If NASA was not part of a conspiracy then it would prove the Earth is a spheroid orbited by a moon which both orbit the sun a long with other planets and moons. So by necessity any thing involving satellites or space travel has to be fake.That statement is based entirely on the assumption that the earth is flat, and doesn't include any evidence or sources at all. Like I said, we have plenty of evidence that the earth is round. Do you have any reason to think that the earth is flat?
The evidence provided by science is flawed because they are assuming the Earth is a spheroid and/or scientist are part of the conspiracy. For the Earth to be flat I lean towards a lot scientist involved in the Earth sciences would have to be part of the conspiracy. Many calculations, observations, experiments, etc are done assuming the Earth is ball like. That implies the error would resonate through many fields of study and become apparent. So IMHO it is safe to assume many scientist would be involved covering up the shape of the Earth.
There is plenty of evidence (http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/) that the earth is round. There is also plenty of evidence (http://www.clavius.org/) that NASA is to be trusted. So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat? What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying? Remember to cite your sources.The earth looks flat, therefore it is flat! My sources are my own eyes.[1]
There is plenty of evidence (http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/) that the earth is round. There is also plenty of evidence (http://www.clavius.org/) that NASA is to be trusted. So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat? What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying? Remember to cite your sources.The earth looks flat, therefore it is flat! My sources are my own eyes.[1]
NASA provides incontrovertible evidence that the earth is not flat, ipso facto NASA must be lying.
Why is it that the first responders are oftenGlobe supporters taking the mickey out of FE ideas?
[1] From what I can see "The earth looks flat" seems to be the only undeniable evidence, everything else gets distorted (literally in the case of perspective, etc).
Ifyou have been on this website for any length of time you would have learned that there is a long list of the Round Earth Conspiracy. Everybody from NASA, scientists to ham radio operators.I can't be certain, but I think I might be picking up on sarcasm here. You never can tell on sites like these.
The only honest and truthful persons on the world are the few members of the Flat Earth Society who are the only holders of the truth on the earth . Every one else is a liar and everything else is fake. If you dont believe this is true, just ask any Flat Earth True Believer.
But don't pin them down by asking for facts and evidence. And most of all don't ask them to cite their sources.
Ifyou have been on this website for any length of time you would have learned that there is a long list of the Round Earth Conspiracy. Everybody from NASA, scientists to ham radio operators.I can't be certain, but I think I might be picking up on sarcasm here. You never can tell on sites like these.
The only honest and truthful persons on the world are the few members of the Flat Earth Society who are the only holders of the truth on the earth . Every one else is a liar and everything else is fake. If you dont believe this is true, just ask any Flat Earth True Believer.
But don't pin them down by asking for facts and evidence. And most of all don't ask them to cite their sources.
I wish we had an easier way to see who believes what, like a marker next to their name or something. I tried to remove that ambiguity with my sig. I'm still not entirely sure which side you're on, though.Ifyou have been on this website for any length of time you would have learned that there is a long list of the Round Earth Conspiracy. Everybody from NASA, scientists to ham radio operators.I can't be certain, but I think I might be picking up on sarcasm here. You never can tell on sites like these.
The only honest and truthful persons on the world are the few members of the Flat Earth Society who are the only holders of the truth on the earth . Every one else is a liar and everything else is fake. If you dont believe this is true, just ask any Flat Earth True Believer.
But don't pin them down by asking for facts and evidence. And most of all don't ask them to cite their sources.
My apologies . I have sunk to the levels of a lot of others on this website. I think I had better go back to just citing evidence.
Everyone who has replied to you so far to the best of my knowledge believes the Earth is a spheroid, orbited by a moon which both orbit the sun.If NASA was not part of a conspiracy then it would prove the Earth is a spheroid orbited by a moon which both orbit the sun a long with other planets and moons. So by necessity any thing involving satellites or space travel has to be fake.That statement is based entirely on the assumption that the earth is flat, and doesn't include any evidence or sources at all. Like I said, we have plenty of evidence that the earth is round. Do you have any reason to think that the earth is flat?
The evidence provided by science is flawed because they are assuming the Earth is a spheroid and/or scientist are part of the conspiracy. For the Earth to be flat I lean towards a lot scientist involved in the Earth sciences would have to be part of the conspiracy. Many calculations, observations, experiments, etc are done assuming the Earth is ball like. That implies the error would resonate through many fields of study and become apparent. So IMHO it is safe to assume many scientist would be involved covering up the shape of the Earth.
Also, why is your profile pic a Kerbal? If anything, Kerbal Space Program proves that rockets and orbits work the way NASA says they do.
Ifyou have been on this website for any length of time you would have learned that there is a long list of the Round Earth Conspiracy. Everybody from NASA, scientists to ham radio operators.I can't be certain, but I think I might be picking up on sarcasm here. You never can tell on sites like these.
The only honest and truthful persons on the world are the few members of the Flat Earth Society who are the only holders of the truth on the earth . Every one else is a liar and everything else is fake. If you dont believe this is true, just ask any Flat Earth True Believer.
But don't pin them down by asking for facts and evidence. And most of all don't ask them to cite their sources.
There is plenty of evidence (http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/) that the earth is round. There is also plenty of evidence (http://www.clavius.org/) that NASA is to be trusted. So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat? What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying? Remember to cite your sources.
There is plenty of evidence (http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/) that the earth is round. There is also plenty of evidence (http://www.clavius.org/) that NASA is to be trusted. So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat? What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying? Remember to cite your sources.
Hi, friend.
I think of it in this way. A computer programmed to do a certain function would perform it with whatever data we feed in. Even if the data is wrong, the machine would process and give a logical answer (according to what we fed in). What if we were wrong in our assumptions? We were taught from childhood that earth is round. Don't you think we have already accepted that without questioning?
Could you please mention a few evidences you speak of? Which doesn't have any assumptions behind them and would appease a straight forward logic? The FES apparently doesn't approve of photographic evidence (Thanks to photoshop and similar software). I'm not yet convinced of both theories, to be honest.
You guys talk a big game but yet still NONE of you have your own evidence the earth is round.
All any Ball Earth believers do is post links from "science" websites and use that as their evidence.
That is another man's work, not yours.
If round earth is so easy to prove, then why don't any of you have your own evidence?
The fact that and the way that rounders even attempt to defend round earth tells me a lot about this so called science you all spew.
The science you know is nothing more than complicated math to complete a puzzle of illusion for the weak to snack on.
We send up high altitude balloons that can see the curvature of the earth.
Hello Rain. Thank you for remaining open.There is plenty of evidence (http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/) that the earth is round. There is also plenty of evidence (http://www.clavius.org/) that NASA is to be trusted. So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat? What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying? Remember to cite your sources.
Hi, friend.
