Thank you for the very detailed and extensive replies in order.
The major follow-up about the crepuscular rays is that they can diverge dramatically even during the early afternoon over the ocean. The divergence of this when I can see the sky above and the sun within the clouds makes me pause.
Thank you for pointing out the distance- perspective since that is usually used to explain sunsets for local sun. I'm aware of the concept and it's great to bring up for the optics that we see on our Earth. And thanks for using the meteor example for perspective.
I appreciate your detailed response about the eclipse. That's exactly what i would teach people before.
I briefly touch upon the flying in my other response to RaymondBPinelli. As for the rockets, will they need to adjust for the rotation shooting from north to south? As I've read, the spin rate can differ in locations on the Earth. If you're shooting from the equator at a location directly north, by the time the rocket lands in the Earth's reference frame, it would need some adjustment, right?
With the birds movements, there are multiple factors in it as you both have mentioned. Spending the past few months watching birds flying in circles, against the wind, randomly has encouraged me to keep questioning and observing. It's the birds that are flying against the 5-15 mph wind that looks unusual to me. Thank you for pointing out the magnetism. I think that plays a much more critical role in life than we're led to believe.
Thanks for addressing the acceleration component of my post. Since we do experience acceleration with many other objects and forces that we interact with. But since the Earth is much more massive, wouldn't ANY acceleration be felt? Think of driving a car on a curve. We feel that acceleration. So, at a far more massive scale, we would feel even a 0.01% acceleration or deceleration of the entire Earth. And many objects have orbits. Just because it is in an orbit doesn't mean that you don't feel acceleration. The direction of the acceleration would be the same. Spin a rope or something around your finger and you can feel the direction of acceleration. And on an elliptical orbit, it would be more noticeable.
Thank you again for your openness for discussion. I've shared a lot of this information before I kept questioning. A couple other questions for consideration: NASA has been shown to make MANY glitches and errors in their videos. Do we keep giving them the benefit of doubt or do we question further?
And would you be open to looking into how a Flat Earth model works? It has been the most beautiful and freeing red pill I've ever taken. The majority of Flat Earth content has been censored or hidden from search with Google.
You are quite welcome. I watched the video, but honestly there was nothing in it that struck me as disallowed, or contrary to a globular Earth. In fact, I think it was in accordance with the Moon's motion. The Moon revolves around the Earth from east to west. When it begins to enter the Earth's shadow, it will be the western edge of the Moon that is first. If you are watching from Earth, it will seem like the top of the Moon, since the orbit of the Moon is somewhat close to the equator. That is what was shown in the video.
Ballistic rockets will always need to make adjustments for Earth rotation. It is mostly a matter of the Earth rotating slightly during the time of flight, so you need to "lead" your target. When the range approaches halfway around the world, then the trajectory becomes an elliptical orbit that intersects the Earth.
The Earth being massive would mean nothing. If it accelerates, we would feel the identical acceleration. But acceleration in an orbit is balanced by gravity, so we would feel no unbalanced forces. This is what gives rise to "zero gravity" or "weightlessness" in orbit. Since the Earth is in orbit around the sun, neither we nor the Earth will feel much in the way of orbital acceleration. There will be tidal accelerations that are unbalanced, which is what I was roughly calculating, but they are so small we would not notice them. (While it is technically true that the Earth's orbit is an ellipse, its eccentricity is so small that it can easily be taken as a circle. In any case, we don't notice the acceleration, because it is balanced by the Sun's gravitational attraction.)
I don't know what you mean by "glitches and errors" in NASA videos. I suspect these are simply misunderstandings of what the photography was. A typical one was "Where were all the stars in the black sky?" And the answer is that a camera has a limited dynamic range between levels of brightness---meaning the ability to image things at both high and low light intensity levels. This means that in a scene where there is a huge dynamic range in brightness, you have to set the aperture stop to either limit the light so you can image the bright part of the scene (and not image the dark part of the scene), or you maximize the available light so you can image the stars---but the sunlit parts of the scene would wipe out the rest of the image. We wanted pictures of the astronauts on the Moon, so the camera could not simultaneously have the sensitivity to image stars. Human eyes are the same way. Go to a football stadium at night with all the illumination systems on and try to see the stars. I expect your pupils will be narrowed down and you will only see a dark sky. You won't be able to see the stars until you get away from the bright lights of the city.
I will be candid. Since the Earth is not flat, I have no interest in fantasy models.
Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed replies. I'll understand if you're not interested in continuing the conversation since you've made up your mind in the last sentence. Thank you again for your time and candor. It's fascinating to see the satanic numbers that coincidentally appear when we dig into the science.
