"Level" means that it conforms to the general surface of a sphere. At short distances, the difference between this and "flat" is imperceptible (especially considering the presence of waves). But there is always a horizon.
Magellan went around the world in the 16th century by ship. The Earth was circumnavigated by airplane in 1924. And by orbiting manned satellite in 1961. Nothing beats going AROUND the Earth.
This is true. Some people need to travel more...to travel like they did. Also some people need to realize that there are good people and bad people from every ethnicity. I would imagine that particular person would only trust small-nosed people; it's ridiculous.
No. If the Earth is indeed flat then you should be able to see EVERY CONTINENT and EVERY OCEAN on the planet, right? If you go high enough you should be able to see everything...but you can't.
riddle me this sagan, where is the curve of the earth?
it isn't on wikipedia
it isn't connecting the suez canal .. even tho it is over 100 miles long connecting two oceans
we can't find it on our railroad lines, they are perfectly level covering the entire continent with inclines and declines to record
if this pudwacker ever did an expose on my questions.. it would be like watching mythbusters 'prove the moon landing' .. NOT A SINGLE QUESTION ANSWERED WAS A REASON I SEE THE MOONLANDING AS FAKE
hilariously buzz aldrin stated flat out he didn't go to the moon
All good points. Be prepared to get brigaded by shills and glowies as we veer off into "Conspiracy" discussion on this post if it gets enough up-doots.
It blows my mind that we can't get straight answers or unedited satellite images from NASA to sort this stuff out. Do I need to buy my own freaking satellite to get some damn straight answers? NASA is asshoe!
It blows my mind that we can't get straight answers or unedited satellite images from NASA to sort this stuff out. Do I need to buy my own freaking satellite to get some damn straight answers?
they would if they could. nasa has more cgi computers than anyone in the world BUT hollywood
they also buy the most helium. you know for balloons that are the actually satellites
Yes. The assumption here is that “satellites” are somehow “orbiting” by being blown in circles around the top of our “dome” sky? Quite a bit of effort has been put into this deception. Does this mean no rockets actually penetrate the “dome”, or is there a door or tear somewhere? (Like the milky way we see looks like a tear in the sky).
Helium purchases and control appears to be getting routed through numerous shell companies now since Anons started reporting on this roughly 20 years ago.
Does this mean no rockets actually penetrate the “dome”, or is there a door or tear somewhere? (Like the milky way we see looks like a tear in the sky).
this is what i've come to believe. and, pure speculation here.. but the idea is that atlantis sunk itself was the great flood, and that flood was caused by cracking the dome, which healed and left the 'milky way'
i do believe atlantis existed and that it sunk itself. i've also found a book called 'the lost continent of mu' which is a book which found a continent on the west of the united states that also sunk, called mu
You can get the Lunar Orbiter strip photo of the Earth above the Moon's horizon. You can get the Apollo 1972 photo of the Earth from the Moon. See, you can get these---but you don't want to. You lie about being unable to get them, and they are easy to get. But you don't WANT the straight answers. Can't help that.
Pay me to make one. Why bother with videos when there have been expeditions galore and air tourism to see for yourself? And why bother, when any video I might produce would be rejected because "it is fake"? You just argue in bad faith.| You ignore all the hands-on data so you can hide behind these "link us to your favorite video" demands. As though a video would be more real than actually being there.
Well, you see the moon landing as fake because you are ignorant and paranoid. I'm curious: were you old enough to be alive when it happened? Or is this all a Sour Grapes episode that something cool like this might have happened before you were alive, but not while you are alive?
where is the curve? if you can't see past the fake moon landing..
they try and find the formula for the curvature of the earth
i ask because IT DOESN'T EXIST ..
there for i need not have been alive to be brainwashed as well as all those who went thru it appear to be.
i personally think it was the incredible sense of accomplishment you guys are unwilling to let go of.
of course of the reasons i can't accept the moon landing is the fact we LOST THE high-quality version of the moon landing video.
just lost it. then australia was like hey NASA we have a copy
NASA was like, cool, give it to us
then promptly destroyed it as well.
you can't explain such behavior by NASA, but i can
oh, and they also lost the SATURN V rocket planes. the thing we spent billions creating... that those involved say was never completed.. and now they are just gone
literally the crown jewel of the space program.. supposedly 'lost'
i think ya'll believe in some pretty unbelievably bad lies
What do you mean "formula for the curvature of the Earth"? If you mean the radius of the Earth, it is about 6,378 km and describes the circular profile and spherical area of the Earth. Easy formulas. I'm sure you can look them up.
It seems in your case, there might not have been much to wash.
The Saturn V went out of production. If you want to see one in the flesh, go to the Huntsville, Alabama space museum, standing tall and proud next to a last-of-its-kind Space Shuttle. Not supposedly "lost"---entirely lost. You don't appreciate that technology is perishable. Nor do we know how to cast turrets for battleships or make 12-inch naval guns. All lost to time and tide. Not all information is written down. Written records are finally thrown in the trash. Experts die. What you seem to believe in is a fairy tale where people don't die, memories are not forgotten, and information is never lost. That has no relationship to reality. You need to become an adult and grow up.
What do you mean "formula for the curvature of the Earth"?
you know, that formula you would use to calculated microwave towers given the curve over (x) miles
this is NOT actually done. but it is an example of what would be done, if the earth where in fact curved
microwaves travel straight, and towers are placed at the same height, based upon sea level and point them at each other. (just one more proof for the lack of a curve)
Easy formulas. I'm sure you can look them up.
be the first to find it! nobody else can. show me who uses it...
What you seem to believe in is a fairy tale where people don't die, memories are not forgotten, and information is never lost.
whatever you say champ. seems to me there are many opinions (as to why we can't/haven't build one again), but mostly clouded bullshit that leads to the same conclusion..
it can't be done.. or it can but nobody wants to spend the money on it
That has no relationship to reality.
i can smell bullshit, and the moonlanding reeks of it. if you can't smell it.. perhaps you are paid not to? probably the most disingenious thing NASA does is employ dipshits to spread their lies. folks just can't believe that a trillion dollar lie, and i get that is 'the rub'
but you take a step back, you see footprints in soft dust.. that dust couldn't possibly be there after a rocket landing. any and all small debris would have been sent flying
but alas, all this trivia is most likely too subtle for you.
Regarding microwave towers, if the towers are at the same height and they point at each other, the elevation angle of the beam centerline at each tower will be slightly negative to account for Earth curvature. Very small angle. Probably well within the error budget of the alignment. (It looks like they use phased arrays, so there is no mechanical pointing, just a reach-out-and-grab approach.)
You can't prove anything with microwave towers. I could glue two pencil stubs to the surface of a basket ball and string a line from the tip of one stub to the tip of the other stub. Just like a microwave link.
What is your problem with microwave towers? Earth curvature must figure into the problem at large distances. It does with radar and air-to-air microwave communication. Along with atmospheric refraction. I did this for a living. You are talking through your hat.
curcumference of a circle = pi x (radius)^2
area of a sphere = 4pi x (radius)^2
This is elementary geometry. Only the profoundly ignorant do not know or use this. (If you want the x & y coordinates of a circle, talk to a 9th grader who has taken analytical geometry. In polar coordinates it is a radius R across 2pi steradians of angle.)
Forbes is not an expert publication in rocket propulsion. According to NASA, the STS will be a "replacement" for the Saturn V. Informed technical opinion projects it will be canceled for budgetary reasons---and because Space X's Starship will surpass its performance and schedule. Supposedly, the Space Shuttle was its "replacement," but it, too, is dead.
Smelling bullshit about the moon landing is the unfortunate effect of sheer ignorance being inserted in place of "common sense." You can't substantiate any of it. I've heard all the bullshit arguments, and all they are is ignorant failure to understand photography, gravity, and other phenomena unique to the Moon. Footprints in soft dust. For one thing, it wasn't that soft, as the astronauts found out afterward. It was very hard and gritty. For another thing, the environment was vacuum and the rocket exhaust expanded to very low pressure over a very short distance. There is no reason to think the dust might have been moved, if it were out of the exhaust plume. You are thinking of the effects that would occur if there had been an atmosphere to carry the momentum of the exhaust---but since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, that didn't happen. But alas, this fact of physics, is likely too subtle for you.
unfortunate effect of sheer ignorance being inserted in place of "common sense."
look at all the words you actually substitute for 'common sense'
no my friend, it is you that fail to see 'prop rocks' in the photos of the moon landing, not me.
it is you that fails to see the backdrop used, and the multiple re-uses of the same background
the list of 'problems' with the moon landing is nearly infinite
here is a list of the real reasons each 'space mission' happened. it was literally 'taken away' after it was feared to being overused. it was and it was already to late.
