this is an awesome video.
this one will also make you think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)
tbh i'm not sure why this video would merit a response. the author mostly just displays a lack of understanding of the model he's polemicizing. points 1 and 4 are especially bad.
as a wise man once said: "Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites."
tbh I'm not sure why this video would merit a response. the author mostly just displays a lack of understanding of the model he's polemicizing. points 1 and 4 are especially bad.
as a wise man once said: "Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites."
Go ahead, then. Quote or reference the literature where his questions are explained.
but okay. to point #1, the author has apparently never heard of plate tectonics. the basic story goes like this: first a rocky crust formed; next, we got oceans; finally, continents formed because mantle convection and plate tectonics and such. the continents have moved around since then. there's nothing in modern physics that says continents can't form at, or migrate to, the equator.
to point #4, this is basic physics of motion stuff. the atoms simply don't have enough velocity to escape. i can't throw a baseball fast enough to escape the earth, but i can still throw it in the air. i can still accelerate the baseball in any direction. it just won't ever escape the earth's potential well.
Every day, around 90 tonnes of material escapes from our planet's upper atmosphere and streams out into space
There should be a very high bulge of water there; so how does it make sense that there is land sticking out of the water?
If some atmosphere can leak out, why doesn't it all leak out?
There should be a very high bulge of water there; so how does it make sense that there is land sticking out of the water?
there is a bulge of water at the equator. so what? continents build up from the seafloor. there's no reason they can't build up higher than sea level at the equator.
I believe his argument is that if there is a bulge to the earth, because of centripetal acceleration, then naturally the water should have gone to the equator since that is easier to move than the land.There's a bulge because as the earth cooled it was spinning, the centripetal force made the earth bulge slightly.
I believe his argument is that if there is a bulge to the earth, because of centripetal acceleration, then naturally the water should have gone to the equator since that is easier to move than the land.There's a bulge because as the earth cooled it was spinning, the centripetal force made the earth bulge slightly.
But at that stage of the earth's history there was no water, the crust was just cooling molten rock.
I haven't watched the rest of the video but the first point is pretty silly and shows no understanding of the theories about the history of the earth's formation.
He seems to imagine an earth as it is now bulging because of the centripetal force, that isn't what happened.
Again, the bulge of the earth was caused because the earth was spinning at the time it was hot and malleable and the force could cause it to change shape.
Since then the oceans formed and there's been billions of years of tectonic page moving.
Similarly, there is a bulge in the water envelope of the oceans surrounding Earth; this bulge is created by the greater centrifugal force at the equator and is independent of tides.
This gives us a surplus energy of ½ mR² w ² , or ½mv² for the drop of water, which is enough to carry the drop of water to a height of 11.035 km against the force of gravity at the equator, the same value we calculated earlier.
In 2016 the Flat Earther Dave Murphy, who is a notable figure in the greater Flat Earth community, had a few questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson. Tyson has still not responded, although he has most assuredly seen it. There are a few good points to think about in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMJjpjwix5I
In 2016 the Flat Earther Dave Murphy, who is a notable figure in the greater Flat Earth community, had a few questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson. Tyson has still not responded, although he has most assuredly seen it. There are a few good points to think about in this video.I wish such notable figures would participate in forums like this. I'm not Neil, but I'll try to answer Dave's questions. I'll send him an email, pointing him to this thread. Maybe he'll join us and respond?
Why would he bother answering these questions when the first couple are so ridiculus and clear examples of how ill informed and flexible wirh his facts Mr. Sargent is. If Mr. Bishop thinks they are good questions, perhaps he should take a second look. Its good and very healthy to question things but not in this ill informed embarrasing way.Just a point of order:
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.
I believe his argument is that if there is a bulge to the earth, because of centripetal acceleration, then naturally the water should have gone to the equator since that is easier to move than the land.There's a bulge because as the earth cooled it was spinning, the centripetal force made the earth bulge slightly.
But at that stage of the earth's history there was no water, the crust was just cooling molten rock.
I haven't watched the rest of the video but the first point is pretty silly and shows no understanding of the theories about the history of the earth's formation.
He seems to imagine an earth as it is now bulging because of the centripetal force, that isn't what happened.
Your just repeating stuff you were told. In the video he's showing you what is proven. Prove that the molting ball cooled, etc etc. Hear say does not apply in court and should not apply in science.
FEers talk about what you yourself can prove while globe believers talk about things that we can't prove then have the nerve to say we got no proof. Crazy
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.
70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?
And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.
70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?
And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.
70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?
And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.
70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?
And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
Where have they been debunked?
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
As we all know, there are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.
But let's come at it from another angle: when we look in the sky at where we are told the ISS will appear, there is something there. Those with high-powered zoom lenses can make out a shape matching what we're told the ISS looks like - but for the rest of us, all we see is a dot.
Still, that's probably enough.
Question is, even if we don't believe in the ISS, there is something there, seemingly orbiting at 250 miles above the surface of the earth.
So, dear flat earther, what is it?
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.
70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?
