Hi all,The second map you have used is just a Mercator Projection of the Globe, not the Globe. East-West distances are increasingly exaggerated as you move away from the Equator.
I've been getting into this flat earth thing after viewing the !lluminat! card which of course have predicted other things. So ofc this is very interesting to me.
I find the curvature argument hard to fault and I don't believe in NASA at all so I do see the validity in some of the points presented. So I told a friend and his point was that maybe you can use flights to measure it.
Being a designer, I put this to the test, measuring it in a design program and this is the result of my experiment. I used the website http://flightbookings.airnewzealand.co.nz and booked a flight from Auckland (NZ) to Buenos Aires (Argentina) and then one from Auckland to Shanghai.
So apparently, the flat earth model for this flight path does not add up as well as the globe one. Can anyone elaborate as to why?
Thanks & peace.
(http://i.imgur.com/CqbNLnw.png)
http://imgur.com/CqbNLnw
Shortest Sydney to Santiago on "Gleason Map", about 25,400 km (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20-%20Gleasons%20Map_zpsfdlirlhm.png) | Great Circle Sydney to Santiago on "Google Earth", about 11,400 km (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth_zpso0htsooh.png) |
... So apparently, the flat earth model for this flight path does not add up as well as the globe one. Can anyone elaborate as to why?Um, yeah. Because the the flat earth model doesn't work.
— The red line on the map indicates the Great Circle Distance.
— The black line is the Rhumb line between the two points.
The great-circle or orthodromic distance is the shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere, measured along the surface of the sphere (as opposed to a straight line through the sphere's interior).
I am working on a tablet now and can't easily do that, but I have Sydney to Santiago (similar route, flown by QANTAS) on the Globe and a similar Azimuthal Projection - the Gleason's Map. Here are the routes on the Gleason's MAP and Google Earth:
Been over a million times:Of course. It is just a projection of a globe after all. AEP is only really useful for telling distance from a central point, and for looking good on the UN flag.
There is no flat earth map.
AEP isn't accurate for latitude.
Been over a million times:
There is no flat earth map.
AEP isn't accurate for latitude.
Been over a million times:
There is no flat earth map.
AEP isn't accurate for latitude.
Well that's good to know, however really discredits the youtubers advocating the Flat earth flight path theories since the flat map is really just for looks. And simultaneously lets the global earth off the hook on the flight paths for this particular experiment.
I'd be more interested to see a flight that would travel exactly due south over Antarctica until you were going North again. Every flight path I see does this circumnavigation thing. I understand it wouldn't be the safest trip, or most feasible. But when one actually gets done, documented and independently verified, then that would pretty much put the Flat Earth to bed.So it's not enough that hundreds of polar satellites do that exact same thing every single orbit, over both poles, all the time? Because it should be enough for anyone.
I'd be more interested to see a flight that would travel exactly due south over Antarctica until you were going North again. Every flight path I see does this circumnavigation thing. I understand it wouldn't be the safest trip, or most feasible. But when one actually gets done, documented and independently verified, then that would pretty much put the Flat Earth to bed.So it's not enough that hundreds of polar satellites do that exact same thing every single orbit, over both poles, all the time? Because it should be enough for anyone.
How is that hearsay? What else could the satellites be?I'd be more interested to see a flight that would travel exactly due south over Antarctica until you were going North again. Every flight path I see does this circumnavigation thing. I understand it wouldn't be the safest trip, or most feasible. But when one actually gets done, documented and independently verified, then that would pretty much put the Flat Earth to bed.So it's not enough that hundreds of polar satellites do that exact same thing every single orbit, over both poles, all the time? Because it should be enough for anyone.
Hearsay bro. If NASA told you the moon was actually cheese would you believe it? Or if they brought you a rock from the moon would you believe it was actually from the moon? (http://phys.org/news/2009-09-moon-fake.html)
How is that hearsay? What else could the satellites be?I'd be more interested to see a flight that would travel exactly due south over Antarctica until you were going North again. Every flight path I see does this circumnavigation thing. I understand it wouldn't be the safest trip, or most feasible. But when one actually gets done, documented and independently verified, then that would pretty much put the Flat Earth to bed.So it's not enough that hundreds of polar satellites do that exact same thing every single orbit, over both poles, all the time? Because it should be enough for anyone.
Hearsay bro. If NASA told you the moon was actually cheese would you believe it? Or if they brought you a rock from the moon would you believe it was actually from the moon? (http://phys.org/news/2009-09-moon-fake.html)
Been over a million times:So, what IS the shape of the earth?
There is no flat earth map.
AEP isn't accurate for latitude.
Well no one put Globe Earth "on the hook" in the first place.For a start this thread was about the airline route from Auckland to Buenos Aries. There is no way that would go near the South Pole.
I'd be more interested to see a flight that would travel exactly due south over Antarctica until you were going North again. Every flight path I see does this circumnavigation thing. I understand it wouldn't be the safest trip, or most feasible. But when one actually gets done, documented and independently verified, then that would pretty much put the Flat Earth to bed.
Been over a million times:So, what IS the shape of the earth?
There is no flat earth map.
AEP isn't accurate for latitude.
ALL the arguments I have seen from you have been against the Heliocentric Globe.
Then you effectively claim that the earth is not flat, because if "There is no flat earth map", the earth is not flat!
So just what do you believe. You claim to be an earth shape agnostic, all of you arguments have been against the Globe!
You don't like gravitation, but the Globe must have gravitation to "work".
A Geocentric Globe model is simply not tenable! You simply cannot have the whole universe rotation around the earth - it doesn't.
What is left?
You seem like a "religious agnostic" who is always arguing against the existence of any Deity - in my book that equals an atheist!
What about a little consistence in your position?
Been over a million times:So, what IS the shape of the earth?
There is no flat earth map.
AEP isn't accurate for latitude.
ALL the arguments I have seen from you have been against the Heliocentric Globe.
Then you effectively claim that the earth is not flat, because if "There is no flat earth map", the earth is not flat!
So just what do you believe. You claim to be an earth shape agnostic, all of you arguments have been against the Globe!
You don't like gravitation, but the Globe must have gravitation to "work".
A Geocentric Globe model is simply not tenable! You simply cannot have the whole universe rotation around the earth - it doesn't.
What is left?
You seem like a "religious agnostic" who is always arguing against the existence of any Deity - in my book that equals an atheist!
What about a little consistence in your position?
I'm definitely not an atheist, I have an entire thread in the philosophy and religion forum about how creation pertains to flat earth theory. I'll regret telling you about it because I'm sure you'll go in there itching to knock down every point I've made.
My whole goal is to knock down assumption, propaganda and bias, and then see what's left of any theory. I've approached relativity, gravity, evolution, origin of life, and obviously earth's shape with the same methodology.
I've yet to determine what I believe the shape of the Earth to be. It would probably take personal experience for me to ever know 100% sure, without a doubt. Even if it's a video or a photo that is believed to be 99.9% proof, there's still that .1% chance. It's the arrogance of the lot of you, who go off second hand information, that really gets under my skin. None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists... Apologies if any of you do have those credentials, but most of you are just google and wikipedia.
I've yet to determine what I believe the shape of the Earth to be. It would probably take personal experience for me to ever know 100% sure, without a doubt. Even if it's a video or a photo that is believed to be 99.9% proof, there's still that .1% chance. It's the arrogance of the lot of you, who go off second hand information, that really gets under my skin. None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists... Apologies if any of you do have those credentials, but most of you are just google and wikipedia.You say, probably quite correctly that "None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists." and since I presume that you are not either, how ever do you hope to gather this information!
Defeated by the tidesNot all that silly, but he did not factor in the importance of the moon's gravitation.
The Copernican worldview has prevailed - not, however, Galileo’s theory of the tides. Clearly inspired by the behaviour of water when boats come to a halt, Galileo Galilei concluded that the ebb and flow of the tides resulted, similarly, from the acceleration and deceleration of the oceans.
My whole goal is to knock down assumption, propaganda and bias, and then see what's left of any theory. I've approached relativity, gravity, evolution, origin of life, and obviously earth's shape with the same methodology.
I've yet to determine what I believe the shape of the Earth to be. It would probably take personal experience for me to ever know 100% sure, without a doubt. Even if it's a video or a photo that is believed to be 99.9% proof, there's still that .1% chance. It's the arrogance of the lot of you, who go off second hand information, that really gets under my skin. None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists... Apologies if any of you do have those credentials, but most of you are just google and wikipedia.
What you learn in school is useless to the argument because of government control, it needs to be put into effective use in the real world
PS. Whatever happened to Virgin Galactic? I haven't stayed in touch and want to know when they are going to send people up into space, those people should know the truth.
My whole goal is to knock down assumption, propaganda and bias, and then see what's left of any theory. I've approached relativity, gravity, evolution, origin of life, and obviously earth's shape with the same methodology.
I've yet to determine what I believe the shape of the Earth to be. It would probably take personal experience for me to ever know 100% sure, without a doubt. Even if it's a video or a photo that is believed to be 99.9% proof, there's still that .1% chance. It's the arrogance of the lot of you, who go off second hand information, that really gets under my skin. None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists... Apologies if any of you do have those credentials, but most of you are just google and wikipedia.
I don't believe you. You do not actually have a blank spot in your mind where "shape of the earth" goes, that's impossible. You can compartmentalize your beliefs and not think about the question directly. You can claim to yourself that you don't know. But in the end, you do have a best guess. If you are forced to make a decision that is in any way based on "shape of the earth" as a prerequisite, you will assume something.
There is no agnosticism in science. There is a reason that Occam's razor is part of the scientific method and it's that: You cannot simply leave blank spots in your theory of the outside world. Because if you want to reason, you need to have an unbroken chain of deduction from the conclusion to the premises, and you cannot do that when you have blank spots. And via those chains of reasoning, a single blank spot would necessarily spread and invalidate all your assumptions on anything outside of yourself.
