1

Flat Earth Community / Re: This wiki entry though......

« on: February 11, 2017, 10:41:59 PM »

Heat shielding is pretty important. The heat shielding should be properly embedded. The thought of haphazardly using scotch tape to affix the heat shielding onto a lunar space craft that did all of the things NASA claimed it did is ridiculous, and anyone can see that.

If you zoom into the image we also see that the exterior white walls of the craft are not even air tight or firmly sealed. There are gaps everywhere. The whole thing appears to be incredibly amateur.

Are we really expected to believe that a real lunar lander built by the best engineers in the world would look like something some teenagers threw together in a weekend after a trip to the stationary store and the junk yard?

This is an argument from ridicule and incredulity, nothing more.

But I wonder, if it is a fake, why such an obvious one? They surely had the budget to figure out what a real lunar lander should look like? Wait, maybe they did...

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: Hello I'm new here and I have lots to share. =)

« on: October 29, 2016, 09:33:37 PM »

Did you even bother to watch the video "the sky is on fire" till the end? I put the screen shots first on that one but look at the recording after the screen shots.
Here is the video again
at 1:27 the recording starts

I'm curious. How does a video qualify for the 'MUST WATCH' designation? Does it have to be independently adjudged in some way?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis Effect and Trade Winds

« on: September 08, 2016, 08:36:42 AM »

@Intikam

The statistics are that all large low pressure weather systems in the northern hemisphere turn anti-clockwise and all large low pressure weather systems in the southern hemisphere turn clockwise.

If you can find an example that breaks this rule then show it.

Otherwise, accept the Coriolis effect or provide another reason why this rule holds.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the Earth flat? Experiment

« on: September 05, 2016, 09:54:10 PM »

Hi everyone,
I performed an experiment to test the flat earth theory and got some interesting results. I was wondering what you all think.



Thank you.

Your calculations appear to be wrong.

Using this calculator and your given figures of 75m for the observer height looking at a distance of 63km gives a  target hidden height of around 81m.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: April 07, 2016, 09:05:33 PM »

Nothing in the article implies that Columbus knew the Earth was round, or provide me a direct quotation, please.

It was well established that the earth is round at this time. It's very unlikely that a man such as Columbus would think otherwise.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is that speck of light we spherical Earthlings call satellites?

« on: April 05, 2016, 04:54:28 PM »

Here's a photo of a satellite from space: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01294/satellite_1294450c.jpg

There are a few more, though for obvious reasons they usually capture the satellite as it is released.

What leads you to believe that photograph is even genuine?

What reason is there to think it's not genuine?

What about all these ones? The artists went to great length to make them. Some are even purported as real.

Some of them are real. Do you have any specific examples of images that are claimed to be real but you believe are not?

What do you think of this one, for instance?

Obviously it's a great undertaking to photograph an object moving over 16,000 mph with a camera also moving 16,000 mph, so I understand the need to fake these graphics. But the problem is, people with less critical sets of eyes look at them and actually believe them to be real, without thinking about the technical difficulty of taking such a photograph, or without noticing the cartoonish features of the graphics.

I'm not sure why the orbital speeds would be problematic if the relative speed of photographer and photographed object was quite small.

It's propaganda. So other than the flares supposedly caused by that one type of satellite, and ISS high altitude pass overs, what other proof do we have satellites exist the way we're told they do?

What further proof do you feel you need?

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Infiltrating the Conspiracy

« on: March 13, 2016, 09:31:28 PM »

Change, and move are two different things, uncertain one.

In this context 'cloud formations changing' and 'clouds moving' are pretty much the same thing.

Do they clearly move? Do they clearly move as far as they should?

Well, how far should they move? The period for the left hand gif is about 3-4 hours. It's a long distance view. I wouldn't expect to see significant movement. About as much as can be seen, in fact.

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: Infiltrating the Conspiracy

« on: March 12, 2016, 10:21:27 PM »

Ignoring your ridiculous formatting methods for a moment, the pictures you posted are at different angles and literally show that the clouds haven't moved. I get that you try to use presentation to obfuscate the actual points you may try to make, but that won't work here. Please try again.

