1
Technology & Information / Re: James Webb telescope launches!
« on: July 15, 2022, 05:45:01 AM »
Comparison of the same image from Hubble to JWST

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
What is the motive of Spacex?
What is the motive of the Japanese Space Agency, and India Space Agency?
When the Chinese decided to have a space program, did NASA go over there, explain the situation, and get them to go along with the hoax? For what motive? Or did they have a missile go splat against the dome, contact NASA and ask them what to say? I find the image of a meeting such as this where one side is revealing the earth is flat and securing the cooperation of someone grown up in RE world, even more fascinating when they come out of the meeting faking RE without missing a beat.
If one speculates about such a motive? Details and corroboration, or just speculation?
Being gay is sexual. Being straight is...not sexual.
Quote from: secretagent10Tom, my original post was a little bit more than saying “here’s some footage, accept it”. It was a bit of a meta argument.
I’m completely admitting that you can just say it’s fake and I can’t do much about it. I’m asserting that the REASONING used by FE’ers in the comments are based on false interpretations/misunderstandings.
If these are the things that made them FE’ers, they got to their position for the wrong reasons. All that FET really has is desperate skepticism that you “technically” can’t disprove as long as you push the bar for evidence back enough.
NASA faking the data is sort of the underlying premise of this concept and website.
Most of the discussions resolve around the next step of whether FE/RE is possible. NASA's possible fakery is already part of the premise of the discussion and is typically conceded as possible even by RE'ers here to allow for further discussion.
The reality of the Round Earth should be irrefutable through mountains of functional evidence and not just at the whims of whether space agencies are possibly faking data or not. If you leave things as "possible" and argue through incredulity, then it remains "possible" that you are wrong.
As an empirical matter you should be also concerned that you believe in something which you have not seen verification for and that your belief is based on trust in authority. That sounds more like a faith issue to me.
Presumably beyond the light of the Sun the water would naturally freeze.
That is incorrect, one person absolutely can moonbounce to themselves. Here's an article from the Radio Society of Great Britain: https://rsgb.org/main/technical/space-satellites/moonbounce/
"One of the unique characteristics of EME is that it is possible to hear and observe your own transmissions echoed back approximately 2.5 seconds later as the transmitted signal propagates from the earth to the moon, is reflected, and propagates back to the earth."
There is no reason one person could not transmit and receive back to themselves. Anywhere the moon is visible, you can receive a moonbounce, it's no different if you're 50 feet from the source or 50 miles.
You posted an article of someone who thinks it's possible, and who makes no attempt at demonstration. A very low level of evidence. That you can find anonymous authors who make such ignorant claims means nothing.
In physics, there's a very big difference between the way things look, and they way they calculate.
Math doesn't care how i draw things, it only cares about the numbers, and even numbers are surprisingly flexible because you can change the formulas.
A very simple example: imagine i make the entire universe twice as big, you and your ruler included. Would you notice?
The math/physics can be tweaked so it also doesn't notice.
Have a look at https://troolon.com It shows physics working on a variety of differently shaped earths.
- coordinate transformations can turn any shape into any other shape
- coordinate transformations don't break physics
-> physics can be made to work on any shape universe (have a look at http://troolon.com for pictures)
-> There is no test to differentiate between the shapes. In reality we can only observe/measure the physical properties, not the shape.
So have a look around you and try these two views: i'm standing on a globe and lightrays are straight,
or you could say: i'm standing on a flat plane, and light curves to exactly counteract the missing curve.
Your eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference and there's no physical test to distinguish between the two views, it's just a matter of perception.
It's like the old question: Am i moving, or is the entire universe moving around me? It's just a matter of how you look at the world.
Also this result shouldn't be very surprising. The universe could already be a sphere, a simulation, have no shape (QM), be a restored backup from 5 minutes ago ... We will simply never know the shape of the planet. It can be flat, it can be a globe or even a velociraptor.