If we look at the Sun/Moon/Earth diagram above the Northern hemisphere, which direction would the Earth be rotating? And would the Earth's movement around the sun be in that same direction? And would the Moon's rotation around the Earth be in the same direction?
Wouldn't the Earth rotate in a counter-clockwise direction? Then, wouldn't the Earth rotate around the Sun in a counter-clockwise direction? Which finally means that the Moon, in your definition, would be rotating ...... clockwise in this diagram? That's the only thing that wouldn't make sense in the globe model.
The Earth being massive would mean nothing.
This statement for a physics field that prides itself in precision might be a problematic one. Are you sure we would feel the identical acceleration? Because that would actually violate the laws of physics that we're talking about. Consider this thought experiment: on a moving sidewalk at the airport, when you step on it, your feet will accelerate first before your head would. It's a very slight feeling of acceleration and you experience it since your body can still bend and move. With the Earth's orbital speed around the Sun being 66,616 mph (damn satanic numbers always showing up again), then we would TOTALLY feel an acceleration that causes even a 1% change in speed.
The NASA lies research has been the bitter part of the red pill since I used to adore NASA and its purpose. Here's one for consideration.
I never said I was unwilling to continue the conversation. I just have no time to waste on empty videos, when anything worthwhile can be posed in a sentence or paragraph.
Moon & Eclipses: From the viewpoint of the north pole, the Earth orbits (revolves) around the Sun in a counter-clockwise direction (though that is not important in this question). It also rotates in a counter-clockwise direction (Sun and Moon set in the west). The Moon also orbits in a counter-clockwise direction. So as the Moon approaches the Earth's shadow, it would be coming from the East and its leading edge would be towards the West. From our position, mostly aligned with the equator, this would look like the top of the Moon. It is an interesting problem unscrambling the viewpoints, but it only serves to disprove any flatness of the Earth, because in order for a lunar eclipse to happen, the Earth must be between the Sun and the Moon---which I gather to be impossible according to the flat earth enthusiasts.
Gravity & Acceleration: Yes, we would feel the same thing. If you solve the force equation for gravity, the acceleration falls out as being entirely dependent on the mass of the Sun. The mass of the planet (or the person) cancels out the force to give the same acceleration. You must remember that in an elliptical orbit, there is a tradeoff between gravitational force and orbital speed, such that a balance is maintained. A 1% difference is speed means nothing, if it results in only a 1% (or less) difference in acceleration. You keep on being impressed with big numbers, but you do not want to do the physics calculation to determine the forces. All we can feel are forces (or pressures). I can be in an airplane flying near the speed of sound, and it feels the same as sitting in a parked car at a stop light.
You don't like "satanic" numbers? Switch to the metric system. English units didn't exist in the days of the Bible. There will always be some system of units that will give you "satanic" numbers. If you believe the Bible, then all this is beside the point, because the significance is that they will appear as a number identifying the Beast. Hasn't happened yet. Just because it appears as a floor number in a skyscraper, or on a house address, or as part of a phone number, or a license plate number is meaningless. It is as superstitious as the number 13 (which is a blessed number in actuality, because it is so strongly associated with the creation of the United States, a nation under God).
The Video: Tiresome. The first example is just a video glitch. Digital cameras will keep some of the image in memory even when the rest of the image is being compromised. The demonstration of zero gravity body motions is not faked. "Space bubbles" are just tiny bits of dust or other particles that either separate from a vehicle or stream along in its vicinity. You think that outer space is pristine? There's all kinds of tiny particulate matter orbiting the Earth in low orbit, left over from approximately 60 years of space missions. If they have suit equipment that can produce water droplets, then that is a valid explanation. There is no reason to think the EVA photography is in a tank. The differences are striking.
Photoshopping is a poor explanation of the fact that there is no way to produce an image of the whole Earth from low earth orbit, without stitching together the surveillance imagery, which are strips of image maybe some thousand kilometers wide at best. Think about it. Pick up a basketball and put your eye to within 1/8th of an inch and see what you can see. All you see is what is in front of you; you can't see the whole ball. How far away do you have to place the ball in order to see all of it? 3 feet maybe? How many ball diameters is that? The diameter of the Earth is about 12,750 km. Low earth orbit (a few hundred kilometers) is too low to take the picture, which is why the last picture taken was in 1972 on an Apollo mission coming back from the moon. You want real photos? Get the ones from the Apollo program. Until we go back to the Moon, we won't be far enough away to take them again.