By the way, how do you figure you could be 100% sure if you saw something with your own eyes? If you are willing to distrust literally everything else, why would your own senses be exempt from that? It is well known that senses can be fooled.What you learn in school is useless to the argument because of government control, it needs to be put into effective use in the real world
Don't people put what they learned in school, or any other education program, to effective use in the real world all the time? People didn't start believing in the scientific method because they were convinced it was metaphysically sound (which it is), they believe it because it works. The prediction pans out, science affords us a limited look at the future. We use this literally every day in out lives.PS. Whatever happened to Virgin Galactic? I haven't stayed in touch and want to know when they are going to send people up into space, those people should know the truth.
Not sure about Virgin Galactic specifically, but commercial space travel is coming closer with a serious of successful testflights of reusable rockets the past months.
Science is agnosticism. It isn't a system of incontrovertible proof. It continuously revises itself, based on the best available data. If that isn't a working definition of "not sure" I don't know what is.
Why would I be forced to make an assumption about the shape of the earth? What bearing does it have on my day to day life?
If I was to guess, based on perception alone, I would say it feels flat... The same thing thousands of generations thought before the advent of the heliocentric globe model and all the contradictions and compromises that came with that. Regardless you can't dictate to anyone else what they can or cannot decide to be uncertain about. As I've said before, if the heliocentric globe was proven beyond all reasonable doubt would this society exist?
You misquoted me, I didn't say anything about virgin galactic, but spacex is basically just one of another independent companies sucked into servitude of government contracts and the military industrial complex. There will be no independent space travel, or space tourism. Ever.
Been over a million times:So, what IS the shape of the earth?
There is no flat earth map.
AEP isn't accurate for latitude.
ALL the arguments I have seen from you have been against the Heliocentric Globe.
Then you effectively claim that the earth is not flat, because if "There is no flat earth map", the earth is not flat!
So just what do you believe. You claim to be an earth shape agnostic, all of you arguments have been against the Globe!
You don't like gravitation, but the Globe must have gravitation to "work".
A Geocentric Globe model is simply not tenable! You simply cannot have the whole universe rotation around the earth - it doesn't.
What is left?
You seem like a "religious agnostic" who is always arguing against the existence of any Deity - in my book that equals an atheist!
What about a little consistence in your position?
I'm definitely not an atheist, I have an entire thread in the philosophy and religion forum about how creation pertains to flat earth theory. I'll regret telling you about it because I'm sure you'll go in there itching to knock down every point I've made.
My whole goal is to knock down assumption, propaganda and bias, and then see what's left of any theory. I've approached relativity, gravity, evolution, origin of life, and obviously earth's shape with the same methodology.
I've yet to determine what I believe the shape of the Earth to be. It would probably take personal experience for me to ever know 100% sure, without a doubt. Even if it's a video or a photo that is believed to be 99.9% proof, there's still that .1% chance. It's the arrogance of the lot of you, who go off second hand information, that really gets under my skin. None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists... Apologies if any of you do have those credentials, but most of you are just google and wikipedia.
Don't people put what they learned in school, or any other education program, to effective use in the real world all the time? People didn't start believing in the scientific method because they were convinced it was metaphysically sound (which it is), they believe it because it works. The prediction pans out, science affords us a limited look at the future. We use this literally every day in out lives.
Most of the time, all you learn are theories that have no real application in the world.
And even if it's "proven" to work, it might be proven based off another theory which is utter bull and speculation. A lot of people taught in universities think they know it all but they are spoon fed by government without them trying the theories for themselves and take it as fact. At the end of the day, science isn't final and is always evolving to something new/different.
As Nikola tesla once said - "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."
Which is why I said perhaps the best job for it is an Astronaut so you can see for yourself if it's real. After all seeing is believing, rather than using "science" to calculate.
Most of the time, all you learn are theories that have no real application in the world.
I disagree. Care to give me some examples?And even if it's "proven" to work, it might be proven based off another theory which is utter bull and speculation. A lot of people taught in universities think they know it all but they are spoon fed by government without them trying the theories for themselves and take it as fact. At the end of the day, science isn't final and is always evolving to something new/different.
I agree that it's utter bull and speculation to assume that there are secret theories behind every other known scientific theory and that it's the secret theories that do the predictions. Or was that not what you meant? I cannot quite make the connection between your first and second sentence here.
What is your basis for people in universities thinking they "know it all". How could the government be sure no-one tried the theory? What about all the actual engineers who use the theories in their everyday jobs? Are they all in on the conspiracy so they get the "true" theory?
And science itself is final. There is no alternative to the scientific method. The body of knowledge it generates is indeed always evolving.As Nikola tesla once said - "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."
Tesla said it, so it must be true. I am sure there are problems with the scientific community where theories are speculated just to publish something. But on the whole, prediction still pan out, so obviously the structures do have some relation to reality.Which is why I said perhaps the best job for it is an Astronaut so you can see for yourself if it's real. After all seeing is believing, rather than using "science" to calculate.
There is a weird tendency here to value direct observation above everything else. How is it that all photos, videos, witness reports etc. can easily be dismissed as fake, but seeing it once with your eyes would be absolute proof?
What you learn in school is useless to the argument because of government control, it needs to be put into effective use in the real world
Don't people put what they learned in school, or any other education program, to effective use in the real world all the time? People didn't start believing in the scientific method because they were convinced it was metaphysically sound (which it is), they believe it because it works. The prediction pans out, science affords us a limited look at the future. We use this literally every day in out lives.
Not sure about Virgin Galactic specifically, but commercial space travel is coming closer with a serious of successful testflights of reusable rockets the past months.Please continue to hold your breath in the regard. Where are the successful test flights again? (http://www.wired.com/2015/07/blame-catastrophic-blindspot-virgin-galactic-crash/)
I'm sure you know there's a time in Western history when people believed in only one galaxy - our own, and never thought of any others. And "scientists" would base their theories on that. Now in the present age, do we even know if there's a multi-universe, and whether we should base our theories on 1 universe, or more? How about different dimensions, and exploration thereof? The fact is we haven't unlocked all there is to know and we seem primitive as a species at this point.
Another case is how before Einstein invented e=mc2, other scientists would have used other equations which weren't accurate. But hold on, who's to say that his equation is the final and 100% working? Now there is String Theory to compete against that idea, and even if so, do you honestly think that it will be 100% accurate and there won't be the next idea that's even better?
That's the point I was trying to make. I'm sure there are MANY examples of failed scientific theories that you can just google yourself. I'll stress again, I don't mean it's a grand conspiracy, it's just that people are on their high horse advocating what they learned in Universities sometimes but it's just based off theories that might not even be final. I mentioned Nikola Tesla because he summarized my point which you still don't understand...
Another example from my own personal experience of this is my gf's dad telling me to not be vegetarian just because he studied nutrition in university 30 years ago and he thinks being vegetarian isn't good for the baby, and for my health either. So then where did the high population of india who are mostly vegetarians come from? and why do vegetarians live longer statistically?
PS. His answer is that he doesn't trust the internet.
By the way, what the hell does metaphysically sound mean?
Please continue to hold your breath in the regard. Where are the successful test flights again? (http://www.wired.com/2015/07/blame-catastrophic-blindspot-virgin-galactic-crash/)
Hmm, it seems we have both misunderstood each other then. I do fully agree that empirical knowledge (such as is gained from science) is never final or monolithic, truth changes with every new observation. It's just that while the knowledge changes, the method stays the same. And a change in knowledge also doesn't invalidate past knowledge, so long as it had been gained via the scientific method. The theories that used to be all-encompassing have just turned partial, but they're not wrong. Newtonian physics are still accurate for certain circumstances, they just aren't the most universal theory anymore.Actually, the truth doesn't ever change. A truth is something like: The Sun exists. (though if you get into some advanced whacked out theories that are floating around, that could just be a matter of opinion as well)
Conformity bias is a tendency to behave similarly to the others in a group, even if doing so goes against your own judgment.
Blue Origin had another successful test a few days ago:Good news I guess, does this mean I will get same minute delivery one day through Amazon?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/02/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-third-rocket-landing
I'm sure you know there's a time in Western history when people believed in only one galaxy - our own, and never thought of any others. And "scientists" would base their theories on that. Now in the present age, do we even know if there's a multi-universe, and whether we should base our theories on 1 universe, or more? How about different dimensions, and exploration thereof? The fact is we haven't unlocked all there is to know and we seem primitive as a species at this point.
Another case is how before Einstein invented e=mc2, other scientists would have used other equations which weren't accurate. But hold on, who's to say that his equation is the final and 100% working? Now there is String Theory to compete against that idea, and even if so, do you honestly think that it will be 100% accurate and there won't be the next idea that's even better?
That's the point I was trying to make. I'm sure there are MANY examples of failed scientific theories that you can just google yourself. I'll stress again, I don't mean it's a grand conspiracy, it's just that people are on their high horse advocating what they learned in Universities sometimes but it's just based off theories that might not even be final. I mentioned Nikola Tesla because he summarized my point which you still don't understand...
Hmm, it seems we have both misunderstood each other then. I do fully agree that empirical knowledge (such as is gained from science) is never final or monolithic, truth changes with every new observation. It's just that while the knowledge changes, the method stays the same. And a change in knowledge also doesn't invalidate past knowledge, so long as it had been gained via the scientific method. The theories that used to be all-encompassing have just turned partial, but they're not wrong. Newtonian physics are still accurate for certain circumstances, they just aren't the most universal theory anymore.
If you look at science from the perspective of philosophy, it's obvious that it's knowledge can never be complete. But scientists aren't generally philosophers, so one cannot exactly blame them for not always realizing this. People say absurd things like "the universe runs on math", not because they are stupid or ignorant but because they look at the world only through the lens of empirical reality, but don't consider how that reality is formed in the first place. Nothing empirical will ever be 100% accurate, but it will still be the best guess and it will still work for predictions, which is all that is required.
Anyways, where does the FE fit in any of this? Many FE theorists don't even believe in science in the first place, and the limits of the scientific method certainly don't support the conclusion that the earth may be flat.Another example from my own personal experience of this is my gf's dad telling me to not be vegetarian just because he studied nutrition in university 30 years ago and he thinks being vegetarian isn't good for the baby, and for my health either. So then where did the high population of india who are mostly vegetarians come from? and why do vegetarians live longer statistically?
