Idk, a lot of these types put out some real info along with the BS to suck us in. The information about other dimensions is out there, he's not the first to talk about that. Assuming that stuff is real, there would be some military that knew about it. However he really lost me when he spoke about "Sky Ice" in one of his videos. I don't think we can believe him.
Pay attention to what paytriots promote and support each other.
Now compare which accts here promote and post these same paytriots.
Very noticable pattern. Either they're all duped by the same shtick or more likely, it's probable the Paytriot propaganda is being inorganically fueled to some extent on this board....
It has happened before. Neon Revolt successfully infiltrated both r/GA & v/GA using a MOD role for months before anons finally figured out who was modding their board!
So who the hell is this guy to slam SGANON. This guy takes donations from people SGANON does not. All these guys have commercials or advertisments and SGANON does not because he is not making money on this. I have watched a lot of SGANONS videos and I do not see him selling anything on his videos.
You dont know and neither do I. No one knows what the earth looks like from space. The highest we go is a plane and that is not high enough to know if its flat or not.
Then how the fuck do satellites work genius? How do objects orbit following curved paths through the sky? Where does the curvature visible from high-altitude planes come from?
Just more glowfag shit, if there was any truth to it it would have been banned from YouTube and social media like questioning masks, vaccines, and election fraud.
In the flat earth model, there is a dome (firmament).
NASA is also the biggest consumer of helium, so, either not at all or something quite different from what we are told... also, 99% of communications are through underground cables.
Orbit following a curved path, are you talking visible curves or curves from the projection onto the map? The second is a result of fisheye lensing, shift the angle and you could make it look like we live on the inside of a sphere.
The topic is heavily restricted on YouTube, searching the topic leads people to "flat earth society" (glowfag group) and a small group of anti-flat earth people. When you find the real discussion of the topic and examine the arguments, there's a lot more merits to the topic than people realize.
That said, because this is a topic that is useful to smear, not relevant to Q, and other reasons, it's best kept to conspiracies.win. You'll find that there's some high level discussion and without doing some research will be quickly stuck appealing to NASA or calling them idiots.
The flat earth was categorically disproven by Magellan's circumnavigation of the World 500 years ago (but was known to be false long before). Please catch up with modern times.
Helium is used as a rocket propellant pressurant. It weighs much less than any other pressurant, and weight is king in launch vehicles. What else are you going to use it for? Party balloons?
Orbits are there and they are hundreds of kilometers high. Yeah, you can see the Earth curvature with no lens effects.
Catch up to modern times? I put out much harsher insults whenever I came across people pushing a flat earth model above and beyond that. It wasn't until being challenged to actually hear out the arguments before drawing conclusions that I actually realized just how tenuous the globe model is in actuality.
The globe model comes with a series of positive claims; the earth spins on it's north-south axis 23.4 degrees from the north pole (66.6 degrees north from the equator) and rotates around the sun at 66 600 miles per hour, the sun itself rotating around the milky way at 23.4 degrees above the galactic plane (66.6 from that planes tangent).
East-West circumnavigation is absolutely possible in either model, I actually went back further as proof to Eratosthenes, who used the sticks and their shadows to calculate out the distance of the sun... even with no concept of refraction, those numbers are still treated as approximately accurate. The "flat earth" map is best illustrated as the UN logo, with the north pole in the center and the south pole as the circumference.
NASA needs to justify the 50 million dollars per day they spend, that pressurizer shouldn't be needed when the rocket fuel is liquid hydrogen that will evaporate at -250C and expand drastically from its liquid form. If you're talking about the ISS, you're incorrect, they all use fisheye lenses (as well as plenty of greenscreen / chromakey compositing), hell, even NASA admits that the "blue marble" photos are all composites.
Catch up on astronomy and the fact that the field of stars is uniform in spherical coordinates. We can see them all. Not possible with a flat earth. Catch up with Magellan's circumnavigation (hands-on demonstration of spherical shape). Catch up with the fact that we cannot reconcile flat maps over large distances; they all must be projections of an underlying spherical surface. Not to mention aerial circumnavigation and orbital circumnavigation. There are plenty of photographs, but you don't need photographs when circumnavigation is a fact.
You have a strange statement about the "globe model." The Earth spins around its north pole-south pole axis. That axis is inclined 23.4 degrees from the plane of its ecliptic. All the speeds are correct.
You cannot circumnavigate in the flat earth model, because that would involve seeing a completely different field of stars in the southern hemisphere, compared to the northern hemisphere. Possible only if the Earth is a sphere. Moreover, the disk model would require southern-hemisphere distances to be large (Rio de Janiero to Cape Town) when in reality they are much smaller (spherical great circle). This has been known since the days of circumnavigation. In other words, the flat earth cannot and does not work in matters of navigation.