I think of it in this way. A computer programmed to do a certain function would perform it with whatever data we feed in. Even if the data is wrong, the machine would process and give a logical answer (according to what we fed in). What if we were wrong in our assumptions? We were taught from childhood that earth is round. Don't you think we have already accepted that without questioning?
Could you please mention a few evidences you speak of? Which doesn't have any assumptions behind them and would appease a straight forward logic? The FES apparently doesn't approve of photographic evidence (Thanks to photoshop and similar software). I'm not yet convinced of both theories, to be honest.
No, that's clearly different.We send up high altitude balloons that can see the curvature of the earth.
You mean that you see the terminator line of the spotlight sun.
No, that's clearly different.We send up high altitude balloons that can see the curvature of the earth.
You mean that you see the terminator line of the spotlight sun.
There is plenty of evidence (http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/) that the earth is round. There is also plenty of evidence (http://www.clavius.org/) that NASA is to be trusted. So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat? What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying? Remember to cite your sources.
Hi, friend.
I think of it in this way. A computer programmed to do a certain function would perform it with whatever data we feed in. Even if the data is wrong, the machine would process and give a logical answer (according to what we fed in). What if we were wrong in our assumptions? We were taught from childhood that earth is round. Don't you think we have already accepted that without questioning?
Could you please mention a few evidences you speak of? Which doesn't have any assumptions behind them and would appease a straight forward logic? The FES apparently doesn't approve of photographic evidence (Thanks to photoshop and similar software). I'm not yet convinced of both theories, to be honest.
There is plenty of evidence (http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/) that the earth is round. There is also plenty of evidence (http://www.clavius.org/) that NASA is to be trusted. So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat? What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying? Remember to cite your sources.
Hi, friend.
I think of it in this way. A computer programmed to do a certain function would perform it with whatever data we feed in. Even if the data is wrong, the machine would process and give a logical answer (according to what we fed in). What if we were wrong in our assumptions? We were taught from childhood that earth is round. Don't you think we have already accepted that without questioning?
Could you please mention a few evidences you speak of? Which doesn't have any assumptions behind them and would appease a straight forward logic? The FES apparently doesn't approve of photographic evidence (Thanks to photoshop and similar software). I'm not yet convinced of both theories, to be honest.
Hello Rain,
From my perspective as an avid watcher of the skies (day, night and the transitions) there are a few observations that are easy to replicate but don't mesh with the FE scheme of things. Earth Shadow, explained here (http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fza60.htm) can be observed most clear days either as the sun sets or rises, something it doesn't do on the FE. Sunsets over the sea, clearly dipping below the horizon when it shouldn't and the accompanying clouds lit from beneath when the FE wiki says it (the sun) stays at a constant height that would make those stunning red sunsets impossible. Also noctilucent clouds, night shining very high clouds illuminated by the sun over the horizon (see https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=1&t=cloud92&i=0). There are many more if you would like to look at these sites and take yourself out to observe. And Neptune. I have and taken the photo's but just not as good as the ones on the links, anyway hope this is of some interest in your search, good luck.
We send up high altitude balloons that can see the curvature of the earth.Please do share the videos, then. Hopefully you didn't use a fisheye lens.
The point is that I am more qualified to speak for NASA and the round earth than you are to speak against them.I noticed you put this in your signature as well. What gives you the impression that you are more qualified to talk about NASA?
There is plenty of evidence (http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/) that the earth is round. There is also plenty of evidence (http://www.clavius.org/) that NASA is to be trusted. So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat? What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying? Remember to cite your sources.
Hi, friend.
I think of it in this way. A computer programmed to do a certain function would perform it with whatever data we feed in. Even if the data is wrong, the machine would process and give a logical answer (according to what we fed in). What if we were wrong in our assumptions? We were taught from childhood that earth is round. Don't you think we have already accepted that without questioning?
Could you please mention a few evidences you speak of? Which doesn't have any assumptions behind them and would appease a straight forward logic? The FES apparently doesn't approve of photographic evidence (Thanks to photoshop and similar software). I'm not yet convinced of both theories, to be honest.
Oh, but I sure you don't really understand FE "perspective" ( ??? I sure don't anyway! ???). I am sure you will learn much from: http://wiki.tfes.org/Sunset (http://wiki.tfes.org/Sunset).Why do you day red sunsets wouldn't be possible? The light from the sun would still have to travel through the same amount of atmosphere horizontally whether it was "setting" beneath the horizon or extremely distant.Yes but if your sun remains at the height stated in the Wiki (2,000-3,000 miles) and never goes down it wouldn't shine on the underside of a cloud that was only 2,000-18,000 ft (altocumulus the best sunset cloud) up, not on a flat plane.
Constant Speed of the Sunsee more in: http://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun (http://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun)
Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?
A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.
It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.
The phenomenon of the Sun's apparent magnification or shrinking throughout the day is a common cause of confusion among round earthers trying to understand the Flat Earth Theory. This article serves as an introduction to the subject.more in: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)
Contents
1 Magnification and Shrinking
2 Headlight Example
3 Beam Divergence
4 Distinctness of the Sun
5 See also:
Magnification and Shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"and they laughed when someone suggested "Turtles all the way down!"
A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, while others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.
Okay so I lifted some dimensions from the wiki and put them into my drawing program, everything is to scale apart from the thickness of the cloud which is the equivalent of 230 miles high as it would have been hardly visible and a cloud has got to look like a cloud.
They are vectored Pdf’s so you can zoom in a bit.
I have balanced it all on the RE for the hell of it.
The central cloud is representative of the distances you would be getting sunsets but the suns distance is probably a bit further out than necessary, however I think the point is made.
Once the FE’er has decided that the Earth is a plane do they check what things would look like? (Back at ya! Neptune).
So we have a 32mile diameter sun (2,500miles up) 12,000 miles away from a 200mile wide cloud 2 miles off the ground and you can see the angled line coming in from the right, I have put another cloud way over the other side of the earth just to show it never, ever ,ever gets low enough to illuminate the underside, I would say case closed but I just know there will be the ubiquitous “Aether” get out clause heading this way.
Ah the smug nature of the rounders comments... Can you feel it?
You guys talk a big game but yet still NONE of you have your own evidence the earth is round.
All any Ball Earth believers do is post links from "science" websites and use that as their evidence.
That is another man's work, not yours.
If round earth is so easy to prove, then why don't any of you have your own evidence?
The fact that and the way that rounders even attempt to defend round earth tells me a lot about this so called science you all spew.
Most rounders have never even left their own country, state, home town, yet you all are so certain of the shape of the earth.
Rounders go through their entire life believing all they read about science. Never once having an original thought, experiment, or ground breaking discovery.
Space is nothing more than a mathematical theory, never proven, never explored, never conquered by man, ever.
The science you know is nothing more than complicated math to complete a puzzle of illusion for the weak to snack on.