PS. His answer is that he doesn't trust the internet.
I feel you. I get this discussion a lot from my parents as well. They always ate meat and they turned out alright, and experimenting is dangerous and this is very good meat etc. etc.
Hmm, it seems we have both misunderstood each other then. I do fully agree that empirical knowledge (such as is gained from science) is never final or monolithic, truth changes with every new observation. It's just that while the knowledge changes, the method stays the same. And a change in knowledge also doesn't invalidate past knowledge, so long as it had been gained via the scientific method. The theories that used to be all-encompassing have just turned partial, but they're not wrong. Newtonian physics are still accurate for certain circumstances, they just aren't the most universal theory anymore.Actually, the truth doesn't ever change. A truth is something like: The Sun exists. (though if you get into some advanced whacked out theories that are floating around, that could just be a matter of opinion as well)
Our interpretation and understanding of what the Sun actually is evolves over time through observation and experimentation. Knowledge is the practically the documentation of that process. Of course new methods of observation and measurement inevitably arise, and the old "knowledge" is either scrapped, revised, or retrofitted.
One problem, of course, is there will obviously be a generational gap between what was taught to those prior and what modern opinion is. Another problem is knowledge being mistaken for truth. While being taught something throughout your life through schools, universities, charismatic individuals etc, you have no reason to question the validity of what you're being taught. In fact, you are actively conditioned, consciously and subconsciously, to conform and accept rather than to question or debate.
Anyone who ever has made a radical, breakthrough discovery wasn't a conformist. Einstein, whom so many worship, apparently was a terrible student. What I observe here, however, is an absolute shaming of those who go against the grain, and against the status quo, if you will, of modern science. I often see the psychological disorder known as confirmation bias incorrectly thrown around here, but maybe a lot of those same amateur psychologists should learn about another phenomenon, known as conformity bias, as well.QuoteConformity bias is a tendency to behave similarly to the others in a group, even if doing so goes against your own judgment.Quote from: EcthelionBlue Origin had another successful test a few days ago:Good news I guess, does this mean I will get same minute delivery one day through Amazon?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/02/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-third-rocket-landing
Actually, the truth doesn't ever change. A truth is something like: The Sun exists. (though if you get into some advanced whacked out theories that are floating around, that could just be a matter of opinion as well)
Our interpretation and understanding of what the Sun actually is evolves over time through observation and experimentation. Knowledge is the practically the documentation of that process. Of course new methods of observation and measurement inevitably arise, and the old "knowledge" is either scrapped, revised, or retrofitted.
One problem, of course, is there will obviously be a generational gap between what was taught to those prior and what modern opinion is. Another problem is knowledge being mistaken for truth. While being taught something throughout your life through schools, universities, charismatic individuals etc, you have no reason to question the validity of what you're being taught. In fact, you are actively conditioned, consciously and subconsciously, to conform and accept rather than to question or debate.
Anyone who ever has made a radical, breakthrough discovery wasn't a conformist. Einstein, whom so many worship, apparently was a terrible student. What I observe here, however, is an absolute shaming of those who go against the grain, and against the status quo, if you will, of modern science. I often see the psychological disorder known as confirmation bias incorrectly thrown around here, but maybe a lot of those same amateur psychologists should learn about another phenomenon, known as conformity bias, as well.QuoteConformity bias is a tendency to behave similarly to the others in a group, even if doing so goes against your own judgment.
Good points, well I think that while the predictions based from the scientific method might be "a good guess" like you say -- whatever theory you present, it's almost always that the FlatEarthers will find a fault in it. For instance, imagine if you were a famous physicist, try to explain the round earth using physics. They will use my argument I presented earlier regarding Einstein etc; Or the classic one regarding the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. They will say that there has been wear and tear etc. Hence I still feel that Seeing is believing and if ordinary people went out of space like with Virgin Galactic we will really get our answer. Hopefully soon.
Many FE don't believe science because of my points as well. But that's also partially due to how our world is run right now. The elites won't tell you everything they know and seek to hide the truth on many occasions to keep us dumbed down. Knowledge is power. However regarding FE, I won't believe it now obviously until there is a legitimate map to indicate it. Or if there is an alternative theory to this map, please welcome to share it with me. Because there is no way that the flight makes any sense on this most accurate map Flat Earthers have put together after many decades... It starts to make more sense on a Round earth than even on a flat atlas surface (picture 2) as I showed on my original post.
That's not to say I still do not believe NASA fully as there is so much evidence of forgeries in terms of what they do. AFAIK not even one full-size earth photo wasn't photoshopped.
Good points, well I think that while the predictions based from the scientific method might be "a good guess" like you say -- whatever theory you present, it's almost always that the FlatEarthers will find a fault in it. For instance, imagine if you were a famous physicist, try to explain the round earth using physics. They will use my argument I presented earlier regarding Einstein etc; Or the classic one regarding the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. They will say that there has been wear and tear etc. Hence I still feel that Seeing is believing and if ordinary people went out of space like with Virgin Galactic we will really get our answer. Hopefully soon.
Many FE don't believe science because of my points as well. But that's also partially due to how our world is run right now. The elites won't tell you everything they know and seek to hide the truth on many occasions to keep us dumbed down. Knowledge is power. However regarding FE, I won't believe it now obviously until there is a legitimate map to indicate it. Or if there is an alternative theory to this map, please welcome to share it with me. Because there is no way that the flight makes any sense on this most accurate map Flat Earthers have put together after many decades... It starts to make more sense on a Round earth than even on a flat atlas surface (picture 2) as I showed on my original post.
I get that you think the "elites" keep power for themselves (they most certainly do), but do you also realize just how much knowledge is freely available? I mean you can go right now and read the philosophers of the enlightenment, I recommend Hume and then Kant. You can find out how science works by yourself from that, and will be much better equipped to tell truth from falsehoods. Also there is the so called "methods of rationality", which show common misconceptions and how to test your beliefs. There's a lot of resources out there, no-one has to just believe what they are told.That's not to say I still do not believe NASA fully as there is so much evidence of forgeries in terms of what they do. AFAIK not even one full-size earth photo wasn't photoshopped.
Well there is the photo taken from the moon. That's not a composite image, but of course also not very detailed. Getting a camera big enough to make a full size image of the earth into space would be rather hard, wouldn't it? Why the effort, to convince like 20 people on an internet forum? ;)
There is truth in the world yes, but my point wasn't for myself. The point is, many people in the world are kept in the dark and they would be subject to the mind control in the world right now.
And they won't want to open their eyes and think conspiracy people are lunatics, watch news every day and take everything they see in media for granted. Slowly but surely more and more are waking up though.
Regarding your philosophy thing I guess I'm always more of a believer of Zen than any scientific philosophies. My fav philosopher is Alan Watts. However they are interesting and I did search them up a bit. The Hume philosophy seems too inhumane for me.
Link me to the photo you talked about please. I'm sure there's a lot of moon photos having the Earth. The problem is, they have faked and PS'ed photos before... so what makes you think it's not a photoshop?
Ecthelion, symantics aside, we probably agree on a lot of things.If you go looking for evidence of a conspiracy, you will find it. Your mind will point seek patterns that don't exist. That's pareidolia. It doesn't matter if it's true or not; if you research a topic with a preconceived idea of how it is, your mind will inflate supporting evidence and ignore conflicting evidence. That's confirmation bias. It is better to remain vigilant, weigh both sides fairly, and only then come to a conclusion.
However, your broad stroke of a brush that conspiracy theorists are irrational points to a flaw in your own judgement. Some people do take it a bit far, but to lump every person who investigates different corruption in different countries, sectors, and institutions with people that believe that Aliens abduct people and leave crop circles is detrimental to the process of attempting to right the wrongs in the world.
The 911 attacks are a great example of a "conspiracy theory" with a ton of evidence, motive, and technical details that point to the fact that we were lied to about the nature of the event.
It takes a constant vigilance and an almost a detrimental amount of distrust to not become complacent and accept things as they're poured into the trough for consumption. Sure, you can read a lot of information on the internet, but the real struggle for knowledge happens way before that. It's psychological conditioning: it's distracting us with bright flashy things, it's preying on the public's willingness to trust those that have never given them a reason to do so, it's manipulation on all levels from very young ages. The best brain washing is the kind you don't even realize happened.
It takes a constant vigilance and an almost a detrimental amount of distrust to not become complacent and accept things as they're poured into the trough for consumption. Sure, you can read a lot of information on the internet, but the real struggle for knowledge happens way before that. It's psychological conditioning: it's distracting us with bright flashy things, it's preying on the public's willingness to trust those that have never given them a reason to do so, it's manipulation on all levels from very young ages. The best brain washing is the kind you don't even realize happened.
Are you refering to people in Third World countries in Africa or Asia, or under censoring regimes like Russia or China? Because if people are in the dark in Europe or the US, it's predominantly out of their own volition, and the only mind control is the mind control they allow.
Not believing anyting you see in the media is just as flawed as believing everything. The way to gather information is by consulting different sources. The problem with conspiracy theories is that most of them are not based on rational analysis, and as such attract believers which aren't quite rational themselves.
There's a bunch of pictures on this site:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2380085/Earth-aliens-eye-view-How-planet-looks-different-perspective-far-far-away.html
I observe that my mind tells me that the page tells me the photo is genuine.
It doesn't actually matter if I think the photo is fake or genuine. For one, you only asked me about the photo existing, and it does. Secondly, that the photo exists is an observation in it's own right. This observation is, on it's face, evidence for the photo being genuine. Unless I have additional observations that suggests the photo is faked, the simplest theory that explains the evidence is that the photo is genuine.
Ecthelion, symantics aside, we probably agree on a lot of things.If you go looking for evidence of a conspiracy, you will find it. Your mind will point seek patterns that don't exist. That's pareidolia. It doesn't matter if it's true or not; if you research a topic with a preconceived idea of how it is, your mind will inflate supporting evidence and ignore conflicting evidence. That's confirmation bias. It is better to remain vigilant, weigh both sides fairly, and only then come to a conclusion.
