1

Flat Earth Community / Re: Weather Balloon?

« on: November 14, 2015, 04:00:08 PM »

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.

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: Weather Balloon?

« on: November 14, 2015, 02:32:55 PM »

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.

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: Weather Balloon?

« on: November 13, 2015, 07:55:52 PM »

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.

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: Weather Balloon?

« on: November 13, 2015, 06:58:24 PM »

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

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: Weather Balloon?

« on: November 13, 2015, 05:25:11 PM »

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.

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: Weather Balloon?

« on: November 13, 2015, 04:55:23 PM »

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.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ask Tom Bishop

« on: September 30, 2015, 07:29:51 PM »

No one with even a trace of authority on scientific matters questions that the Doppler Effect would occur if the waves passed through an accelerating medium.

Would you care to explain how the Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from a stationary tower and passing through an accelerating medium would be consistent with the changing Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from an orbiting satellite?  Please use small words if you can.  You know how slow I can be sometimes.

Radio signals transmitted from stationary towers also have Doppler shift caused by the ionosphere. It's easy to find...look it up.

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the Advantage of a Globe Theory?

« on: September 29, 2015, 03:04:25 PM »

You and I have butt heads before about being in the Navy and not believing in a round Earth. Do you realize the fire control radar, on the Sea Sparrow GMLS, has a surface line of sight out past 30 nautical miles with a 2 degree pencil beam? In fact, It can actually track almost double that range, but you didn't hear that from me. That certainly would not be possible on a round Earth. I myself actually worked on a guided missile launching system that it's radar had a surface range of over 20+ nautical miles and that was back in the early 70's. You can believe the Earth is round all you want, but out to sea it is definitely flat as it can be.

Here's a question for Yendor, the guided missile expert,  why do Exocet missiles fly so low?   
Can that fire control radar detect an Exocet flying at 1-2M 1000kph+ at 20+ nautical miles out?

I'm not a guided missile expert. I worked on the missile launching system. I'm not familiar with the Exocet missile. however, if it is like the Tomahawk cruise missile it flies low to try and prevent search radar from seeing it. Fire control radar does not come into play until the ship's surface/air search radar spots a possible threat. The answer to your question is probably so with today's modern radars. If the search radar sees it, the fire control radar can track it. Thanks for your question.

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the Advantage of a Globe Theory?

« on: September 28, 2015, 08:37:43 PM »

 It can only be viewed as a curve from high altitudes.

I've been on an airplane as well as the top of the empire state building, and haven't witnessed this curve of which you speak... Any footage of higher altitudes such as viewing the planet from space is out of my control and can easily be manipulated in photoshop to support either the FE or RE ideas.

10-11km isn't high enough, and of course you'll dismiss evidence from higher altitudes as being manipulated, because it's convenient to do so.

With all honesty, people believing in flat earth have mental issues. You might say the same, but the difference is, there's a gazillion reproducable evident facts that not just supports, but actually SHOWS that the Earth is a globe.

I have an idea - which I dare not call it a theory (LOL) - I think that a lot of the so-called "flat earthers" on this website  are probably really sane "round earthers" who just make up all this dumb "flat earth stuff" to irk us  other "round earthers" and argue with us ! I think it may be just a game. Of course if they really do believe the earth is flat, you just might be right about the mental issues.

You and I have butt heads before about being in the Navy and not believing in a round Earth. Do you realize the fire control radar, on the Sea Sparrow GMLS, has a surface line of sight out past 30 nautical miles with a 2 degree pencil beam? In fact, It can actually track almost double that range, but you didn't hear that from me. That certainly would not be possible on a round Earth. I myself actually worked on a guided missile launching system that it's radar had a surface range of over 20+ nautical miles and that was back in the early 70's. You can believe the Earth is round all you want, but out to sea it is definitely flat as it can be.

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: Did Rayzor build the universe ?

« on: September 22, 2015, 02:24:02 PM »

Did Rayzor build the universe? Well yes...yes he did.

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: August 10, 2015, 06:13:24 PM »

Okay, I won't wast any more of my time explaining how rockets don't work in a vacuum to you guys. Good day!

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: August 10, 2015, 06:10:25 PM »

Come on now. Myth Busters is a TV show. You surely don't believe everything you see on TV. Do you think they are going to say anything against what the producers tell them to say or the scientist and engineers?

Conservation of Momentum,  rockets work just fine in space.    Exhaust velocity times exhaust mass = rocket velocity time mass.   Because the mass varies during the burn, you need to use the Tsiolovsky ideal rocket equation.



In any event this topic was beated to death on the other forum.    Why debate it again,  unless you are just continuing your trolling ways. 

