1981

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.

« on: August 22, 2019, 07:52:44 AM »

The mincing of words has begun . There is no controlled ignition - this rocket engine fuel, complete with it's own oxidizer  , will not ignite in that low pressure environment . Now that fact stares you in the face when you watch these experiments unfold.
         Once the rocket engine ignition system is turned into a bomb - by sealing the container with glue under atmospheric pressure and placing this into the vacuum - we can explode this bomb , which pressurises the vacuum.

A bomb with "one end open" is not a bomb - it is a nozzle .

The term "controlled burn" is different to the term "explosion" .

So like I asked, none of these vacuum experiments work for you because you believe that the rocket ignition breaking the seal creates pressure inside the vacuum wich allows the rocket to burn and thrust? Essentially, it's no longer working in a 'vacuum', right?

         I have already directed you to Joules experiment concerning expansion of gas into a vacuum , the results of which show that no work is done in the process .These videos are repeats of those scientific experiments - substituting rocket fuel (which changes to gas when burnt ) for gas .

Actually I can't see where you've directed anyone to Joule and free expansion, etc, I searched, maybe missed it somehow. In any case, why don't you describe why the classic and trite usage of "free expansion does no work" is useful to this discussion and how that applies to rocket propulsion in a vacuum. 
 

I am unable to open your eyes for you because you are conditioned to believe that rocket engines work in a vacuum . You see the principles of rocketry in front of you but cannot understand what you see because you think scientists will not lie or deceive you .

I could easily switch this up for you too:

I am unable to open your eyes for you because you are conditioned to believe that rocket engines don't work in a vacuum. You see the principles of rocketry in front of you but cannot understand what you see because you think Flat Earth YouTube content generators will not lie or deceive you.

So spare us both the soliloquy as they cancel each other out.

Scientists knew this too at one time - the experiments of Joules led them to that conclusion.

Experiments of the likes of Joule and Newton led us to the conclusions we have today, Laws of Thermodynamics and of Motion do not contradict one another. They are bedrocks of physics and seem to work really, really well.

During the 60's I recall our physics teacher outlining the principles of physics applied to the three stage Saturn rocket . Five big nozzles to lift from the launch pad and accelerate quickly in the pressure of the lower atmosphere (stage 1) . These large area nozzles worked well but lost thrust exponentially as altitude increased , hence stage 2. Smaller area of these nozzles increased thrust - which is governed by nozzle area , mass flow and outside air pressure  . Stage 3 rocket gave final acceleration - smallest nozzle area .

In order to keep accelerating nozzle size has to decrease . Plain rocket science . All proven . Rockets don't work in a vacuum . As you see in the videos .

I'm not aware that 'to keep accelerating nozzle size has to decrease'. And I don't know what that would have to with whether rockets work in space or not. I do know that multi-stage rockets tend to be "stepped down" in size due to the reduction in payload mass achieved by doing so.

You could have skipped all of your psuedo-science/analysis above and just responded with, "Plain rocket science. All proven. Rockets don't work in a vacuum." That's basically the the total amount of what you said anyway.

1982

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.

« on: August 22, 2019, 12:15:56 AM »

Clearly , in both videos , rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer cannot ignite in a vacuum . The point is , that is the laws of physics in action .

Are you talking ignition or burn? Yes, it's difficult to ignite, but how the tester ignited it with a little bit of oxygen encasing it got it to ignite and then it burned freely in the vacuum. Once you get it going, it burns.

The ignition of the fuel has to be carried out in a pressurized container - a bomb . That is the point .The experiments are carried out in a small chamber , once the bomb explodes you have pressure in the sealed chamber which allows the fuel to burn and thrust occurs , which will increase as the internal pressure increases until the fuel burns out. 

I'm not really following. You're saying that no matter what these experiments demonstrate doesn't mean anything because the chamber is small?

       
Both videos show that rocket engines - which are not bombs - will not work in a near vacuum , even with oxidizer .

