Yeah I'm calling bullshit on you there buddy. You obviously don't even know that they had troubles getting a signal to the Felix Baumgartner jump which is magnitudes closer and about 55 years newer technology. You clearly have a terrible case of cognitive dissonance if you think that moon mission was real. The fact that nasa has been caught lying dozens if not hundreds of times should be enough to make you wonder why that is. I have plenty of proofs that the earth is not a ball. I also happen to have proof of a flat earth too if you'd like that as well.
Call it what you want. You don't have 3 degrees in aerospace science or have worked in the industry for 40 years. The Boeing Company's Lunar Orbiter probes took photographs of the Earth at the distance of the Moon in 1966-1967, returned by radio encoding. Spherical Earth, pal. Somebody else having problems doing something else is just a sad fact of life. It doesn't stand as any argument of the Apollo program getting imagery back from the Moon---and it is a pretty interesting indication of how crummy your critical thinking is.
NASA lies about "climate change," but it is possible to find out exactly what they are lying about and what the truth is---from their own records. As to the Moon landings, too many eyes and ears. It is all true. They might even fudge a little bit about the data from Mars, but there is no doubt they have sent probes to Mars. There is no falsehood about the loss of the Challenger and the Columbia. You trivialize and disdain these deaths by claiming them to be fictitious. (A good friend of mine lost a good friend of his on one of those disasters).
You have no proofs whatsoever. You and your kind don't even have a map that can be reconciled with reality. You should have one outstanding fact that supports your claim. But no, you have lots of little cavils that amount to ignorance or misunderstanding of ordinary physics. You live in a world where ordinary people have flown directly over the North pole and noticed nothing other than ice. We have a research station at the South pole.
You like proofs? Read the way in which Eratosthenes measured the radius of a spherical Earth. Can't be disproven.
Dude you're a fucking retard. Eratosthenes experiment didn't prove shit. He assumed sun rays came in parallel. Guess what genius? Nobody has ever seen parallel sun rays. You don't even know your own claims that you're making. Ever heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? It kinda kills your whole space vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 tor. Which is thousands of times more powerful than any vacuum ever created on earth. So tell me how these spacesuits can handle that when the largest vacuum chambers have feet thick walls of concrete and steel and we can only get to like 10 to the negative 7 tor? Huh genius? Why doesn't the available air on earth fill the available space instantly? You have clearly never really looked into all this because if earth was flat then your whole life and world view would crumble. I can show you a video where a rocket went up in Arizona and saw the moon. Only problem is the moon was supposed to be over new Zealand at the time. Explain that one on a ball genius.
You are in a bad way. From a distance of 93 million miles, the sun's rays are parallel to within a small error. (The error is due to the finite size of the sun's disk.) Not nearly enough to upset Eratosthenes' calculation (which turned out to be close to correct). He proved the Earth was spherical by estimating its spherical diameter by a geometry that could only be true if the Earth was spherical. To the contrary, you haven't disproven anything.
I know all about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, more even than those who like to brandish it like it was a silver sword or something. Space vacuum has no interaction with the 2nd Law. Spacesuits are for holding pressure in. Vacuum chambers are for holding pressure out. Big difference in engineering requirements---as you would know, if you knew anything.
You are now mentally dribbling. Is your question about available air on Earth filling space instantly have to do with vacuum chambers? Air can only pass through an aperture at Mach 1 if the pressure ratio is high enough, and that fixes the speed at which it inflows. Or, if you are talking about the vacuum of space, the restraining force is called gravity (which creates atmospheric pressure---but you know that, right?).
Since the Earth isn't flat, and you haven't advanced any evidence that it is, I will sleep and dream. Arizona has a longitude extending 110 to 114 degrees West longitude. New Zealand is at approximately 174 degrees East longitude, for a separation of about 74 degrees longitude. Theoretically, the moon should be visible from the ground, if there were no intervening topography. All it would take is a little altitude to see over the horizon of the Earth for that separation. (The Moon is mainly in its orbit, not "over" New Zealand.) Easily explained. You failed to analyze the problem, didn't you? Could it be because you didn't know how? Your cocky "I can't be stupid if I'm right" attitude will always let you down.
Your math and reality don't match. Show me a picture of parallel sun rays please. Never before has that been seen by anyone. Ever. Believe me you globetards would be shoving that in our face if you had it. And your dumbass doesn't even know how they got the radius of earth. It had to do with Venus transiting the sun. They assumed it was the same size as earth. You don't realize that your math, while it may work out perfectly, is based completely off assumptions. If gravity is holding the atmosphere down where it is the weakest, how the fuck can my weak lungs generate enough vacuum to drink water from a straw on the surface where it is the strongest? Your arguments are old and outdated and have been dismantled numerous times. You have absolutely zero evidence of the radius of earth. You actually don't have one single proof of this ball.