And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
No. There's plenty of proof of orbital flight which does not rely on pictures.
I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. You don't know how many miles it is up there. Only what you've been told.
I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. You don't know how many miles it is up there. Only what you've been told.
But, being a smart person, you do understand how easy it would be to measure it for yourself, right?
You look at it and you measure the angle to it. Your friend a decent distance away does the same at the same time. And, for good measure, one more friend a decent distance from both of you does so too.
It is then a matter of ease to triangulate its position.
You thinking the pictures of earth are not CGI doesn't mean they aren't. Its logical to think that if some have been proven frauds then the others MIGHT be as well.Really? Even the pictures of Earth that predated CGI?
The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it.Funny thing, the blue sky is actually in front of it. How blue was the ISS in the picture?
One satellite crashed in Brazil I think it was. The local didn't know what it was. Pictures are on line. Satellite drone. There's a number on it to call and NASA has a team that goes and gets them. There's a balloon attach to it.Sounds like it was never in space, was never intended to get to space, and NASA won't tell you that it was in space.
It would not tell you how many miles or exactly how far. You can't tell how far a plane is in the air only the position of where it's at. Not how far. I believe it's a satellite drone. Check out the picture of the one at day and the Brazilian one. Pretty cool stuff.https://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/math/geometry/triangles/congruent_asa_aas
It would not tell you how many miles or exactly how far. You can't tell how far a plane is in the air only the position of where it's at, not how far.
I believe it's a satellite drone.
You thinking the pictures of earth are not CGI doesn't mean they aren't. Its logical to think that if some have been proven frauds then the others MIGHT be as well.Really? Even the pictures of Earth that predated CGI?QuoteThe day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it.Funny thing, the blue sky is actually in front of it. How blue was the ISS in the picture?QuoteOne satellite crashed in Brazil I think it was. The local didn't know what it was. Pictures are on line. Satellite drone. There's a number on it to call and NASA has a team that goes and gets them. There's a balloon attach to it.Sounds like it was never in space, was never intended to get to space, and NASA won't tell you that it was in space.It would not tell you how many miles or exactly how far. You can't tell how far a plane is in the air only the position of where it's at. Not how far. I believe it's a satellite drone. Check out the picture of the one at day and the Brazilian one. Pretty cool stuff.https://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/math/geometry/triangles/congruent_asa_aas
Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim.
Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned. Always a step ahead.This isn't about Photoshop. It's about CGI. CGI wasn't even remotely a thing until the 80's.
The blue sky was behind it too.Are you sure? I told you otherwise, and posed a question directly related to that conclusion that you didn't answer.
Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim. Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.First, the idea is to get a friend to take a second reading.
Please tell me of proof of orbital flight. Please don't repeat hearsay that can't be proven. Thanks
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.
70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?
And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
Where have they been debunked?
Internet is full of NASA pictures shown to be fake. YouTube is littered with it. SEX was written is the clouds in one. Straight off NASA site. NASA took it down afterwards. And another showed same clouds copied and placed throughout the globe picture.
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.
70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?
And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
Where have they been debunked?
Internet is full of NASA pictures shown to be fake. YouTube is littered with it. SEX was written is the clouds in one. Straight off NASA site. NASA took it down afterwards. And another showed same clouds copied and placed throughout the globe picture.
Ok let me be more specific.
Which photos have been debunked and where. Please provide specific sources for your claim.
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.
70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?
And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
Where have they been debunked?
Internet is full of NASA pictures shown to be fake. YouTube is littered with it. SEX was written is the clouds in one. Straight off NASA site. NASA took it down afterwards. And another showed same clouds copied and placed throughout the globe picture.
Ok let me be more specific.
Which photos have been debunked and where. Please provide specific sources for your claim.
YouTube it. Google it. There are a whole world of websites dedicated to that purpose. We have several such examples in The Conspiracy section of our Wiki.
We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.
Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned. Always a step a head.
The blue sky was behind it too.
I don't believe it was ever in space or meant to be. (Brazil one or both rather)
Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim. Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.
We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.
That sounds like great idea. Lets do it. Are you going to fund me for the next few months to spend my time collecting all of the evidence on the internet, examine original evidence, and provide assessments and sources and references on all of that for our Wiki?
In the case of the ISS or another satellite, a good estimate of distance can be made by measuring the elevation from two well separated locations.Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned. Always a step a head.
The blue sky was behind it too.
I don't believe it was ever in space or meant to be. (Brazil one or both rather)
Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim. Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.
Are you sure you cannot compute the distance? Rowbotham did exactly this in EnaG to establish the distance of the sun, but he only used 2 observations, and claimed it was good.
Are you suggesting he was wrong and didnt know what he was doing?
If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.So we have 700 miles (a bit over 1,100 km).
What on Earth are 'bronies'?
Is it like a cross between a bro and a pony?
How would that work?
I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it.
You thinking the pictures of earth are not CGI doesn't mean they aren't.And just because you think the pictures of earth are CGI doesn't mean they are either.