Actually they are bombs, just open on one end which allows the gasses created to escape causing thrust.

In the theoretic vacuum of space you still need pressure outside the rocket nozzle to produce thrust .

Why? Please explain.

1983

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 21, 2019, 08:41:19 PM »

OK - but the bible is only suggestive if you take it literally. If you take those scriptures figuratively, it has nothing to do with the earth being flat.

Furthermore, you keep saying "your own source" (referencing the link I posted) says blah blah blah, and using that to discredit what I'm saying, but that is irrelevant to my point about interpreting things as literal or figurative.

Did you even read the link I sent? It argues against using the bible as evidence for a flat earth.

The link you sent does not mention the many verses in which the bible says the earth does not move and the scripture about when the sun stopped moving.

Those are much more clear. Especially when you have a very short chapter and the entire context of the chapter is God and one of the verses says that the earth does not move or can not move.

Its pretty clear. The earth either does not move or it can't move or both. The only way the earth could not figuratively move is if it somehow moved out of this physical plane of existence and moved into some sort of spiritual plane of existence. I believe that moving to a different plane of existence is still "moving" so even taking in a spiritual sense you are still using the literal definition of the word.

What's always interesting is that if you got 20 biblical scholars in a room, 10 would say figuratively, literally, suggestively, whatever, the scriptures say the earth does not move. The other 10 would disagree. Just watch the Skiba/Sungenis debate and how they spent 3/4's of it arguing about whether a hebrew word for 'firmament' meant 'under' or 'in'.

1984

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.

« on: August 21, 2019, 08:34:29 PM »

In both videos you see that the rocket fuel will only ignite when in a container under pressure - they both have to be converted into bombs to ignite lol. As the guy says - it needs pressure , which is absent under vacuum is it not ?

I think you missed the point. The rocket could ignite in both tests yet had a hard time staying ignited until he put the little capsule around it in the second go. In a liquid fuel rocket in space the oxidizer (hence the name) provides the sustained oxygen inside the rocket chamber to keep the ignition going.

But the test isn't so much about ignition, it's about whether the rocket will thrust in a vacuum and in the second test, once burn was achieved, it did in fact thrust.

Bottom line, whether you believe the results of the experiment or not, if you're trying to use it to show that rockets don't thrust in a vacuum you would be showing the exact opposite.

1985

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.

« on: August 21, 2019, 08:02:41 PM »

You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum .

Just to add to my previous post about Newton's Third Law
Here's a video showing this works:

Things don't run on Newton's third law . The third law is a natural consequence of a force being applied  (Newton's 2nd law ) to accelerate a body in uniform motion , or stationary ( Newton's 1st law ) . Can't put it any simpler than that .

A rocket engine uses thrust to accelerate . Thrust is a reactive force - when a mass flow meets resistance then thrust is generated perpendicular to the direction of the mass flow i.e. back up the nozzle in the rocket engine case , driving the rocket forward . Simple physics . 

Mass flow into a vacuum must meet a resistance in order to generate thrust . It cannot thrust against itself. See joules law for expansion of gas into a vacuum .

Here is a better video of a guy using a proper vacuum chamber in an effort to prove rockets ( won't )work in a vacuum.
 

The principle of geostationary satellites is the invention of science fiction writer A.C. Clarke .  Had to be since no physicist would have come up with that . Same as rockets in a vacuum - fairytale .

Apparently you didn't watch the whole video. Start at 4:30 and watch till the end. The experimenters final words on the subject after a successful test:

"...there you go rocket motors can produce just as much thrust if not a little bit more in vacuum as they can in air because they're not pushing against the air they are pushing against the fuel that is being burned and thrown overboard now the rocket was difficult to ignite in a vacuum because it needed some pressure to get the fuel grain to burn but once I did that it did just fine..."

1986

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 21, 2019, 04:00:03 PM »

Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?

I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?

I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.