Jokes on you. Go back to your History Channel and Discovery Channel for your daily brainwashing. Then, please, come back and "educate" the less fortunate and under studied some more...
You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.
Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth. We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator. We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect. We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round. We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day. We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program. We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides. We have centuries of proof. You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.
Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?
It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth. We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator. We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect. We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round. We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day. We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program. We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides. We have centuries of proof. You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.
Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?
It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.
No, there's way more. That's just an appetizer. But if you're not at least a little shaken by that, you must be really, really committed to the flat earth. I mean seriously, you're making up stupid shit like celestial gravitation and trying to pin the rest on refraction, aether, and "everyone is lying but us."Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth. We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator. We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect. We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round. We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day. We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program. We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides. We have centuries of proof. You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.
Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?
It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.
Do you really think any of that stuff is convincing? I never realized how weak the argument for round earth was until I saw someone post it all at once. I would itemize this post and talk about each point but it seems rather pointless. You are committed, your entire dorky life depends on space travel being real.
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth. We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator. We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect. We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round. We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day. We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program. We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides. We have centuries of proof. You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.
Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?
It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.
The bit about the satellites is probably the most obvious, but I still have yet to hear an explanation from you for why there are two high tides each day.Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth. We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator. We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect. We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round. We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day. We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program. We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides. We have centuries of proof. You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.
Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?
It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.
None of that is really basic or obvious.
I looked at your diagram, but charting where the sun actually is, and where it appears are two different things, even on round earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
Look how extreme the difference is between the "apparent" position of the sun and the "actual" position, if we account for atmospheric refraction. On flat earth model, it's purported to be "perspective" that makes the sun appear lower to the horizon, which is the "apparent" position not the "actual" position.
If I seem to flounder it's because I don't really have a definitive stance on the shape of the earth. I have an agnostic view as far as that goes, I'm equally disturbed by those who ignore evidence for either model. I'm more intrigued by the possibility that the Earth may be stationary, in case you didn't notice, geocentricism is another long-dead concept that's also on the rise again.
The bit about the satellites is probably the most obvious, but I still have yet to hear an explanation from you for why there are two high tides each day.Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth. We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator. We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect. We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round. We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day. We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program. We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides. We have centuries of proof. You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.
Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?
It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.
None of that is really basic or obvious.
Sure to your eyes the earth looks flat, but when I look around with open eyes I see numerous things that simply do fit with that conclusion.You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.
Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?
It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.
Sure to your eyes the earth looks flat, but when I look around with open eyes I see numerous things that simply do fit with that conclusion.
Everything from the sun and moon staying the same size all the time they are visible to the sun rising in the East (here and I gather EVERYWHERE) at the equinoxes - you might check it out on 7 days time - I see it rises almost in the east here now.
So I what do I see with my own etes:
- The Earth looks flat and the horizon looks flat - it does, simply because the earth is huge![1]
- On a clear day looking out to sea the sky-horizon interface is a sharp line (it is only about 5 km away!). On a flat earth it would have to fade into the distance with no distinct boundary.
- The sun appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
- The sun stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - actually it sometimes seems a bit little larger at sunrise and sunset.
- The sun always appears to be a disk, though sometimes a bit distorted at sunrise and sunset.
- The sun always rises due east and sets due west on each equinox - here, and I am told it happens all over the earth.
- Likewise the moon appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
- The moon stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at moonrise and moonset.
- The moon always appears to show the same face wherever it is in the sky. (And from wherever we observe it - though we have to travel for this observation).
- The full moon always appears to be a circle, though sometimes a bit distorted at moonrise and moonset.
How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?
| (http://i.imgur.com/HbBEKrt.gif) | (http://i.imgur.com/p5rqCJc.gif) |
in your horrible rotating globe photoshop it seems to represent at least a quarter of a day. Are you telling me that over 6 hours clouds mearly smudge a little? Eventhough I can look at the sky and watch them move. Even the weather channel shows clouds moving across an entire region in less time than that. And you still havent explained sex in the clouds. I guess nature can be funny sometimes lol
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you.
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you.
False. I would recommend an elementary lesson on logic before you proceed further. I also appreciate how you ignored my previous post. Typical of round earthers...
But it's not fake! It's obviously fucking not! The only reason you say that is out of necessity, because it would mean you're wrong!Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you.
False. I would recommend an elementary lesson on logic before you proceed further. I also appreciate how you ignored my previous post. Typical of round earthers...
Exactly. He didnt even address what I said about the lack of actual cloud movement... Only that that graphic is somehow evidence even though it's obviously fake.
But it's not fake! It's obviously fucking not! The only reason you say that is out of necessity, because it would mean you're wrong!Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you.
False. I would recommend an elementary lesson on logic before you proceed further. I also appreciate how you ignored my previous post. Typical of round earthers...
Exactly. He didnt even address what I said about the lack of actual cloud movement... Only that that graphic is somehow evidence even though it's obviously fake.
And by the way, it was rabinoz' post you were talking about. I was going to let him address it. But if anyone found out that the image didn't match real life, they would have flipped their shit. Anecdotal evidence won't get you out of this hole.
Calling NASA dog shit is far worse a transgression than simply thinking the earth is flat. And when you lose your paycheck to the bet, I sincerely hope they cut off your internet access.But it's not fake! It's obviously fucking not! The only reason you say that is out of necessity, because it would mean you're wrong!Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you.
False. I would recommend an elementary lesson on logic before you proceed further. I also appreciate how you ignored my previous post. Typical of round earthers...
Exactly. He didnt even address what I said about the lack of actual cloud movement... Only that that graphic is somehow evidence even though it's obviously fake.
And by the way, it was rabinoz' post you were talking about. I was going to let him address it. But if anyone found out that the image didn't match real life, they would have flipped their shit. Anecdotal evidence won't get you out of this hole.
How the fuck do you know? Just because you're the equivalent of the head of the robotics club at your college doesn't make you an expert on "space" photography.
The only reason you believe it is real is out of necessity, because it would mean ask the Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan and the thousands of hours of NASA fan boy shit you've done would have been a waste of your time, in effect, most of your life would have been a fucking waste.
On the other hand, you think I'm somehow umbilically attached to the earth being flat when I just heard about it 2 months ago. You're wrong. I haven't said once that the earth is flat. All I hold is that NASA is utter dog shit and all photos and evidence provided by them is generally unverified and is best wholesale gobbled up by losers like you.
Man hasn't left earths atmosphere. He didnt land on the moon. And you are a virgin.
Id bet my pay check on any of those facts.
Clearly not rational because I disagree with you, right.Clearly not rational because you keep dismissing everything that rabinoz and I say without any sort of reason, and because you never bothered to look at evidence that NASA is telling the truth. Anyone who truly weighs both sides fairly will reach the conclusion that we've been to the moon, and that we are on a round earth. And those who don't will end up like you, blindly cursing an organization they have no reason to hate with evidence they never bothered to understand.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
I think you're problem is you're entirely too educated in all the wrong ways.