By the way,  how did those plastic antenna's and filters work out?  ROTFLMAO!

Hello Razor, I answered your questions on the other site. You know where you called me a clown. Because you didn't come back to me, you didn't read it or you can't comprehend it. Just saying.

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: August 09, 2015, 08:47:11 PM »

Again, tell me one thing on Earth that can move without some kind of resistance or something to push against.

I'm in a pedantic mood, lol.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/

I suppose now that "Myth Busters" will be added to the global conspiracy. 

Come on now. Myth Busters is a TV show. You surely don't believe everything you see on TV. Do you think they are going to say anything against what the producers tell them to say or the scientist and engineers?

 

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: August 09, 2015, 08:38:25 PM »

I guarantee you will not move any when you push the ball outwards.

Trolling now?

I said throw the bowling ball away from you as you sit on your chair (or skateboard or ice skates), not push it out to arms length.

All that needs to be done to disprove your assertion is to use both the bowling ball and the same size styrofoam ball in the experiment. If the movement is due to pushing against the air then the amount of movement you experience in the other direction should be the same in both cases. No need for a vacuum chamber to discredit this idea.

Any time you create a force in one direction you create a force in the opposite direction. That only works in an atmosphere or some kind of medium that has resistance. Of course a vacuum is necessary. Have you seen an astronaut floating around in space by waving his arms in a certain direction? they can't, they show them using those little jet packs to move around. This is because there is no medium or resistance to push against.

Again, tell me one thing on Earth that can move without some kind of resistance or something to push against. Think of a row boat setting on the water and trying to row the boat without the oars in the water. How far do you think you can get? If you don't know, ask and I will tell you.

Just sit in your chair and throw the bowling ball umkaaay? Then sit in the chair and throw the same size styrofoam ball umkaaay? Both push equally against the air. Why does the bowling ball cause more motion for you in your chair than the styrofoam ball?

Because it takes more force to push out the bowling ball because of higher resistance do to the extra weight of the bowling ball. If you could push out both balls with equal force and equal resistance, you would move the same distance. In a vacuum there would be no force because there would be no resistance so you wouldn't move.

15

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: August 09, 2015, 06:56:16 PM »

I guarantee you will not move any when you push the ball outwards.

Trolling now?

I said throw the bowling ball away from you as you sit on your chair (or skateboard or ice skates), not push it out to arms length.

All that needs to be done to disprove your assertion is to use both the bowling ball and the same size styrofoam ball in the experiment. If the movement is due to pushing against the air then the amount of movement you experience in the other direction should be the same in both cases. No need for a vacuum chamber to discredit this idea.

Any time you create a force in one direction you create a force in the opposite direction. That only works in an atmosphere or some kind of medium that has resistance. Of course a vacuum is necessary. Have you seen an astronaut floating around in space by waving his arms in a certain direction? they can't, they show them using those little jet packs to move around. This is because there is no medium or resistance to push against.

Again, tell me one thing on Earth that can move without some kind of resistance or something to push against. Think of a row boat setting on the water and trying to row the boat without the oars in the water. How far do you think you can get? If you don't know, ask and I will tell you.

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: August 09, 2015, 05:41:26 PM »

Frisbee,

You haven't got an answer to my question?

you used the bowling ball nonsense? Just think for a second. When you push the bowling ball away from you, you are applying a force with your arms and hands while pushing the ball outwards and you are applying that force against the 14.7 psi atmospheric pressure. If you can find a true vacuum chamber large enough for you to get in and it pulls the same vacuum as space, I guarantee you will not move any when you push the ball outwards. Tell me one thing on Earth that can move without applying force to something.

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: August 09, 2015, 04:22:38 PM »

Rockets need an atmosphere to push against

No they don't. See previous post for the explanation. In fact in the example given if the pressure outside were at 1 PSI there would be no thrust at all. If at 1/2 PSI there would be some thrust but not as much as there would be in a vacuum.

try putting your knees in an office chair that has rollers and face the seat back and begin pushing on the seat back, make sure you don't use your feet. Tell me how far you move. I'd venture to you wont move at all. The same as a rocket, it won't move with pressure pushing on its self.

Now perform an experiment for me. Make sure you are on a rolling chair with very little friction on a hard surface. Have someone hand you a bowling ball and then throw it any direction you like as hard as you can. That is basically the principle of how a rocket engine works. If you are really adventurous you could build a chamber large enough to perform this experiment in a vacuum. Throwing the bowling ball still makes you move in the opposite direction. Don't forget your goggles and air tank.

you used the bowling ball nonsense? Just think for a second. When you push the bowling ball away from you, you are applying a force with your arms and hands while pushing the ball outwards and you are applying that force against the 14.7 psi atmospheric pressure. If you can find a true vacuum chamber large enough for you to get in and it pulls the same vacuum as space, I guarantee you will not move any when you push the ball outwards. Tell me one thing on Earth that can move without applying force to something.