But alas, this fact of physics, is likely too subtle for you.
ah yes, you are a professional! making up new stuff as we go! right on.
for one, there is a atmosphere, supposedly . you seem to omit facts or change them as it suits you.
is that common sense to you?
given the entire picture, a few pieces (dust didn't move) being shaky is 'small potatoes' compared to the fact the first time they attempted to land a 'lunar modular' using rocket propulsion failed incredibly badly. - and was never tested again
or the first/only time they tested a 'space suit' the man fainted .. and it was never tested again
i say you must overlook an insane amount of evidence that fails the scientific test
You are making allegations without evidence. What is a "prop rock"? That's what you are declaring what you see, not evidence of it being unauthentic. Same thing about a "backdrop." What makes the background view a "backdrop"? The fact that it doesn't change with time? Gee, that is sort of what happens in a largely stationary environment: not much happens.
The "moondoggie" page is just a reading assignment. I looked at the first article. No images. No interest in wasting my time because you can't make a point for yourself.
An atmosphere on the Moon? If you think so, you are truly ignorant. It is vacuum. Rocket exhaust has nothing to push around, and it expands very rapidly once out of the nozzle, so there is no problem with small rocks not being moved. (There is some streaking radiating from where the exhaust did impinge.) The first time landing the LEM did not fail (there was an interval that the guidance program had to work through before touchdown, and this was known by both the astronauts and ground control). Space suits were in use since the Mercury flights.
I say you need to learn some science before you see "evidence" that is only your own misunderstanding or ignorance.
curcumference of a circle = pi x (radius)^2 area of a sphere = 4pi x (radius)^2 This is elementary geometry. Only the profoundly ignorant do not know or use this.
it is spelled circumference
Earth curvature must figure into the problem at large distances.
yes, yet it is not. and we have multiple examples in which it is clearly violated (see the bottom of mountains from over 100 miles away)
that is entirely my point. you assume it is used, you are wrong.
Jump on a typo made with a tired mind. I'm shaking in my boots.
You are not really talking about curvature, but of the perceived horizon. In cases where it is possible to see as you claim (also seeing Chicago across Lake Michigan), what is in effect is the "fata morgana," a kind of atmospheric refraction that allows light to curve close to the curvature of the Earth. This is particularly the case with microwaves, which leads to calculating the radar horizon range as though the radius of the Earth were 4/3 of its physical value. (This effect goes away as the radar path becomes higher in the atmosphere.)
It is well understood that when the Sun is visibly touching the horizon, it is geometrically already under the horizon. This is due to refraction effects. But the sun still sinks lower and is progressively eclipsed by the horizon from the bottom to its top.
So microwave towers prove nothing for you. They are needed to "see" over the ground clutter and to have a communication path to the next nearest tower. They don't prove anything (you don't even hint at what they are supposed to prove).
Another "what" question? Suppose you tell me. Suppose you establish that any such thing happened. I take this as a concession that you were not there to witness anything, since you don't want to admit your age.
"Flat Earth" is likely a CIA psyop to cover up/misdirect from this information:
We may not be rotating (see Toroidal Electromagetic Attractive Field and how it would behave identically to "gravity" on a sphere); It may be the EM Field rotating.
Earth is a shell subject to expansion when hit with large amounts of external energy (tectonic plate theory is cover for outer shell size expansion. Put paper meche on a balloon, then blow it up while it is encased in the paper-meche. You get cracks and ridges, just like the Earth).
Both the sun and moon appear to be closer than reported by NASA, possibly the same distance, and the same size as each other (explains the perfect eclipses more easily than they are at exactly the right distances with their different sizes for that to happen)
I am still trying to figure out the truth, but if you observe the angle of the sun's rays, a sun 93M miles away would have all rays almost parallel to each other. This is not the case, and it is visible even in space (see Japan's recent moon mission photos), so it is not the atmosphere difracting the rays as NASA BS narrative goes.
I do not. This is what I was able to assemble as my own "combined" theory of all the stuff that doesn't make any sense to me. The Toroidal EM Attractive Field has been mentioned in some of the Inner Earth discussion as people try to explain how people could exist on both sides of the crust with the inner being "updside down". It appears possible to me and might also explain the "primary water reservoir" hit by the Libyans under the Sahara. They may have actually hit the "inner ocean" (speculation). Toroidal shape is seen in the growth of many fruits, including the apple (see cross-section); Is it possible that they grow that way because of the nature of the Earth's EM field?
The sun/moon size/movements/tracking is actually explained in the Flat Earth Theory, so that part of the FET may actually be correct.
The expanding Earth shell makes sense if one assume the Earth used to be smaller with all continents closer together and it was the Earth's shell expansion, not "tectonic theory" that caused Pangea to turn into today's continent locations. This also works with the Toroidal EM AF theory (1), and would be driven by energy from a much closer sun (2). So there are some clues for you.
It is also possible that the Earth diameter is superhuge and we are in a bowl under a dome on just one part of it (fishbowl prison dome theory...lol) on a SuperEarth (spheroid). A discrete area of a large sphere always appears “flat” or nearly so with very small curvature.
Look, the sun is 93 million miles away. It has been measured by trigonometry and verified with orbital mechanics. We have sent probes around it. Why don't you get with the 17th century at least and catch up?
Suspicious. Why 93, a known cabal number combination? Too many symbology giveaways to be coincidence. 90deg minus 23.4deg Earth axis tilt = 66.6deg? Really? C’mon dude.
You are finding nothing. We say 93 million miles as a shorthand for the fact that it varies between 94.5 and 91.4 million miles. The semi-major axis is 92.956 million miles. Funny how there are no coincidences, but the match-ups are not exact. (Or, use the metric system and call it 150 million km. That's a cabal, number, right?)
And you are saying that the Earth tilt is a mark of Satan? Kind of an odd mark on God's creation. Maybe you should use radians and not degrees.
There are such things as meaningless coincidences. Life is filled with them. These are some of them. Life is not a Rorschach blot, but you are acting like it is.
They ARE almost parallel. You just don't understand the implications of "almost." Or single-point perspective. (A sun 93 million miles away would have rays going in all directions. The question is "how parallel?" Can you figure out the number?)
Calculating the spectrum of angles that the rays of a sun of given size at a given distance, hitting the earth at any given location is trivial mathematics. You can let go of the assumption that people who wonder about a flat earth can’t calculate anything that you can, especially such simple things as trigonometry and calculus. You are just hopeful to be speaking with someone who doesn’t understand ‘the implications of almost’. Wow what a mind bending topic we just can’t wrap our heads around the ‘implications of almost’.
So what are you trying to say? You are "almost" understandable. You call it "trivial mathematics," which is usually a cover for your inability to do it. Or you would come up with some mathematical demonstration...which you can't.
The fact is that all light rays from the sun radiate from the sun, and that radiation (spreading out in angular space) will be visible in the sky as well as anywhere, because we are looking up the cone of light from the sun, which is a tremendous foreshortening of the visual geometry. Since there is no other way it can work, you don't have anything. If the sun were closer, we would see and measure the difference. Doesn't happen.
A closer sun with varying angles of rays might give the appearance of large curvature. The misattribution of the reason for something to explain a lie is a classic cabal tactic. They actually spend a lot of time constructing all the details of their “lies” to make the explanation sound believable. Then they buy ther services of “experts” and “scientists” to aggressively push, then cap it off with continuous media and public school reinforcement.
Start with the assumption that all information taught in public school is an outright lie or intended to mislead. This is how we know the sun is NOT 93M miles away. It is part of the cabal talking points, therefore it is known to be false with high certainty.
Then I will cheerfully start with the assumption that everything you say is a lie. It certainly fits the facts.
You talk a nice story, but it is only a story. What a head trip, being able to denounce everything known by mankind as a lie...and only you know the truth. In earlier times, people like you fancied they were Napoleon Bonaparte and we locked them in asylums.
It's not flat. There are mountains and valleys. It's also not a spinning globe flying through space, as that is impossible. Do you believe you are spinning upside down flying through space, like a retard?
Of course it is spinning, but very slowly. Only turns once every 24 hours (about 0.0007 rpm). The effect of that is imperceptible. We are "glued" to the surface by gravity, in every direction. That is the nature of gravity (a centripetal force). Same as with other planets. You don't really have a good handle on what is possible or impossible.
No mechanism for gravity has ever been proven. With the electric force, they describe a specific subatomic interaction. With gravity, they say ‘we don’t know why’. How can something attract something millions or billions of light years away? Oh, right, I forgot, by ‘bending space time’. Space time? The what now? What exactly is space time? Oh, it’s the ,very fabric of the universe’. And how do objects bend it?
Gravity is like when you sit on a bed and loose stuff on it is attracted to your bottom; they move over to you. Well, it's like that with the Earth, but the impression the bottom (Earth) makes with the bed (space) is an all-around 3D one; loose bodies (the moon, asteroids, etc) are attracted to it. A heavier bottom (the Sun) will attract more loose things (planets, asteroids, moons, etc). This is a gravity well.