Its logical to think that if some have been proven frauds then the others MIGHT be as well.Please show these "pictures of earth" that "have been proven frauds".
I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it. You don't know how many miles it is up there. Only what you've been told.Here is one video in broad daylight:
One satellite crashed in Brazil I think it was. The local didn't know what it was. Pictures are on line. Satellite drone. There's a number on it to call and NASA has a team that goes and gets them. There's a balloon attach to it.Yes, believe it or not the image showing on the opening scene is a satellite, Echo 2, see Project Echo (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo) but the video is not about a "balloon satellite", but a "Google Loon", see Project Loon' internet balloon lands in the Amazon forest (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4276360/Google-internet-beaming-balloon-lands-Amazon.html#ixzz5FwDMENsF).
It might catch and follow the wind channel and it would carry it all over is my guess but not sure.
(https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/sam.gibbs%40fairfaxmedia.com.au/b7d14825-2dc7-4068-8e25-ed5b4b67f127.jpg/r0_0_11067_6468_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg) Part of oxygen tank from Skylab space station that crashed near Esperance, Western Australia in the early hours of July 12, 1979, WA time | (https://maas.museum/app/uploads/sites/7/2009/09/00549776-450x403.jpg) A bit more of Skylab in the Power House Museum, Sydney, Australia. |
We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.
That sounds like great idea. Lets do it. Are you going to fund me for the next few months to spend my time collecting all of the evidence on the internet, examine original evidence, and provide assessments and sources and references on all of that for our Wiki?
Nope it was your side's claim. I don't have to pay a dime, you need to provide evidence for your claim.
Point of rhetorical order:
Claiming a photograph or video is altered or fabricated is a positive claim.
That’s more than expression of doubt about another’s positive claim.
Tom: We have a ghost in our attic. We hear it and when we check, things are moved around.
Bob: I don't believe you. Ghosts don't exist
Tom: Oh, but they do. Here's a picture I took of our attic ghost.
Bob: That picture isn't real. You faked it.
Tom: I did not.
Bob: Sure you did. I know because ghosts aren't real.
Tom: But I have a picture of one.
Bob: But I just debunked it.
Tom: No you didn't. You just denied my evidence. Explain to me how I faked it.
Bob: I don't have to. Burden of proof is on you.
Tom: ?
You are the ones claiming that NASA has invented never before seen technologies, explores the solar system, has sent men to the moon and robots to mars. We didn't claim any of those things. An expression of doubt, or an assessment which doubts, is not a positive claim. The positive claim is the explicit claim that NASA is doing all of these fantastic things. Since you are the one who came here claiming this, then you should are expected to demonstrate your claims.
And that's the point. The positive/negative claim isn't the original premise of whether or not ghosts exists. It's whether or not the evidence for them is valid.
Saying they are not valid is a positive claim. It takes on the responsibility of proof. Are the debunking videos proof? That's the issue. Not the ghosts.
Now, replace ghost with space travel. If you are denying the photographic evidence, you have a burden of proof to explain why. Are YouTube videos sufficient?
Absolutely not.
Consider the following:
Bobby: I ate a ham sandwich for dinner last night. Here is a picture of me eating a ham sandwich. Prove me wrong.
Pete: I don't have to prove you wrong at all.
*Pete walks away.*
This is a completely valid response. Completely. The burden is not then on Pete to prove that Bobby did not eat a ham sandwich for dinner. Pete does not have to rebut Bobby's evidence.
Except that's not the scenario at all.
Pete: ham sandwiches don't exists
Bob: yes they do here a photo of me eating one last night
Pete: That photo is fake <-- positive claim
Bob: how?
Pete: your photo, you need to prove it's not fake
Except that's not the scenario at all.
Pete: ham sandwiches don't exists
Bob: yes they do here a photo of me eating one last night
Pete: That photo is fake <-- positive claim
Bob: how?
Pete: your photo, you need to prove it's not fake
Actually that's a negative claim. Pete is claiming that something didn't happen.
He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.
You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.
He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.
You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.
Yes, actually you can express a negative claim and leave it at that. "fake," "untrue," "misconception," "error," are all negative claims. It is the positive claim that needs to be demonstrated; not any negative expression.
The negative claim holds a special place that is superior to all else, and does not require demonstration.
I myself have been involved in debates where I have cited evidence for a claim and there has been blanket refusal to accept that evidence, but that is a perfectly fine response. It is just a poor one. The burden is not on my opponents to prove my claim or evidence wrong. If I make a claim, it is my burden to show how that claim is demonstrated. Some may be swayed, others may not be, but that is just the way things are.
He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.
You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.
Yes, actually you can express a negative claim and leave it at that. "fake," "untrue," "misconception," "error," are all negative claims. It is the positive claim that needs to be demonstrated; not any negative expression.
The negative claim holds a special place that is superior to all else, and does not require demonstration.
I myself have been involved in debates where I have cited evidence for a claim and there has been blanket refusal to accept that evidence, but that is a perfectly fine response. It is just a poor one. The burden is not on my opponents to prove my claim or evidence wrong. If I make a claim, it is my burden to show how that claim is demonstrated. Some may be swayed, others may not be, but that is just the way things are.