Clearly not rational because I disagree with you, right.Clearly not rational because you keep dismissing everything that rabinoz and I say without any sort of reason, and because you never bothered to look at evidence that NASA is telling the truth. Anyone who truly weighs both sides fairly will reach the conclusion that we've been to the moon, and that we are on a round earth. And those who don't will end up like you, blindly cursing an organization they have no reason to hate with evidence they never bothered to understand.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
I think you're problem is you're entirely too educated in all the wrong ways.
Clearly not rational because I disagree with you, right.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
I think you're problem is you're entirely too educated in all the wrong ways.
[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?
[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?
There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.
The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes. With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel. The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told. It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed. Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.
Iridium flares can be observed. They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's. You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.
You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.
(http://www.ctcameraeye.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/sats-meteor-m42.jpg)
You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/
IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth. My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.
Well, maybe it doesn't tell you that, but if they aren't in orbit, then how the fuck are they up there?![How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?
There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.
The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes. With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel. The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told. It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed. Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.
Iridium flares can be observed. They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's. You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.
You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.
(http://www.ctcameraeye.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/sats-meteor-m42.jpg)
You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/ (http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/)
IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth. My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.
Nothing about that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe earth.
[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?
There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.
The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes. With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel. The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told. It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed. Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.
Iridium flares can be observed. They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's. You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.
You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.
(http://www.ctcameraeye.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/sats-meteor-m42.jpg)
You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/
IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth. My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.
Nothing about that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe earth.
I said "looks flat"! Sure and a rainbow certainly "looks to end in the field just over there!" - you go there and it moves! You really do "always believe you eyes"? Of course I claim that the real reason it "looks flat" is that the earth is huge - and it is!Sure to your eyes the earth looks flat, but when I look around with open eyes I see numerous things that simply do fit with that conclusion.Lets see about that.
Everything from the sun and moon staying the same size all the time they are visible to the sun rising in the East (here and I gather EVERYWHERE) at the equinoxes - you might check it out on 7 days time - I see it rises almost in the east here now.
So I what do I see with my own eyes:Quote from: rabinozThis is actually a case of you disbelieving your own eyes.
- The Earth looks flat and the horizon looks flat - it does, simply because the earth is huge![1]
Sorry, but I don't get my earth model from computer games - maybe I should!Quote from: rabinozI see things get squished into the distance until they are so small that I can't see it anymore, creating a line. Nothing about that is incompatible with a Flat Earth. The same is seen on computer games.
- On a clear day looking out to sea the sky-horizon interface is a sharp line (it is only about 5 km away!). On a flat earth it would have to fade into the distance with no distinct boundary.
I said "appears" to . . . . . And the sun does appear to go below the horizon right down to the the final tiny arc disappearing into a bright dot! This link might show what I mean: http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.eiu.riseset/observe-sunrise-and-sunset/ (http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.eiu.riseset/observe-sunrise-and-sunset/)Quote from: rabinozNo one sees this. We see the sun intersect with the horizon. No one sees it go "behind" it.
- The sun appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
Yes "the sun is undergoing an enlarging illusion", but it IS an illusion due to the proximity of objects to compare it with.Quote from: rabinozIf you saw the sun get larger at sunset then that is evidence that the sun is undergoing an enlarging illusion of some sort.
- The sun stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - actually it sometimes seems a bit little larger at sunrise and sunset.
Some claim the sun i s not a disk. In any case I fail to see how your "spotlight" sun can look like a FULL DISK and suddenly not be there at sunset - more magic I guess!Quote from: rabinozThe sun is a globe in Flat Earth Theory. I am not sure what you are getting at.
- The sun always appears to be a disk, though sometimes a bit distorted at sunrise and sunset.
I never said that I saw that! And, really are you going to doubt such a well known fact? When you travel don't you look up sunrise/set times of places you are going to, probably on somewhere like: http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/ (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/). Ever found them wrong!Quote from: rabinozI highly doubt you saw what happened from every point on the earth on equinox.
- The sun always rises due east and sets due west on each equinox - here, and I am told it happens all over the earth.
See my sun comments!Quote from: rabinozNo one saw this.
- Likewise the moon appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
See my sun comments!Quote from: rabinozAgain, admitting to an enlargement illusion.
- The moon stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at moonrise and moonset.
That statement is utter rubbish. Yes, we can see up to 59% of the moon's surface due to the moon's libration:Quote from: rabinozThat's not actually true, the moon does shift a little (although admittedly not as much as it would according to classic perspective on an FE.. but we say that classic perspective theory is wrong, anyway).
- The moon always appears to show the same face wherever it is in the sky. (And from wherever we observe it - though we have to travel for this observation).
In fact, over time, the moon shifts so much that it was possible to make a map of the back side of the moon decades before NASA claimed to have sent space ships to look there.
Lunar librationfrom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration)
The Moon generally has one hemisphere facing the Earth, due to tidal locking. Therefore, humans' first view of the far side of the Moon resulted from lunar exploration in the 1960s; however, this simple picture is only approximately true: over time, slightly more than half (about 59%) of the Moon's surface is seen from Earth due to libration.
Libration is manifested as a slow rocking back and forth of the Moon as viewed from Earth, permitting an observer to see slightly different halves of the surface at different times.
Sure, but please explain how it gets illuminated, especially at full moon whaen it is at the opposite side of the earth from the sun - around 12,000 miles away from the "spotlight sun", which is supposedly shining down where it is day. Maybe you could explain on the diagram below!Quote from: rabinozThe moon is a globe in Flat Earth Theory.
- The full moon always appears to be a circle, though sometimes a bit distorted at moonrise and moonset.
There is plenty of evidence (http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/) that the earth is round. There is also plenty of evidence (http://www.clavius.org/) that NASA is to be trusted. So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat? What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying? Remember to cite your sources.
Hi, friend.
I think of it in this way. A computer programmed to do a certain function would perform it with whatever data we feed in. Even if the data is wrong, the machine would process and give a logical answer (according to what we fed in). What if we were wrong in our assumptions? We were taught from childhood that earth is round. Don't you think we have already accepted that without questioning?
Could you please mention a few evidences you speak of? Which doesn't have any assumptions behind them and would appease a straight forward logic? The FES apparently doesn't approve of photographic evidence (Thanks to photoshop and similar software). I'm not yet convinced of both theories, to be honest.