Super high level. From a Nat Geo article (I teased out some points):

5 Reasons to Like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Air (Clean Air Act)

Complying with EPA’s air pollution rules has been costly—they’re the biggest burden the agency imposes on the economy. But the federal Office of Management and Budget, analyzing data collected from 2004 to 2014, estimates that the health and other benefits of the rules exceeded the costs by somewhere between $113 billion and $741 billion a year.

2. Water (Clean Water Act)

The Clean Water Act led to tens of billions of federal dollars being invested in municipal sewage treatment plants. The law’s simple goal is to make every river, stream, and lake in the U.S. swimmable and fishable. We’re not there yet: The Cuyahoga “is not on fire anymore, but I wouldn’t swim in it,” William Suk of the National Institutes of Health told National Geographic a few years ago. But people do swim in Boston Harbor and the Hudson River. And the toxic cesspools that literally catch on fire have largely become a thing of the past.

3. Pesticides

Beloved birds like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon teetered toward extinction. A colorless, nearly odorless insecticide, DDT had been a valuable weapon against disease-carrying mosquitoes and also a boon to farmers. People had so little notion of its dangers they let their children play happily in the spray.
In 1972, The EPA effectively banned the use of DDT in the U.S., except in limited cases where it was needed to protect public health. That same year Congress passed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, giving EPA more clear authority to regulate pesticides in general based on their impact on health and the environment.

4. Hazardous Waste

Until the 1970s, hazardous chemical waste was general disposed of like ordinary trash—at best in an unlined municipal landfill from which toxic chemicals could seep into groundwater, at worst in open dumps, where runoff from corroded barrels might contaminate streams. The country was dotted with thousands of such dumps.
As of 2014, nearly half of the more than 1,700 Superfund sites have been fully addressed—but even many of them have to be monitored indefinitely. It’s a project for the century and a lesson for the future. Some 49 million (or nearly one in six) Americans live close to a Superfund site.

5. Climate

In August 2015 the agency finalized its Clean Power Plan, which for the first time sets a national limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The goal is to reduce their emissions by 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.

Full text here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/12/environmental-protection-agency-epa-history-pruitt/

1987

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 21, 2019, 02:21:50 AM »

Thought you guys might be interested. Tom has a whole write-up over on the other site titled "Does the Bible say that Earth is Stationary?" It's really quite well thought out. My understanding is that it's sort of in regard to UA. UA, essentially puts the earth in motion, upward. A ton of the FEr's outside of these 2 societies, especially the more scripturally minded ones, have publicly disavowed the societies and called them controlled opposition, shills, what have you, in large part because of UA, earth in motion.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0

In our current understanding of motion is when the position of an object, with respect to it's surroundings, changes. If the entire universe is accelerating upward then the earth, relative to the universe, is not in motion. Again when I went to speak with a preacher about this his take was that the earth does not move outside of the physical universe IE nonliving portion of the planet will never cease to exist within the physical universe and appear somewhere outside the realm of existence such as Heaven.

Yeah, it's actually murkier than that, I mean if everything is in motion together then nothing is in motion... But I agree with your definition of motion. All I'm saying is that Tom has gone to great lengths to point out scriptural references to, and I'm using my words and interpretation, allow for an upward accelerating earth. And that's regardless of whether the universe is moving along with us. And that perception, that any sort of motion is applied to the earth, from what I have seen and read, is the number one reason FEr's outside the societies lash out at the societies. They see it as simply, UA puts the earth in motion and from a scriptural perspective, that is anathema.

So I'm not debating any of these notions, just pointing out a contrary resource of information and why perhaps it's controversial in some circles.

1988

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 20, 2019, 11:54:29 PM »

Thought you guys might be interested. Tom has a whole write-up over on the other site titled "Does the Bible say that Earth is Stationary?" It's really quite well thought out. My understanding is that it's sort of in regard to UA. UA, essentially puts the earth in motion, upward. A ton of the FEr's outside of these 2 societies, especially the more scripturally minded ones, have publicly disavowed the societies and called them controlled opposition, shills, what have you, in large part because of UA, earth in motion.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79554.0

1989

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 16, 2019, 12:57:02 AM »

I don't watch BBT, but looked up some clips yesterday of the Howard character in space. I didn't see anything like this:

Hasn't there been CGI rendered water before?