So by that rationale, Rowbothams work was all fake, made up and not true. His observations never took place and his experiments were not true.
Then i dont have to show why, how, or pesent any proof. You need to prove it was?
Absolutely not.
Consider the following:
Bobby: I ate a ham sandwich for dinner last night. Here is a picture of me eating a ham sandwich. Prove me wrong.
Pete: I don't have to prove you wrong at all.
*Pete walks away.*
This is a completely valid response. Completely. The burden is not then on Pete to prove that Bobby did not eat a ham sandwich for dinner. Pete does not have to rebut Bobby's evidence.
Bobby had the positive claim. The burden of proof is still on Bobby, even if Pete walks away. Pete is completely clean of the matter.
Are you really supposed to go through Rowbotham's work and prove that every single statement is true? Are you supposed to go back in time to ensure that the texts he quotes from were real, as it is possible they may be unavailable now? Are you really supposed to verify the news article at the end of his book which claims that he steamrolled academics in debates at institutions and universities?
No. You are not required to do any of that. That would be silly.
If I look out of my window I can't see either way, but if I go to the coast I see ships go over the horizon and flight times to places show it must be round. Plus looking at where satellite dishes point to.He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.
You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.
Yes, actually you can express a negative claim and leave it at that. "fake," "untrue," "misconception," "error," are all negative claims. It is the positive claim that needs to be demonstrated; not any negative expression.
The negative claim holds a special place that is superior to all else, and does not require demonstration.
I myself have been involved in debates where I have cited evidence for a claim and there has been blanket refusal to accept that evidence, but that is a perfectly fine response. It is just a poor one. The burden is not on my opponents to prove my claim or evidence wrong. If I make a claim, it is my burden to show how that claim is demonstrated. Some may be swayed, others may not be, but that is just the way things are.
So by that rationale, Rowbothams work was all fake, made up and not true. His observations never took place and his experiments were not true.
Then i dont have to show why, how, or pesent any proof. You need to prove it was?
You are free to express that idea. It is a poor one. But sure. People have said that.
Are you really supposed to go through Rowbotham's work and prove that every single statement is true? Are you supposed to go back in time to ensure that the texts he quotes from were real, as it is possible they may be unavailable now? Are you really supposed to verify the news article at the end of his book which claims that he steamrolled academics in debates at institutions and universities?
No. You are not required to do any of that. That would be silly.
We are free to seek to corroborate that evidence, as Lady Blount did with her peer review journal The Earth Not a Globe Review, and the wider Flat Earth movement is doing on Youtube with laser experiments and such, in attempt to conduct a review or to provide additional evidence and sway opinion.
We are also free to point out basic things like "look out your window, the starting evidence is that its already flat" and you are still free to deny.
You can deny however much you want. You are not required to accept or disprove any evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Some may be swayed, others will not be. Your poor response will just be pointed out and you will leave the debate embarrassed on the matter. That is all.
Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim.
Wrong.
Imagine something closer. Imagine a pole in a field. You are in one corner of the field and your friend is in another, 100 metres away. You have a straight line marked on the ground between you. You measure pole at a bearing of 60 degrees from you (relative to the line between you and your friend), and your friend measures 55 degrees. You don't know the size or width of the pole.
And yet, you can calculate the distance to the pole from either of you - or, indeed, from any point on the line - with ease.
Agree or disagree?
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.
70+ years of orbital spaceflight. That does it for me. Why look for a curve from ground level when the presence of 70 years' worth of orbital satellites shows it beyond all doubt?
And, in other news, SpaceX have deployed ANOTHER orbital satellite, successfully bringing the first stage back to a controlled landing on their ocean-going barge.
Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
Where have they been debunked?
Internet is full of NASA pictures shown to be fake. YouTube is littered with it. SEX was written is the clouds in one. Straight off NASA site. NASA took it down afterwards. And another showed same clouds copied and placed throughout the globe picture.
Ok let me be more specific.
Which photos have been debunked and where. Please provide specific sources for your claim.
YouTube it. Google it. There are a whole world of websites dedicated to that purpose. We have several such examples in The Conspiracy section of our Wiki.
That kind of evidence doesn't fly here remember?
We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.
Please tell me of proof of orbital flight. Please don't repeat hearsay that can't be proven. Thanks
Personal observation. Seeing the ISS twice in one evening, exactly at the times predicted, with the time between the two sightings (wherein it crossed the sky in the same direction each time) exactly as per the published orbit time.
It crossed my sky from SW to SE both times. How would it get from the SE of my sky that it left on the first pass, to get back to the SW, without changing direction, and having me or someone else seeing it going the 'wrong' way, other than by going around a globe?
Folks with better cameras than I have imaged the ISS in transit across the sun and moon.
Even from the first orbital craft, Sputnik, amateur and professional alike were monitoring its path and finding that it could only be an orbital craft. It passes over, disappears out of range, then appears from the opposite horizon after an hour or two.
Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned. Always a step ahead.This isn't about Photoshop. It's about CGI. CGI wasn't even remotely a thing until the 80's.QuoteThe blue sky was behind it too.Are you sure? I told you otherwise, and posed a question directly related to that conclusion that you didn't answer.QuoteUnless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim. Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.First, the idea is to get a friend to take a second reading.
Second, the width of the ISS is well-established.
Third, have you any understanding of units at all? If you have the altitude in feet, then you can get it in miles simply by dividing by 5,280.
Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned. Always a step a head.
The blue sky was behind it too.
I don't believe it was ever in space or meant to be. (Brazil one or both rather)
Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim. Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.
Are you sure you cannot compute the distance? Rowbotham did exactly this in EnaG to establish the distance of the sun, but he only used 2 observations, and claimed it was good.
Are you suggesting he was wrong and didnt know what he was doing?
We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.
That sounds like great idea. Lets do it. Are you going to fund me for the next few months to spend my time collecting all of the evidence on the internet, examine original evidence, and provide assessments and sources and references on all of that for our Wiki?
Nope it was your side's claim. I don't have to pay a dime, you need to provide evidence for your claim.
You thinking the pictures of earth are not CGI doesn't mean they aren't.And just because you think the pictures of earth are CGI doesn't mean they are either.Quote from: werytravelerIts logical to think that if some have been proven frauds then the others MIGHT be as well.Please show these "pictures of earth" that "have been proven frauds".
NASA has stated that at least one "Blue Marble" was generated from data collected over months by LEO satellites, that does not make it a fraud.Quote from: werytravelerI've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it. You don't know how many miles it is up there. Only what you've been told.Here is one video in broad daylight:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgoVGWazev8Why do you claim that, "The blue sky is still behind it"? Do you know why the sky is blue and why it is a darker shade of blue overhead?
STS-135 (Atlantis) and ISS in broad daylight - 7/17/11, Astronomy LiveQuote from: werytravelerOne satellite crashed in Brazil I think it was. The local didn't know what it was. Pictures are on line. Satellite drone. There's a number on it to call and NASA has a team that goes and gets them. There's a balloon attach to it.Yes, believe it or not the image showing on the opening scene is a satellite, Echo 2, see Project Echo (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo) but the video is not about a "balloon satellite", but a "Google Loon", see Project Loon' internet balloon lands in the Amazon forest (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4276360/Google-internet-beaming-balloon-lands-Amazon.html#ixzz5FwDMENsF).
It might catch and follow the wind channel and it would carry it all over is my guess but not sure.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jC0UX3o8-kSo, no it was not a "Satellite Crash To Earth in Brazil".
Helium Balloon and Satellite Crash To Earth in Brazil - NASA? Shaking My Head Productions
But here are some pieces of the early US Skylab that crashed into the southern part of Western Australia between Esperance and Balladonia.
(https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/sam.gibbs%40fairfaxmedia.com.au/b7d14825-2dc7-4068-8e25-ed5b4b67f127.jpg/r0_0_11067_6468_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
Part of oxygen tank from Skylab space station that crashed near
Esperance, Western Australia in the early hours of July 12, 1979, WA time(https://maas.museum/app/uploads/sites/7/2009/09/00549776-450x403.jpg)
A bit more of Skylab in the Power House Museum, Sydney, Australia.
The centripetal force of the earth would cause the deepest parts of the ocean to be at the equator. This should happen regardless if the land was slightly bulging in the middle. The water would bulge and collect on top of it.
In an ocean depth map we should see that the oceans at the equator is deeper than at higher latitudes. This is not the case. As far as I can see the equator holds no special significance to the oceans of the world.
I'd like to rewind this thread all the way to the beginning.
The centripetal force of the earth would cause the deepest parts of the ocean to be at the equator. This should happen regardless if the land was slightly bulging in the middle. The water would bulge and collect on top of it.
In an ocean depth map we should see that the oceans at the equator is deeper than at higher latitudes. This is not the case. As far as I can see the equator holds no special significance to the oceans of the world.
You have made two assertions without any evidence. Where is your evidence? Where are your calculations to show how much deeper the ocean should be?
You apparently just skimmed the first page. I provided a link with the calculations here: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/
The models show that the earth mass should bulge out and the water should bulge out as well on top of that. It says that there should be a water bulge 11.035 km deep at the equator. Yet the ocean is nowhere near that deep on average. The average depth of the Pacific ocean is about 4.25 km.
If the earth is spinning, why aren't the deepest parts of the ocean at the equator?
What is relevant here, is the mass of the bulge relative to the mass of the earth. So if the earth was a solid spherical iron ball which did not distort, and it was covered in water, then the gravitational pull of the ocean bulge would increase the height of the bulge by less than 1 km. However the earth’s core is molten, so in general the rock of which the earth is made, has distorted by an appropriate amount. This means that to do the calculation, we will start by assuming that the density of the bulge is the same as the density of the rest of the earth. Incidentally, if the rock had not distorted to bulge by the appropriate amount, then the whole equator would be flooded; whilst if the rock had somehow frozen in an over-distorted shape then the whole equator would be a mountain range.(emphasis mine.)