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: August 08, 2015, 07:32:48 PM »

first off: they've never been that high up any-way(s);

So you suppose you are revealing an inconsistency in a "hoax."

second off: my understanding of it is that the temperature is consistent and homogenous;

It is.

even if it was only furnace-like in small patches

It isn't, unless individual particles are to be considered small patches.

You are confusing temperature with thermal conductance. Metal and water feel colder than air at the same temperature because the heat transfer is greater. In rarified air even though the collisions that occur are energetic they are few and far between so there is little heat transfer.

You get hit by cosmic rays here on the surface of earth that are even more energetic. Why do you not burn up from those?

oh....i also omitted.....rockets or missiles or any such vehicle using chemical propulsion don't work in "vacuums" any-way(s)....so.....its all, pretty much, academic.....

Conservation of momentum works in a vacuum.

Here's a pretty good explanation I found from the Physics Forums:

Here is a simple thought experiment that will make it intuitive..... Imagine a very un-streamlined rocket out in space. With no atmosphere there it need not be streamlined, does it? So in your mind make it a perfectly sealed and rigid cube one foot by one foot by one foot. (I use English units because i'm both old and in USA, use metric if you like and make it a 1 meter cube for same logic will apply). Now internally pressurize your rocket to 1 PSI. What are forces on each of the six sides? Clearly 144 pounds pushing outward on each side. Since the cube is rigid, the forces on opposite sides cancel out so there is no net force on the rocket. Up cancels down, left cancels right and forward cancels backward. Now open a 1 square inch hole(or valve) on any face - i'll pick the bottom. This is a simple thought experiment so we'll ignore refinements that would be dictated by proper fluid mechanics - entrance losses and vena contracta and all that. Bottom face of your cube is now only 143 square inches, but top face is still 144. So forces are no longer balanced. 143 pounds push down against bottom, but 144 still push up against top. So rocket will accelerate up. So - a rocket in a vacuum accelerates not because of propellant pushing against air, but because of propellant NOT pushing against anything!

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/rocket-thrust-in-vacuum.708263/

You seem like a REer. If that is the case, you do realize the they believe space is a vacuum. Because of the vacuum the fuel will be sucked out the moment it enters space. I'm sorry, that is what vacuum does, it sucks. Rockets need an atmosphere to push against the same as a car needs the road to push against. try putting your knees in an office chair that has rollers and face the seat back and begin pushing on the seat back, make sure you don't use your feet. Tell me how far you move. I'd venture to you wont move at all. The same as a rocket, it won't move with pressure pushing on its self.

19

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the Advantage of a Globe Theory?

« on: August 05, 2015, 09:51:16 PM »

I'm certainly no expert, but on a flat Earth the sun simply gets to a distance you can't see it any longer because of the atmosphere. When a person rises above  he can see the sun again because the atmosphere is clearer again. The sun doesn't set it simply goes out of sight. REers think the sun sets or goes around the Earth. If that was true then why is the horizon always at eye level on matter how high you go? That being the case the sun should never set. It should always appear over head or simply always in sight.

I can correct you there,  no round earthers think that the sun goes around the earth,  the earth is rotating,  one revolution per day.    ( I'm surprised you didn't know this already )

The horizon doesn't always stay at eye level,  once you get to an altitude that you can clearly discern the left -right curvature of the horizon,  then the horizon will be clearly  seen to be below you.   

The sun does set,  if you doubt me,  go outside late in the day and watch it sink slowly below the horizon,   it doesn't just vanish into infinity,  it is clearly a disk that gradually drops below the horizon.

I'm sorry, I stand corrected REers do believe the Earth rotates around the Sun. It sound so ridiculous i guess I forgot for a minute. When have you ever been high enough to see any curvature? If we live on a ball then when you go up high you should see the horizon actually roll under you. You don't it stays right out in front of you.  Why do you believe the Sun is a disk but the Earth is a round ball? To be truthful with you I can't really say what the Sun setting will look like on a round Earth. All I know is how it looks on a flat Earth.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight

« on: August 05, 2015, 08:31:11 PM »

Tom, geckothegeek asked the question, how does the moon  illuminated according to flat earth theory? I too would like to know how the sun can illuminate the moon when the sun is so much further in space then the moon.

There is no atmosphere in space.

Good answer. So, do you believe the moon is self illuminating?