Hello Rain,
From my perspective as an avid watcher of the skies (day, night and the transitions) there are a few observations that are easy to replicate but don't mesh with the FE scheme of things. Earth Shadow, explained here (http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fza60.htm) can be observed most clear days either as the sun sets or rises, something it doesn't do on the FE. Sunsets over the sea, clearly dipping below the horizon when it shouldn't and the accompanying clouds lit from beneath when the FE wiki says it (the sun) stays at a constant height that would make those stunning red sunsets impossible. Also noctilucent clouds, night shining very high clouds illuminated by the sun over the horizon (see https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=1&t=cloud92&i=0). There are many more if you would like to look at these sites and take yourself out to observe. And Neptune. I have and taken the photo's but just not as good as the ones on the links, anyway hope this is of some interest in your search, good luck.
Why do you day red sunsets wouldn't be possible? The light from the sun would still have to travel through the same amount of atmosphere horizontally whether it was "setting" beneath the horizon or extremely distant.
One thing I dont understand is how the sun is said to be what illuminates the moon but ive seen the moon out same time as sun very close in proximity and you would think light from sun would hit it from the back. Also would the light be able to illuminate a spherical moon so evenly? Doesn't it revolve around earth as we rotate, shouldnt we see multiple phases in one night?
I don't know. Never claimed to know, and I don't think "flat earth theory" is the end all of celestial movements. There is still a lot of explanation needed for anyone to take it seriously. Either way, that doesn't fix the holes I see in the heliocentric theory. I can only hope to ever know for sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, the shape of the world we live on.
I don't know. Never claimed to know, and I don't think "flat earth theory" is the end all of celestial movements. There is still a lot of explanation needed for anyone to take it seriously. Either way, that doesn't fix the holes I see in the heliocentric theory. I can only hope to ever know for sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, the shape of the world we live on.
There is plenty of evidence (http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/) that the earth is round. There is also plenty of evidence (http://www.clavius.org/) that NASA is to be trusted. So why should anyone discard that evidence in favor of believing that the earth is flat? What is your best, most incontrovertible evidence that the earth is flat and NASA is lying? Remember to cite your sources.
Hi, friend.
I think of it in this way. A computer programmed to do a certain function would perform it with whatever data we feed in. Even if the data is wrong, the machine would process and give a logical answer (according to what we fed in). What if we were wrong in our assumptions? We were taught from childhood that earth is round. Don't you think we have already accepted that without questioning?
Could you please mention a few evidences you speak of? Which doesn't have any assumptions behind them and would appease a straight forward logic? The FES apparently doesn't approve of photographic evidence (Thanks to photoshop and similar software). I'm not yet convinced of both theories, to be honest.
Hello Rain,
From my perspective as an avid watcher of the skies (day, night and the transitions) there are a few observations that are easy to replicate but don't mesh with the FE scheme of things. Earth Shadow, explained here (http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fza60.htm) can be observed most clear days either as the sun sets or rises, something it doesn't do on the FE. Sunsets over the sea, clearly dipping below the horizon when it shouldn't and the accompanying clouds lit from beneath when the FE wiki says it (the sun) stays at a constant height that would make those stunning red sunsets impossible. Also noctilucent clouds, night shining very high clouds illuminated by the sun over the horizon (see https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/find-a-cloud/#p=1&t=cloud92&i=0). There are many more if you would like to look at these sites and take yourself out to observe. And Neptune. I have and taken the photo's but just not as good as the ones on the links, anyway hope this is of some interest in your search, good luck.
Why do you day red sunsets wouldn't be possible? The light from the sun would still have to travel through the same amount of atmosphere horizontally whether it was "setting" beneath the horizon or extremely distant.
One thing I dont understand is how the sun is said to be what illuminates the moon but ive seen the moon out same time as sun very close in proximity and you would think light from sun would hit it from the back. Also would the light be able to illuminate a spherical moon so evenly? Doesn't it revolve around earth as we rotate, shouldnt we see multiple phases in one night?
You've seen the moon out at the same time as the sun but FE theory dictates that the sun and moon are exactly opposite of each other. How do you believe the moon could be visible during the day considering this? How is a disc with a diameter of 32 miles clearly visible from thousands of miles away? How could this disc be seen as a disc when being viewed in an oblique way?
It may come as a complete surprise to the so-called "flat earth believers" ,but that 99.9999nth part of the world knows for sure,, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the shape of the world is the globe on which we live.
Sure, they thought the earth was flat. There wasn't much point in thinking otherwise. That doesn't mean they were right. That was the time before accurate weather forecasts, seismology, and tectonics.It may come as a complete surprise to the so-called "flat earth believers" ,but that 99.9999nth part of the world knows for sure,, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the shape of the world is the globe on which we live.
They don't know for sure. At one point everyone knew the Earth was flat. Not just morons either, society's best and brightest. Ancient civilizations like the Mayans, who by all accounts were extremely precise and advanced in the field of astronomy, believed the earth to be flat.
The point is, people believe what they are taught and told. It's the nature of the dissemination of knowledge. To look back in hindsight at ideas that were accepted in the past, and think you would have any inclination to doubt them, then you are just lying to yourself.
It may come as a complete surprise to the so-called "flat earth believers" ,but that 99.9999nth part of the world knows for sure,, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the shape of the world is the globe on which we live.
They don't know for sure. At one point everyone knew the Earth was flat. Not just morons either, society's best and brightest. Ancient civilizations like the Mayans, who by all accounts were extremely precise and advanced in the field of astronomy, believed the earth to be flat.
The point is, people believe what they are taught and told. It's the nature of the dissemination of knowledge. To look back in hindsight at ideas that were accepted in the past, and think you would have any inclination to doubt them, then you are just lying to yourself.
It was not done to hinder science, but out of the belief it was heresy to suggest the Earth was not the center of the universe.
Travel across the Earth until relatively recently in human history was not very common.
Seems when education and traveling long distance became more common the belief in a flat Earth became less common.
The only time I know of in recorded history when an organization tried to suppress knowledge about the shape of the Earth was the Roman Catholic Church. It was not done to hinder science, but out of the belief it was heresy to suggest the Earth was not the center of the universe.
The flat-earth myth and creationismI don't necessarily accept everything on that site, but that reference is worth looking at.
The idea that Christians once commonly believed in a flat earth for theological reasons is a myth. The story was invented to promote the claim that Christians have widely resisted scientific advancement due to doctrinal constraints. A major motivating factor behind propagating this myth has been to bolster the Darwinian worldview and to further the goal of displacing the biblical worldview. No evidence exists to support the common claim that scientists were once persecuted for opposing the flat-earth belief or advocating the spherical earth view, which has been commonly accepted for millennia.from: http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism (http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism)
[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?
There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.
The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes. With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel. The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told. It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed. Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.
Iridium flares can be observed. They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's. You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.
You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.
(http://www.ctcameraeye.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/sats-meteor-m42.jpg)
You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/
IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth. My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.
Nothing about that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe earth.