The "mechanism" for gravity is no more or less explained than the "mechanism" for electric charge, the essence of which is still unknown. We have a theory to relate the effects of electric and magnetic fields. We also have a theory to describe the effects of a gravitational field; it is called orbital mechanics, the force and acceleration between two (or more) objects of mass. Frederick Kantor had an information-based theory of gravity, but I read his book a long time ago and can't recall the details.
You don't like "spacetime" and bending? Neither do I. So what? Bad theory does not displace existing observational reality.
High probability that “gravity” is actually describing a magnetic field. The equations even show its strength dropping as a square function of the distance just like a field equation (see wi-fi signal strength equation). Mass is likely related to the strength of the attractive EM field so this is likely how they are disguising it: https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Force-of-Gravity
Well, that's not how a magnetic field varies, since they are not spherically symmetric and only affect moving charges. You are thinking of an electric field, which is also a conservative force field. Mass is related to the number of protons and neutrons (and electrons, but they are fluff) in the nuclei of the matter under consideration.
Not in the least. For you to say so makes you a nitwit. I don't like being slandered and I have no compunctions about clearly identifying you for what you are.
I don’t believe in flat earth, but I’m exploring it. The assumption Carl and his Eratosthenes, who may or may not have existed, are making, is that the Sun is so far away that the sun’s rays come in parallel. That is already part of the globe earth model, so of course it supports another globe earth conclusion. Have you proved to yourself that the sun is so far away, without relying circularly on a globe earth assumption to prove it?
There is no "globe earth assumption." We've known since the 16th century that it is conclusively round (Magellan's circumnavigation). Why don't you start with the hand's-on evidence and testimony and catch up from there?
Don’t worry, I know everything you know about it. Wow, Magellan, really? I knew about that fully when I was 5 years old. I’ve even circumnavigated the Earth myself. Anyway, I specifically said I don’t believe in flat Earth, so why are you trying to convince me? And why specifically are you trying to convince me simply by telling me the commonly known things, which obviously I know, because it’s common knowledge.
A lot of people don't believe in anything. You might be one of them. If you are "exploring" the idea of a flat earth, and refer to a globular earth as being an "assumption," then you are not knowledgeable enough about circumnavigation to realize that Earth's roundness is a fact, not an assumption.
The radius of the Earth is about 6378 km. The distance to the Sun is about 150 million km. This means the angular separation of measurements of the Sun's direction from opposite points on the Earth cannot be more than about 85 microradians. If the sun is closer, it is possible (inevitable) to get much greater separations. So, go get 'em, since you know everything I know about it.
Keep questioning. Latest Artemis mission vehicle does not appear to have enough fuel reserves by my calculation to do a round trip to a moon as far away as NASA says it is. Same problem with Apollo. This indicates either 1. They didn’t go all the way and just hung out in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), OR 2. It is much closer than NASA says (NASA caught lying at least 40 times by my count)
Consider also that the current size of the Earth may be much larger (diameter) than what was reported a long time ago. I have not seen any modern measurements from anyone other than NASA or geologist liars in last 200 years, so I suspect it has changed and they don't want to report that. This possibly could create the perception that the Earth is flat or flat-er as the curvature may be less than expected given outdated diameter size (this curvature issue needs some hard data by credible people without an incentive to keep lying to us).
The size and shape of the Earth is a subject of constant attention, in order to develop accurate and up-to-date ephemeris information for space vehicles. We have hard data. You just don't want it. You already demonstrate you have no idea what "credibility" means, or who is or isn't. You are not searching for the truth; you are just searching for the pastor who will satisfy your itching ears.
Exactly. We have sent satellites around the Earth and photographed it to high accuracy. Even to this day. Every time you use the GPS map function on your car, you are using satellites orbiting around the Earth.
Would be quite unlikely that all the other massive celestial objects are spherical EXCEPT for... flat Earth.
Perhaps. However I like to make determinations scientifically, not probabilistically. Reality is a wild place, and does not conform to our expectations of likelihood.
If we want to know the shape of the earth, we have to study the shape of the earth! Studying the shape of things in the sky (“astronomically” far away, and so not directly study-able) to infer the shape of the ground you stand on is unscientific and silly!
Not a delusion when you can navigate (literally) around the Earth. Anything contrary to physical fact is a delusion. Guess who is inside your head, having a chuckle at your expense.
Why argue over flat Earth? Why not just prove what people say are false? Leave FE out of the equation. Prove the curvature etc. Because we don't know, we can't prove. Use topics of discussion like gravity, distance etc to prove points. Show true pictures of the planets and how they cgi them up. Look for pictures of Australia see if everyone is upside down lol.
This is the problem. Anytime someone tries to independently measure curvature or report their actual data they either get attacked or murdered. There is a huge lie being covered.
A little geometric knowledge would be helpful. There is "curvature" even if you are on an LP record, so unless you know what you are measuring and why, it would tell you nothing.
More to the point is cartography, and the fact that it is not possible to make a continuous map of the Earth unless it is on a spherical surface. All attempts to piece together large flat maps result in boundaries that do not align.
Or just give it up as a lost cause. Centuries of science and exploration has proven the Earth to be "spherical" to a high degree. There are no inexplicable features. And Australia is not upside down (of course).
Please explain why a satellite photograph would not show a picture on its side or upside down. I struggle with the concept that we are spinning at 1000mph+, Elipses Orbiting at 67000 mph and hurtling through space at 500, 000 mph. All the planets moons etc keeping near perfect time with us. Of course I also wonder why if the sun is 90+ million miles away, temp is 10,000f (BTW a plasma metal cutter is 40,000f) traveling through Negative 430f tempature, the rays warm/radiate/Planck through uv/molecular heat the earth. I wonder why you can see Chicago across lake MI. 53 or so miles away. Should be on the other side of the curve. I am not saying the world is flat, round. Or Taco shaped. I am saying they lie and they don't know either.
You haven't looked at enough satellite images, for one thing. Struggle all you want. Why are you struggling? The rotation is a tiny rate. Figure it out for yourself, instead of struggling in dumb wonder. We have no capability to sense speed, as anyone can realize by flying in a jet airplane at 600+ mph. Not so far from 1000 mph, right?
For most of your other questions, read a textbook on astronomy. (Space has no temperature, by the way.)
As for Chicago across the lake, that is an effect of atmospheric refraction. It is a general effect, but can be stronger when there is a temperature distribution cold at the surface, warming with height, as might be true of water over a lake.
Read the encylopedia. Obtain some learning! It is not all lies. "They" (whoever they are) are not everywhere, pen in hand, writing everything. We knew all about the Earth and Moon before there was ever a NASA. The only thing that NASA contributed was passage to the Moon and the opportunity to make better measurements.
If you don't know any truth, you are simply lost---by your own choice.
I'm trying to be civil and kind. 1. Is not true due to the fact that a flight on an airplane 1hr east and west (without head/tailwind produces the same distance. 2. Temp: According to the people who mislead you space has a temp of approx -450 degrees f. https://www.space.com/14719-spacekids-temperature-outer-space.html
3. Chicago: that lie has been debunked because refractions hold fast to the visual horizon they sit upon. Think mirage on a desert sand. Also I can show you testing (if you wish) of a laser beam traveling miles across a flat lake, this being impossible as laser shoot straight. You say it's not all lies. I won't put words in your mouth. Nasa gets approx 68 million a day. That money means alot to them and possibly others. I wish you peace, and apologize if I have offended you, and ask you forgiveness. https://youtu.be/qniCs03t3GM
My point about airplane flight is that when you are aboard, you have no perception of speed. You are aware that the atmosphere is "fixed" relative to the Earth's surface? It's all carried along. Do the numbers. (Can you do the numbers?) Sit on a playground carousel and have it rotate at 0.0007 rpm and see if you can feel anything.
You can tell the Earth is rotating by the motion of the stars, and the progression of the Sun. There are geophysical signs, such as the bulge of the oceans at the equator due to centripetal acceleration. When we are in orbit around the Earth, we can measure its rotation relative to our own orbital motion.
Significantly, it makes a big difference if we are launching a satellite to go east instead of west, because eastbound allows us to take advantage of Earth's rotational velocity---while westbound imposes that on us as a velocity penalty.
Space is a vacuum. There is nothing "there" to have a temperature. What utterly faint gas that may be there is often at "temperatures" of thousands of degrees, but it is meaningless since it is so thin. It's like the vacuum in a TV tube.
What happens is that anything in shadow will radiate to open space, which has a back-radiation temperature equivalent of about 4 kelvins. Tired light from far stars. Space is my business, so no one is misleading me. You are in no position to give instruction.
No debunk. You are speaking gibberish about refraction. The refraction results in curved ray paths. It happens to laser beams as well, because laser beams are only light. I should know something about this because I spent part of my career in the design and analysis of laser weapons and their beam propagation. Atmospheric refraction of the beam was a major problem.