The clouds clearly move. If you deny that then you undermine your own credibility as an honest contributor.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 14, 2016, 11:05:17 PM »

That's not really my point. My point is that there is no such thing as a circle in the universe. So therefore pi != 3.14159...

... the error in the logic is that circles do not exist.

I would contend that you are wrong on this. While perfect circles may not actually exist in the physical world, as abstract mathematical concepts they absolutely do exist. What's more, these abstract conceptual circles have useful real world applications, albeit implicitly as approximations.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 13, 2016, 08:35:23 PM »

What physics makes this distinction and how?

GR and SR. By describing gravitation in detail.

I was hoping for more from you. I find myself no clearer on the distinction between gravitation and gravity. I have a description of gravity from you that makes little sense with its reference to an unobservable force. Do GR and SR also describe gravity? If not, how do they make the distinction in question?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 12, 2016, 09:55:05 PM »

Physics leads me to this distinction. Physics is the source for your second question as well, although I admittedly made it sound more interesting to better reflect reality.

Can you expand or be more specific on this? Physics is a very broad term. What physics makes this distinction and how? How, in physics, could a force be unobservable?

Feel free to cite sources.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 11, 2016, 10:40:05 PM »

Gravitation is simply the attraction between two objects with mass. Gravity is an unobservable force powered by an undetectable particle.

Ok. What leads you to this distinction? What sources do you have regarding your definition of gravity?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 11, 2016, 10:13:06 PM »

Gravity and gravitation are not the same thing.

How do they differ?

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: February 04, 2016, 10:16:30 AM »

Here is how that calculation came about:

"The team carried out two sets of observations in the same region"

Source:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/02/the-visible-universe-seven-trillion-dwarfs-and-billions-of-undetected-galaxies-weekend-feature.html

SAY WHAT?

So they point their telescope into space only 2 times into THE SAME REGION...

And BOOM, they know how many stars are in space, and so do you!!

You can't use this mainstream nonsense as fact. It is not. And it's very easy to point that out.

Reading the article, it's very clear that they deliberately looked at the same region twice in order to compare two different observation techniques. I'm not sure why you would think there's a problem with that.

How is this research nonsense? I'd agree that the resulting figures are not facts - they are estimates based, no doubt, on many assumptions. But the article gives no reason to question the basis of the techniques nor the earnestness of the investigation. To call it nonsense is unjustified.

15

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: February 03, 2016, 09:03:30 AM »

Ok let's talk about the field of view provided to us by the moon passing clips...

You will see in the first pic that there is indeed PLENTY of field of view:



And so, considering what I observe as a substantial amount of Field of View seen, we should at some point see something that resembles this:



As you can see I was very generous on the field of view and I reduced the moon from the clip down to more than half.

I agree that at some point we should see something like this but very rarely. It only has a chance of happening once per month, and then it will only happen if the moon passes behind the earth from the satellite's point of view. Because of the inclination of the moon's orbit this won't be very often.

The fact that we do not see any images resembling this, nor ANY images of the moon at all from this supposed satellite has me more than just a little suspicious.

So we have determined that the field of view argument is invalid. What say ye?

The field of view is very relevant because it is tiny compared to the path the moon traverses. It follows that sightings of the moon from the satellite camera will be rare.

There's nothing suspicious here. I'm sorry you're not getting this.

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: February 02, 2016, 08:53:50 PM »

Ok so the moon came Into view on July 16. And as it passed/orbited back "hehind" the earth over the next approx 4-7 days, as i assume would be viewed, the camera would not pick up this image?

Clarification:

At some point you should see the moon "setting" behind the earth and at many different angles as it progresses its supposed orbit. And then days later you should see it "rising" until out of view of the satellite. Rinse and repeat every single day.

I am curious why this isn't observed in any of the images provided?

Also, if you would give me a model that is to scale or one that is more acceptable I'd appreciate it. I just chose a random one to ask my question. Thanks.

The moon orbits the earth every 27/28 days so after July 16 it will be nearly 14 days before it goes to the directly opposite side of the earth from the satellite's point of view. On this day the moon may come into view but this is again dependent on the inclination of the moon's orbit.