I assume you still have access to the telescope you used for the Bishop Experiment. You have access to the internet since you can post in these forums. You got all the tools you need to find out the how, when and where to observe the ISS. Something is up there, moving faster then any plane I have seen. Viewing it through my binoculars I could make out the general shape and solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes using the same satellite are pointed can give you a pretty good idea of the altitude of the source of the signal. Same reason why almost since radio was invented the source of the signal could be located. If you are really meticulous and exact you should get a very good estimate of the location the satellite signal is coming from. Is there a flaw in my logic? Satellite dishes using the same satellite need to be set at different elevations and directions in different locations. If you get LOP's that show an altitude in the atmosphere then you have evidence that space flight is a lie.
Find reports for the Iridium flares prior to the late 90's? Reason I am using the Iridium satellites is they are usually the brightest things in the night sky.
You can combine the long exposure pictures with the SatTV suggestion. Do they at least reasonably coincide? Is there any documentation prior to spaceflight observations of these things not moving in the night sky?
You can not track a satellite and at least note the amount of time you were able to track it? You can not do this? https://amateurgeophysics.wordpress.com/earth-orbiting-satellites/the-doppler-shift-of-satellite-radio-beacons/
If I wanted to prove space travel is impossible I would not just say it is. I would look for ways to prove to myself or others I am right and if within my means would do so. The above are the cheapest and relatively easiest ways I could think of to gather data and evidence.
Edit: If you can determine that something man made is up there then at the very least it should help to refine the FE model. Like the altitude of what I will call the can not pass line. Not 100% sure where space starts on the FE model.
This thread is getting out of hand. Perhaps even this forum.
I have a simple thought experiment.
Imagine I have gun - two bullets.
If I were to shoot a round earther they would expect to suffer serious damage if not die as a result of the bullet damaging them.
If I were to shoot a flat earther they would not know what to expect as obviously guns don't work as science and technology is all wrong as the people who work in those fields are all part of some great consipiracy. They might come up with a theory that they were hit by an air blast/sound wave as since they could't have possibly seen the bullet travelling as fast as it does and so obviously the bullet doesn't exist as you can't see it in motion. Thus they were injured by air/sound.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the flat earth forum this (see thought experiment above) is the pure absurdity of the evidence put forth by the flat earthers. God fucking damn they are some stupid people. God save the Queen and have mercy on their souls. (Not religous but seems appropriate.)
[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?
There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.
The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes. With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel. The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told. It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed. Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.
Iridium flares can be observed. They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's. You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.
You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.
(http://www.ctcameraeye.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/sats-meteor-m42.jpg)
You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/
IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth. My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.
Nothing about that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe earth.
I assume you still have access to the telescope you used for the Bishop Experiment. You have access to the internet since you can post in these forums. You got all the tools you need to find out the how, when and where to observe the ISS. Something is up there, moving faster then any plane I have seen. Viewing it through my binoculars I could make out the general shape and solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes using the same satellite are pointed can give you a pretty good idea of the altitude of the source of the signal. Same reason why almost since radio was invented the source of the signal could be located. If you are really meticulous and exact you should get a very good estimate of the location the satellite signal is coming from. Is there a flaw in my logic? Satellite dishes using the same satellite need to be set at different elevations and directions in different locations. If you get LOP's that show an altitude in the atmosphere then you have evidence that space flight is a lie.
Find reports for the Iridium flares prior to the late 90's? Reason I am using the Iridium satellites is they are usually the brightest things in the night sky.
You can combine the long exposure pictures with the SatTV suggestion. Do they at least reasonably coincide? Is there any documentation prior to spaceflight observations of these things not moving in the night sky?
You can not track a satellite and at least note the amount of time you were able to track it? You can not do this? https://amateurgeophysics.wordpress.com/earth-orbiting-satellites/the-doppler-shift-of-satellite-radio-beacons/
If I wanted to prove space travel is impossible I would not just say it is. I would look for ways to prove to myself or others I am right and if within my means would do so. The above are the cheapest and relatively easiest ways I could think of to gather data and evidence.
Edit: If you can determine that something man made is up there then at the very least it should help to refine the FE model. Like the altitude of what I will call the can not pass line. Not 100% sure where space starts on the FE model.
Again, none of that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe.
spotlight sunHang on, Tom said the sun is a globe in FE theory. This would explain how the moon is illuminated.
There is point that I cannot get explained anywhere! and that is how the phases of the moon are explained on the FE model.spotlight sunHang on, Tom said the sun is a globe in FE theory. This would explain how the moon is illuminated.
Then again, if the sun is a globe (and not a disk or focal point as eluded to in other threads) in order to not illuminate all of the FE it must emit "bendy light" except for where it illuminates the moon.
More magic?
Quote from: The Wiki The Phases of the MoonThe diagram on the right is how I interpret the geometry at the time of a full moon. Note that the distances are to scale, but the object sizes are exaggerated (though the sun and the moon are to scale with each other). The sun and moon are placed 180° apart on the equator as they must be for a full moon. | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Spotlight%20Sun%20Moon_zpsy5mjwm6j.png) |
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Spotlight%20Sun%20Moon_zpsy5mjwm6j.png)
The diagram on the right is how I interpret the geometry at the time of a full moon. Note that the distances are to scale, but the object sizes are exaggerated (though the sun and the moon are to scale with each other). The sun and moon are placed 180° apart on the equator as they must be for a full moon.
Now, could someone please explain:
How the moon gets any illumination from the sun at all[3]. Are we to postulate a "special ray of light" from the sun, just to illuminate the moon? With the geometry on the right the viewer directly under the moon would see a half-moon, the other view (the moon should be on the horizon) would see closer to (but not quite) a full moon.
How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it full - as we know happens if real life?
How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it the same size - as we know happens if real life?
[1] A "a shadow from the sun illuminating", a shadow illuminating, really? Some better wording is surely called for!
[2] The Wiki also says the moon "wobbles" up and down, but I fail to see how a "wobble" can help with the moon some 12,000 miles from the sun.
[3] Remember we are assured that "a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time." So, presumably the moon gets its illumination from the sun.
Good thing you edited out the "are you stupid?" comment, it might have shown your true colors.Quote from: rabinozThe diagram on the right is how I interpret the geometry at the time of a full moon. Note that the distances are to scale, but the object sizes are exaggerated (though the sun and the moon are to scale with each other). The sun and moon are placed 180° apart on the equator as they must be for a full moon.
Now, could someone please explain:
How the moon gets any illumination from the sun at all[3]. Are we to postulate a "special ray of light" from the sun, just to illuminate the moon? With the geometry on the right the viewer directly under the moon would see a half-moon, the other view (the moon should be on the horizon) would see closer to (but not quite) a full moon.
How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it full - as we know happens if real life?
How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it the same size - as we know happens if real life?
The sun shines light from all directions on its surface. It's not a lamp. It's light is limited in its duration because of the non-transparent atmosphere and its decent into the surface is an illusion of perspective.