I don't see how this would tell you the miles of a orbiting satellite. The location in the sky maybe but all you need is eyes for that. Maybe I'm just not getting it. I won't give to much of an opinion about it because I haven't tried it yet.
You are assuming it's the same satellite.
No, I'm not.
I see two in the sky at the same time every morning. And sometimes I look with binoculars and I truly thinks it's drones.
So?
Then there's the one in Brazil that crashed.
You apparently just skimmed the first page. I provided a link with the calculations here: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/
The article calculates the earth's equatorial bulge, but even the author admits that the bulge should also apply to the solid parts of the earth, especially if they were once molten, and it doesn't appear the article has an answer to how much of the bulge should be solid vs water.Quote from: William NewtspeareWhat is relevant here, is the mass of the bulge relative to the mass of the earth. So if the earth was a solid spherical iron ball which did not distort, and it was covered in water, then the gravitational pull of the ocean bulge would increase the height of the bulge by less than 1 km. However the earth’s core is molten, so in general the rock of which the earth is made, has distorted by an appropriate amount. This means that to do the calculation, we will start by assuming that the density of the bulge is the same as the density of the rest of the earth. Incidentally, if the rock had not distorted to bulge by the appropriate amount, then the whole equator would be flooded; whilst if the rock had somehow frozen in an over-distorted shape then the whole equator would be a mountain range.(emphasis mine.)
Where are the calculations for how much of the bulge should be rock vs. water?
Approximate calculation including gravitational effects
The idea that an equatorial bulge, on an otherwise spherical earth, would pull water towards itself
...
To do the calculations effectively, we need to use the idea that water (or rock) will flow from the poles to the equator until there is exactly zero energy to be gained from making the trip; a theory known as equi-potententials. So rather than using gravitational forces, we need to use gravitational potentials.
...
If the particle drops down the polar tunnel, then when it reaches the centre it will be a distance R from every part of the ring. So the energy gained from the ring will be (1- 1/Ö2)R, or about 0.29R, times the mass of the ring, which is 2/300 the mass of the earth. Therefore the energy gained from the trip to the centre, is sufficient to increase the height of the water at the equator by 0.58/300 times the earth’s radius, which is about 12.3 km. If we add this to the 11.035 km bulge caused by the centrifugal force, we are already above our required value of 22 km.
To do the calculations effectively, we need to use the idea that water (or rock) will flow from the poles to the equator...
It's clear that he's calculating what size the bulge should be, not whether it should be made up of rock or water.
Newton imagined the existence of two tunnels, one from the North Pole to the centre of the earth, and the other from the equator to the centre. If these tunnels were joined at the centre, and filled with water, then as the earth began to spin, water would start to flow from the pole towards the equator.
...if the rock had not distorted to bulge by the appropriate amount, then the whole equator would be flooded; whilst if the rock had somehow frozen in an over-distorted shape then the whole equator would be a mountain range.
I read this article and it is clear that he's talking about the overall shape of the earth, and not whether the bulge is made of rock or water.
So if you want to assert that the ocean should be miles deep at the equator on the globe earth model, you need to find the portion of this article or another article that resolves that "If the rock had formed one way" question in the second quote in this post. You are the one making the affirmative claim that centrifugal force should make the ocean miles deep, and this article clearly states that it cannot distinguish between whether the equator should be high-and-dry or deep ocean.
Therefore the energy gained from the trip to the centre, is sufficient to increase the height of the water at the equator by 0.58/300 times the earth’s radius, which is about 12.3 km. If we add this to the 11.035 km bulge caused by the centrifugal force, we are already above our required value of 22 km.
Sea level at the equator is 21.36 km higher than sea level at the poles, in terms of distance from the center of the planet.
there is a bulge in the water envelope of the oceans surrounding Earth; this bulge is created by the greater centrifugal force at the equator and is independent of tides
Incorrect. It is talking about both the water and the land:QuoteTherefore the energy gained from the trip to the centre, is sufficient to increase the height of the water at the equator by 0.58/300 times the earth’s radius, which is about 12.3 km. If we add this to the 11.035 km bulge caused by the centrifugal force, we are already above our required value of 22 km.
It is adding 12.3 km of water + 11.035 km of land to get 22+ km.
Think about that. How could sea level be 21.36km higher than sea level at the poles if the sea did not bulge, and it was only the land that bulged as you assert?
However the earth’s core is molten, so in general the rock of which the earth is made, has distorted by an appropriate amount. This means that to do the calculation, we will start by assuming that the density of the bulge is the same as the density of the rest of the earth. Incidentally, if the rock had not distorted to bulge by the appropriate amount, then the whole equator would be flooded; whilst if the rock had somehow frozen in an over-distorted shape then the whole equator would be a mountain range.
Provide just one.Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
As we all know, there are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.
Provide just one.Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
As we all know, there are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.