It seems this has been around a while.

https://www.autodesk.com/redshift/moana-animation/

Yep, water and hair are the holy grail of Movie FX (Oh yeah, and 'eyes'). Titanic made major breakthroughs with water. Monsters Inc made major breakthroughs with hair. Still, the level of artistry, manpower and computing power is staggering to make it look so real. But I'll get to that in a second.

Sit through the credits next time you watch a movie like The Martian or Gravity. There are a multitude of various FX houses involved each with paragraphs of names credited with working on the effects.

Yeah, there are...

Putting people to work because they are your friends is common practice.

Now you're just totally making stuff up. What do you mean "Putting people to work because they are your friends is common practice."? What do you know about whether or not all those names credited were actually contributors or not. Do you have evidence they weren't? Or are you just saying so?

From one of the FX houses that worked on 'Gravity':

"What resources did you need?

It was a large show for us. We worked on it for just over 3 years, and at least 400 people worked on it during that period."

As far as "amount of computing power," I guess I need to know what you mean.

We supposedly now have more computing power in our phone than the total amount used for Apollo, correct?

Are you therefore referring to the amount of gigawatts required?

It's all about rendering. The rotoscopers, shaders, colorists, background/foreground, motion capture, etc., on and on artists all do their part then a scene/clip needs to be rendered. So all of that is sent off to a server farm of racks of CPU's to do so. Like I wrote, that one 10 second scene in The Martian took 2 days to render out. Now extrapolate that out to a 2 hour movie. and for Gravity, there was so much CGI, that's why he said it would have taken 7000 years to render it all out on one computer.

If it was limited to one server farm, perhaps.

There are many server farms.

You know not of what you speak, you don't really get it and are just making up stuff. Again, from Martin Preston from Framestore (FX House) about the challenges they encountered with Gravity:

"In the render crunch we had about 15000 cores working on the show, and about 600 Terabytes of disk space serving all of that!"

From Pixar's Monsters University 2013:

"Inside the building is a data center full of humming servers — double the size that the company (Pixar) used in the past — that would be considered one of the top 25 supercomputers in the world. The 2,000 computers have more than 24,000 cores...Even with all of that computing might, it still takes 29 hours to render a single frame of Monsters University, according to supervising technical director Sanjay Bakshi...With all of those CPUs that Pixar did have, it took a couple of years to render."

It takes an army or artists and technology to render even a singe frame where there are usually 24 to 60 frames per second. It's truly a mind-boggling the effort.

Your whole thing is that convincing CGI can be done and it's super fast and easy to do so. It's not. As well, you're premise that it can be done is somehow evidence of fakery. Apply the same logic to war movies. All the battle scenes and such look pretty convincing. Does that mean battles in real life are faked? I really am not following your logic on any of this.

1990

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Im trying to build a rocket to prove the earth is flat

« on: August 15, 2019, 08:34:21 AM »

The goal is to attach a small camera to the outside of a solid state fuel rocket 3 miles into the air that will allow me to see that the earth is indeed flat.

[fundraiser link removed ~pete]

Please help.

3 Miles would be just north of 15,000 feet. Why not just take a commercial flight and look out your window, you'd be at 34k-38k feet. No rocket required.

But you still need a view of like 60 degrees to see that your assumption of a flat earth is incorrect.

And then there's that too. You're not going to see a curve at 35k feet, maybe a smidge north of 75k, a smidge more at 100k. Why this person went to all the trouble set up a gofundme for 15k is baffling.

1991

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Im trying to build a rocket to prove the earth is flat

« on: August 15, 2019, 06:55:42 AM »

The goal is to attach a small camera to the outside of a solid state fuel rocket 3 miles into the air that will allow me to see that the earth is indeed flat.