The sun and moon at a level of about 3000 miles above the earth are not within the atmosphere of the earth, and so the light between those two objects is unimpeded.Quote from: rabinoz[1] A "a shadow from the sun illuminating", a shadow illuminating, really? Some better wording is surely called for!
[2] The Wiki also says the moon "wobbles" up and down, but I fail to see how a "wobble" can help with the moon some 12,000 miles from the sun.
[3] Remember we are assured that "a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time." So, presumably the moon gets its illumination from the sun.
In the sentence "When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time." it clearly says that the sun is the thing doing the illuminating in that sentence. The word sun and illuminating are directly next to each other, while shadow and illuminating are not. We've explained this to you several times now.
How does it answer the question on how the full moon appears to be full for everybody though, from the peremiter of the night shadow to people standing directly beneath it?
The illumination of the Moon in your model requires too many assumption and complication.How does it answer the question on how the full moon appears to be full for everybody though, from the peremiter of the night shadow to people standing directly beneath it?
I believe that perspective behaves differently than is assumed by classical Ancient Greek perspective over very large distances. When the moon sets you are not looking at its "side". There are no real world examples to tell us the truth of perspective at large scales, and it is a matter left to assumption.
Imagine that we have a giant solved rubix cube:
(http://cdn.instructables.com/F0M/XWP4/F6S98L9W/F0MXWP4F6S98L9W.MEDIUM.jpg)
When the rubix cube is 10 feet above you imagine that we are looking at its white underside. It is directly over you and we can only see white. Now imagine that the rubix cube starts slowly receding away from you into the distance. You will quickly see one of colors sides of the cube as it recedes and changes angle. It will get far enough that the white bottom of the cube will go away and you will only see it from the colored side.
Now imagine that we have a giant rubix cube 30,000 feet above you. It is directly over you. When the rubix cube recedes away from you into the distance, it will take much longer for you to see the colored side of the rubix cube, and for the white bottom to go away.
We assert that the sun and moon are at such a great distance in the sky that they hardly change angle at all when the move over the observer's limited viewing area.
The sun shines light from all directions on its surface. It's not a lamp. It's light is limited in its duration across the earth's surface because of the not-perfectly-transparent atmosphere, and its decent into the surface is an illusion of perspective.
The sun and moon at a level of about 3000 miles above the earth are not within the atmosphere of the earth, and so the light between those two objects is unimpeded.
How do you explain day/night cycles and seasons?It unequivocally says The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. And Junker says we should consult the Wiki!
Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves.
Yes, and the Royal We is still wrong! In "a shadow from the sun illuminating" the phrase "from the sun" is a phrase describing "the shadow". The sentence clearly claims that "the shadow is coming from the sun" and that this shadow is what is "illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time". If you can interpret "a shadow from the sun" any other way we speak different languages (Mind, from my time in the USA that is not so far fetched.) But that is a minor issue. I certainly accept the intention of what the Wiki says.Quote from: rabinoz[1] A "a shadow from the sun illuminating", a shadow illuminating, really? Some better wording is surely called for!
[2] The Wiki also says the moon "wobbles" up and down, but I fail to see how a "wobble" can help with the moon some 12,000 miles from the sun.
[3] Remember we are assured that "a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time." So, presumably the moon gets its illumination from the sun.
In the sentence "When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time" it clearly says that the sun is the thing doing the illuminating in that sentence. The words sun and illuminating are directly next to each other, while shadow and illuminating are not. We've explained this to you several times now.
I haven't the slightest idea what your Rubik's cube is supposed to represent, but please remember that (according the FE) the moon is just 3,000 miles up, so after it has moved 3,000 miles away "horizontally" the angle of the moon will have changed 45°. That is only about 2 hours after midnight. The real moon keeps the same face to us (very closely) the whole night.How does it answer the question on how the full moon appears to be full for everybody though, from the peremiter of the night shadow to people standing directly beneath it?
I believe that perspective behaves differently than is assumed by classical Ancient Greek perspective over very large distances. When the moon sets you are not looking at its "side". There are no real world examples to tell us the truth of perspective at large scales, and it is a matter left to assumption.
Imagine that we have a giant solved rubix cube:(http://cdn.instructables.com/F0M/XWP4/F6S98L9W/F0MXWP4F6S98L9W.MEDIUM.jpg)
When the rubix cube is 10 feet above you imagine that we are looking at its white underside. It is directly over you and we can only see white. Now imagine that the rubix cube starts slowly receding away from you into the distance. You will quickly see one of colors sides of the cube as it recedes and changes angle. It will get far enough that the white bottom of the cube will go away and you will only see it from the colored side.
Now imagine that we have a giant rubix cube 30,000 feet above you. It is directly over you. When the rubix cube recedes away from you into the distance, it will take much longer for you to see the colored side of the rubix cube, and for the white bottom to go away.
We assert that the sun and moon are at such a great distance in the sky that they hardly change angle at all when the move over the observer's limited viewing area.
The illumination of the Moon in your model requires too many assumption and complication.
Tell me how this model isn't simpler:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Moon_phases_en.jpg/800px-Moon_phases_en.jpg)
Because this is a 2D representation of it, viewed from sideways the Moon is either above or below the ecliptic, were the Moon to cross the ecliptic during a full Moon, a Lunar eclipse occur.The illumination of the Moon in your model requires too many assumption and complication.
Tell me how this model isn't simpler:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Moon_phases_en.jpg/800px-Moon_phases_en.jpg)
How in this model is the moon full when it is "behind" the Earth in relation to the Sun?
So the moon is continuously above or below the Earth entirely? So it can get direct sunlight?
Otherwise, we'd have the bottom or the top of the moon getting shadows right?
All the while the face of the moon still points perfectly at Earth from wherever you are, correct?
So the moon is continuously above or below the Earth entirely? So it can get direct sunlight?
Otherwise, we'd have the bottom or the top of the moon getting shadows right?
All the while the face of the moon still points perfectly at Earth from wherever you are, correct?
Correct-ish.
The moon isn't always pointing perfectly at earth. It librates throughout its orbit, as shown here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.gif)
And here's the plane that it is on:
(http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/GEOL101/Study/Images/LunarOrbit.jpg)
You sound like you're starting to get it, but you also sound incredulous, so I can't tell.
That's just a simulated view, for the sake of smoothness. You can find many more pictures here (https://www.google.com/search?q=motion+of+moon&espv=2&biw=1242&bih=566&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2m82vmsjLAhXC7CYKHVWCASYQ_AUIBigB#q=libration&tbm=isch&tbs=itp:animated&imgrc=_).
Are there any actual photos or videos of the moon doing that? That looks like a bad CGI to me.