Yeah I'm calling bullshit on you there buddy. You obviously don't even know that they had troubles getting a signal to the Felix Baumgartner jump which is magnitudes closer and about 55 years newer technology. You clearly have a terrible case of cognitive dissonance if you think that moon mission was real. The fact that nasa has been caught lying dozens if not hundreds of times should be enough to make you wonder why that is. I have plenty of proofs that the earth is not a ball. I also happen to have proof of a flat earth too if you'd like that as well.
Call it what you want. You don't have 3 degrees in aerospace science or have worked in the industry for 40 years. The Boeing Company's Lunar Orbiter probes took photographs of the Earth at the distance of the Moon in 1966-1967, returned by radio encoding. Spherical Earth, pal. Somebody else having problems doing something else is just a sad fact of life. It doesn't stand as any argument of the Apollo program getting imagery back from the Moon---and it is a pretty interesting indication of how crummy your critical thinking is.
NASA lies about "climate change," but it is possible to find out exactly what they are lying about and what the truth is---from their own records. As to the Moon landings, too many eyes and ears. It is all true. They might even fudge a little bit about the data from Mars, but there is no doubt they have sent probes to Mars. There is no falsehood about the loss of the Challenger and the Columbia. You trivialize and disdain these deaths by claiming them to be fictitious. (A good friend of mine lost a good friend of his on one of those disasters).
You have no proofs whatsoever. You and your kind don't even have a map that can be reconciled with reality. You should have one outstanding fact that supports your claim. But no, you have lots of little cavils that amount to ignorance or misunderstanding of ordinary physics. You live in a world where ordinary people have flown directly over the North pole and noticed nothing other than ice. We have a research station at the South pole.
You like proofs? Read the way in which Eratosthenes measured the radius of a spherical Earth. Can't be disproven.
Dude you're a fucking retard. Eratosthenes experiment didn't prove shit. He assumed sun rays came in parallel. Guess what genius? Nobody has ever seen parallel sun rays. You don't even know your own claims that you're making. Ever heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? It kinda kills your whole space vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 tor. Which is thousands of times more powerful than any vacuum ever created on earth. So tell me how these spacesuits can handle that when the largest vacuum chambers have feet thick walls of concrete and steel and we can only get to like 10 to the negative 7 tor? Huh genius? Why doesn't the available air on earth fill the available space instantly? You have clearly never really looked into all this because if earth was flat then your whole life and world view would crumble. I can show you a video where a rocket went up in Arizona and saw the moon. Only problem is the moon was supposed to be over new Zealand at the time. Explain that one on a ball genius.
You are in a bad way. From a distance of 93 million miles, the sun's rays are parallel to within a small error. (The error is due to the finite size of the sun's disk.) Not nearly enough to upset Eratosthenes' calculation (which turned out to be close to correct). He proved the Earth was spherical by estimating its spherical diameter by a geometry that could only be true if the Earth was spherical. To the contrary, you haven't disproven anything.
I know all about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, more even than those who like to brandish it like it was a silver sword or something. Space vacuum has no interaction with the 2nd Law. Spacesuits are for holding pressure in. Vacuum chambers are for holding pressure out. Big difference in engineering requirements---as you would know, if you knew anything.
You are now mentally dribbling. Is your question about available air on Earth filling space instantly have to do with vacuum chambers? Air can only pass through an aperture at Mach 1 if the pressure ratio is high enough, and that fixes the speed at which it inflows. Or, if you are talking about the vacuum of space, the restraining force is called gravity (which creates atmospheric pressure---but you know that, right?).
Since the Earth isn't flat, and you haven't advanced any evidence that it is, I will sleep and dream. Arizona has a longitude extending 110 to 114 degrees West longitude. New Zealand is at approximately 174 degrees East longitude, for a separation of about 74 degrees longitude. Theoretically, the moon should be visible from the ground, if there were no intervening topography. All it would take is a little altitude to see over the horizon of the Earth for that separation. (The Moon is mainly in its orbit, not "over" New Zealand.) Easily explained. You failed to analyze the problem, didn't you? Could it be because you didn't know how? Your cocky "I can't be stupid if I'm right" attitude will always let you down.
Your math and reality don't match. Show me a picture of parallel sun rays please. Never before has that been seen by anyone. Ever. Believe me you globetards would be shoving that in our face if you had it. And your dumbass doesn't even know how they got the radius of earth. It had to do with Venus transiting the sun. They assumed it was the same size as earth. You don't realize that your math, while it may work out perfectly, is based completely off assumptions. If gravity is holding the atmosphere down where it is the weakest, how the fuck can my weak lungs generate enough vacuum to drink water from a straw on the surface where it is the strongest? Your arguments are old and outdated and have been dismantled numerous times. You have absolutely zero evidence of the radius of earth. You actually don't have one single proof of this ball.