Seeing the Stars: I already discussed this. The eye has a wide dynamic range, but it is not infinite. If there is enough brightness around (such as the whole lunar landscape) the eyes will not be dark-adapted. You need dark-adapted eyes in order to see stars, as they are faint compared to daylight illumination. This is the problem of seeing stars at night at a brightly-lit football game. The reason the space station astronauts can see the stars is that they are either on an EVA where they can face away from the Earth and the station and not be subject to the brightness, or they are inside the station with face to the porthole, where the darkness of space is mostly what they are seeing. This is not NASA "lying." This is people not understanding the physiology of vision.
Bill Nye: Give me a break. This guy is a nitwit. It is true enough that, for the most part, we no longer have the means to construct Saturn V launch vehicles. This is what happens when there is no constancy of purpose. We long ago lost the ability to construct large naval cannon of the sort that were on our World War II battleships. All the tools and experts were scrapped or died. Just like we have lost the ability to produce more F-22 fighters, because all the tools were scrapped, and the people have retired or moved on. You would literally have to do it all over again from scratch. This is not geophysics or "lying NASA"---it is life with government bureaucracy.
Moon films: Nice to watch. I enjoyed them all when I was a boy. What's the point? Nixon talked to the astronauts because the astronauts were able to communicate with their Mission Control center, and he was patched into the circuit. There was no problem with the Moon being umpty-thousand miles away. (This is more of how the supposed hoax-debunkiing is based on sheer ignorance.) MTV and Freemasons? Why not involve Sasquatsch. And then we just veer off into Jew hatred ("anti-Semitism" for those who can't stomach plain speech). And then anti-big-bangism and anti-evolutionism. (I do not believe in the big bang or evolution, but these points of view have no relation to the topic.)
End of Video: It confirms my prior experience that there is only snark and stupidity behind these arguments. The dishonesty is all on the part of the video, because all they do is pose questions, scoff at explanations, expose their ignorance of the relevant science (e.g., human vision, radio communications), and get lost in a conspiracy package-deal fantasy. The video NEVER argues a positive case for what it thinks to be the truth. Don't expect me to watch any more videos. If you have something strong to argue, you can state it. If you can't state it, that means you really don't understand it. I don't need to waste 20 minutes watching a video produced by fools.
Thank you for the very detailed and extensive replies in order.
The major follow-up about the crepuscular rays is that they can diverge dramatically even during the early afternoon over the ocean. The divergence of this when I can see the sky above and the sun within the clouds makes me pause.
Thank you for pointing out the distance- perspective since that is usually used to explain sunsets for local sun. I'm aware of the concept and it's great to bring up for the optics that we see on our Earth. And thanks for using the meteor example for perspective.
For eclipses, here's a video for the shadow: https://youtu.be/QUkjb4bbjpc
I appreciate your detailed response about the eclipse. That's exactly what i would teach people before.
I briefly touch upon the flying in my other response to RaymondBPinelli. As for the rockets, will they need to adjust for the rotation shooting from north to south? As I've read, the spin rate can differ in locations on the Earth. If you're shooting from the equator at a location directly north, by the time the rocket lands in the Earth's reference frame, it would need some adjustment, right?
With the birds movements, there are multiple factors in it as you both have mentioned. Spending the past few months watching birds flying in circles, against the wind, randomly has encouraged me to keep questioning and observing. It's the birds that are flying against the 5-15 mph wind that looks unusual to me. Thank you for pointing out the magnetism. I think that plays a much more critical role in life than we're led to believe.
Thanks for addressing the acceleration component of my post. Since we do experience acceleration with many other objects and forces that we interact with. But since the Earth is much more massive, wouldn't ANY acceleration be felt? Think of driving a car on a curve. We feel that acceleration. So, at a far more massive scale, we would feel even a 0.01% acceleration or deceleration of the entire Earth. And many objects have orbits. Just because it is in an orbit doesn't mean that you don't feel acceleration. The direction of the acceleration would be the same. Spin a rope or something around your finger and you can feel the direction of acceleration. And on an elliptical orbit, it would be more noticeable.
Thank you again for your openness for discussion. I've shared a lot of this information before I kept questioning. A couple other questions for consideration: NASA has been shown to make MANY glitches and errors in their videos. Do we keep giving them the benefit of doubt or do we question further?
And would you be open to looking into how a Flat Earth model works? It has been the most beautiful and freeing red pill I've ever taken. The majority of Flat Earth content has been censored or hidden from search with Google.