We knew most of this long before NASA. As you might know if you would learn some science instead of visiting websites. While I have a bone to pick with NASA about their "climate science" (a political corruption), their statements on matters of space travel and planetary science are reliable. If you want to say they are liars, prove the lies. I mean PROVE them, with verifiable evidence---not "I think I see..." arguments based on looking at Rorschach blots.
1a. Wrong again: humans do have speed time perception ever hit a baseball genius? Do you think a pitcher throws the same speed everything?
1b. Wrong again Einstein:
according to nasa...The Earth's atmosphere is an extremely thin sheet of air extending from the surface of the Earth to the edge of space. The Earth is a sphere with a roughly 8000 mile diameter; the thickness of the atmosphere is about 60 miles. In this picture, taken from a spacecraft orbiting at 200 miles above the surface, we can see the atmosphere as the thin blue band between the surface and the blackness of space. If the Earth were the size of a basketball, the thickness of the atmosphere could be modeled by a thin sheet of plastic wrapped around the ball. Gravity holds the atmosphere to the Earth's surface.
So air (what did you call it ahh yes Atmosphere) cannot be "fixed" to the earth. Maybe you meant gravity, that holds the air in and keeps it close to earth in layers. But still Wrong if ya did so it doesn't matter....
1c. So moronic not gonna answer.
Stars and movement: Wtf does that have to do with fe vs re? But ok Newton, here goes. What's the north star does it move. Explain that one Galileo. How can we spin around an Elipses and the nort star never change? Cmon open your eyes dude take 1 of your marbles (if you haven't eaten them all) move it around your basketball in an elliptical pattern take your other hand make a fist. That is your north star now explain to yourself why is the north star always north.....that's right you can't. Progression of the sun lol ok...ever seen the sun and moon at the same time? Does that mean the "other side of the world" doesn't have a moon or maybe they just looked through the earth and saw the one your looking at. (Photos show 2 sides of the world looking at moon wierd huh) But hey I wish ya well, we agree to disagree.
1a) You are confusing the perception of some other thing moving, with a perception of yourself moving. If you are in an airplane cabin at altitude and a constant speed, it is no different than sitting on the runway. Not my opinion. It is a fact of human physiology.
1b) I am an aerodynamicist by training and you are simply ignorant. The air is a viscous medium and will have a boundary layer characterized by zero slip velocity at the surface of contact (the Earth's surface). Since long eons ago, the atmosphere has come to equilibrium with the rotating Earth (i.e., the Earth is not accelerating up or down to cause the atmosphere to have a different velocity). Thus, the air is fixed to the Earth by friction and maintains the same rotational velocity with latitude. This is the easier if it is a "thin" layer.
1c) So true, you have no answer---you just blow it off with a puff of bravado. Read all about it in any book on orbital mechanics. Why do you suppose the Europeans like to launch their Ariane vehicles from French Guiana? Because they are getting the maximum advantage of the Earth's rotational speed by being close to the equator (5 deg N). The Sea Launch program, which I once supported, launched its vehicles exactly from the equator. You are playing the moron by getting in over your head.
The North Star does not appear to move because it is very close to the direction of the axis of the Earth (but it is not precisely on the axis, so the movement can actually be measured). Due to axial precession, other stars have occupied the "pole star" position in ages past. Good try. It only proves there is a rotational axis. (There is a similar position over the south pole, but no visible star close enough to call the South Star.)
We can follow a slightly-elliptical orbit around the Sun because the position of the pole star depends only on where the Earth's axis is pointing. The stars are so far away, we don't notice any effect of the size of the Earth's orbit. Polaris (the pole star) is something like 400 light-years away. The Sun is about 500 light-seconds away. That's a factor of 31.5 million difference. But you knew that, right?
Ever seen the full Moon? That's when the Sun and the Moon are OPPOSITE each other with respect to the Earth. The Sun is at the noon meridian while the Moon is at the midnight meridian. Yet, there are people who are on one side of the Earth who can see the Moon but not the Sun, and people who are on the other side of the Earth who cannot see the Moon but see the Sun. This can only happen if the Earth has opposite sides. The Earth rotates in 24 hours, but the Moon revolves around the Earth in 30 days. This is why we get phases of the Moon over 30 days, but the Moon always seems to go around the Earth each day. It goes on and on. Something a fifth-grader could learn. But apparently, not you.
Too bad you are leaving. I think there is a lot of education I could give you.
I am a fan of sagan, but this is presented all wrong.
Eratosthenes knew the world was spherical, like most educated ancient greeks, because he was taught it as fact from childhood, the same way we are today. He never once questioned that fact, nor ever sought to validate it.
His method was designed to calculate the circumference of the earth and absolutely requires that the world be spherical in order to be at all sensical.
The ancient greeks “knew” the world was spherical because they were taught it as fact from childhood, and the (admittedly extremely spotty) history shows that the reason was due to pythagoras’ musings on lunar eclipses; eratosthenes had absolutely nothing to do with it.
If you have an interest in this topic please join us on flatearthresearch to discuss it, as such discussions are unwelcome here (as per the mods). If you can’t find it, let me know and i will pm you a link.
So while scientists have been verifying this stuff for thousands of years, you’re going to go with “apparently they made it up” without even verifying it?
This is exactly the problem. The “experts” and “scientists” say it is so, therefore “do not question”. Exhibits top down hierarchical control and supression of questioning (anti-human AND anti-science) rather than easily explainable and logical conclusion. Thus, suspicious.
Sure there are plenty of non-scientists who defer and don’t question because they assume the scientists are right, but the problem is that many of people questioning established science these days barely understand the basic concepts.
What is the “easily explainable and logical conclusion” if not the one put forth in this video?
I love alternate theories, but they still have to stand up to scrutiny. Claiming it’s suspicious just because it’s “science” is pretty dumb.
It is easily explainable and logical. The problem is that some people object to learning facts that are contrary to their presupposed "common sense." (Do heavy objects fall faster than light objects? Galileo wants to know.)
So you’re going to go with that broken record comment that everyone who is afraid to investigate says? Bro, I AM verifying it. You’re watching me in the process of verifying it. And for the entire time I investigate this and every other tough to swallow consideration, I have to listen to people like you say your unthinking programmed comments on repeat. And I’ll happily do it.
I hadn’t seen this video or heard of Eratosthenes’ experiment until now. The thing is I can do this experiment myself to verify it if I want to. Heck, as a former architect who’s had to do countless sun studies, I can basically do it in my head right now (of course, I’d bust out a pencil and paper or AutoCAD if it seemed the slightest bit fishy).
I like knowing the truth and how things work, and would be very interested if you could prove either that this experiment is wrong or that this historical figure was made up, but simply an “apparently this is fake” from a stranger on the internet holds no weight with me.
I’ll take your reluctance to provide your verification as a concession though. Thanks.
Eratosthenes was referenced in the Suda (a publication dating from the 10th century).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Titles
He was mentioned also by Strabo, who lived in the 1st century.
Here, people throw "it's fake" like the superstitious throw a pinch of salt over their shoulder.
You know all this because...? You realize that the end point of radical skepticism is that you can't rely on anything at all, not even the directions on your appliances. Nor even your own memoranda (they could have changed them behind your back). You have no point of contact with reality. You have a mental problem.
But to come back to the thread and not let it go into a memory hole... You said "There's absolutely no record of [Eratosthenes] existing until they made him up in the eighties or whatever." This is manifestly false when references him go back to the 1st century. So, you were not merely mistaken, you simply lied outright, making a statement entirely without foundation. Your "assumption" was a fantasy, having no relationship to reality. So, to say "it's not even a stretch to assume" is frivolous nonsense.
But that is how you work. When something is inconveniently an obstacle to your fantasy, you pretend they don't exist---and expect the rest of us to join in your pretense. This is called solipsism, the doctrine that the world is what you think it is. It is a mental problem. You are not enlightened. You are just crazy.
The earth is level.
Yup. Water surface is always level, which it couldn't be on a ball or globe. That alone debunks the globe Earth delusion.
"Level" means that it conforms to the general surface of a sphere. At short distances, the difference between this and "flat" is imperceptible (especially considering the presence of waves). But there is always a horizon.
Magellan went around the world in the 16th century by ship. The Earth was circumnavigated by airplane in 1924. And by orbiting manned satellite in 1961. Nothing beats going AROUND the Earth.
This is true. Some people need to travel more...to travel like they did. Also some people need to realize that there are good people and bad people from every ethnicity. I would imagine that particular person would only trust small-nosed people; it's ridiculous.
Nope. You seem jewish.
Really, it does. And why would a fact inspire you to make a crack like that? I will be more generous: you seem stupid.
In lots of places, to us three-dimensional creatures, it does...but to fourth-dimensional creatures, it would look level all around.
If you go straight up..no matter how far up...how come you can't see China? Proves the Earth is in fact.........ROUND!