You don't know anything about rocket propulsion. It is frequently necessary to maintain cryogenic propellants at their boiling points to assure they do not overpressurize the tank. Helium pressurant is easy to control without risking the entire volume of the tank, and it will not condense in the presence of cryogenic propellants. And some systems use other kinds of propellants that still need to be pressurized. The ISS doesn't use fisheye lenses or greenscreen. You just don't know what you are looking at, as is frequently the case with claims that photos are fake. The photos taken during the Apollo flights were single frames. Photos since that time have to be assembled from photographic strips taken by low altitude satellites. No other way to do it. It would be like taking a photo of your own car---but you can only take pictures from an inch away. The recent Artemis I mission has taken photos of the whole Earth.
This all comes down to you not being very knowledgeable, and therefore very gullible.
I remember that level of antagonism, what you are feeling is called "cognitive dissonance". You've been trained, as I was, the position on the globe, that the globe travels around the sun, etc. Yes, 90 - 23.4 = 66.6 degrees from the equator, like I mentioned, and wiki rounds to 66000 mph (or 67000), but the number is 66600 mph in text books. The globe and solar centric model is exactly that, it is a model of reality, not necessarily reality.
Now, you've raised a few significant points, circumnavigation, propulsion, fisheye lenses and green screen. (Even though you completely ignored what was raised, I'll address even repeating if required)
Circumnavigation, east-west is absolutely possible regardless if the earth was flat or a sphere. The distinction is that one means travelling an ellipse vs travelling in a circle, though the only circumnavigation route possible is south of America and the tip of Africa, the route Magellan took was nowhere near an "ideal" route.
What is the force of gravity? Your initial response will be 9.8 m/s^2, BUT, the earth is rotating at 1100 mph which means that it needs to be 9.8 + the centrifugal force but varies on latitude. Further, relativity and discussions of gravity as a force ONLY accommodates about 5% of universal motion measurements, meaning that the relativity required for the globe model is at best inadequate or inaccurate, which is why there was the need to create "dark matter' (matter that does not interact with the rest of the universe) and "dark energy" (energy that does not interact with the EM spectrum).
Finally, with the "added pressure" of helium for propulsion, a gas form of a liquid is many times more than the liquid, so when the hydrogen becomes a gas, if there's anything needed would be to LIMIT the volume of gases being burned rather than adding pressure to the container (except maybe the last 5-10%).
Which also raises a different point, space is a vacuum, right? Gas laws are that two pressure systems will equalize without a container, so, the earth has an atmospheric pressure adjacent to an infinite vacuum. That is a physical impossibility without a container (and no, gravity does not suffice as it is a force that is 10^-40 smaller than required)
It's all real. You are the one who is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Travel is the basic investigative approach; there is no way to cross the globe and result with travel math that matches a flat Earth. There are such things as Great Circles and they are used all the time in navigation, to obtain the shortest routes. This has been known for 500 years---but not to you, apparently. (It is not a question of east to west, as you deliberately misdirect.) The fact that we can stand on the south pole should give you something to think about.
Did you ever compute the centrifugal acceleration of the Earth? I don't think so, or you would know that it is so small we cannot feel it. Meanwhile, at larger scale, we have the fact of the geoid, which is the surface along which the net forces are constant. This defines the shape of the surface of the oceans. And, as would be expected, they bulge at the equator by a matter of miles. You don't know anything about "dark matter"---because NO ONE knows anything about "dark matter" (which is only a conjecture)---and that does not pertain to this discussion.
And you don't know anything about rocketry. No one wants to have a hydrogen tank that vents; hydrogen is extremely flammable. And you don't want to lose any significant part of it. In any case, there are other propellants used in space systems that are NOT liquid hydrogen, and they also need pressurization for delivery when the vehicle is in free fall. The supply of helium is small (it evaporates out of the atmosphere) and the only other use is party balloons.
Earth's atmospheric "container" is called gravity. It pulls the upper atmosphere down onto the lower atmosphere. We have approximately one ton of atmosphere pressing on every square foot of surface from gravitational weight. The higher you go, the less it is. The space near the Earth is not a "complete" vacuum; it is exceedingly thin, but it will still cause satellites to eventually spiral inward. Farther out (the Moon) it is so thin, it makes no difference. But there is a solar wind. You don't know anything about astronomy or space travel, do you? Or anything about the atmosphere. In fact, there seems to be no limit to what you don't know.
You illustrate my point. You are simply an ignoramus, who does not know what he ventures to talk about. Your attempts to justify the ridiculous flat Earth idea are based on sheer ignorance of the points you bring up. Since you don't know much of anything, you are a total sucker for someone who also doesn't know anything, but packages it as unanswerable questions. Since I have been educated to understand these things, and practiced with these facts for 40 years of application, I don't have any respect for your ignorant, pompous attitude that you need to tutor me on things.