However, your broad stroke of a brush that conspiracy theorists are irrational points to a flaw in your own judgement. Some people do take it a bit far, but to lump every person who investigates different corruption in different countries, sectors, and institutions with people that believe that Aliens abduct people and leave crop circles is detrimental to the process of attempting to right the wrongs in the world.
The 911 attacks are a great example of a "conspiracy theory" with a ton of evidence, motive, and technical details that point to the fact that we were lied to about the nature of the event.
It takes a constant vigilance and an almost a detrimental amount of distrust to not become complacent and accept things as they're poured into the trough for consumption. Sure, you can read a lot of information on the internet, but the real struggle for knowledge happens way before that. It's psychological conditioning: it's distracting us with bright flashy things, it's preying on the public's willingness to trust those that have never given them a reason to do so, it's manipulation on all levels from very young ages. The best brain washing is the kind you don't even realize happened.
Yeah I don't think you know what's really going on in the world right now haha. Perhaps learn about Subliminal messages that are being programmed into today's children's shows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjsLGKNhHSE
Don't get me started on the media haha. You're right in that you should consult different sources, but I would really never trust the media on TV for example. (Again see other videos about the subject)
Conspiracy theories are mostly based on rational ideas and a heap of evidence to support them or there simply won't be this much debate over them. It's not my task to change your mind so I won't say anymore regarding this.
Funny, it was hard to fault most of the images there but I turned up the curves on this one in photoshop and Bam. Guess Japan wasn't as good as NASA at forgeries yet.
So yeah, I guess I won't really trust photos unless they are RAW format straight from the camera and therefore untampered with. These photos are of course modified and even saved at a 79% quality of jpeg compression (for the first photo in the website).
QuoteI observe that my mind tells me that the page tells me the photo is genuine.
Lol.
It's not as easy as that, there are tests you can do. I ran these photos thru different websites testing the legitimacy of the photograph and obviously they were modified and not the original taken by the camera. Which just makes them moot really for me. If you re-save an image as evidence that's a red flag, but the next bigger red flag is how the JPG compression edges don't match up even after a simple test.
Ecthelion, symantics aside, we probably agree on a lot of things.
However, your broad stroke of a brush that conspiracy theorists are irrational points to a flaw in your own judgement. Some people do take it a bit far, but to lump every person who investigates different corruption in different countries, sectors, and institutions with people that believe that Aliens abduct people and leave crop circles is detrimental to the process of attempting to right the wrongs in the world.
The 911 attacks are a great example of a "conspiracy theory" with a ton of evidence, motive, and technical details that point to the fact that we were lied to about the nature of the event.
It takes a constant vigilance and an almost a detrimental amount of distrust to not become complacent and accept things as they're poured into the trough for consumption. Sure, you can read a lot of information on the internet, but the real struggle for knowledge happens way before that. It's psychological conditioning: it's distracting us with bright flashy things, it's preying on the public's willingness to trust those that have never given them a reason to do so, it's manipulation on all levels from very young ages. The best brain washing is the kind you don't even realize happened.
9/11 is perhaps the biggest conspiracy theory that is still somewhat plausible, and that already requires a pretty large cabal of psychopaths within the US government.There is no shortage of psychopaths in this World.
But if I never realize the brain washing happened, how does speculating about what might have happened help? This is, essentially, the "Matrix" problem. It is possible that we all live in the Matrix, everything we know is fed to us by the machines and the truth is completely different. But if that is the case, we have no way of knowing it, and we certainly couldn't tell which part of the information is fed to us is true and which is false. It's an entirely useless speculation that doesn't supply us with any additional means to discern truth from falsehood.
Which begs the question: How does simply realizing that "it could all be fake" help me to tell whether anything is, actually, fake? What is the tool I am supposed to use, and how am I supposed to wield it?
If you step away from your regularly scheduled programming you begin to see the thinly veiled agendas. You can overcome the conditioning that has been done to you, but the first step is realizing it even happened. I think I saw you quoting enlightenment era philosophers before, so you should be familiar with the concept of transcendentalism. You need to separate yourself from the group and forge your own understanding, and don't be so quick to dismiss concepts that at first glance seem laughable. There were a lot of amazing concepts and ideas throughout history that drew laughter, and in an effort to remain relevant, the spherical, flying through space Earth was once one of them.But here's the problem: You think that you are one of the few people that knows what is going on, and therefore your position is above everyone else. But just thinking differently and feeling superior doesn't make you correct. I could tell everyone that corn is a fungus that makes humans want to grow more corn, and I would feel pretty high-and-mighty doing it. But would that make me correct? No, it would make me an idiot who is ignorant of facts, common sense, and opposing points of view.
If you step away from your regularly scheduled programming you begin to see the thinly veiled agendas. You can overcome the conditioning that has been done to you, but the first step is realizing it even happened. I think I saw you quoting enlightenment era philosophers before, so you should be familiar with the concept of transcendentalism. You need to separate yourself from the group and forge your own understanding, and don't be so quick to dismiss concepts that at first glance seem laughable. There were a lot of amazing concepts and ideas throughout history that drew laughter, and in an effort to remain relevant, the spherical, flying through space Earth was once one of them.
You're obviously here because the idea of the flat earth intrigued you enough to see what the fuss is about. Try to stop focusing on the defense of your preconceptions and open your mind to other possibilities.
So, you don't trust "the media on TV", but you do trust Youtube videos? You specifically believe a video that states that frames that allude to sex, or have the word "sex" written in them are "highly sexualized" and "corrupt the world's children"? How exactly does that work?
It's a familiar phenomenon: "I don't believe any media, except these people on youtube". Maybe it's the youtube videos that are controlled and brainwashing you? Maybe the government is secretly controlling all the conspiracy theorists? How does your approach allow you to discern truth from falsehood?
Funny, it was hard to fault most of the images there but I turned up the curves on this one in photoshop and Bam. Guess Japan wasn't as good as NASA at forgeries yet.
So the fact that you tried and failed to find a fault in the majority of the pictures is now supposed to be proof that they are all faked? That's a curious leap of logic.
So yeah, I guess I won't really trust photos unless they are RAW format straight from the camera and therefore untampered with. These photos are of course modified and even saved at a 79% quality of jpeg compression (for the first photo in the website).
Which means you are excluding an entire category of observations with no argument other than that it suits your preconceived ideas.
It's not as easy as that, there are tests you can do. I ran these photos thru different websites testing the legitimacy of the photograph and obviously they were modified and not the original taken by the camera. Which just makes them moot really for me. If you re-save an image as evidence that's a red flag, but the next bigger red flag is how the JPG compression edges don't match up even after a simple test.
Which would then be a new observation I have to take into account. But I cannot possibly ever do all the tests. There is always an alternative theory, the number of possible tests is infinite. Your simple test only indicated fault in a single image. So why do we assume forgery when the observations don't support that assumption? Isn't that the opposite of looking for the truth?
You're obviously here because the idea of the flat earth intrigued you enough to see what the fuss is about. Try to stop focusing on the defense of your preconceptions and open your mind to other possibilities.
If you step away from your regularly scheduled programming you begin to see the thinly veiled agendas. You can overcome the conditioning that has been done to you, but the first step is realizing it even happened. I think I saw you quoting enlightenment era philosophers before, so you should be familiar with the concept of transcendentalism. You need to separate yourself from the group and forge your own understanding, and don't be so quick to dismiss concepts that at first glance seem laughable. There were a lot of amazing concepts and ideas throughout history that drew laughter, and in an effort to remain relevant, the spherical, flying through space Earth was once one of them.But here's the problem: You think that you are one of the few people that knows what is going on, and therefore your position is above everyone else. But just thinking differently and feeling superior doesn't make you correct. I could tell everyone that corn is a fungus that makes humans want to grow more corn, and I would feel pretty high-and-mighty doing it. But would that make me correct? No, it would make me an idiot who is ignorant of facts, common sense, and opposing points of view.
No, I'm not superior to you, or anyone. Did I say that? If you took it that way its strictly an inference based on your own insecurities. Ego is the fall of many men... Me included. I have not reached Nirvana. I have not achieved in my 30 years that which takes monks a lifetime of dedication and self sacrifice. If you've deduced that I know everything then I guess I did take that as a complement. But alas, the whole of human knowledge and the deepest darkest secrets of the world seem to escape me.
Either way, I love you as a fellow human. We all experience the same emotions and face the same demons. I apologize if I've been condescending towards you in anyway. There seems to be tension for whatever reason, but I beg you to not take the words I write as some kind of personal attack on your belief system. We just have two vastly different perspectives, at entirely different points in our journeys.
What does it matter if it's a youtube video? I dont get it? It could be an article, doesn't matter if the evidence it provides is legit. You can watch the video and then find the real disney movie, and see for yourself if that's true or not. And it's exactly what I did...
I just linked you to a brief introductory video on the subject. There are many more with HORDES of evidence of them adding subliminal satanic symbols, gestures, and sexualized subliminals etc. But really it's not my task to educate you on this since it's hard to wake people up and I refuse to do it to someone I don't know well in person.
This is right. There are many disinformation in the internet and disinformation agents spreading false information. That's where you need to research and see for yourself, and above all follow what your heart says about it. However regarding what I showed you, there's not really any reason of a conspiracy disinfo when the evidence is raw, and right there in front of your eyes... For instance you can even go to court with the video as proof and tell Disney to remove the penis on the church priest on a children's movie.
You showed me a basket of photos. If that basket has a rotten egg, the whole basket starts to seem like it's not legit. If I found pee in the egg box of a dozen eggs, I would start to question the rest as well.
But it's well deserved. For space photos that have full-size earths, imo RAW is the only way because of their history of course. That's just their fault for so much tampering...