You are quite welcome. I watched the video, but honestly there was nothing in it that struck me as disallowed, or contrary to a globular Earth. In fact, I think it was in accordance with the Moon's motion. The Moon revolves around the Earth from east to west. When it begins to enter the Earth's shadow, it will be the western edge of the Moon that is first. If you are watching from Earth, it will seem like the top of the Moon, since the orbit of the Moon is somewhat close to the equator. That is what was shown in the video.
Ballistic rockets will always need to make adjustments for Earth rotation. It is mostly a matter of the Earth rotating slightly during the time of flight, so you need to "lead" your target. When the range approaches halfway around the world, then the trajectory becomes an elliptical orbit that intersects the Earth.
The Earth being massive would mean nothing. If it accelerates, we would feel the identical acceleration. But acceleration in an orbit is balanced by gravity, so we would feel no unbalanced forces. This is what gives rise to "zero gravity" or "weightlessness" in orbit. Since the Earth is in orbit around the sun, neither we nor the Earth will feel much in the way of orbital acceleration. There will be tidal accelerations that are unbalanced, which is what I was roughly calculating, but they are so small we would not notice them. (While it is technically true that the Earth's orbit is an ellipse, its eccentricity is so small that it can easily be taken as a circle. In any case, we don't notice the acceleration, because it is balanced by the Sun's gravitational attraction.)
I don't know what you mean by "glitches and errors" in NASA videos. I suspect these are simply misunderstandings of what the photography was. A typical one was "Where were all the stars in the black sky?" And the answer is that a camera has a limited dynamic range between levels of brightness---meaning the ability to image things at both high and low light intensity levels. This means that in a scene where there is a huge dynamic range in brightness, you have to set the aperture stop to either limit the light so you can image the bright part of the scene (and not image the dark part of the scene), or you maximize the available light so you can image the stars---but the sunlit parts of the scene would wipe out the rest of the image. We wanted pictures of the astronauts on the Moon, so the camera could not simultaneously have the sensitivity to image stars. Human eyes are the same way. Go to a football stadium at night with all the illumination systems on and try to see the stars. I expect your pupils will be narrowed down and you will only see a dark sky. You won't be able to see the stars until you get away from the bright lights of the city.
I will be candid. Since the Earth is not flat, I have no interest in fantasy models.
Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed replies. I'll understand if you're not interested in continuing the conversation since you've made up your mind in the last sentence. Thank you again for your time and candor. It's fascinating to see the satanic numbers that coincidentally appear when we dig into the science.
If we look at the Sun/Moon/Earth diagram above the Northern hemisphere, which direction would the Earth be rotating? And would the Earth's movement around the sun be in that same direction? And would the Moon's rotation around the Earth be in the same direction?
Wouldn't the Earth rotate in a counter-clockwise direction? Then, wouldn't the Earth rotate around the Sun in a counter-clockwise direction? Which finally means that the Moon, in your definition, would be rotating ...... clockwise in this diagram? That's the only thing that wouldn't make sense in the globe model.
This statement for a physics field that prides itself in precision might be a problematic one. Are you sure we would feel the identical acceleration? Because that would actually violate the laws of physics that we're talking about. Consider this thought experiment: on a moving sidewalk at the airport, when you step on it, your feet will accelerate first before your head would. It's a very slight feeling of acceleration and you experience it since your body can still bend and move. With the Earth's orbital speed around the Sun being 66,616 mph (damn satanic numbers always showing up again), then we would TOTALLY feel an acceleration that causes even a 1% change in speed.
The NASA lies research has been the bitter part of the red pill since I used to adore NASA and its purpose. Here's one for consideration.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xuWKIV2gT2jj/
Feel free to let me know if you're open to continue the conversation. Thank you again for your time.
I never said I was unwilling to continue the conversation. I just have no time to waste on empty videos, when anything worthwhile can be posed in a sentence or paragraph.
Moon & Eclipses: From the viewpoint of the north pole, the Earth orbits (revolves) around the Sun in a counter-clockwise direction (though that is not important in this question). It also rotates in a counter-clockwise direction (Sun and Moon set in the west). The Moon also orbits in a counter-clockwise direction. So as the Moon approaches the Earth's shadow, it would be coming from the East and its leading edge would be towards the West. From our position, mostly aligned with the equator, this would look like the top of the Moon. It is an interesting problem unscrambling the viewpoints, but it only serves to disprove any flatness of the Earth, because in order for a lunar eclipse to happen, the Earth must be between the Sun and the Moon---which I gather to be impossible according to the flat earth enthusiasts.