Imagine you're a million miles from earth and viewing it through a telescope such that all you can see through the telescope is the earth and a bit of space around it. Your field of vision will be roughly 10000 miles across at earth distance. Now the moon is orbiting the earth with an orbital circumference of around 1.5 million miles. Most of the time the moon will be way out to your left or right. Only every 14 days will the moon become briefly vertically aligned with your field of vision. And when it does, the chances are that it will pass above or below, because of the moon's inclined orbit.

Scale models are tricky because of the distances involved. The earth is about 12000 earth diameters from the sun. So try imagining the model you gave with a lot more space!

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: February 02, 2016, 07:04:25 PM »

So if I put a camera in between the sun and the earth in the model below, you are saying we should only see the moon 1 time in the camera every 8 months?

Yes I'm saying that. When thinking about this remember that the model above isn't remotely to scale.

Also remember that the satellite camera only has a very narrow field of vision - enough to just cover the earth from around a million miles out.

How can that be so?

Are you also suggesting the moon's orbit changes so dramatically from July 16-17 to not be able to see it?

So on July 16 the moon appeared in between the supposed camera and earth. And the very next day, the moon's orbit changed so much as to not be able to see it at all?

The moon's orbit also changed so much in one day that we will not see it for another 8 months?

After the appearance on July 16 it would be another month before the moon was anywhere near the satellite's field of vision - because the moon orbits the earth once a month.

And because of the angle of the moon's orbit, in most months the moon will pass either above or below the camera view. So the moon will come into view relatively rarely.

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: February 02, 2016, 06:17:51 PM »

I'll repeat the question that I asked you earlier in the thread:

Why would you think there must be further images of the moon? The images go back only 8 months. How often do you think the moon passes between earth and the satellite?

One pass of the moon in 8 months seems reasonable to me. I'm sure there'll be further passes along in due course.

I didn't see that question. I apologize.

Here is your answer.

The RE suggests that the moon rotates around the earth!!

I read that somewhere... let me think... oh yes, every single book published about the moon and earth.

Now. You want to answer my question???

Why do no other images of the moon exist from that satelitte?

If the moon rotates around the earth it should be in almost ever image.

Remember that website shows you everyday that's its logged images and that supposed satellite  takes a supposed image every  2 hours, yet no images of the moon?

How can this be explained?

For the moon to appear in the image it must pass directly between the satellite and the earth. Now, the satellite is positioned at a Lagrangian point between the sun and the earth, so the moon only has an opportunity to be seen by the satellite once every month. But since the moon's orbit is inclined by about 5 degrees to the ecliptic, most months the moon will pass either above or below the satellite's field of vision. So to have only one sighting of the moon in 8 months isn't really unusual.

I hope that makes sense.

19

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: February 02, 2016, 05:05:30 PM »

You and a lot of other people have missed the my point about the moon anomaly COMPLETELY!

So I shall try again. Now please pay close attention.

NASA released the following gif:



These images were taken supposedly from the EPIC (DSCOVR) Satellite.

Located here at this link:
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov

This supposed satellite takes a picture  of earth from space every 2 hours.

NASA publishes all of the pictures taken each day.

At the link above, you will find a calendar for every day since July 2015.

Click on EVERYDAY from July 2015 until now Feb 2016.

You WILL NOT see the moon in any other image published!

This CANNOT be!

Munky and all the others commenting, please take a moment and actually read what I have written, and then click through every image provided by NASA from this supposed satellite and tell me why no moon appears.

This supposed satellite has been taking images of the earth since JULY 2015 and we have been provided just one image with the moon in view???

HOW CAN THIS BE?

I submit this as proof this satellite is a fraud. And all the images that come along with it.

Instead of emotionally posting, please take a minute to see this anamoly yourself!

Then give a response to:

Why do no other images show the moon?

I'll repeat the question that I asked you earlier in the thread:

Why would you think there must be further images of the moon? The images go back only 8 months. How often do you think the moon passes between earth and the satellite?

One pass of the moon in 8 months seems reasonable to me. I'm sure there'll be further passes along in due course.

20

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: February 02, 2016, 11:13:42 AM »

Wow look how the clouds don't move at all, and these were taken over how many days? That's AMAZING truly

You need to look more carefully. The clouds move. The pictures were taken over less than 4 hours.