Your point earlier was that you didn't have to test it, rather just look at it to know if it was genuine. Now you're changing your point haha okay then. Tests are infinite and you should assume every photo is genuine instead of being fake lol
Again, I'm really not here to convince people on the internet to believe in anything, so you can believe anything you want, and keep listening to your gov / media , etc. Not my loss haha but don't think you can convince me otherwise that your beliefs are more correct without opening your eyes first.
Funny, it was hard to fault most of the images there but I turned up the curves on this one in photoshop and Bam. Guess Japan wasn't as good as NASA at forgeries yet.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/27/article-2380085-1B05A53D000005DC-868_968x351.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/zmyK0Ec.png)
larger image link: http://i.imgur.com/zmyK0Ec.png
The amount of error in the edges in terms of JPEG compression do not match up as you can see, while they should be the same. Obviously not.
So yeah, I guess I won't really trust photos unless they are RAW format straight from the camera and therefore untampered with. These photos are of course modified and even saved at a 79% quality of jpeg compression (for the first photo in the website).QuoteI observe that my mind tells me that the page tells me the photo is genuine.
Lol.QuoteIt doesn't actually matter if I think the photo is fake or genuine. For one, you only asked me about the photo existing, and it does. Secondly, that the photo exists is an observation in it's own right. This observation is, on it's face, evidence for the photo being genuine. Unless I have additional observations that suggests the photo is faked, the simplest theory that explains the evidence is that the photo is genuine.
It's not as easy as that, there are tests you can do. I ran these photos thru different websites testing the legitimacy of the photograph and obviously they were modified and not the original taken by the camera. Which just makes them moot really for me. If you re-save an image as evidence that's a red flag, but the next bigger red flag is how the JPG compression edges don't match up even after a simple test.
What does it matter if it's a youtube video? I dont get it? It could be an article, doesn't matter if the evidence it provides is legit. You can watch the video and then find the real disney movie, and see for yourself if that's true or not. And it's exactly what I did...
I just linked you to a brief introductory video on the subject. There are many more with HORDES of evidence of them adding subliminal satanic symbols, gestures, and sexualized subliminals etc. But really it's not my task to educate you on this since it's hard to wake people up and I refuse to do it to someone I don't know well in person.
It doesn't matter that it's a youtube video. But by the same token, it also doesn't matter if it's on mainstream TV, radio, or in a newspaper. The problem isn't that you take the Youtube video into consideration. The problem is that you automatically dismiss some observations while allowing others to influence you. This will lead to false conclusions no matter how well you research those observations that you allow.
I can echo your last statement: It's nto my task to educate you on what the facts are. What I wish to do is show you is how I think your way of looking at the world may be biased.This is right. There are many disinformation in the internet and disinformation agents spreading false information. That's where you need to research and see for yourself, and above all follow what your heart says about it. However regarding what I showed you, there's not really any reason of a conspiracy disinfo when the evidence is raw, and right there in front of your eyes... For instance you can even go to court with the video as proof and tell Disney to remove the penis on the church priest on a children's movie.
Just like there is no reason to assume the moon landings were fake when there is footage, videos, construction documents etc. right in front of your eyes. Just as there is no reason to doubt Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK when he was convicted in a cout of law. My point being, you have a double standard. In the case of the subliminal messages, you make an observation ("this video has a penis in it") and conclude that this is evidence for the theory presented. In the case of the pictures I linked, you make an observation and conclude that it must be faked.You showed me a basket of photos. If that basket has a rotten egg, the whole basket starts to seem like it's not legit. If I found pee in the egg box of a dozen eggs, I would start to question the rest as well.
And question them you did. But you forget to note that you did check and found nothing obviously wrong about the rest of the eggs in the basket. So, in staying with your metaphor, you find a rotten egg in a box of otherwise good eggs, and then throw out all the eggs regardless.But it's well deserved. For space photos that have full-size earths, imo RAW is the only way because of their history of course. That's just their fault for so much tampering...
Staying with the eggs metaphor from above again: you should note that if you do that and throw out the good eggs with the bad, it's not the eggs that loose and get what they deserved. It's you who looses, because you have just denied yourself a source of perfectly good nutrition.
Stepping away from the metaphor again: You deny yourself sources of information, and that isn't good for someone who seeks the truth.Your point earlier was that you didn't have to test it, rather just look at it to know if it was genuine. Now you're changing your point haha okay then. Tests are infinite and you should assume every photo is genuine instead of being fake lol
If that was the point that got across to you, I must be very bad at explaining. That wasn't the point, let me try to explain again: What I said was that every observation is, a data point that you need to take into account. How you explain those datapoints is the second step. Noting that there is a picture is making an observation. Stating the picture is fake is a conclusion, and explanation for how this observation came about. The mistake to avoid is to confuse step one with step two. To throw out datapoints as "fake" and then come up with an explanation that only encompasses the remaining data. You need an explanation for all the observations, that includes the ones which you consider fake. If you do conclude that the pictures were fake, your theory must include an explanation for why these observations are considered fake and other are considered genuine and how that ultimately supports your final conclusion. What you cannot do is have two completely unconnected theories where one states "everything I see is suspect and must be considered fake" and the other says "my theory is supported by these things which are true because I saw them".Again, I'm really not here to convince people on the internet to believe in anything, so you can believe anything you want, and keep listening to your gov / media , etc. Not my loss haha but don't think you can convince me otherwise that your beliefs are more correct without opening your eyes first.
Neither am I. I just think that your eyes are closed as well and trying to teach you how to open them. If you are unwilling to take what I say into consideration because I have come to different conclusions than you, then I cannot help that.
If that was the point that got across to you, I must be very bad at explaining. That wasn't the point, let me try to explain again: What I said was that every observation is, a data point that you need to take into account. How you explain those datapoints is the second step. Noting that there is a picture is making an observation. Stating the picture is fake is a conclusion, and explanation for how this observation came about. The mistake to avoid is to confuse step one with step two. To throw out datapoints as "fake" and then come up with an explanation that only encompasses the remaining data. You need an explanation for all the observations, that includes the ones which you consider fake. If you do conclude that the pictures were fake, your theory must include an explanation for why these observations are considered fake and other are considered genuine and how that ultimately supports your final conclusion. What you cannot do is have two completely unconnected theories where one states "everything I see is suspect and must be considered fake" and the other says "my theory is supported by these things which are true because I saw them".
These pictures are not posted as "evidence" of anything! No-one in NASA or the media is trying to prove anything to you - they know not nor care! If you think that you have a massively overblown sense of your own importance.Sometimes I think that all these self-made expert image forensic examiners are not quite as expert as they think they are!
These pictures are not posted as "evidence" of anything! No-one in NASA or the media is trying to prove anything to you - they know not nor care! If you think that you have a massively overblown sense of your own importance.
Sometimes I think that all these self-made expert image forensic examiners are not quite as expert as they think they are!
Sigh. I really hate to revisit this and waste my time but okay.
Look, even a monkey can tell that it's a composite image and it's of course modified. Yes my point wasn't that. I only said that because I wanted to see RAW images not modified ones, and I wasn't even pointing at this particular image for that point because we all know it's several different images placed together. It was the JPG Artifacts MISMATCH on that that piqued my interest.
For comparison sake, I did a curves on one of the top ones in that site and I found them to not have this same problem.
Compare the larger images and see for yourself. You aren't blind.
http://i.imgur.com/zmyK0Ec.png (http://i.imgur.com/zmyK0Ec.png) VS http://i.imgur.com/lV4kF9b.png (http://i.imgur.com/lV4kF9b.png)
The colour hue / saturation / brightness (HSB) values of the jpg compression of the first one is definitely out of place.
Maybe you need a lesson in jpeg compression algorithms before jumping to conclusions that makes you look like a rookie. Take it as an advice from an experienced developer.
First let me tell you that in my case of video proof, I can find an old disney show and see that they actually used those nasty subliminals. And of course you can find testimonies of people who have watched the exact show.
However, in your case, how about I go to the moon and see for myself? How do I verify the proof? By looking at "photos" from the moon, that mind you isn't even straight from the camera and retains the original Metadata information? You see it's not first-hand evidence. In my case I can get the first hand evidence because it's readily available.
The only way you can debunk my evidence of them hiding sexual symbols is IF my sources of old disney movies containing the symbols are fake. Which could be ludicrous because you can of course find them everywhere and people have indeed watched them.
The other point you were talking about the eggs argument haha.
Okay but my point all along was that nasa have made a crap load of fake earth composites before so how in the hell do you not look at them from the perspective of a skeptical view rather than to think they are real at first glance?
I guess you misunderstood me then, I'm not that quick to call them fakes, just keeping a skeptical eye based on their history. I simply said they were keyword - Modified - which of course they were since the JPG compression.
I tested this more. It turns out it might be mostly the lighting that's affecting the jpg mismatch.The difference in lighting is because the NASA photo was from lunar noon, with the sun directly overhead, and the JAXA photo is from the pole, with the light coming at a shallow angle.
If I turned the lighting just on the moon up, the jpg artifacts seem to match up much better. However this just begs the question -- why were the lighting so different? The NASA image has the lighting of the moon really high up, like a football stadium while the JAXA one is very dimly lit.
I guess you misunderstood me then, I'm not that quick to call them fakes, just keeping a skeptical eye based on their history. I simply said they were keyword - Modified - which of course they were since the JPG compression.
(https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0076/78/1448349256868.jpg)Please explain why any of those images could not be of the earth! A globe is a 3D object, the way it looks depends on the orientation and the distance we are from the globe. These are of North America from 2 altitudes - quite different.
(http://i.imgur.com/BfgxOz9.jpg) North America - 4,500 miles | xxxxxx | (http://i.imgur.com/Y97fGkT.jpg) North America - 21,500 miles | xxxxxx | (http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/imgs_c/6/visible/1/201604080200-00.png) "Eastern Hemisphere" - 22,236 miles |
Very mature.Maybe you need a lesson in jpeg compression algorithms before jumping to conclusions that makes you look like a rookie. Take it as an advice from an experienced developer.
My cat is also an experienced developer. What makes you so special sir?
