The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: danielthedragon on October 19, 2015, 09:38:47 PM
-
Has anyone every tried launching a weather balloon with a camera attached? All the debates and arguments could be solved pretty quickly by just taking a picture from 87.000 ft in the air right?
-
How do other amateur rocket endeavours measure their claims?
Altitude verification for the rocket will be primarily based on signals from an onboard Trimble GPS receiver. Backup will come from accelerometer data.
But in fact satellites orbit at a much lower altitude, and are powered by Tesla's cosmic ray device.
An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure. A radar altimeter uses radio signals. Both methods do not take into account the layers of aether which exist starting at about 13-14 km in altitude and going to about 15 km, and which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance actually travelled by the radar waves.
Nasa managed to keep the true facts away from public view regarding its missions: that is, the crafts ran into a belt of resistance much quicker and at a much lower altitude (12-13 km) than previously thought. For example, in 1958, the Explorer, after sending back some data, not only slowed down, but it went hay-wire as all the electrical circuits on board, including the transmitter and receiver, literally 'fried' out, burned up in the strong electro-magnetic currents of the radiation belt.
-
This is the reason why, in less than five minutes, any debate on how amateur radio operators measure the distance from the earth to the moon by transmitting a signal to the moon (speed of radio waves), or radar signals, is pretty much over (UAFE vs. RE).
Ether waves = radio waves
By having eliminated the correct definition of an electromagnetic wave, the very concept of ether physics from the FAQ, from the very start, the Flat Earth Society has no choice but to accept defeat when it comes to these subjects/discussions.
-
I'm totally new here so excuse me for asking.
I only see 3 threads here. 1 question about a weather balloon
And 2 replies by sandokhan that to me makes no sense regarding the
Question. ?
Am I missing something here ?
-
Here is the claim:
All the debates and arguments could be solved pretty quickly by just taking a picture from 87.000 ft in the air right?
Here is how altitude is measured in weather balloons:
http://www.webmet.com/met_monitoring/912.html
The altitude of the balloon is typically determined using thermodynamic variables or through the use of satellite-based Global Positioning Systems (GPS). Pressure is usually measured by a capacitance aneroid barometer or similar sensor.
I debunked both possibilities by showing that the aether pressure is not taken into consideration when recording the pressure by an aneroid barometer (not to mention GPS).
Therefore my answer is directly related to the first post.
Perhaps you are new here but the UAFE cannot defend any claims made by the RE when it comes to radar signals, speed of radio waves, GPS signals, or aneroid barometer pressure measurements: I emphasized the fact that only by taking into account ether physics, as I have done, can these questions/matters be answered/resolved within the correct FE theory.
That wasn't too difficult, was it?
-
ok fine forget the altitude. Just send a weather balloon really high you can buy one for 55$ as I have so linked get a film camera snap a picture retrieve the camera. Develop the film yourself and you will quite quickly be able to see if the earth is flat or spherical. No argument necessary.
I wager that anyone who would refuse such an inexpensive endeavor simply does not want to know the truth.
-
But in fact satellites orbit at a much lower altitude, and are powered by Tesla's cosmic ray device.
Just one device keeps all of the satellites in orbit? Or are there multiple?
-
ok fine forget the altitude. Just send a weather balloon really high you can buy one for 55$ as I have so linked get a film camera snap a picture retrieve the camera. Develop the film yourself and you will quite quickly be able to see if the earth is flat or spherical. No argument necessary.
I wager that anyone who would refuse such an inexpensive endeavor simply does not want to know the truth.
You should search for weather balloon images or high altitude pictures
On either Google or YouTube. Something like that.
-
We don't deny that there is some curvature at high altitudes from a balloon. A circle is curved. Looking down at a large circle will, of course, produce some curvature to the horizon. That is to be expected.
Consider MIT's $150 Edge-of-Space Camera (http://www.wired.com/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/). This scene can be easily explained as the result of looking down at an illuminated circle:
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/09/thumb-660x495.jpg)
-
We don't deny that there is some curvature at high altitudes from a balloon. A circle is curved. Looking down at a large circle will, of course, produce some curvature to the horizon. That is to be expected.