[fundraiser link removed ~pete]

Please help.

3 Miles would be just north of 15,000 feet. Why not just take a commercial flight and look out your window, you'd be at 34k-38k feet. No rocket required.

1992

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 15, 2019, 01:13:49 AM »

A circling flat earth sun would never reach the horizon and as it moved away from the observer it would get smaller and smaller like all things do that recede from an observer. The sun does not.

Stack,

That image is a wonderful concept of how the sun would never reach the horizon in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in a vacuum. Do you have a demonstration of how where the sun would appear that even makes the slightest attempt at factoring in any sort of refraction among the layers of the atmosphere?

I'm not sure why you assume a vacuum. But sure, the by far most common atmospheric refractive effect we observe at sunset and sunrise is that the Sun appears just a smidge higher than it actually is which can cause sunrise to occur a minute or two early and sunset a minute or two late. In essence pushing the sun observably higher above a horizon rather than lower, which I suspect, the latter is what you're looking for. So that would look like this:



So why don’t you tell us what sort of atmospheric refractive effect would need to be in play for every sunset observed by humans where the FE Sun would drop down 3000 miles to appear to go below the horizon, hide it there for 12 hours, then release it so that it can appear to rise 3000 miles back up into the sky behind me at sunrise.

1993

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 14, 2019, 07:30:15 PM »

I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

You would not expect to see the curvature of the Earth directly during normal day-to-day would you.  You can't see enough of the Earths surface from ground level. I would have thought that was obvious.

If you were a microbe sitting on a snooker ball you could not have any direct perception that you were sitting on a curved surface. On the other hand if you were a midge or a knat flying past that snooker ball from a distance of a few cm then it would look curved because you would now be able to see the surface from a far enough distance away to see that it was curved. It is a matter of proportion.  The midge analogy is comparable in scale to the ISS orbiting the Earth from 400km up.  Astronauts on the ISS can see a large enough proportion of the Earths surface to see that it is curved and indeed spherical. Of course the FE movement dismiss that along with all other direct evidence of a spherical Earth as fabrication or whatever because it goes against their assertion that the Earth is flat.

I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

That's absolutely fine. But having an opinion about something doesn't make you right.

I believe it makes me correct in this instance.

Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?

If yes, why?

Yes. Why not? I believe in technological advancement, engineering, math & physics.

Fair enough.

Do you believe have the ability to discern the difference between the videos presented as originating from the ISS and those of the movie Gravity or those of Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory ?

I don't believe you, or anyone else, could honestly write that.

Big Bang Theory isn't very convincing.

Please specify the differences you see between those of Howard Wolowitz and those of the purported astronauts on the ISS that lead you to believe one is the real deal and the other is just Hollywood.

I don't watch BBT, but looked up some clips yesterday of the Howard character in space. I didn't see anything like this:

But for the blockbusters, I think it would be hard and getting harder by the minute. But I do know the effort involved in creating such things.
One the the FX Supervisors for 'Gravity' said in an interview, “Rendering Gravity on one computer would have taken 7000 years”. I remember reading that one 10 second scene in 'The Martian' where Matt Damen was standing outside, nothing major going on visually except for specific reflections in his visor, took 2 days to render. 

I just can't really conceive of the number of FX artists involved and the amount of computing power required to create the 1000's of hours of ISS footage out there. It's beyond my comprehension how it could be done.

Or, it isn't as hard as they claim and it is getting easier by the minute.

Why the need for FX "artists?" Why not just FX "artist?"

Sit through the credits next time you watch a movie like The Martian or Gravity. There are a multitude of various FX houses involved each with paragraphs of names credited with working on the effects.

As far as "amount of computing power," I guess I need to know what you mean.

We supposedly now have more computing power in our phone than the total amount used for Apollo, correct?

Are you therefore referring to the amount of gigawatts required?

