Go see the curvature of the earth for yourself. Or let me guess it's some sort of holographic projection on the inside of the pane of glass and the Russians are in on it too.http://faq.tfes.org/
I wouldn't be surprised if this site all of a sudden becomes unreachable during a government shutdown, exactly like the forums "abovetopsecret" and "godlikeproductions."I would. Out of curiosity, though, can you provide some evidence regarding AboveTopSecret and Godlike Productions? If not, could you at least provide the dates during which you allege they were down so I can investigate on my own?
This is clearly a government psyop that came out of nowhere because they were feeling the heat so they are attempting to discredit "conspiracies" and make anyone questioning government propaganda appear like a moonbat.Which government do we represent?
When do you guys understand, that Pythagoras isn't ENOUGH to explain the visible curvature of Earth, especially over water?
But there is no visible curvature of Earth, especially over lake Ontario.
In fact, you could not miss it: it measures a huge 59 meters, absolutely nonexistent.
Actually, it takes more than the theorem of Pythagoras...
VISUAL OBSTACLE
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/Capture_zpswhoewt2o.jpg)
BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h2]1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R
BD = visual obstacle
h = altitude of observer
Atmospheric refraction won't help you at all: not in these photographs.
However, here is the general formula: http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#
You can ascend all the way to 213 meters to take pictures, it still won't help your case (213 meters highest point in Grimsby): there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 59 meters, everything is in plain sight, a totally flat surface of the lake.
GPS is not and cannot be a reliable source when it comes to determining the altitude.
GPS is not and cannot be a reliable source when it comes to determining the altitude.
Yes it is, and yes it can.
The rest of that post was mostly nonsense. I read it, but it was nonsense.
Sea of Ether... I'm actually amused :)Do you have anything to say that actually contributes to the discussion? If not, can we agree that we already know you'd like to say "no" to everything, thus saving each other the trouble of you saying it and us reading it? Much appreciated!
Sea of Ether... I'm actually amused :)Do you have anything to say that actually contributes to the discussion? If not, can we agree that we already know you'd like to say "no" to everything, thus saving each other the trouble of you saying it and us reading it? Much appreciated!
I can contribute to the debate as much as I want.Certainly, so long as you stick to the rules. Telling people you find their claims laughable and nothing else does not fall within that category. Try to maintain at least a guise of civility and intellectual honesty.
A global logarithm formula was one of the goals of many mathematicians (be it the falsified eighteenth century manuscripts of Euler, or the nineteenth century masters of mathematics).
I realized that to obtain such a formula a brand new approach was needed: one that did not involve calculus.
Apparently you joined the party late. I provided [things which aren't the post you're responding to]I'm responding to a specific post you made. If you didn't want to receive a response to it, you shouldn't have posted it; which, ironically, is exactly what I suggested.
The proposition that all celestial bodies are disc shaped seems to support an incredibly geocentric model of the universe.
What is even more incredible is the fact that there are no proofs (astronomical/historical data) that the Earth ever orbited the Sun before 1800 AD.
The proposition that all celestial bodies are disc shaped seems to support an incredibly geocentric model of the universe.
What is even more incredible is the fact that there are no proofs (astronomical/historical data) that the Earth ever orbited the Sun before 1800 AD.
So the earth IS the center of the universe? Yet again, you're not answering my questions but supplying preposterous half-assed responses that only remotely brush the subject matter in an attempt to mask your own lack of real data or change the subject altogether.
Brother, you're so far out in left field you're buried up to your neck in the warning track.
The proposition that all celestial bodies are disc shaped seems to support an incredibly geocentric model of the universe.
What is even more incredible is the fact that there are no proofs (astronomical/historical data) that the Earth ever orbited the Sun before 1800 AD.
So the earth IS the center of the universe? Yet again, you're not answering my questions but supplying preposterous half-assed responses that only remotely brush the subject matter in an attempt to mask your own lack of real data or change the subject altogether.
Brother, you're so far out in left field you're buried up to your neck in the warning track.
If you have been on this website for any length of time you should be familiar with sandkohan's modus operandi. ;D I learned that a long time ago.
Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.
Photographs taken by Thierry Legault, a photographer just as famous as Fred Bruenjes.
THE BLACK SUN, 2003 ANTARCTICA PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY FRED BRUENJES
(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)
It is Rahu.... Fenrir? Thor called, he wants his mythological creatures for himself.
Rahu = Black Sun = Fenrir = South Star (Pawnee cosmology)
Its color is actually a very deep red; it emits laevorotatory subquarks, or vril.
So the mathematics that NASA use isn't flawed then, The Horizon curves by: sqrt(radius^2 + distance^2)-radius, equivalent to distance^2/R*2. At 100 km, it the horizon descends 784 metres. So where I live I can stand on a hill which 130 metres high look roughly due south and see a mountain range 35km away and behind that see the top of a mountain which is 800 metres high ans 100km away which means by the curvature calculations that NASA and pretty much every geo scientist uses the mountain would have to be 1584 metres high for me to see it...Atmospheric refraction buddy, you can't rely on Pythagoras alone to explain everything.
GPS, I already said that in the link I gave you, which you obviously didn't read.
And please, saying GPS isn't a reliable source is just digging the already pretty deep hole even deeper.
It would be fairly simple to calculate the altitude from the radio signals as there's usually 5 or 6 amateur trackers receiving the signal
GPS, I already said that in the link I gave you, which you obviously didn't read.
And please, saying GPS isn't a reliable source is just digging the already pretty deep hole even deeper.
It would be fairly simple to calculate the altitude from the radio signals as there's usually 5 or 6 amateur trackers receiving the signal
And of course GPS does not really exist, it's all faked since, for it to be real there must be satellites in geosynchronous orbit--in space. Space flight as you know, along with every scientific observation that contradicts "flat earth," was faked. This also makes me wonder how I get my satellite television.
PS. You FE guys are the best metatrolls on the internet. 10/10
GPS, I already said that in the link I gave you, which you obviously didn't read.
And please, saying GPS isn't a reliable source is just digging the already pretty deep hole even deeper.
It would be fairly simple to calculate the altitude from the radio signals as there's usually 5 or 6 amateur trackers receiving the signal
And of course GPS does not really exist, it's all faked since, for it to be real there must be satellites in geosynchronous orbit--in space. Space flight as you know, along with every scientific observation that contradicts "flat earth," was faked. This also makes me wonder how I get my satellite television.
PS. You FE guys are the best metatrolls on the internet. 10/10
Sarcasm is indeed the most intellectual action a human can take within a discussion. It always makes your argument bright and clear and understandable.
See what I did there?
Here, let me do it again...
Ever heard of google? Ever heard of the ionosphere?
It's not possible at all to bounce radio and t.v. images off the ionosphere.
Also, we never had t.v. images transmitted through a clothes hanger stuck into the back of the t.v. while growing up. And digital broadcasts through the air are not happening now.
So how do you get those images on your little box? Hmm... well try turning off your little box and research.
There is a whole lot of information waiting out there and none exist in your little box you call a t.v.
Are you still wondering how your little dish get images onto your little t.v.?
Clothes hangers.... Clothes hangers... if a clothes hanger 30 years ago obtained reception, and provided a clear picture, I don't see how that little dish is any harder to comprehend.
I'd like to go into further details but I may be off topic. PM me if you'd like to know how your little dish really works.
Put a little metal bowl onto your roof and it must be satellites! It can't be anything else!
Sarcasm gotta love it!
ive seen myself sun rays bursting through clouds not perpendicular, clearly spreading outwards from a sun close to the earth.
Nicholson Morley and many other have shown that earth is stationary. Gravity is seriously misunderstood. I mean christ the idea that the earth can somehow cause everything on it to "gravitate" to it just because its really big is just plain ridiculous. Never been proven. All theory, no empirical evidence of gravity doing this.. cant be reproduced in any model or laboratory.