Consider MIT's $150 Edge-of-Space Camera (http://www.wired.com/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/). This scene can be easily explained as the result of looking down at an illuminated circle:
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/09/thumb-660x495.jpg)
Interesting point. A simple experiment then would be to replicate that photo at numerous points on the earth and at the exact altitude, then see if there is any difference in the 'distance' of the curved horizon, no?
If I stood in the center of a massive circle and climbed a ladder 10 feet high, I could see the curvature of said circle, and note how far away the 'edge' is right? Now if I moved that ladder to within a few feet of the outside of that circle and climbed it, the 'edge' would be....closer yes?
If the earth is a sphere, then at that exact altitude, the curved horizon should look exactly the same no matter where the experiment is replicated.
An illuminated disc, which accounts for the curve at 'x' altitude is still a disc. Moving the experiment to South America or Alaska or China and doing the same thing....should make the horizon appear at a different distance at the same altitude...because there's no constant, continuous curvature.
Right?
-
Yes, but Round Earthers would attribute any discrepancy in curvature to dawn/dusk, the type of lens used, optical illusion mirages, etc.
-
The alleged altitudes of the best known weather balloons missions (BU60-1 and DIY Alexei K.) 53 km and 30 km respectively, were measured using a GPS device.
It is interesting to note that the photographs from high altitude weather balloons look exactly the same as those taken aboard a Concorde (alleged altitude of some 18 km - of course, much lower in reality):
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39489000/jpg/_39489257_barbaracurvature203.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c1/68/6e/c1686e3ec0faeb78478526fd995d0dfe.jpg)
(http://xjubier.free.fr/site_stickers/TSE_1999/AF4500_Terre_20000m.jpg)
(http://xjubier.free.fr/site_stickers/TSE_1999/AF4500_VueTerreOmbreDroite.jpg)
-
Yes, but Round Earthers would attribute any discrepancy in curvature to dawn/dusk, the type of lens used, optical illusion mirages, etc.
No more quickly than a flat-earther would attribute a lack of discrepancies in curvature to exactly the same reasons I'd wager. ;)
-
Yes, but Round Earthers would attribute any discrepancy in curvature to dawn/dusk, the type of lens used, optical illusion mirages, etc.
No more quickly than a flat-earther would attribute a lack of discrepancies in curvature to exactly the same reasons I'd wager. ;)
It would me more difficult to explain consistency than deny inconsistency.
-
Yes, but Round Earthers would attribute any discrepancy in curvature to dawn/dusk, the type of lens used, optical illusion mirages, etc.
No more quickly than a flat-earther would attribute a lack of discrepancies in curvature to exactly the same reasons I'd wager. ;)
It would me more difficult to explain consistency than deny inconsistency.
Please do. Say this experiment was conducted and seven or eight photos from different points of the earth show no difference in the 'distance' of the horizon. What would your explanation be?
-
Yes, but Round Earthers would attribute any discrepancy in curvature to dawn/dusk, the type of lens used, optical illusion mirages, etc.
No more quickly than a flat-earther would attribute a lack of discrepancies in curvature to exactly the same reasons I'd wager. ;)
It would me more difficult to explain consistency than deny inconsistency.
Please do. Say this experiment was conducted and seven or eight photos from different points of the earth show no difference in the 'distance' of the horizon. What would your explanation be?
If the tests were appropriately designed, and horizon looked the same in all instances, then that would be strong evidence in favor of a Round Earth.
-
Here's my own result from 24180 meters (24,18 km) above West Sealand, Denmark.
http://andruszkow.dk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/09-10-2015.jpeg
Funny thing, from all the amateur images I've seen with unmodded camera sensors from this altitude, the curvature at display is exactly the same, no matter where in the world the image has been taken.
When will you, for the sake of mankind, just STOP believing in this flat earth nonsense? People are spinning gold off of your gullible nature.
-
On top of that, Denmark is pretty close to the "middle" of the Flat Earth map, so compared to other images where you guys claim there's a visible curve of the edge of the disc, my camera should have been a lot higher than 24km to see a curve this prominent.