There are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.Provide just one.
Provide just one.Are you talking about the CGI pictures that have already been debunked?
As we all know, there are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.
A couple from this set, for a start; I'm satisfied that the packaging etc. predates any sort of digital photo technique or manipulation. The only way these could have been produced is by optical exposure and processing from a physical original.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/APOLLO-11-MOON-LANDING-SLIDE-69-vtg-NASA-5-Slides-Armstrong-Collins-Aldrin/312043126197?hash=item48a7383db5:g:EaEAAOSwa0VaTbH- (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/APOLLO-11-MOON-LANDING-SLIDE-69-vtg-NASA-5-Slides-Armstrong-Collins-Aldrin/312043126197?hash=item48a7383db5:g:EaEAAOSwa0VaTbH-)
Same applies to;
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-NASA-Apollo-16-Space-Color-Slides-36-slides-total/332678960039?hash=item4d753613a7:g:sW0AAOSw8zNa8aux (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-NASA-Apollo-16-Space-Color-Slides-36-slides-total/332678960039?hash=item4d753613a7:g:sW0AAOSw8zNa8aux)
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/18-VINTAGE-PANA-VUE-35mm-SLIDES-A-STEP-INTO-THE-UNIVERSE-APOLLO-11-MOON-MISSION/142808824036?hash=item214011b8e4:g:DYcAAOSwhsVaogMp (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/18-VINTAGE-PANA-VUE-35mm-SLIDES-A-STEP-INTO-THE-UNIVERSE-APOLLO-11-MOON-MISSION/142808824036?hash=item214011b8e4:g:DYcAAOSwhsVaogMp)
... and a host of others in similar auctions.
The originals have been scanned, and are easily found on Flickr and with a google for "Apollo nn image library", where nn = an integer between 11 and 17.
Example
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan5928-29.jpg)
All of these images have been reprocessed and for both of you to deny that fact is highly disingenuous of you both.There are thousands of photos taken from space that have nothing to do with CGI, with photoshop, with compositing, with any kind of manipulation.Provide just one.
Take your pick:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timpeake/sets/72157660209464584/
And lots of other astronauts on the ISS have taken photos from space with their own personal cameras, which you can find very easily by simply googling.
I quite like this one:
(https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages/ESC/large/ISS044/ISS044-E-45553.JPG)
That was taken with a Nikon D4. Info about it is here:
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/photo.pl?mission=ISS044&roll=E&frame=45553
Tumeni, for you especially with this statement: "A couple from this set, for a start; I'm satisfied that the packaging etc. predates any sort of digital photo technique or manipulation."
That is total BS and you know it. None of the Apollo landings took place prior to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
That was the advent of all manipulation.
Reprocessing does not mean the same thing as faked. I sincerely hope this sinks in one day.It most certainly does.
2001: A Space Odyssey specifically demonstrated how real any images from supposed outer space would appear and they could be definitively faked.Tumeni, for you especially with this statement: "A couple from this set, for a start; I'm satisfied that the packaging etc. predates any sort of digital photo technique or manipulation."
That is total BS and you know it. None of the Apollo landings took place prior to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
That was the advent of all manipulation.
"the special effects in 2001 were all done without the benefits of computer technology. The effects were achieved with a mix of creative camerawork, dedication, experiments and hard work. "
http://www.leocosta.me/the-visual-effects-in-2001-a-space-odyssey/ (http://www.leocosta.me/the-visual-effects-in-2001-a-space-odyssey/)
"Year: 1973
Significance: Cinema's first 2D computer images
Yul Brynner plays a gunslinging android in Michael Crichton’s ‘70s sci-fi Western – think the terminator crossed with an evil Shane – a film notable too for being the first major motion picture to use CGI. "
https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/history-cgi/ (https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/history-cgi/)
All of the Apollo landings were done by 1972....
2001: A Space Odyssey specifically demonstrated how real any images from supposed outer space would appear and they could be definitively faked.
You are being highly disingenuous and should be banned for trolling the upper fora.2001: A Space Odyssey specifically demonstrated how real any images from supposed outer space would appear and they could be definitively faked.
No, it did not.
Because a film inspired filmmakers or appeared realistic in the context of a film does not mean that it was realistic to a scientific eye. Here is some errors that were spotted in the film:Just as errors are spotted in footage depicting alleged "REAL" space flight...such as wire harnesses and green screen use clearly in play during shots supposedly coming from the ISS...
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html
I don't believe I've ever seen 'errors' posted about the videos outside of a conspiracy theory setting, and even those are often corrected in some manner, regardless of whether the original poster will acquiesce to the corrections. Do you have any legitimately unanswered/unanswerable 'errors' to present?Because a film inspired filmmakers or appeared realistic in the context of a film does not mean that it was realistic to a scientific eye. Here is some errors that were spotted in the film:Just as errors are spotted in footage depicting alleged "REAL" space flight...