No. If the Earth is indeed flat then you should be able to see EVERY CONTINENT and EVERY OCEAN on the planet, right? If you go high enough you should be able to see everything...but you can't.
I have several answers to your question.
If you are interested, please let me know!
riddle me this sagan, where is the curve of the earth?
it isn't on wikipedia
it isn't connecting the suez canal .. even tho it is over 100 miles long connecting two oceans
we can't find it on our railroad lines, they are perfectly level covering the entire continent with inclines and declines to record
if this pudwacker ever did an expose on my questions.. it would be like watching mythbusters 'prove the moon landing' .. NOT A SINGLE QUESTION ANSWERED WAS A REASON I SEE THE MOONLANDING AS FAKE
hilariously buzz aldrin stated flat out he didn't go to the moon
You misspelled "hilariously buzz aldrin knocked someone flat out for saying he didn't go to the moon"
incorrect. he was speaking to a child and after she asked why we hadn't got back to the moon..
he said .. because we never went
i will be looking for an apology... only the first 30 seconds of this video .. i didn't watch it after that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY0vRGFUYHE
All good points. Be prepared to get brigaded by shills and glowies as we veer off into "Conspiracy" discussion on this post if it gets enough up-doots.
It blows my mind that we can't get straight answers or unedited satellite images from NASA to sort this stuff out. Do I need to buy my own freaking satellite to get some damn straight answers? NASA is asshoe!
they would if they could. nasa has more cgi computers than anyone in the world BUT hollywood
they also buy the most helium. you know for balloons that are the actually satellites
Sauce?
when i saw it, it was readily googlable info
Yes. The assumption here is that “satellites” are somehow “orbiting” by being blown in circles around the top of our “dome” sky? Quite a bit of effort has been put into this deception. Does this mean no rockets actually penetrate the “dome”, or is there a door or tear somewhere? (Like the milky way we see looks like a tear in the sky).
Helium purchases and control appears to be getting routed through numerous shell companies now since Anons started reporting on this roughly 20 years ago.
this is what i've come to believe. and, pure speculation here.. but the idea is that atlantis sunk itself was the great flood, and that flood was caused by cracking the dome, which healed and left the 'milky way'
i do believe atlantis existed and that it sunk itself. i've also found a book called 'the lost continent of mu' which is a book which found a continent on the west of the united states that also sunk, called mu
You can get the Lunar Orbiter strip photo of the Earth above the Moon's horizon. You can get the Apollo 1972 photo of the Earth from the Moon. See, you can get these---but you don't want to. You lie about being unable to get them, and they are easy to get. But you don't WANT the straight answers. Can't help that.
Link us to your favorite video of Antarctica from space.
Pay me to make one. Why bother with videos when there have been expeditions galore and air tourism to see for yourself? And why bother, when any video I might produce would be rejected because "it is fake"? You just argue in bad faith.| You ignore all the hands-on data so you can hide behind these "link us to your favorite video" demands. As though a video would be more real than actually being there.
If you are authentically curious, here is the Apollo 17 photo of Antarctica. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002600/a002680/a002680.00005_print.png There is no basis for calling this fake.
I really need to save up and pay the continent a visit one day.
https://www.nomadasaurus.com/best-things-to-do-in-antarctica/
Not a video, but comments locked to avoid FE commentary by us skeptical retards...lol: https://greatawakening.win/p/15IrKrFHHu/behold-antarctica-from-space/c/
So you think the earth is flat? How far down does this “flat earth” go?
infinite plane of existence
or there is a dome, as the bible says
i do feel it is correct to say we live 'within' God.
the idea we are nothing but energy.. allowed me to heal myself
it shouldn't matter what i think
anyway, all i know is that what can be proven is a stationary
Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
Why is it not written: "As far the north is from the south..."?
Is Sagan a cabal dude? I still can't figure out which side he was on.
All atheists are satanists. Some only useful idiots, and then others willingly like Sagan.
Some are, yet a some are merely truth seekers who will find God if they keep at it.
I used to be an atheist and believe in God now, so yeah. It could happen.
ditto
hard to say. many that speak about space are just fools lost in formulas and ideas that have no foundation in reality
but given his position .. he had to be a cabal tool
He’s at least Jewish, which is a fact I pass no judgment whatsoever on, only state.
So was Dr. Zelenko.
Well, you see the moon landing as fake because you are ignorant and paranoid. I'm curious: were you old enough to be alive when it happened? Or is this all a Sour Grapes episode that something cool like this might have happened before you were alive, but not while you are alive?
where is the curve? if you can't see past the fake moon landing..
they try and find the formula for the curvature of the earth
i ask because IT DOESN'T EXIST ..
there for i need not have been alive to be brainwashed as well as all those who went thru it appear to be.
i personally think it was the incredible sense of accomplishment you guys are unwilling to let go of.
of course of the reasons i can't accept the moon landing is the fact we LOST THE high-quality version of the moon landing video.
just lost it. then australia was like hey NASA we have a copy
NASA was like, cool, give it to us
then promptly destroyed it as well.
you can't explain such behavior by NASA, but i can
oh, and they also lost the SATURN V rocket planes. the thing we spent billions creating... that those involved say was never completed.. and now they are just gone
literally the crown jewel of the space program.. supposedly 'lost'
i think ya'll believe in some pretty unbelievably bad lies
What do you mean "formula for the curvature of the Earth"? If you mean the radius of the Earth, it is about 6,378 km and describes the circular profile and spherical area of the Earth. Easy formulas. I'm sure you can look them up.
It seems in your case, there might not have been much to wash.
The Saturn V went out of production. If you want to see one in the flesh, go to the Huntsville, Alabama space museum, standing tall and proud next to a last-of-its-kind Space Shuttle. Not supposedly "lost"---entirely lost. You don't appreciate that technology is perishable. Nor do we know how to cast turrets for battleships or make 12-inch naval guns. All lost to time and tide. Not all information is written down. Written records are finally thrown in the trash. Experts die. What you seem to believe in is a fairy tale where people don't die, memories are not forgotten, and information is never lost. That has no relationship to reality. You need to become an adult and grow up.
you know, that formula you would use to calculated microwave towers given the curve over (x) miles
this is NOT actually done. but it is an example of what would be done, if the earth where in fact curved
microwaves travel straight, and towers are placed at the same height, based upon sea level and point them at each other. (just one more proof for the lack of a curve)
be the first to find it! nobody else can. show me who uses it...
here is forbes saying 'we lost ability to travel to moon
here is a list of reasons we can't build a rocket
whatever you say champ. seems to me there are many opinions (as to why we can't/haven't build one again), but mostly clouded bullshit that leads to the same conclusion..
it can't be done.. or it can but nobody wants to spend the money on it
i can smell bullshit, and the moonlanding reeks of it. if you can't smell it.. perhaps you are paid not to? probably the most disingenious thing NASA does is employ dipshits to spread their lies. folks just can't believe that a trillion dollar lie, and i get that is 'the rub'
but you take a step back, you see footprints in soft dust.. that dust couldn't possibly be there after a rocket landing. any and all small debris would have been sent flying
but alas, all this trivia is most likely too subtle for you.
Regarding microwave towers, if the towers are at the same height and they point at each other, the elevation angle of the beam centerline at each tower will be slightly negative to account for Earth curvature. Very small angle. Probably well within the error budget of the alignment. (It looks like they use phased arrays, so there is no mechanical pointing, just a reach-out-and-grab approach.)
You can't prove anything with microwave towers. I could glue two pencil stubs to the surface of a basket ball and string a line from the tip of one stub to the tip of the other stub. Just like a microwave link.
What is your problem with microwave towers? Earth curvature must figure into the problem at large distances. It does with radar and air-to-air microwave communication. Along with atmospheric refraction. I did this for a living. You are talking through your hat.
curcumference of a circle = pi x (radius)^2 area of a sphere = 4pi x (radius)^2 This is elementary geometry. Only the profoundly ignorant do not know or use this. (If you want the x & y coordinates of a circle, talk to a 9th grader who has taken analytical geometry. In polar coordinates it is a radius R across 2pi steradians of angle.)
Forbes is not an expert publication in rocket propulsion. According to NASA, the STS will be a "replacement" for the Saturn V. Informed technical opinion projects it will be canceled for budgetary reasons---and because Space X's Starship will surpass its performance and schedule. Supposedly, the Space Shuttle was its "replacement," but it, too, is dead.
Smelling bullshit about the moon landing is the unfortunate effect of sheer ignorance being inserted in place of "common sense." You can't substantiate any of it. I've heard all the bullshit arguments, and all they are is ignorant failure to understand photography, gravity, and other phenomena unique to the Moon. Footprints in soft dust. For one thing, it wasn't that soft, as the astronauts found out afterward. It was very hard and gritty. For another thing, the environment was vacuum and the rocket exhaust expanded to very low pressure over a very short distance. There is no reason to think the dust might have been moved, if it were out of the exhaust plume. You are thinking of the effects that would occur if there had been an atmosphere to carry the momentum of the exhaust---but since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, that didn't happen. But alas, this fact of physics, is likely too subtle for you.
look at all the words you actually substitute for 'common sense'
no my friend, it is you that fail to see 'prop rocks' in the photos of the moon landing, not me.
it is you that fails to see the backdrop used, and the multiple re-uses of the same background
the list of 'problems' with the moon landing is nearly infinite
here is a list of the real reasons each 'space mission' happened. it was literally 'taken away' after it was feared to being overused. it was and it was already to late.