Atmospheric refraction just doesnt add up sorry. All these photo examples sure they are a bit misty because where looking a long distance through a lot of air.. but theres no refraction going on at that altitude and no mirages or any kind of Atmospheric refraction.. its just not believable, light doesnt bend uniformly through air in this manner. It just doesnt. Im not a flat earther, im not a heliocentric believer either.Just commenting to let you know you're not alone and you're not wrong for questioning the status quo. These people here will try to convince you that you, the one who is going against the crowd and popular opinion, are the one confirmation bias. In my opinion it is a spiritual block for some who can't see the lies right in front of their faces. Jesus spoke in parables to allow those who are become awakened to grasp the deeper meanings while those who are superficial well not see even though their eyes are open, or comprehend even though they hear.
I simply see way too much evidence that tells me that we are been lied to about a lot of things. Apollo landings were obviously faked. We have astronauts falling over and then pretending to be helped up by another astronaught where its clearly obvious the guys on a wire and his buddy has done nothing to help him get up.. just one example.. clearly a lot of NASA imagery is faked. We can see this. So the question is why, and why are they still faking stuff on the ISS?
Im not gona debate any of this because its pointless. No one can convince anyone else of anything on this forum. Because people will believe whatever they want to believe. Thats historical fact. Im just here to say im certain we are been lied to about the curvature of the earth, the size of the earth and moon and sun and also the distance of the sun from the earth.. ive seen myself sun rays bursting through clouds not perpendicular, clearly spreading outwards from a sun close to the earth.
These are just my opinions. I dont care what anyone else thinks. You can debunk me if you want but it wont change my mind unless its really compelling.. saying stuff like its Atmospheric refraction isnt compelling at all to me.
Nicholson Morley and many other have shown that earth is stationary. Gravity is seriously misunderstood. I mean christ the idea that the earth can somehow cause everything on it to "gravitate" to it just because its really big is just plain ridiculous. Never been proven. All theory, no empirical evidence of gravity doing this.. cant be reproduced in any model or laboratory.
And to add to the question:
If Round Earth "Theory" is so far out because it would imply an unrealistic amount of stuff happening "by chance"; If all celestial bodies are in fact discs but every single one of them is facing us, wouldn't that also be an unrealistic amount of stuff happening "by chance" ?
...ether scalar wave (sometimes going beyond the speed of light): it... /quote] ::)
Sure he did.
Care to post the math involved that would back this up?
If they say gravity is the attraction to the sum of the matter beneath our feet, i.e. the other side of the globe included, that concept would be destroyed by any understanding of fluid dynamics.
Speaking of gravity, if the earth is many many different layers of various materials, compounds and elements, where exactly does stuff gravitate to? Can the earth be considered a "whole?"While the earth is made up of a number of layers, they are arranged reasonably concentrically.
If gravitation is the direct magnetic-like force between any two molecules, then why should any molecule travel downward torwards the core of the globe? Are we drawn to the center of the mass as gravity says? How do you determine the center of an amalgamation of matter?The only extra I could add here is that while "any molecule" might be attracted towards the "centre of mass" of the earth, it can't necessarity "travel" there because there are things in the way. The ground is solid enough to stop us moving down, even though gravitation is "pulling us".
If they say gravity is the attraction to the sum of the matter beneath our feet, i.e. the other side of the globe included, that concept would be destroyed by any understanding of fluid dynamics.I don't see where "fluid dynamics" comes into it. If you mean that the oceans sould be attracted too - well they are, and the surface of the ocean does conform to the expected shape. They can't "fall further" because there is the solid ocean floor below them. Some water probably does "leak". If from lakes and rivers this forms our "ground water" (springs, wells and bores) and in general ends up coming back up as steam from volcanoes and geysers.
THE BLACK SUN, 2003 ANTARCTICA PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY FRED BRUENJES
(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)
Also you shouldn't use picture showing the earth NOT curving as this site doesn't accept pictures as proofs, you are not serving the cause doing this. Round earth defenders will respond using their own (fake of course this time) pictures.Material of which you produced none.
Those are the UAFE's rules.
I was the first to systematically use precise photographs and videos in order to prove that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.
The reason they initially wanted to dismiss any other photographs was because they did not have at their disposal the precise visual obstacle formulas, or the arguments to demolish any RE "image".