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html
Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
I know squirrels like nuts but they should not behave as if they are actually nuts out in public on an open forum, yet...I don't believe I've ever seen 'errors' posted about the videos outside of a conspiracy theory setting, and even those are often corrected in some manner, regardless of whether the original poster will acquiesce to the corrections. Do you have any legitimately unanswered/unanswerable 'errors' to present?Because a film inspired filmmakers or appeared realistic in the context of a film does not mean that it was realistic to a scientific eye. Here is some errors that were spotted in the film:Just as errors are spotted in footage depicting alleged "REAL" space flight...
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/gaffe.html
Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...
I know squirrels like nuts but they should not behave as if they are actually nuts out in public on an open forum, yet...Speaking of things you shouldn't do on a public forum: please keep personal attacks out of the upper fora. We are here to discuss ideas, not individuals.
Stating someone is behaving a certain way does not imply or mean they actually are that certain way; simply, it means they are currently exhibiting such behavior.Again, there is very little hope for any facts to get through to your level of understanding...I know squirrels like nuts but they should not behave as if they are actually nuts out in public on an open forum, yet...Speaking of things you shouldn't do on a public forum: please keep personal attacks out of the upper fora. We are here to discuss ideas, not individuals.
If you really need to unload, do so in Angry Ranting. Alternatively, take a deep breath and focus on the merit of what you want to say, not whether or not you think the other person is stupid or insane. Warned.
"The film is noted for its scientifically accurate depiction of spaceflight, pioneering special effects, and ambiguous imagery..."
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?
"Time provided at least seven different mini-reviews of the film ... William Friedkin states 2001 is "the grandfather of all such films"."
Tom: We have a ghost in our attic. We hear it and when we check, things are moved around.
Bob: I don't believe you. Ghosts don't exist
Tom: Oh, but they do. Here's a picture I took of our attic ghost.
Bob: That picture isn't real. You faked it.
Tom: I did not.
Bob: Sure you did. I know because ghosts aren't real.
Tom: But I have a picture of one.
Bob: But I just debunked it.
Tom: No you didn't. You just denied my evidence. Explain to me how I faked it.
Bob: I don't have to. Burden of proof is on you.
Tom: ?
That argument is conceptually fine. It is just an example of a poor rebuttal. Bob's lacking rebuttal doesn't suddenly make it Bob's job or burden to "prove that ghosts do not exist".
If Bob had pointed out areas which suggested that the picture was just an optical illusion, misinterpretation, or fabrication, then that is a somewhat better rebuttal; and this is exactly what those anti-NASA websites and YouTube videos on the internet are doing.
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?It matters not who uttered the quote.
A bunch of quotes from a bunch of film-makers does not scientific accuracy make, nor does it prove any fakery on the part of anything from any space agency.If the material generated by shpayzze agencies differs very little from what is generated by Hollywood (and it does not), there is no worthwhile argument on your part.
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?It matters not who uttered the quote.
I gave the source of the quote.No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?It matters not who uttered the quote.
Yes, it does. You could be making it up. No source, no citation, no indication of who said it. How do we know it didn't come from your keyboard?
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?It matters not who uttered the quote.
Yes, it does. You could be making it up. No source, no citation, no indication of who said it. How do we know it didn't come from your keyboard?
No attribution is given to this quote - who said it?It matters not who uttered the quote.
Yes, it does. You could be making it up. No source, no citation, no indication of who said it. How do we know it didn't come from your keyboard?
It's true, he did give the source of the quote. It's just from the opening paragraph of the wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)
Take a look at this website: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/You are misinterpreting what he is saying. He is saying the the water would be 11km higher than spherical, or 10km less than the measured diameter at the equator He is not saying that water should 11km higher than the actual land at the equator. What he is doing is making his calculationc as though the water could stand in a column that extended from the surface to the center of the earth. In essence, he is substituting a fluid (water) for a solid. This is valid as when the earth formed it was mostly a fluid. He also admits it's a value that comes from not taking everything into account. Nowhere in this article is he talking about the existence of or the magnitude of 'bulge' in the sea. He does go through all the calculations though, and eventually tells us how to come up with the correct value of bulge in the land.
This website calculates that the water bulge at the equator. Do a find for "water" on that page to find the sections where it is computing what the bulge of the water should be. The calculations assume an earth with rock mass that bulges outwards. The conclusions are that the water should bulge out as well.
From the link:QuoteThis gives us a surplus energy of ½ mR² w ² , or ½mv² for the drop of water, which is enough to carry the drop of water to a height of 11.035 km against the force of gravity at the equator, the same value we calculated earlier.
That's 6.85 miles. Basically the depth of Challenger Deep.
Why isn't it shown that the deepest parts of the ocean are at the equator?
7. Why doesn't the artificial horizon roll backwards during straight and level flight?
What manufacturer of attitude indicators did you talk to? There is no reason why they shouldn't have explained that the instrument is self-leveling, relative to the axis of gravity's force. They aren't merely a gyroscope with a fixed orientation in space. They do adjust, by design, for the change in axis due to gravity. (Speaking as a former aviator, I'm surprised the pilots didn't explain this to you also.)