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
ah yes, you are a professional! making up new stuff as we go! right on.
for one, there is a atmosphere, supposedly . you seem to omit facts or change them as it suits you.
is that common sense to you?
given the entire picture, a few pieces (dust didn't move) being shaky is 'small potatoes' compared to the fact the first time they attempted to land a 'lunar modular' using rocket propulsion failed incredibly badly. - and was never tested again
or the first/only time they tested a 'space suit' the man fainted .. and it was never tested again
i say you must overlook an insane amount of evidence that fails the scientific test
You are making allegations without evidence. What is a "prop rock"? That's what you are declaring what you see, not evidence of it being unauthentic. Same thing about a "backdrop." What makes the background view a "backdrop"? The fact that it doesn't change with time? Gee, that is sort of what happens in a largely stationary environment: not much happens.
The "moondoggie" page is just a reading assignment. I looked at the first article. No images. No interest in wasting my time because you can't make a point for yourself.
An atmosphere on the Moon? If you think so, you are truly ignorant. It is vacuum. Rocket exhaust has nothing to push around, and it expands very rapidly once out of the nozzle, so there is no problem with small rocks not being moved. (There is some streaking radiating from where the exhaust did impinge.) The first time landing the LEM did not fail (there was an interval that the guidance program had to work through before touchdown, and this was known by both the astronauts and ground control). Space suits were in use since the Mercury flights.
I say you need to learn some science before you see "evidence" that is only your own misunderstanding or ignorance.
it is spelled circumference
yes, yet it is not. and we have multiple examples in which it is clearly violated (see the bottom of mountains from over 100 miles away)
that is entirely my point. you assume it is used, you are wrong.
none. they prove my point
Jump on a typo made with a tired mind. I'm shaking in my boots.
You are not really talking about curvature, but of the perceived horizon. In cases where it is possible to see as you claim (also seeing Chicago across Lake Michigan), what is in effect is the "fata morgana," a kind of atmospheric refraction that allows light to curve close to the curvature of the Earth. This is particularly the case with microwaves, which leads to calculating the radar horizon range as though the radius of the Earth were 4/3 of its physical value. (This effect goes away as the radar path becomes higher in the atmosphere.)
It is well understood that when the Sun is visibly touching the horizon, it is geometrically already under the horizon. This is due to refraction effects. But the sun still sinks lower and is progressively eclipsed by the horizon from the bottom to its top.
So microwave towers prove nothing for you. They are needed to "see" over the ground clutter and to have a communication path to the next nearest tower. They don't prove anything (you don't even hint at what they are supposed to prove).
Also it sounds like the person needs to travel around the world and check things out.
What was Stanley Kubrick doing at a military base with a “studio” in June of 1968?
Another "what" question? Suppose you tell me. Suppose you establish that any such thing happened. I take this as a concession that you were not there to witness anything, since you don't want to admit your age.
"Flat Earth" is likely a CIA psyop to cover up/misdirect from this information:
I am still trying to figure out the truth, but if you observe the angle of the sun's rays, a sun 93M miles away would have all rays almost parallel to each other. This is not the case, and it is visible even in space (see Japan's recent moon mission photos), so it is not the atmosphere difracting the rays as NASA BS narrative goes.
Do you know of a summary video about this theory?
I do not. This is what I was able to assemble as my own "combined" theory of all the stuff that doesn't make any sense to me. The Toroidal EM Attractive Field has been mentioned in some of the Inner Earth discussion as people try to explain how people could exist on both sides of the crust with the inner being "updside down". It appears possible to me and might also explain the "primary water reservoir" hit by the Libyans under the Sahara. They may have actually hit the "inner ocean" (speculation). Toroidal shape is seen in the growth of many fruits, including the apple (see cross-section); Is it possible that they grow that way because of the nature of the Earth's EM field?
The sun/moon size/movements/tracking is actually explained in the Flat Earth Theory, so that part of the FET may actually be correct.
The expanding Earth shell makes sense if one assume the Earth used to be smaller with all continents closer together and it was the Earth's shell expansion, not "tectonic theory" that caused Pangea to turn into today's continent locations. This also works with the Toroidal EM AF theory (1), and would be driven by energy from a much closer sun (2). So there are some clues for you.
Ok I’ll keep an eye out for more info regarding that.
It is also possible that the Earth diameter is superhuge and we are in a bowl under a dome on just one part of it (fishbowl prison dome theory...lol) on a SuperEarth (spheroid). A discrete area of a large sphere always appears “flat” or nearly so with very small curvature.
Look, the sun is 93 million miles away. It has been measured by trigonometry and verified with orbital mechanics. We have sent probes around it. Why don't you get with the 17th century at least and catch up?
Suspicious. Why 93, a known cabal number combination? Too many symbology giveaways to be coincidence. 90deg minus 23.4deg Earth axis tilt = 66.6deg? Really? C’mon dude.
You are finding nothing. We say 93 million miles as a shorthand for the fact that it varies between 94.5 and 91.4 million miles. The semi-major axis is 92.956 million miles. Funny how there are no coincidences, but the match-ups are not exact. (Or, use the metric system and call it 150 million km. That's a cabal, number, right?)
And you are saying that the Earth tilt is a mark of Satan? Kind of an odd mark on God's creation. Maybe you should use radians and not degrees.
There are such things as meaningless coincidences. Life is filled with them. These are some of them. Life is not a Rorschach blot, but you are acting like it is.
They ARE almost parallel. You just don't understand the implications of "almost." Or single-point perspective. (A sun 93 million miles away would have rays going in all directions. The question is "how parallel?" Can you figure out the number?)
Calculating the spectrum of angles that the rays of a sun of given size at a given distance, hitting the earth at any given location is trivial mathematics. You can let go of the assumption that people who wonder about a flat earth can’t calculate anything that you can, especially such simple things as trigonometry and calculus. You are just hopeful to be speaking with someone who doesn’t understand ‘the implications of almost’. Wow what a mind bending topic we just can’t wrap our heads around the ‘implications of almost’.
So what are you trying to say? You are "almost" understandable. You call it "trivial mathematics," which is usually a cover for your inability to do it. Or you would come up with some mathematical demonstration...which you can't.
The fact is that all light rays from the sun radiate from the sun, and that radiation (spreading out in angular space) will be visible in the sky as well as anywhere, because we are looking up the cone of light from the sun, which is a tremendous foreshortening of the visual geometry. Since there is no other way it can work, you don't have anything. If the sun were closer, we would see and measure the difference. Doesn't happen.
A closer sun with varying angles of rays might give the appearance of large curvature. The misattribution of the reason for something to explain a lie is a classic cabal tactic. They actually spend a lot of time constructing all the details of their “lies” to make the explanation sound believable. Then they buy ther services of “experts” and “scientists” to aggressively push, then cap it off with continuous media and public school reinforcement.
Start with the assumption that all information taught in public school is an outright lie or intended to mislead. This is how we know the sun is NOT 93M miles away. It is part of the cabal talking points, therefore it is known to be false with high certainty.
Then I will cheerfully start with the assumption that everything you say is a lie. It certainly fits the facts.
You talk a nice story, but it is only a story. What a head trip, being able to denounce everything known by mankind as a lie...and only you know the truth. In earlier times, people like you fancied they were Napoleon Bonaparte and we locked them in asylums.
[Gets popcorn and waits for retards who still think the Earth is flat, not realizing they are just like people still wearing masks]
It's not flat. There are mountains and valleys. It's also not a spinning globe flying through space, as that is impossible. Do you believe you are spinning upside down flying through space, like a retard?
Of course it is spinning, but very slowly. Only turns once every 24 hours (about 0.0007 rpm). The effect of that is imperceptible. We are "glued" to the surface by gravity, in every direction. That is the nature of gravity (a centripetal force). Same as with other planets. You don't really have a good handle on what is possible or impossible.
No mechanism for gravity has ever been proven. With the electric force, they describe a specific subatomic interaction. With gravity, they say ‘we don’t know why’. How can something attract something millions or billions of light years away? Oh, right, I forgot, by ‘bending space time’. Space time? The what now? What exactly is space time? Oh, it’s the ,very fabric of the universe’. And how do objects bend it?
