalid?

1279

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 17, 2020, 10:59:15 PM »

The author provides observations and locations of it happening, it's in the link. It happens on mooncalc.org as well.

So, if the author has the photos to prove it happened, and at least one moon calculator confirms it, why does it need to be explained?

1280

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 17, 2020, 10:58:08 PM »

"8 days after his acquittal, Trump openly admitted sending Giuliani to hunt for dirt on Joe Biden — reversing a key
part of his impeachment defense"

Highlight points;

The president made the claim in a podcast interview with the Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera, who had asked him whether it was "strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine" and whether he regretted the decision.

Trump previously said he did not direct Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine, seeking to distance himself from damaging information that emerged during his impeachment trial in the House last year.

The president told the former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly in November amid the House impeachment investigation: "No, I didn't direct him, but he's a warrior, Rudy's a warrior."


In Thursday's podcast, however, the president openly acknowledged that Giuliani had been acting on his orders.

"Here's my choice: I deal with the Comeys of the world, or I deal with Rudy," Trump said, referring to James Comey, who Trump fired as FBI director for refusing to quash the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

One of the claims Giuliani was sent to Ukraine to pursue was the theory — which has long been debunked — that Ukraine had helped US intelligence frame Russia for attempting to subvert the 2016 election.

The House impeached Trump last year on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in his quest to seek Biden dirt from Ukraine. He was acquitted by the Senate of both charges on February 5.

Trump also showered praise on Giuliani on Thursday and appeared to justify using his personal lawyer to conduct government business.

etc
etc

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-admits-giuliani-ukraine-reversing-impeachment-defense-2020-2?r=US&IR=T