Gravity & Acceleration: Yes, we would feel the same thing. If you solve the force equation for gravity, the acceleration falls out as being entirely dependent on the mass of the Sun. The mass of the planet (or the person) cancels out the force to give the same acceleration. You must remember that in an elliptical orbit, there is a tradeoff between gravitational force and orbital speed, such that a balance is maintained. A 1% difference is speed means nothing, if it results in only a 1% (or less) difference in acceleration. You keep on being impressed with big numbers, but you do not want to do the physics calculation to determine the forces. All we can feel are forces (or pressures). I can be in an airplane flying near the speed of sound, and it feels the same as sitting in a parked car at a stop light.
You don't like "satanic" numbers? Switch to the metric system. English units didn't exist in the days of the Bible. There will always be some system of units that will give you "satanic" numbers. If you believe the Bible, then all this is beside the point, because the significance is that they will appear as a number identifying the Beast. Hasn't happened yet. Just because it appears as a floor number in a skyscraper, or on a house address, or as part of a phone number, or a license plate number is meaningless. It is as superstitious as the number 13 (which is a blessed number in actuality, because it is so strongly associated with the creation of the United States, a nation under God).
The Video: Tiresome. The first example is just a video glitch. Digital cameras will keep some of the image in memory even when the rest of the image is being compromised. The demonstration of zero gravity body motions is not faked. "Space bubbles" are just tiny bits of dust or other particles that either separate from a vehicle or stream along in its vicinity. You think that outer space is pristine? There's all kinds of tiny particulate matter orbiting the Earth in low orbit, left over from approximately 60 years of space missions. If they have suit equipment that can produce water droplets, then that is a valid explanation. There is no reason to think the EVA photography is in a tank. The differences are striking.
Photoshopping is a poor explanation of the fact that there is no way to produce an image of the whole Earth from low earth orbit, without stitching together the surveillance imagery, which are strips of image maybe some thousand kilometers wide at best. Think about it. Pick up a basketball and put your eye to within 1/8th of an inch and see what you can see. All you see is what is in front of you; you can't see the whole ball. How far away do you have to place the ball in order to see all of it? 3 feet maybe? How many ball diameters is that? The diameter of the Earth is about 12,750 km. Low earth orbit (a few hundred kilometers) is too low to take the picture, which is why the last picture taken was in 1972 on an Apollo mission coming back from the moon. You want real photos? Get the ones from the Apollo program. Until we go back to the Moon, we won't be far enough away to take them again.
Seeing the Stars: I already discussed this. The eye has a wide dynamic range, but it is not infinite. If there is enough brightness around (such as the whole lunar landscape) the eyes will not be dark-adapted. You need dark-adapted eyes in order to see stars, as they are faint compared to daylight illumination. This is the problem of seeing stars at night at a brightly-lit football game. The reason the space station astronauts can see the stars is that they are either on an EVA where they can face away from the Earth and the station and not be subject to the brightness, or they are inside the station with face to the porthole, where the darkness of space is mostly what they are seeing. This is not NASA "lying." This is people not understanding the physiology of vision.
Bill Nye: Give me a break. This guy is a nitwit. It is true enough that, for the most part, we no longer have the means to construct Saturn V launch vehicles. This is what happens when there is no constancy of purpose. We long ago lost the ability to construct large naval cannon of the sort that were on our World War II battleships. All the tools and experts were scrapped or died. Just like we have lost the ability to produce more F-22 fighters, because all the tools were scrapped, and the people have retired or moved on. You would literally have to do it all over again from scratch. This is not geophysics or "lying NASA"---it is life with government bureaucracy.
Moon films: Nice to watch. I enjoyed them all when I was a boy. What's the point? Nixon talked to the astronauts because the astronauts were able to communicate with their Mission Control center, and he was patched into the circuit. There was no problem with the Moon being umpty-thousand miles away. (This is more of how the supposed hoax-debunkiing is based on sheer ignorance.) MTV and Freemasons? Why not involve Sasquatsch. And then we just veer off into Jew hatred ("anti-Semitism" for those who can't stomach plain speech). And then anti-big-bangism and anti-evolutionism. (I do not believe in the big bang or evolution, but these points of view have no relation to the topic.)
End of Video: It confirms my prior experience that there is only snark and stupidity behind these arguments. The dishonesty is all on the part of the video, because all they do is pose questions, scoff at explanations, expose their ignorance of the relevant science (e.g., human vision, radio communications), and get lost in a conspiracy package-deal fantasy. The video NEVER argues a positive case for what it thinks to be the truth. Don't expect me to watch any more videos. If you have something strong to argue, you can state it. If you can't state it, that means you really don't understand it. I don't need to waste 20 minutes watching a video produced by fools.