Why on Earth would the size of North America in relation to the globe change due to altitude? If anything the higher you get the "globe" gets smaller in proportion.(https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0076/78/1448349256868.jpg)Please explain why any of those images could not be of the earth! A globe is a 3D object, the way it looks depends on the orientation and the distance we are from the globe. These are of North America from 2 altitudes - quite different.
Different cameras, different exposures and different processing can explain a lot of the difference. In fact I doubt the "Blue Marble" is quite as colourful as those! It might be more like the unadorned picture on the right - npt quite as pretty as NASA's!
Now, I have no idea which images might be genuine. I have no reason to think any are actually "fake", but almost certainly thet have been copied, reduced, "enhanced" and some might be composites.
But as I stated at length, only an idiot would ever suspect that your "earth setting" picture could ever be though "original". It is obviously a composite, and you were using a low resolution copy anyway, so we know it is a much reduced composite - what more has you fancy forensics told us?
Oh, and you do of course know, that an orbit at earth-sun L1 leaves the orbital speed around the sun the same as earth's, right? Knowing that kind of makes your "I can't stay focused on satellites" argument irrelevant.Why on Earth would the size of North America in relation to the globe change due to altitude? If anything the higher you get the "globe" gets smaller in proportion.(https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0076/78/1448349256868.jpg)Please explain why any of those images could not be of the earth! A globe is a 3D object, the way it looks depends on the orientation and the distance we are from the globe. These are of North America from 2 altitudes - quite different.
Different cameras, different exposures and different processing can explain a lot of the difference. In fact I doubt the "Blue Marble" is quite as colourful as those! It might be more like the unadorned picture on the right - npt quite as pretty as NASA's!
2012 and 2002 obviously stand out as an obvious representation of the disparity of the represented size. But oh well, let's take Blue Moon's advice and just ignore all the previous ones and finally trust the 2015 version, you know the one taken from the mystical Earth-Sun L1 sweet spot in Gravity, a million miles away, with the uncanny ability to perfectly face Earth from that distance, when I can't even get a particular star to stay in my telescope if I fidget in the slightest.Now, I have no idea which images might be genuine. I have no reason to think any are actually "fake", but almost certainly thet have been copied, reduced, "enhanced" and some might be composites.
Wow. That's a high standard of proof you have there when looking at a photo. It may have been copied, reduced, "enhanced" a composite etc... but it can still be an accurate representation of reality. Way to bend the rules to keep your fragile dependency on trusting NASA intact.But as I stated at length, only an idiot would ever suspect that your "earth setting" picture could ever be though "original". It is obviously a composite, and you were using a low resolution copy anyway, so we know it is a much reduced composite - what more has you fancy forensics told us?
It doesn't matter if it's a low resolution copy, all the artifacts would match evenly when you adjust the curves, unless of course it is an obvious composite from two different source images. Take it from me, an experienced graphic artist that understands JPEG compression.
And trust there are plenty of idiots that believe these composites to be real. I suspect I'm talking to many of them daily here, you obviously just admitted that much when you said an altered, enhanced, copied composite image of Earth fits the definition of "real" in your mind.
Oh, and you do of course know, that an orbit at earth-sun L1 leaves the orbital speed around the sun the same as earth's, right? Knowing that kind of makes your "I can't stay focused on satellites" argument irrelevant.Why on Earth would the size of North America in relation to the globe change due to altitude? If anything the higher you get the "globe" gets smaller in proportion.(https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0076/78/1448349256868.jpg)Please explain why any of those images could not be of the earth! A globe is a 3D object, the way it looks depends on the orientation and the distance we are from the globe. These are of North America from 2 altitudes - quite different.
Different cameras, different exposures and different processing can explain a lot of the difference. In fact I doubt the "Blue Marble" is quite as colourful as those! It might be more like the unadorned picture on the right - npt quite as pretty as NASA's!
2012 and 2002 obviously stand out as an obvious representation of the disparity of the represented size. But oh well, let's take Blue Moon's advice and just ignore all the previous ones and finally trust the 2015 version, you know the one taken from the mystical Earth-Sun L1 sweet spot in Gravity, a million miles away, with the uncanny ability to perfectly face Earth from that distance, when I can't even get a particular star to stay in my telescope if I fidget in the slightest.Now, I have no idea which images might be genuine. I have no reason to think any are actually "fake", but almost certainly thet have been copied, reduced, "enhanced" and some might be composites.
Wow. That's a high standard of proof you have there when looking at a photo. It may have been copied, reduced, "enhanced" a composite etc... but it can still be an accurate representation of reality. Way to bend the rules to keep your fragile dependency on trusting NASA intact.But as I stated at length, only an idiot would ever suspect that your "earth setting" picture could ever be though "original". It is obviously a composite, and you were using a low resolution copy anyway, so we know it is a much reduced composite - what more has you fancy forensics told us?
It doesn't matter if it's a low resolution copy, all the artifacts would match evenly when you adjust the curves, unless of course it is an obvious composite from two different source images. Take it from me, an experienced graphic artist that understands JPEG compression.
And trust there are plenty of idiots that believe these composites to be real. I suspect I'm talking to many of them daily here, you obviously just admitted that much when you said an altered, enhanced, copied composite image of Earth fits the definition of "real" in your mind.
As usual this subject has gotten off topic with those photos of the earth.
The objection doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Notice the dates (years) they were made. Naturally a photo taken one year is going to look different from one year to the next is going to look different. And we don't know all the technical details behind the photograohy, etc. So I fail to see where the criticism of their validity makes any sense at all. If you were to take pictures of your child from year to year they would look different but they would be the same child..
And yet again, the creationist dismissed an answer with no prior knowledge on the subject.
Do explain, please.
Btw I'll just leave this here too.Here's a better version of it
(https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0076/78/1448349256868.jpg)
Btw I'll just leave this here too.Here's a better version of it
(https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0076/78/1448349256868.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/1Cihnio.jpg)
There is a video made by Vsauce answering "What does the Earth really looks like", you should watch it.
Question for "Round Earthers" :
How do you reason with a "Flat Earther" ? Or should you just put it under the category of"Mission Impossible".....?
LOL
Question for "Round Earthers" :
How do you reason with a "Flat Earther" ? Or should you just put it under the category of"Mission Impossible".....?
LOL
Step 1) Possess the ability to do so.
Question for "Round Earthers" :
How do you reason with a "Flat Earther" ? Or should you just put it under the category of"Mission Impossible".....?
LOL
Step 1) Possess the ability to do so.
To be fair it is flat earthers that break off the debate when they realise facts and logic are against them.
Concerning the collection of earth images, I would say to ignore the 1997 and 2012 photos, for reasons I don't care to get into right now. The rest can be explained as being taken with different filters by different cameras. Your best bet is the 2015 photo, which was taken by the DSCOVR spacecraft. We get multiple images of the earth each day from that satellite. See here for more info.
ROFLMAO! It amuses me so that they are "composites" while we have highly advanced telescopes like the "Hubble" and gigapixel cameras while all NASA can get are stupid photoshop composites -- WITH MIND YOU TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayers money-- while they try to explain EVERYTHING suspicious away with technical nerdy shit, and all you Round Earthers are buying every bit of it.You know, it would be nice if you would mention what you did to the images, because you're the only one that can see a problem.
Now I'm not labelling myself as a Flat Earther, as some stuff does not add up yet even in the flat earth theory... but clearly, some shit is not right. And it's so funny that you all refuse to accept the facts and side along with them so that you can continue your beauty sleep.Quote from: BlueMoonConcerning the collection of earth images, I would say to ignore the 1997 and 2012 photos, for reasons I don't care to get into right now. The rest can be explained as being taken with different filters by different cameras. Your best bet is the 2015 photo, which was taken by the DSCOVR spacecraft. We get multiple images of the earth each day from that satellite. See here for more info.
Ok so I did research this, and took your explanation into account.
Now explain for me this, the ELA analysis in for the Blue Marble 2015 that you think is legit.
I just took a random photo (http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-archive/png/epic_1b_20160406002224_00.png) off of epic.gsfc.nasa.gov the site where it has daily photos from the DSCOVR telescope as you advocated.
ROFLMAO! It amuses me so that they are "composites" while we have highly advanced telescopes like the "Hubble" and gigapixel cameras while all NASA can get are stupid photoshop composites -- WITH MIND YOU TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayers money-- while they try to explain EVERYTHING suspicious away with technical nerdy shit, and all you Round Earthers are buying every bit of it.You know, it would be nice if you would mention what you did to the images, because you're the only one that can see a problem.
Now I'm not labelling myself as a Flat Earther, as some stuff does not add up yet even in the flat earth theory... but clearly, some shit is not right. And it's so funny that you all refuse to accept the facts and side along with them so that you can continue your beauty sleep.Quote from: BlueMoonConcerning the collection of earth images, I would say to ignore the 1997 and 2012 photos, for reasons I don't care to get into right now. The rest can be explained as being taken with different filters by different cameras. Your best bet is the 2015 photo, which was taken by the DSCOVR spacecraft. We get multiple images of the earth each day from that satellite. See here for more info.
Ok so I did research this, and took your explanation into account.
Now explain for me this, the ELA analysis in for the Blue Marble 2015 that you think is legit.
I just took a random photo (http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-archive/png/epic_1b_20160406002224_00.png) off of epic.gsfc.nasa.gov the site where it has daily photos from the DSCOVR telescope as you advocated.
I don't intend to watch the video you posted, now or ever. If you can't find a somewhat intelligent source of information, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.
You really are a dumbass if you think a photo is fake because it's a composite. That is all I have to say on that matter.
People like you don't deserve to live in a world you can't appreciate, or at all.
Debunked by the fact that it DOESNT even make a mark on the moon, along with many other technical faults. You guys do not even believe your eyes and are blinded by your indoctrination in school.You're making it seem like we haven't explained it a billion times already, duh we probably did it just 100 million times.
It did leave a mark. The remaining lander legs were photographed last year.ROFLMAO! It amuses me so that they are "composites" while we have highly advanced telescopes like the "Hubble" and gigapixel cameras while all NASA can get are stupid photoshop composites -- WITH MIND YOU TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayers money-- while they try to explain EVERYTHING suspicious away with technical nerdy shit, and all you Round Earthers are buying every bit of it.You know, it would be nice if you would mention what you did to the images, because you're the only one that can see a problem.