-
On top of that, Denmark is pretty close to the "middle" of the Flat Earth map, so compared to other images where you guys claim there's a visible curve of the edge of the disc, my camera should have been a lot higher than 24km to see a curve this prominent.
I would certainly not call this prominent curvature. The most it is a slight curvature if any.
(http://i.imgur.com/YLFz244.jpg)
-
Slight, prominent, what difference does it make? Also, your line is touching the horizon in the middle, but doesn't in the ends...
Honestly, that was an own goal.
-
Slight, prominent, what difference does it make? Also, your line is touching the horizon in the middle, but doesn't in the ends...
Honestly, that was an own goal.
It must make a difference to you because you are the one who said, "my camera should have been a lot higher than 24km to see a curve this prominent." I just stated it doesn't look that prominent to me. I believe it is your goal to to convince yourself because you know in your heart that there is really not much curvature no matter how high you go.
-
You misread. I said IF the earth was a disc, I should have been higher to see a curve this prominent, given the location.
To me, that curve IS prominent considering I'm only 24km up and the earth is as massive as it is.
The real problem with you guys is that you look at figures nd say "fine 6000 km radius" but you don't realize how big that really is on a ball earth.
-
You misread. I said IF the earth was a disc, I should have been higher to see a curve this prominent, given the location.
To me, that curve IS prominent considering I'm only 24km up and the earth is as massive as it is.
The real problem with you guys is that you look at figures nd say "fine 6000 km radius" but you don't realize how big that really is on a ball earth.
Fine, how about 400km up. This is one of the first images from the ISS that was taken with the new HD camera mounted to it. The picture is at an angle, but it sure does not curve much. It is funny this camera shows very little curvature, but later on in the video you can see a lot of curvature. They probably forgot the fisheye lens, you think?
http://www.onenewspage.us/video/20150617/2988636/Urthecast-Unveils-1st-Videos-of-Earth-From-Outer.htm
(http://i.imgur.com/yT6qHz9.jpg)
-
Funny enough, the article describes how you're able to spot cars driving on highways with this camera. There's nothing indicating that this image isn't in current zoom.
As smart as you guys try to appear, you constantly cherry pick NASA material only, as if the people creating this so-called hoax on the scale you claim it is on, wouldn't have thought of the problem introduced in presenting an image showing no curvature.
You think you outsmart the people responsible of creating a hoax of this global magnitude, by screencapping an image from a video? Seriously?
From a scientific point of view, isn't there a teeny tiny possibility that you're wrong?
-
Funny enough, the article describes how you're able to spot cars driving on highways with this camera. There's nothing indicating that this image isn't in current zoom.
As smart as you guys try to appear, you constantly cherry pick NASA material only, as if the people creating this so-called hoax on the scale you claim it is on, wouldn't have thought of the problem introduced in presenting an image showing no curvature.
You think you outsmart the people responsible of creating a hoax of this global magnitude, by screencapping an image from a video? Seriously?
From a scientific point of view, isn't there a teeny tiny possibility that you're wrong?
I know, right. It is hard to Find flaws in NASA's work. But they do make mistakes, you just have to search for them. After all the workers are only human. Of course I could be wrong, I'm only human too. Isn't it possible you could be wrong? I don't believe it is a zoom camera. I watched the video again and visited four other sites about the camera and I've not seen where it mentions a zoom camera.
-
Funny enough, the article describes how you're able to spot cars driving on highways with this camera. There's nothing indicating that this image isn't in current zoom.
As smart as you guys try to appear, you constantly cherry pick NASA material only, as if the people creating this so-called hoax on the scale you claim it is on, wouldn't have thought of the problem introduced in presenting an image showing no curvature.
You think you outsmart the people responsible of creating a hoax of this global magnitude, by screencapping an image from a video? Seriously?
From a scientific point of view, isn't there a teeny tiny possibility that you're wrong?
I know, right. It is hard to Find flaws in NASA's work. But they do make mistakes, you just have to search for them. After all the workers are only human. Of course I could be wrong, I'm only human too. Isn't it possible you could be wrong? I don't believe it is a zoom camera. I watched the video again and visited four other sites about the camera and I've not seen where it mentions a zoom camera.