It's all about rendering. The rotoscopers, shaders, colorists, background/foreground, motion capture, etc., on and on artists all do their part then a scene/clip needs to be rendered. So all of that is sent off to a server farm of racks of CPU's to do so. Like I wrote, that one 10 second scene in The Martian took 2 days to render out. Now extrapolate that out to a 2 hour movie. and for Gravity, there was so much CGI, that's why he said it would have taken 7000 years to render it all out on one computer.

1994

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'd like to consult you about something

« on: August 14, 2019, 07:03:22 PM »

I don't know the height or size of the sun . It is in constant motion . I believe it does not travel parallel to the plane of earth .
You quote 3000 mls height -why ? The sun is low at the horizon - the height of it does not matter - the angle of incidence depends on the angle of the sun to the plane, not it's height . Think perspective .

The 3000 mile high, 32 mile wide sun is the most commonly cited distance/size of the FE sun.

Perspective would show the sun shrinking as it recedes from the observer like all things do that receded from an observer. We don't observe the sun shrinking. And as for the angle of incidence getting what many claim is a 3000 mile high sun down to the horizon would put the sun 10's of thousands of miles away from the observer. My sun at sunset is generally high above a place on earth about 6500 miles away.

1995

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Round earth" conspiracy

« on: August 14, 2019, 06:52:34 PM »

That little drawing shows why no buildings could be built parallel to one another using the principle of gravity acting toward the centre of mass . Do you understand that principle ?

We actually should see that a city 10 miles across , but there again civil engineers know there is no curve over that area so we don't

I'm not sure what you're asking or what your point is.

Where does it say, "civil engineers know there is no curve over that area...."? I can't find that. I do see that for most applications curvature isn't an issue that has to be contended with over that area. For example, two 10 story buildings, 10 miles apart, the tops of the building would be tilted away from each other by approximately 0.1447^o. Does that microscopic amount matter to the civil engineer?

1996

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 13, 2019, 08:22:49 PM »

I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

You would not expect to see the curvature of the Earth directly during normal day-to-day would you.  You can't see enough of the Earths surface from ground level. I would have thought that was obvious.

If you were a microbe sitting on a snooker ball you could not have any direct perception that you were sitting on a curved surface. On the other hand if you were a midge or a knat flying past that snooker ball from a distance of a few cm then it would look curved because you would now be able to see the surface from a far enough distance away to see that it was curved. It is a matter of proportion.  The midge analogy is comparable in scale to the ISS orbiting the Earth from 400km up.  Astronauts on the ISS can see a large enough proportion of the Earths surface to see that it is curved and indeed spherical. Of course the FE movement dismiss that along with all other direct evidence of a spherical Earth as fabrication or whatever because it goes against their assertion that the Earth is flat.

I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

That's absolutely fine. But having an opinion about something doesn't make you right.

I believe it makes me correct in this instance.

Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?

If yes, why?

Yes. Why not? I believe in technological advancement, engineering, math & physics.

Do you believe have the ability to discern the difference between the videos presented as originating from the ISS and those of the movie Gravity or those of Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory ?

I don't believe you, or anyone else, could honestly write that.

Big Bang Theory isn't very convincing. But for the blockbusters, I think it would be hard and getting harder by the minute. But I do know the effort involved in creating such things.
One the the FX Supervisors for 'Gravity' said in an interview, “Rendering Gravity on one computer would have taken 7000 years”. I remember reading that one 10 second scene in 'The Martian' where Matt Damen was standing outside, nothing major going on visually except for specific reflections in his visor, took 2 days to render. 

I just can't really conceive of the number of FX artists involved and the amount of computing power required to create the 1000's of hours of ISS footage out there. It's beyond my comprehension how it could be done.

Further, even camera shots from the ISS have been shown to present way more curve than would be mathematically expected.

Sure, different lenses create different optical effects. You can look up the gear used and settings for each image from the ISS. The lower the focal length the more 'roundness' you're going to get. No mystery there.

1997

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 13, 2019, 07:53:59 PM »

Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?

I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

Within my normal day-to-day life I witness the sun rise and set, and thus I do not witness any flat earth. So does humanity.