Now I'm not labelling myself as a Flat Earther, as some stuff does not add up yet even in the flat earth theory... but clearly, some shit is not right. And it's so funny that you all refuse to accept the facts and side along with them so that you can continue your beauty sleep.Quote from: BlueMoonConcerning the collection of earth images, I would say to ignore the 1997 and 2012 photos, for reasons I don't care to get into right now. The rest can be explained as being taken with different filters by different cameras. Your best bet is the 2015 photo, which was taken by the DSCOVR spacecraft. We get multiple images of the earth each day from that satellite. See here for more info.
Ok so I did research this, and took your explanation into account.
Now explain for me this, the ELA analysis in for the Blue Marble 2015 that you think is legit.
I just took a random photo (http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-archive/png/epic_1b_20160406002224_00.png) off of epic.gsfc.nasa.gov the site where it has daily photos from the DSCOVR telescope as you advocated.
I don't intend to watch the video you posted, now or ever. If you can't find a somewhat intelligent source of information, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.
You really are a dumbass if you think a photo is fake because it's a composite. That is all I have to say on that matter.
People like you don't deserve to live in a world you can't appreciate, or at all.
lol at that insult. You mad bro? And you think you deserve to live following the herd like a good little sheep you are?
My intention wasn't for You to watch the video, but I'll explain it anyway. The video would tell you what FE side of the story is, if a so called 6 Billion Dollar spaceship LOOKS like a homeless shelter built by sticky tape, aluminium foil and plastic blow dryers, that doesn't ring any alarm bells to you RE at all because of some technical nasa explanation. Debunked by the fact that it DOESNT even make a mark on the moon, along with many other technical faults. You guys do not even believe your eyes and are blinded by your indoctrination in school.
Not that you would want to face the truth anyway, cause it hurts. sheep.
I've already explained it in my post that the modification to the image is ELA. If you didn't know ELA , it means error level analysis, if you really know about anything NASA you should know about ELA because your shit sure does have a lot of error in them.
http://fotoforensics.com/faq.php
lol at that insult. You mad bro? And you think you deserve to live following the herd like a good little sheep you are?
My intention wasn't for You to watch the video, but I'll explain it anyway. The video would tell you what FE side of the story is, if a so called 6 Billion Dollar spaceship LOOKS like a homeless shelter built by sticky tape, aluminium foil and plastic blow dryers, that doesn't ring any alarm bells to you RE at all because of some technical nasa explanation. Debunked by the fact that it DOESNT even make a mark on the moon, along with many other technical faults. You guys do not even believe your eyes and are blinded by your indoctrination in school.
Not that you would want to face the truth anyway, cause it hurts. sheep.
ROFLMAO! It amuses me so that they are "composites" while we have highly advanced telescopes like the "Hubble" and gigapixel cameras while all NASA can get are stupid photoshop composites -- WITH MIND YOU TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayers money-- while they try to explain EVERYTHING suspicious away with technical nerdy shit, and all you Round Earthers are buying every bit of it.When I first read this I didn't really hit me what idiotic stuff you come out with.
Debunked by the fact that it DOESNT even make a mark on the moon, along with many other technical faults. You guys do not even believe your eyes and are blinded by your indoctrination in school.You're making it seem like we haven't explained it a billion times already, duh we probably did it just 100 million times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Mechanical_issues
Of all the explanation we give to the Moon landing conspiracists' claim, i've never seen any of them refute our explanation.
No, the Wikipedia explanations are valid and factual. You only feel like they're biased against you because they prove you wrong.Debunked by the fact that it DOESNT even make a mark on the moon, along with many other technical faults. You guys do not even believe your eyes and are blinded by your indoctrination in school.You're making it seem like we haven't explained it a billion times already, duh we probably did it just 100 million times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Mechanical_issues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Mechanical_issues)
Of all the explanation we give to the Moon landing conspiracists' claim, i've never seen any of them refute our explanation.
That entire wikipedia article is written as apologetic propoganda. Nothing more, nothing less. I read it and was astounded by the obvious bias and lack of any factual evidence to back up the refutations.
If something as obviously faked as the moon landing is impossible to make you guys even consider a possibility, than it really is a waste of time discussing flat earths and other stuff with your little av club's worth of posters.
That entire wikipedia article is written as apologetic propoganda. Nothing more, nothing less. I read it and was astounded by the obvious bias and lack of any factual evidence to back up the refutations.
No, the Wikipedia explanations are valid and factual. You only feel like they're biased against you because they prove you wrong.
The blast crater has been analyzed (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm) before, along with any other "evidence" you think you have.
Is there any factual evidence at all for a "moon hoax"? Not just calling the official story into question, but actual positive evidence (documents, witness accounts, technical documents, calculations) directly supporting a conspiracy?Sure, if you actually would look you'd find plenty. That's your prerogative, not mine. But if you're so thoroughly brain washed you can't even see the obvious bias of that wikipedia article then I don't see you getting anywhere with your research.
No, the Wikipedia explanations are valid and factual. You only feel like they're biased against you because they prove you wrong.
The blast crater has been analyzed (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm) before, along with any other "evidence" you think you have.
Do you really think I give a fuck if I'm proven wrong by a bunch of fanboys on the internet? Do you think I want to be right? What do I have to gain from being lied to by my own government? You have a lot more to lose if you're wrong, because the entire sci-fi fantasy world you and websites like the one you linked have committed their insignificant lives to would collapse.Quote from: EcthelionIs there any factual evidence at all for a "moon hoax"? Not just calling the official story into question, but actual positive evidence (documents, witness accounts, technical documents, calculations) directly supporting a conspiracy?Sure, if you actually would look you'd find plenty. That's your prerogative, not mine. But if you're so thoroughly brain washed you can't even see the obvious bias of that wikipedia article then I don't see you getting anywhere with your research.
Anyway, once everyone is gone, except you lot of rocket scientist psychology/philosophy majors, I hope you are satisfied that you've been able to successfully stifle any kind of progress and have managed to avoid having an actual honest conversation. Then you can high five each other for having silenced any dissenting opinion that doesn't confirm what you already believe to be true.
Have fun with that, or if you want to jump to that point, feel free to take your conversations to the hundreds of space travel, nerdy, nasa enthusiasts forums where your fragile need to believe can be safe with the flock of conformists that surround you.
Sure, if you actually would look you'd find plenty. That's your prerogative, not mine. But if you're so thoroughly brain washed you can't even see the obvious bias of that wikipedia article then I don't see you getting anywhere with your research.
Anyway, once everyone is gone, except you lot of rocket scientist psychology/philosophy majors, I hope you are satisfied that you've been able to successfully stifle any kind of progress and have managed to avoid having an actual honest conversation. Then you can high five each other for having silenced any dissenting opinion that doesn't confirm what you already believe to be true.
Have fun with that, or if you want to jump to that point, feel free to take your conversations to the hundreds of space travel, nerdy, nasa enthusiasts forums where your fragile need to believe can be safe with the flock of conformists that surround you.
Conformists? Oh, you're so special and unique, the envy I feel.
It's funny being told that we're standing in the way of progress by a religious man. Even more so that this individual just happens to be a creationist, a religion clinging to whatever little hope there might be left for a God to exist, by adjusting all the fundamentals of said religion for it to be remotely digestible in this global information society.
I actually kind of feel sorry for you, it's obvious that you invest a lot of time and thought into participating here all for nothing on a foundation of bogus. So much for free thinking.
But no, not even close. And I don't like the way people have a need to put others in a box with a label. It's not that I'm the militant atheist you want me to be. There's a few religious world views I can actually see a few good things in. It's that creationism is SO fucking stupid, it's hard for me to grasp that seemingly intelligent, eloquent people like yourself actually choose to be creationists in the vast sea of spiritual options. To me, creationism is at the level of scientology and flying spaghetti monster, one of those even being a deliberate joke.
You have to understand, to me, accidental origin of life sounds just as stupid to me as you apparently believe creationism to be. Seemingly logical, realistic people somehow decide to suspend their disbelief when they chose the big bang and evolution against all logic and evidence.
That entire wikipedia article is written as apologetic propoganda. Nothing more, nothing less. I read it and was astounded by the obvious bias and lack of any factual evidence to back up the refutations.You said you don't want to prove anything to any of us here, then don't try to undermine us by doing an ad hominem attack.
If something as obviously faked as the moon landing is impossible to make you guys even consider a possibility, than it really is a waste of time discussing flat earths and other stuff with your little av club's worth of posters.
You have to understand, to me, accidental origin of life sounds just as stupid to me as you apparently believe creationism to be. Seemingly logical, realistic people somehow decide to suspend their disbelief when they chose the big bang and evolution against all logic and evidence.Then tell me this, would it be logical to say God made the big bang and evolution to be all of this?
That entire wikipedia article is written as apologetic propoganda. Nothing more, nothing less. I read it and was astounded by the obvious bias and lack of any factual evidence to back up the refutations.You said you don't want to prove anything to any of us here, then don't try to undermine us by doing an ad hominem attack.
If something as obviously faked as the moon landing is impossible to make you guys even consider a possibility, than it really is a waste of time discussing flat earths and other stuff with your little av club's worth of posters.You have to understand, to me, accidental origin of life sounds just as stupid to me as you apparently believe creationism to be. Seemingly logical, realistic people somehow decide to suspend their disbelief when they chose the big bang and evolution against all logic and evidence.Then tell me this, would it be logical to say God made the big bang and evolution to be all of this?
Big bang doesn't and evolution still don't add up. How exactly life manifested and our world created is a mystery. But evolution as an origin of life and big bang as cosmogony is clearly not the answer. We could through sound science and evidence one day understand, but as of now we are practically in a dark age for reason and logic in our study of the universe. It is a monstrous structure built upon a flimsy, creaky foundation.If i was a creationist that believe the big bang and evolution, i would say "Why would it makes sense? Our tiny human mind cannot comprehend the ways of God creating our world through the big bang and evolution."