Yes, they do make mistakes too. We've seen rockets explode during launch, for instance. The mistakes you refer to that they make, is only valid if you assume from the beginning that RE is a hoax (what would the point of that be anyway). The reason you can't cherry pick NASA as your only source (again, screencapping videos... Really!?), is because NASA no longer is the only source of space exploration. It's everywhere. Not only private markets, but households can do near-space experiments now.
You're only seeing what you want to see.
-
Funny enough, the article describes how you're able to spot cars driving on highways with this camera. There's nothing indicating that this image isn't in current zoom.
As smart as you guys try to appear, you constantly cherry pick NASA material only, as if the people creating this so-called hoax on the scale you claim it is on, wouldn't have thought of the problem introduced in presenting an image showing no curvature.
You think you outsmart the people responsible of creating a hoax of this global magnitude, by screencapping an image from a video? Seriously?
From a scientific point of view, isn't there a teeny tiny possibility that you're wrong?
I know, right. It is hard to Find flaws in NASA's work. But they do make mistakes, you just have to search for them. After all the workers are only human. Of course I could be wrong, I'm only human too. Isn't it possible you could be wrong? I don't believe it is a zoom camera. I watched the video again and visited four other sites about the camera and I've not seen where it mentions a zoom camera.
Yes, they do make mistakes too. We've seen rockets explode during launch, for instance. The mistakes you refer to that they make, is only valid if you assume from the beginning that RE is a hoax (what would the point of that be anyway). The reason you can't cherry pick NASA as your only source (again, screencapping videos... Really!?), is because NASA no longer is the only source of space exploration. It's everywhere. Not only private markets, but households can do near-space experiments now.
You're only seeing what you want to see.
I'll say one thing for you, you definitely live in a Pollyanna world. I hope you can continue to turn a blind eye to what's obviously wrong in the world around you, good for you.
-
Yes, what an amazing rebuttal, repeating what I said, but turning it around.
As I said earlier, I give up. I'm done arguing with people who instead of look at facts, and accept that some of us did something to provide actual results, keep pasting the same load of scientific bullshit, without any shred of practical experience in physics, electronics, or radiocomms. Your only experience are being internet soldiers, and in radically changing your beliefs, to cover whatever trauma you have experienced to your psychological health.
You all have the same profile, I've met countless of your kind (mostly war veterans), and its all the same, even your sources. Your gullible nature is being exploited, you just wont admit it, because admitting it would require dealing with your real issues and I feel sorry for you.
-
Yes, what an amazing rebuttal, repeating what I said, but turning it around.
As I said earlier, I give up. I'm done arguing with people who instead of look at facts, and accept that some of us did something to provide actual results, keep pasting the same load of scientific bullshit, without any shred of practical experience in physics, electronics, or radiocomms. Your only experience are being internet soldiers, and in radically changing your beliefs, to cover whatever trauma you have experienced to your psychological health.
You all have the same profile, I've met countless of your kind (mostly war veterans), and its all the same, even your sources. Your gullible nature is being exploited, you just wont admit it, because admitting it would require dealing with your real issues and I feel sorry for you.
You don't know me, what gives you the right to make such false accusations about me. You my friend are a pompous fool going through life believing you know all the answers and never questioning anything. Your kind is the reason the world is in such bad shape it's in today. I hope you stay in your little closed in world and let the more intelligent figure it all out for you because you would simply get in the way. You should go find a Round Earth Society and join it because this is no place for you. You arrogant SOB.
-
Mission accomplished, and you fell for it. You only took note at the shallow insult, as expected, and not at what I actually stated. You never comment at the fact, or at the notion you have no practical experience. I have degrees to back up my claims and the experiments I conduct, which is the reason the world is actually evolving.
The sensitive nature of your reply just confirm everything I said. And yes, I'm arrogant. Welcome to a factual debate.
-
hello! i am new here. anyway, i've got an idea. let's start for example facebook event (to spread it between people) and send a balloon with camera from different parts of the earth in the same time. so we will have several recordings from the same time from around the globe. it should be pretty interesting what we will see (e.g.: what if we all will see the same moon?)...
i am just thinking, but it looks like interesting idea to me... i see it easy, to find about 20 people from around the world, who will be keen on spending money on this...