Gravity is like when you sit on a bed and loose stuff on it is attracted to your bottom; they move over to you. Well, it's like that with the Earth, but the impression the bottom (Earth) makes with the bed (space) is an all-around 3D one; loose bodies (the moon, asteroids, etc) are attracted to it. A heavier bottom (the Sun) will attract more loose things (planets, asteroids, moons, etc). This is a gravity well.
https://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/3-whats-a-gravity-well.html
The "mechanism" for gravity is no more or less explained than the "mechanism" for electric charge, the essence of which is still unknown. We have a theory to relate the effects of electric and magnetic fields. We also have a theory to describe the effects of a gravitational field; it is called orbital mechanics, the force and acceleration between two (or more) objects of mass. Frederick Kantor had an information-based theory of gravity, but I read his book a long time ago and can't recall the details.
You don't like "spacetime" and bending? Neither do I. So what? Bad theory does not displace existing observational reality.
High probability that “gravity” is actually describing a magnetic field. The equations even show its strength dropping as a square function of the distance just like a field equation (see wi-fi signal strength equation). Mass is likely related to the strength of the attractive EM field so this is likely how they are disguising it: https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Force-of-Gravity
Well, that's not how a magnetic field varies, since they are not spherically symmetric and only affect moving charges. You are thinking of an electric field, which is also a conservative force field. Mass is related to the number of protons and neutrons (and electrons, but they are fluff) in the nuclei of the matter under consideration.
Says the guy who believes satanists.
Not in the least. For you to say so makes you a nitwit. I don't like being slandered and I have no compunctions about clearly identifying you for what you are.
I don’t believe in flat earth, but I’m exploring it. The assumption Carl and his Eratosthenes, who may or may not have existed, are making, is that the Sun is so far away that the sun’s rays come in parallel. That is already part of the globe earth model, so of course it supports another globe earth conclusion. Have you proved to yourself that the sun is so far away, without relying circularly on a globe earth assumption to prove it?
There is no "globe earth assumption." We've known since the 16th century that it is conclusively round (Magellan's circumnavigation). Why don't you start with the hand's-on evidence and testimony and catch up from there?
Don’t worry, I know everything you know about it. Wow, Magellan, really? I knew about that fully when I was 5 years old. I’ve even circumnavigated the Earth myself. Anyway, I specifically said I don’t believe in flat Earth, so why are you trying to convince me? And why specifically are you trying to convince me simply by telling me the commonly known things, which obviously I know, because it’s common knowledge.
A lot of people don't believe in anything. You might be one of them. If you are "exploring" the idea of a flat earth, and refer to a globular earth as being an "assumption," then you are not knowledgeable enough about circumnavigation to realize that Earth's roundness is a fact, not an assumption.
The radius of the Earth is about 6378 km. The distance to the Sun is about 150 million km. This means the angular separation of measurements of the Sun's direction from opposite points on the Earth cannot be more than about 85 microradians. If the sun is closer, it is possible (inevitable) to get much greater separations. So, go get 'em, since you know everything I know about it.
Keep questioning. Latest Artemis mission vehicle does not appear to have enough fuel reserves by my calculation to do a round trip to a moon as far away as NASA says it is. Same problem with Apollo. This indicates either 1. They didn’t go all the way and just hung out in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), OR 2. It is much closer than NASA says (NASA caught lying at least 40 times by my count)
Because only stupid people think the earth is flat.
Consider also that the current size of the Earth may be much larger (diameter) than what was reported a long time ago. I have not seen any modern measurements from anyone other than NASA or geologist liars in last 200 years, so I suspect it has changed and they don't want to report that. This possibly could create the perception that the Earth is flat or flat-er as the curvature may be less than expected given outdated diameter size (this curvature issue needs some hard data by credible people without an incentive to keep lying to us).
The size and shape of the Earth is a subject of constant attention, in order to develop accurate and up-to-date ephemeris information for space vehicles. We have hard data. You just don't want it. You already demonstrate you have no idea what "credibility" means, or who is or isn't. You are not searching for the truth; you are just searching for the pastor who will satisfy your itching ears.
Correct. I suspect everyone is lying. Still sorting it out.
If the earth is flat, is the moon also flat?
Kind of hard to be flat when we have sent probes around it and photographed the far side to high accuracy.
Same can be said about earth, nay?
Exactly. We have sent satellites around the Earth and photographed it to high accuracy. Even to this day. Every time you use the GPS map function on your car, you are using satellites orbiting around the Earth.
Maybe, but why would the shape or the earth be dependent on the shape of the moon anyhow (spherical, flat, or otherwise)?
Would be quite unlikely that all the other massive celestial objects are spherical EXCEPT for... flat Earth.
Perhaps. However I like to make determinations scientifically, not probabilistically. Reality is a wild place, and does not conform to our expectations of likelihood.
If we want to know the shape of the earth, we have to study the shape of the earth! Studying the shape of things in the sky (“astronomically” far away, and so not directly study-able) to infer the shape of the ground you stand on is unscientific and silly!
Sagan is a satanist. How can you know a lot of stuff, but keep falling for the satanic ball Earth delusion?
Not a delusion when you can navigate (literally) around the Earth. Anything contrary to physical fact is a delusion. Guess who is inside your head, having a chuckle at your expense.
Why argue over flat Earth? Why not just prove what people say are false? Leave FE out of the equation. Prove the curvature etc. Because we don't know, we can't prove. Use topics of discussion like gravity, distance etc to prove points. Show true pictures of the planets and how they cgi them up. Look for pictures of Australia see if everyone is upside down lol.
This is the problem. Anytime someone tries to independently measure curvature or report their actual data they either get attacked or murdered. There is a huge lie being covered.
A little geometric knowledge would be helpful. There is "curvature" even if you are on an LP record, so unless you know what you are measuring and why, it would tell you nothing.
More to the point is cartography, and the fact that it is not possible to make a continuous map of the Earth unless it is on a spherical surface. All attempts to piece together large flat maps result in boundaries that do not align.
You prove the curvature by observing the curvature.
Or just give it up as a lost cause. Centuries of science and exploration has proven the Earth to be "spherical" to a high degree. There are no inexplicable features. And Australia is not upside down (of course).
Please explain why a satellite photograph would not show a picture on its side or upside down. I struggle with the concept that we are spinning at 1000mph+, Elipses Orbiting at 67000 mph and hurtling through space at 500, 000 mph. All the planets moons etc keeping near perfect time with us. Of course I also wonder why if the sun is 90+ million miles away, temp is 10,000f (BTW a plasma metal cutter is 40,000f) traveling through Negative 430f tempature, the rays warm/radiate/Planck through uv/molecular heat the earth. I wonder why you can see Chicago across lake MI. 53 or so miles away. Should be on the other side of the curve. I am not saying the world is flat, round. Or Taco shaped. I am saying they lie and they don't know either.
You haven't looked at enough satellite images, for one thing. Struggle all you want. Why are you struggling? The rotation is a tiny rate. Figure it out for yourself, instead of struggling in dumb wonder. We have no capability to sense speed, as anyone can realize by flying in a jet airplane at 600+ mph. Not so far from 1000 mph, right?
For most of your other questions, read a textbook on astronomy. (Space has no temperature, by the way.)
As for Chicago across the lake, that is an effect of atmospheric refraction. It is a general effect, but can be stronger when there is a temperature distribution cold at the surface, warming with height, as might be true of water over a lake.
Read the encylopedia. Obtain some learning! It is not all lies. "They" (whoever they are) are not everywhere, pen in hand, writing everything. We knew all about the Earth and Moon before there was ever a NASA. The only thing that NASA contributed was passage to the Moon and the opportunity to make better measurements.
If you don't know any truth, you are simply lost---by your own choice.
I'm trying to be civil and kind. 1. Is not true due to the fact that a flight on an airplane 1hr east and west (without head/tailwind produces the same distance. 2. Temp: According to the people who mislead you space has a temp of approx -450 degrees f. https://www.space.com/14719-spacekids-temperature-outer-space.html 3. Chicago: that lie has been debunked because refractions hold fast to the visual horizon they sit upon. Think mirage on a desert sand. Also I can show you testing (if you wish) of a laser beam traveling miles across a flat lake, this being impossible as laser shoot straight. You say it's not all lies. I won't put words in your mouth. Nasa gets approx 68 million a day. That money means alot to them and possibly others. I wish you peace, and apologize if I have offended you, and ask you forgiveness. https://youtu.be/qniCs03t3GM
You can tell the Earth is rotating by the motion of the stars, and the progression of the Sun. There are geophysical signs, such as the bulge of the oceans at the equator due to centripetal acceleration. When we are in orbit around the Earth, we can measure its rotation relative to our own orbital motion.
Significantly, it makes a big difference if we are launching a satellite to go east instead of west, because eastbound allows us to take advantage of Earth's rotational velocity---while westbound imposes that on us as a velocity penalty.
What happens is that anything in shadow will radiate to open space, which has a back-radiation temperature equivalent of about 4 kelvins. Tired light from far stars. Space is my business, so no one is misleading me. You are in no position to give instruction.