What I still don't understand, even if the moon is 5 degrees and 9 minutes off of the Earth's ecliptic plane, it doesn't seem like the sun light should be lighting up the surface of the moon, through the Earth. Are we saying that the light bends around Earth much to the same way Flat Earth Theory is often criticized for how it explains light from the sun?
You ask "Are there any actual photos or videos of the moon doing that? That looks like a bad CGI to me." Why does it look like "bad CGI"? and whyever would anyone bother to make a fake CGI of something that anyone can check up on by simply looking up at night? It wouldn't make any sense at all - who would gain out of such a deception? Anyone can take moon photos, just need the right times to show libration.So the moon is continuously above or below the Earth entirely? So it can get direct sunlight?
Otherwise, we'd have the bottom or the top of the moon getting shadows right?
All the while the face of the moon still points perfectly at Earth from wherever you are, correct?
Correct-ish.
The moon isn't always pointing perfectly at earth.
It librates throughout its orbit, as shown here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.gif)
And here's the plane that it is on:
(http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/GEOL101/Study/Images/LunarOrbit.jpg)
You sound like you're starting to get it, but you also sound incredulous, so I can't tell.
Are there any actual photos or videos of the moon doing that? That looks like a bad CGI to me.
What I still don't understand, even if the moon is 5 degrees and 9 minutes off of the Earth's ecliptic plane, it doesn't seem like the sun light should be lighting up the surface of the moon, through the Earth. Are we saying that the light bends around Earth much to the same way Flat Earth Theory is often criticized for how it explains light from the sun?
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20-%20full%20at%20night_zpszcopuu0w.png) Full moon at night | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20in%20morning%20-%20625_zpspn1mr96e.png) Almost full moon in daylight |
You talk about bendy light a lot but isnt that exact type of light you would need to illuminate the moon evenly on a full moon? Bluemoon calls it refraction through our atmosphere. Sounds like bendy light to me.No, refraction only applies during an eclipse. Remember, the moon is at a 5 degree incline. Most of the time the earth and the moon are not lined up at full moon.
If NASA was not part of a conspiracy then it would prove the Earth is a spheroid orbited by a moon which both orbit the sun a long with other planets and moons. So by necessity any thing involving satellites or space travel has to be fake.
The evidence provided by science is flawed because they are assuming the Earth is a spheroid and/or scientist are part of the conspiracy. For the Earth to be flat I lean towards a lot scientist involved in the Earth sciences would have to be part of the conspiracy. Many calculations, observations, experiments, etc are done assuming the Earth is ball like. That implies the error would resonate through many fields of study and become apparent. So IMHO it is safe to assume many scientist would be involved covering up the shape of the Earth.
Ah the smug nature of the rounders comments... Can you feel it?
You guys talk a big game but yet still NONE of you have your own evidence the earth is round.
All any Ball Earth believers do is post links from "science" websites and use that as their evidence.
That is another man's work, not yours.
If round earth is so easy to prove, then why don't any of you have your own evidence?
The fact that and the way that rounders even attempt to defend round earth tells me a lot about this so called science you all spew.
Most rounders have never even left their own country, state, home town, yet you all are so certain of the shape of the earth.
Rounders go through their entire life believing all they read about science. Never once having an original thought, experiment, or ground breaking discovery.
Space is nothing more than a mathematical theory, never proven, never explored, never conquered by man, ever.
The science you know is nothing more than complicated math to complete a puzzle of illusion for the weak to snack on.
Jokes on you. Go back to your History Channel and Discovery Channel for your daily brainwashing. Then, please, come back and "educate" the less fortunate and under studied some more...
Are there any actual photos or videos of the moon doing that? That looks like a bad CGI to me.
You talk about bendy light a lot but isnt that exact type of light you would need to illuminate the moon evenly on a full moon? Bluemoon calls it refraction through our atmosphere. Sounds like bendy light to me.No you do not need "bendy light" to "illuminate the moon ..... on a full moon" (I purposely removed the evenly - see below).
If NASA was not part of a conspiracy then it would prove the Earth is a spheroid orbited by a moon which both orbit the sun a long with other planets and moons. So by necessity any thing involving satellites or space travel has to be fake.
The evidence provided by science is flawed because they are assuming the Earth is a spheroid and/or scientist are part of the conspiracy. For the Earth to be flat I lean towards a lot scientist involved in the Earth sciences would have to be part of the conspiracy. Many calculations, observations, experiments, etc are done assuming the Earth is ball like. That implies the error would resonate through many fields of study and become apparent. So IMHO it is safe to assume many scientist would be involved covering up the shape of the Earth.
For 2500 years thousands of Astronomers have spent millions of hours observing the stars, planets and their movements and documented their observations!!
Briefly ...
6th Century BC - An ancient Greek Astronomer called Anaximander first proposed a spherical earth 2500 years ago.
280BC (approx) - Aristarchus proposed the heliocentric model of the solar system ie spherical earth and planet orbit the sun, moon orbits the earth, earth rotates to give day and night. He even correctly predicted that earth was the 3rd planet from the sun and the correct order for the other planets which are visible to the naked eye. Unfortunately his work was only mentioned by others, and only rediscovered after Copernicus
240BC (approx) - Eratosthenes used the length of the sun's shadow at two different latitudes to calculate the earth's circumference (with amazing accuracy for the time)
1543 - Copernicus publishes his heliocentric model of the solar system
1608 - A Dutch spectacle maker Hans Lippershey invents the telescope
1609 - Galileo uses a telescope and discovers 4 of Jupiter's moons, The Milky Way Galaxy and Moon craters
1609 - Kepler puts forward his first and second laws of planetary motion
1668 - Newton builds the first reflecting telescope
1758 - Halley correctly predicts the return of Halley's comet in 1758
1905 - Einstein introduces the Theory of Relativity
1923 - Hubble shows the existence of other galaxies
1930 - Pluto is doscovered
1957 - Sputnik is launched by the Russians - the first man made object to orbit the earth
October 1st 1958 - NASA is established in response to the launch of Sputnik by Russia. In the middle of the Cold War it was not acceptable to America that Russia should lead in the "Space Race"
My question to you is ... If NASA is lying to us ... why did all of those thousands of Astronomers who lived BEFORE NASA lie and continue to say that the earth is a sphere? Who paid them??
If the sun acts like a spotlight, just how does the moon get illuminated?No, that's clearly different.We send up high altitude balloons that can see the curvature of the earth.
You mean that you see the terminator line of the spotlight sun.
The Phases of the MoonIs there a special ray aimed at the moon?
When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
Why should anyone believe the earth is flat?Know who surrounds you.
What's that supposed to mean? How is that relevant?Why should anyone believe the earth is flat?Know who surrounds you.
As BlueMoon says, what on earth do you mean!Why should anyone believe the earth is flat?Know who surrounds you.
What? You think you are entitled to free information?No more answers?