Big bang doesn't and evolution still don't add up. How exactly life manifested and our world created is a mystery. But evolution as an origin of life and big bang as cosmogony is clearly not the answer. We could through sound science and evidence one day understand, but as of now we are practically in a dark age for reason and logic in our study of the universe. It is a monstrous structure built upon a flimsy, creaky foundation.If i was a creationist that believe the big bang and evolution, i would say "Why would it makes sense? Our tiny human mind cannot comprehend the ways of God creating our world through the big bang and evolution."
Not going to correct what you said in scientific ways, you never try to refute it anyway, just doing insults, logical fallacies or ask more question.
There is no evidence for an intelligent creator because logically, there cannot be. Science only finds explanations that involve the physical, a metaphysical being cannot be discovered by science.
The scientific explanations exclude any kind of evolution theory.
'Robert Wesson (Beyond Natural Selection): "By Mayr's calculation, in a rapidly evolving line an organ may enlarge about 1 to 10 percent per million years, but organs of the whale-in-becoming must have grown ten times more rapidly over 10 million years. Perhaps 300 generations are required for a gene substitution. Moreover, mutations need to occur many times, even with considerable advantage, in order to have a good chance of becoming fixed.
Considering the length of whale generations, the rarity with which the needed mutations are likely to appear, and the multitude of mutations needed to convert a land mammal into a whale, it is easy to conclude that gradualist natural selection of random variations cannot account for this animal" (p. 52). Wesson’s book is a catalogue of biological improbabilities—-from bats' hypersophisticated echolocation system to the electric organs of fish—and of the gaping holes in the fossil record.
"By what devices the genes direct the formation of patterns of neurons that constitute innate behavioral patterns is entirely enigmatic. Yet not only do animals respond appropriately to manifold needs; they often do so in ways that would seem to require something like forethought" (p. 68). R. Wesson adds: "An instinct of any complexity, linking a sequence of perceptions and actions, must involve a very large number of connections within the brain or principal ganglia of the animal. If it is comparable to a computer program, it must have the equivalent of thousands of lines. In such a program, not merely would chance of improvement by accidental change be tiny at best. It is problematic how the program can be maintained without degradation over a long period despite the occurrence from time to time of errors by replication" (p. 81).
Antoine Tremolilre (La vie plus tetue que les etoiles): "We know that more than 90% of the changes affecting a letter in a word of the genetic message lead to disastrous results; proteins are no longer synthesized correctly, the message loses its entire meaning and this leads purely and simply to the cell’s death. Given that mutations are so frequently highly unfavourable, and even deadly, how can beneficial evolution be attained?" (p. 43).
M. Frank-Kamenetskii (Unraveling DNA): "It is clear, therefore, that you need a drastic refitting of the whole of your machine to make the car into a plane. The same is true for a protein. In trying to turn one enzyme into another, point mutations alone would not do the trick. What you need is a substantial change in the amino acid sequence. In this situation, rather than being helpful, selection is a major hindrance. One could think, for instance, that by consistently changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually prove possible to change the entire sequence substantially and thus the enzyme's spatial structure. These minor changes, however, are bound to result eventually in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but it has not yet begun its 'new duties.' It is at this point that it will be destroyed—together with the organism carrying it" (p. 76).
In the early 1980s, researchers discovered that certain RNA molecules, called "ribozymes,"
could cut themselves up and stick themselves back together again, acting as their own
catalysts. This led to the following speculation: If RNA is also an enzyme, it could perhaps
replicate itself without the help of proteins. Scientists went on to formulate the theory of the "RNA world," according to which the first organisms were RNA molecules that learned to synthesize proteins, facilitating their replication, and that surrounded themselves with lipids to form a cellular membrane; these RNA-based organisms then evolved into organisms with a genetic memory made of DNA, which is more stable chemically. However, this theory is not only irrefutable, it leaves many questions unsolved. Thus, to make RNA, one must have nucleotides, and for the moment, no one has ever seen nucleotides take shape by chance and line up to form RNA. As microbiologist JamesShapiro writes, the "experiments conducted up until now have shown no tendency for a plausible prebiotic soup to build bricks of RNA. One would have liked to discover ribozymes capable of doing so, but this has not been the case. And even if one were to discover any, this would still not resolve the fundamental question: where did the first RNA molecule come from?". He adds: "After ten years of relentless research, the most common and remarkable property of ribozymes has been found to be the capacity to demolish other molecules of nucleic acid. It is difficult to imagine a less adapted activity than that in a prebiotic soup where the first colony of RNA would have had to struggle to make their home".
The contents of this famous soup are problematic. In 1952. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey
did an experiment that was to become famous; they bombarded a test tube containing water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane with electricity, supposedly imitating the atmosphere of the primitive earth with its permanent lightning storms; after a week, they had produced 2 of the 20 amino acids that nature uses in the construction of proteins. This experiment was long cited as proof that life could emerge from an inorganic soup. However, in the 1980s, geologists realized that an atmosphere of methane and ammoniac would rapidly have been destroyed by sunlight and that our planet’s primitive atmosphere most probably contained nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and traces of hydrogen. When one bombards the latter with electricity, one does not obtain biomolecules. So the prebiotic soup is increasingly considered to be a "myth".
Microbiologist James Shapiro writes: "In fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject—evolution—with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."
During the 1980s, it became possible to determine the exact sequence of amino acids in given proteins. This revealed a new level of complexity in living beings. A single nicotinic receptor, forming a highly specific lock coupled to an equally selective channel, is made of five
juxtaposed protein chains that contain a total of 2,500 amino acids lined up in the right order. Despite the improbability of the chance emergence of such a structure, even nematodes, which are among the most simple multicellular invertebrates, have nicotinic receptors.
Confronted by this kind of complexity, some researchers no longer content themselves with the usual explanation. Robert Wesson writes in his book Beyond natural selection: "No simple theory can cope with the enormous complexity revealed by modern genetics."
Other researchers have pointed out the improbability of the mechanism that is supposed to be the source of variation — namely, the accumulation of errors in the genetic text. It seems
obvious that "a message would quickly lose all meaning if its contents changed continuously in an anarchic fashion." How, then, could such a process lead to the prodigies of the natural
world, of which we are a part?
Another fundamental problem contradicts the theory of chance-driven natural selection.
According to the theory, species should evolve slowly and gradually, since evolution is caused by the accumulation and selection of random errors in the genetic text. However, the fossil record reveals a completely different scenario. J. Madeleine Nash writes in her review of recent research in paleontology: "Until about 600 million years ago, there were no organisms more complex than bacteria, multicelled algae and single-celled plankton.... Then, 543 million years ago, in the early Cambrian, within the span of no more than 10 million years, creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom.
Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geological time all around the world.
Throughout the fossil record, species seem to appear suddenly, fully formed and equipped with all sorts of specialized organs, then remain stable for millions of years. For instance, there is no intermediate form between the terrestrial ancestor of the whale and the first fossils of this marine mammal. Like their current descendants, the latter have nostrils situated atop their heads, a modified respiratory system, new organs like a dorsal fin, and nipples surrounded by a cap to keep out seawater and equipped with a pump for underwater suckling. The whale represents the rule, rather than the exception. According to biologist Ernst Mayr, an authority on the matter of evolution, there is "no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty."
In the middle of the 1990s, biologists sequenced the first complete genomes of free-living
organisms. So far, the smallest known bacterial genome contains 580,000 DNA letters. This
is an enormous amount of information, comparable to the contents of a small telephone
directory. When one considers that bacteria are the smallest units of life as we know it, it
becomes even more difficult to understand how the first bacterium could have taken form
spontaneously in a lifeless, chemical soup. How can a small telephone directory of information
emerge from random processes?
The genomes of more complex organisms are even more daunting in size. Baker’s yeast is a
unicellular organism that contains 12 million DNA letters; the genome of nematodes, which are rather simple multicellular organisms, contains 100 million DNA letters. Mouse genomes, like human genomes, contain approximately 3 billion DNA letters.'
Don't feed the troll!! Now we will probably get another sixteen hundred word post.I don't think they can yet face up to the simple fact that there really are flights to/from Australia and South America, Australia and South Africa, South Africa and South America as well as New Zealand and South America.
from | Sp | to | Sp | on road distance | Sp | direct distance | Sp | km/degree |
| Balladonia (-32.35° 123.62°) | Sp | Eucla (-31.68° 128.88°) | Sp | car oddo 532 km, Garmin Nav 531.5 km | Sp | Garmin Nav 503 km | Sp | Garmin direct 94.5 km/° |
These figures give a circumference of the earth at -32.01° of 360° x 94.5 km/° | = 34,032 km and |
a circumference at the equator of 360° x 111.4 km/° | = 40,104 km. Look familiar? |
rabinoz wrote:Please tell me the circumference of the earth at:
And Columbus knew the earth was a sphere[1] and hoped to find the East Indies by going west. His only trouble is that he knew the distance going east, but had has circumference of the earth "a bit out" and would have run out of food and others supplies long before getting to the East Indies!
Go learn some history and don't try to rewrite it it suit your own indoctrination!
Just like in the case of geodetic surveying, you have no idea what you are talking about.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56039.msg1403301#msg1403301
Columbus' journey proves the Earth to be flat.
And there is more.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1133.msg25416#msg25416
You need to drastically improve your bibliographical references.
Also, you have a short memory.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4751.msg91692#msg91692
What on earth has any of this treatise got to do with the topic: "My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?"
I just suppose you thought us poor ignorant people needed that information. Why don't you make a thread of you own. You could call it:The Irrelevant Ramblings of Sandokhan!
Isn't the round earth route just over 7000 miles and the flat earth one 7800, or am I missing something?
And if the earth is flat then why would the airline take such a weird curved route? An airline is trying to minimise costs, going longer routes uses more fuel and takes more time, why would they do that? Unless they are "in on it" too.
But the globe map is rubbish as hundreds of planes go the wrong route very often and have to turn and go back to get their bearings.