No debunk. You are speaking gibberish about refraction. The refraction results in curved ray paths. It happens to laser beams as well, because laser beams are only light. I should know something about this because I spent part of my career in the design and analysis of laser weapons and their beam propagation. Atmospheric refraction of the beam was a major problem.
We knew most of this long before NASA. As you might know if you would learn some science instead of visiting websites. While I have a bone to pick with NASA about their "climate science" (a political corruption), their statements on matters of space travel and planetary science are reliable. If you want to say they are liars, prove the lies. I mean PROVE them, with verifiable evidence---not "I think I see..." arguments based on looking at Rorschach blots.
1a. Wrong again: humans do have speed time perception ever hit a baseball genius? Do you think a pitcher throws the same speed everything?
1b. Wrong again Einstein: according to nasa...The Earth's atmosphere is an extremely thin sheet of air extending from the surface of the Earth to the edge of space. The Earth is a sphere with a roughly 8000 mile diameter; the thickness of the atmosphere is about 60 miles. In this picture, taken from a spacecraft orbiting at 200 miles above the surface, we can see the atmosphere as the thin blue band between the surface and the blackness of space. If the Earth were the size of a basketball, the thickness of the atmosphere could be modeled by a thin sheet of plastic wrapped around the ball. Gravity holds the atmosphere to the Earth's surface.
So air (what did you call it ahh yes Atmosphere) cannot be "fixed" to the earth. Maybe you meant gravity, that holds the air in and keeps it close to earth in layers. But still Wrong if ya did so it doesn't matter....
1c. So moronic not gonna answer.
Stars and movement: Wtf does that have to do with fe vs re? But ok Newton, here goes. What's the north star does it move. Explain that one Galileo. How can we spin around an Elipses and the nort star never change? Cmon open your eyes dude take 1 of your marbles (if you haven't eaten them all) move it around your basketball in an elliptical pattern take your other hand make a fist. That is your north star now explain to yourself why is the north star always north.....that's right you can't. Progression of the sun lol ok...ever seen the sun and moon at the same time? Does that mean the "other side of the world" doesn't have a moon or maybe they just looked through the earth and saw the one your looking at. (Photos show 2 sides of the world looking at moon wierd huh) But hey I wish ya well, we agree to disagree.
1a) You are confusing the perception of some other thing moving, with a perception of yourself moving. If you are in an airplane cabin at altitude and a constant speed, it is no different than sitting on the runway. Not my opinion. It is a fact of human physiology.
1b) I am an aerodynamicist by training and you are simply ignorant. The air is a viscous medium and will have a boundary layer characterized by zero slip velocity at the surface of contact (the Earth's surface). Since long eons ago, the atmosphere has come to equilibrium with the rotating Earth (i.e., the Earth is not accelerating up or down to cause the atmosphere to have a different velocity). Thus, the air is fixed to the Earth by friction and maintains the same rotational velocity with latitude. This is the easier if it is a "thin" layer.
1c) So true, you have no answer---you just blow it off with a puff of bravado. Read all about it in any book on orbital mechanics. Why do you suppose the Europeans like to launch their Ariane vehicles from French Guiana? Because they are getting the maximum advantage of the Earth's rotational speed by being close to the equator (5 deg N). The Sea Launch program, which I once supported, launched its vehicles exactly from the equator. You are playing the moron by getting in over your head.
The North Star does not appear to move because it is very close to the direction of the axis of the Earth (but it is not precisely on the axis, so the movement can actually be measured). Due to axial precession, other stars have occupied the "pole star" position in ages past. Good try. It only proves there is a rotational axis. (There is a similar position over the south pole, but no visible star close enough to call the South Star.)
We can follow a slightly-elliptical orbit around the Sun because the position of the pole star depends only on where the Earth's axis is pointing. The stars are so far away, we don't notice any effect of the size of the Earth's orbit. Polaris (the pole star) is something like 400 light-years away. The Sun is about 500 light-seconds away. That's a factor of 31.5 million difference. But you knew that, right?
Ever seen the full Moon? That's when the Sun and the Moon are OPPOSITE each other with respect to the Earth. The Sun is at the noon meridian while the Moon is at the midnight meridian. Yet, there are people who are on one side of the Earth who can see the Moon but not the Sun, and people who are on the other side of the Earth who cannot see the Moon but see the Sun. This can only happen if the Earth has opposite sides. The Earth rotates in 24 hours, but the Moon revolves around the Earth in 30 days. This is why we get phases of the Moon over 30 days, but the Moon always seems to go around the Earth each day. It goes on and on. Something a fifth-grader could learn. But apparently, not you.
Too bad you are leaving. I think there is a lot of education I could give you.
I am a fan of sagan, but this is presented all wrong.
Eratosthenes knew the world was spherical, like most educated ancient greeks, because he was taught it as fact from childhood, the same way we are today. He never once questioned that fact, nor ever sought to validate it.
His method was designed to calculate the circumference of the earth and absolutely requires that the world be spherical in order to be at all sensical.
The ancient greeks “knew” the world was spherical because they were taught it as fact from childhood, and the (admittedly extremely spotty) history shows that the reason was due to pythagoras’ musings on lunar eclipses; eratosthenes had absolutely nothing to do with it.
If you have an interest in this topic please join us on flatearthresearch to discuss it, as such discussions are unwelcome here (as per the mods). If you can’t find it, let me know and i will pm you a link.
Sagan the satanist wants to begile you with Science.
Wouldn't be surprised if they made up the entire story.
Apparently they made up Eratosthenes, though I haven’t verified that for myself.
So while scientists have been verifying this stuff for thousands of years, you’re going to go with “apparently they made it up” without even verifying it?
This is exactly the problem. The “experts” and “scientists” say it is so, therefore “do not question”. Exhibits top down hierarchical control and supression of questioning (anti-human AND anti-science) rather than easily explainable and logical conclusion. Thus, suspicious.
Sure there are plenty of non-scientists who defer and don’t question because they assume the scientists are right, but the problem is that many of people questioning established science these days barely understand the basic concepts.
What is the “easily explainable and logical conclusion” if not the one put forth in this video?
I love alternate theories, but they still have to stand up to scrutiny. Claiming it’s suspicious just because it’s “science” is pretty dumb.
You are clearly not a scientist.
Good argument.
A broken clock can be right twice in a day. Also the boy who cried "Wolf!" did tell the truth once.
It is easily explainable and logical. The problem is that some people object to learning facts that are contrary to their presupposed "common sense." (Do heavy objects fall faster than light objects? Galileo wants to know.)
So you’re going to go with that broken record comment that everyone who is afraid to investigate says? Bro, I AM verifying it. You’re watching me in the process of verifying it. And for the entire time I investigate this and every other tough to swallow consideration, I have to listen to people like you say your unthinking programmed comments on repeat. And I’ll happily do it.
Great! Get back to me when you’re done verifying this and I’ll take you seriously.
No you won’t. You are the type who only takes seriously what you already believe.
I hadn’t seen this video or heard of Eratosthenes’ experiment until now. The thing is I can do this experiment myself to verify it if I want to. Heck, as a former architect who’s had to do countless sun studies, I can basically do it in my head right now (of course, I’d bust out a pencil and paper or AutoCAD if it seemed the slightest bit fishy).
I like knowing the truth and how things work, and would be very interested if you could prove either that this experiment is wrong or that this historical figure was made up, but simply an “apparently this is fake” from a stranger on the internet holds no weight with me.
I’ll take your reluctance to provide your verification as a concession though. Thanks.
Eratosthenes was referenced in the Suda (a publication dating from the 10th century). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Titles He was mentioned also by Strabo, who lived in the 1st century.
Here, people throw "it's fake" like the superstitious throw a pinch of salt over their shoulder.
There's absolutely no record of him ever existing until they made him up in the eighties or whatever.
Hard to prove when references go back to the 1st century (see above post).
"There's absolutely no record..." Don't you have any embarrassment at making such a boner?
They make up the history, let alone the science. It's not even a stretch to assume they do this with 90% of everything.
You know all this because...? You realize that the end point of radical skepticism is that you can't rely on anything at all, not even the directions on your appliances. Nor even your own memoranda (they could have changed them behind your back). You have no point of contact with reality. You have a mental problem.
But to come back to the thread and not let it go into a memory hole... You said "There's absolutely no record of [Eratosthenes] existing until they made him up in the eighties or whatever." This is manifestly false when references him go back to the 1st century. So, you were not merely mistaken, you simply lied outright, making a statement entirely without foundation. Your "assumption" was a fantasy, having no relationship to reality. So, to say "it's not even a stretch to assume" is frivolous nonsense.
But that is how you work. When something is inconveniently an obstacle to your fantasy, you pretend they don't exist---and expect the rest of us to join in your pretense. This is called solipsism, the doctrine that the world is what you think it is. It is a mental problem. You are not enlightened. You are just crazy.