The shape of the sun and what you perceive to be rising and setting has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Then explain it please. How can I see a sunset or sunrise if the earth were flat.

Or explain why it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

I did explain it within the analogy of ..."a creature the size of an ant, possessing the visual acuity of a human, would be able to perceive the light from a flashlight a proportionate distance away as it circled above and about him."

If that light is within range, the creature would be in light.

If not, it does mean the light set behind a CURVED surface or appeared after rising over a CURVED surface.

A circling flat earth sun would never reach the horizon and as it moved away from the observer it would get smaller and smaller like all things do that recede from an observer. The sun does not.

1998

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Round earth" conspiracy

« on: August 13, 2019, 05:42:21 PM »

I can see you are having a difficult time digesting the fact that surveyors/civil engineers do not account for curvature and consider , not assume , earth to be a plane up to some arbitrary 100 square mile area .

The methods of plain survey do not find curve . Gravitational survey uses the assumption that some magical force acts towards the centre of mass of an assumed spherical body .

I can see you did not do the reading in the book you cited that I asked you to do. It would help your understanding of the subject if you did.

It's not that the methods of plane survey do not find curve. It's that they are not measuring for a curve. Hence the name, "plane" survey. Earth's curve is irrelevant to what is trying to be accomplished. And actually, Gravitational Surveying (aka Differential Leveling) doesn't assume anything. If you had read the chapter on leveling, you would understand this. Placing two instruments far enough apart with spirit levels leveled (bubble in the middle) pointed at each other will not be pointing directly, horizontally at one another. Each will be pointing slightly upward with respect to each other. From there, you can calculate your curve.



You wouldn't even have to know gravity exists, the bubbles do the work for you.

1999

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the subject of astronomy I beg to differ!

« on: August 13, 2019, 08:46:46 AM »

You are referring to this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

Astronomy is literally a pseudoscience, as it relies on observation and interpretation.

Philosophically, I’ve never understood this argument as I’m not sure what it’s an argument for or against in terms of a Flat Earth Society perspective. It’s basically throwing the baby out with the bath water; the nuclear option. By stating that Astronomy is a pseudoscience basically dispenses with any and all observations, findings, theories, notions Astronomy has come up with, ever. Which would include all things astronomically heliocentric, geocentric and flat. All of it.

So are you saying that all things astronomical are essentially unknown and therefore no determination about anything regarding our cosmos is valid? Where are you drawing the line?

2000

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Round earth" conspiracy

« on: August 12, 2019, 05:45:43 PM »

Where is the relevance ? No detectable curve anywhere in plane surveying up to 100 square mile area. Where is this addressed . Adding spherical trig to plane survey does not change a plane into a curved surface. Be specific .

Where does it say, "no detectable curve..."? That's not what it says at all. It says:

"Plane surveying assumes the earth is flat. Curvature and spheroidal shape of the earth is neglected. In this type of surveying all triangles formed by joining survey lines are considered as plane triangles. It is employed for small survey works where errors due to the earth's shape are too small to matter.[14]

In geodetic surveying the curvature of the earth is taken into account while calculating reduced levels, angles, bearings and distances. This type of surveying is usually employed for large survey works. Survey works up to 100 square miles (260 square kilometers ) are treated as plane and beyond that are treated as geodetic.[15] In geodetic surveying necessary corrections are applied to reduced levels, bearings and other observations."

What it's saying is that for the most part the type of surveying performed is dependent on the size and scope of the job, so to speak.

Again, read the first few pages in the chapter on 'Leveling' in the book you cited. (Chapt. 5, page 60) There are 3 types of level surveying: Differential (Gravitational), Trigonometric, & Barometric. Differential (Gravitational) being the most accurate. It doesn't simply take a plane state map and apply math to it. It's an actual survey where you measure contours, slopes, altitudes as well as and in respect to measuring the curvature of the earth. If you can understand the tools used, you can understand how they directly measure curvature.