Meanwhile, we have an international, global-wide community that relies on navigation over a round Earth, complete with communication systems and overhead surveillance from satellites going AROUND the Earth. We have the passage of the sun over the opposite side of the Earth. We have a spherical distribution of stars---ALL of which we can see (but not all from one side). And, as I have said before, flat maps will not reconcile to what we find over long distances. Our cartograpics make sense only on a round Earth.
I noticed that too. I think he is a big red flag. Despite sounding very smooth and knowledgeable, that comment stuck out and made me wonder about him.
Idk, a lot of these types put out some real info along with the BS to suck us in. The information about other dimensions is out there, he's not the first to talk about that. Assuming that stuff is real, there would be some military that knew about it. However he really lost me when he spoke about "Sky Ice" in one of his videos. I don't think we can believe him.
Pay attention to what paytriots promote and support each other.
Now compare which accts here promote and post these same paytriots.
Very noticable pattern. Either they're all duped by the same shtick or more likely, it's probable the Paytriot propaganda is being inorganically fueled to some extent on this board....
It has happened before. Neon Revolt successfully infiltrated both r/GA & v/GA using a MOD role for months before anons finally figured out who was modding their board!
So who the hell is this guy to slam SGANON. This guy takes donations from people SGANON does not. All these guys have commercials or advertisments and SGANON does not because he is not making money on this. I have watched a lot of SGANONS videos and I do not see him selling anything on his videos.
You dont know and neither do I. No one knows what the earth looks like from space. The highest we go is a plane and that is not high enough to know if its flat or not.
Then how the fuck do satellites work genius? How do objects orbit following curved paths through the sky? Where does the curvature visible from high-altitude planes come from?
Just more glowfag shit, if there was any truth to it it would have been banned from YouTube and social media like questioning masks, vaccines, and election fraud.
In the flat earth model, there is a dome (firmament).
NASA is also the biggest consumer of helium, so, either not at all or something quite different from what we are told... also, 99% of communications are through underground cables.
Orbit following a curved path, are you talking visible curves or curves from the projection onto the map? The second is a result of fisheye lensing, shift the angle and you could make it look like we live on the inside of a sphere.
The topic is heavily restricted on YouTube, searching the topic leads people to "flat earth society" (glowfag group) and a small group of anti-flat earth people. When you find the real discussion of the topic and examine the arguments, there's a lot more merits to the topic than people realize.
That said, because this is a topic that is useful to smear, not relevant to Q, and other reasons, it's best kept to conspiracies.win. You'll find that there's some high level discussion and without doing some research will be quickly stuck appealing to NASA or calling them idiots.
The flat earth was categorically disproven by Magellan's circumnavigation of the World 500 years ago (but was known to be false long before). Please catch up with modern times.
Helium is used as a rocket propellant pressurant. It weighs much less than any other pressurant, and weight is king in launch vehicles. What else are you going to use it for? Party balloons?
Orbits are there and they are hundreds of kilometers high. Yeah, you can see the Earth curvature with no lens effects.
Catch up to modern times? I put out much harsher insults whenever I came across people pushing a flat earth model above and beyond that. It wasn't until being challenged to actually hear out the arguments before drawing conclusions that I actually realized just how tenuous the globe model is in actuality.
The globe model comes with a series of positive claims; the earth spins on it's north-south axis 23.4 degrees from the north pole (66.6 degrees north from the equator) and rotates around the sun at 66 600 miles per hour, the sun itself rotating around the milky way at 23.4 degrees above the galactic plane (66.6 from that planes tangent).
East-West circumnavigation is absolutely possible in either model, I actually went back further as proof to Eratosthenes, who used the sticks and their shadows to calculate out the distance of the sun... even with no concept of refraction, those numbers are still treated as approximately accurate. The "flat earth" map is best illustrated as the UN logo, with the north pole in the center and the south pole as the circumference.
NASA needs to justify the 50 million dollars per day they spend, that pressurizer shouldn't be needed when the rocket fuel is liquid hydrogen that will evaporate at -250C and expand drastically from its liquid form. If you're talking about the ISS, you're incorrect, they all use fisheye lenses (as well as plenty of greenscreen / chromakey compositing), hell, even NASA admits that the "blue marble" photos are all composites.
Catch up on astronomy and the fact that the field of stars is uniform in spherical coordinates. We can see them all. Not possible with a flat earth. Catch up with Magellan's circumnavigation (hands-on demonstration of spherical shape). Catch up with the fact that we cannot reconcile flat maps over large distances; they all must be projections of an underlying spherical surface. Not to mention aerial circumnavigation and orbital circumnavigation. There are plenty of photographs, but you don't need photographs when circumnavigation is a fact.
You have a strange statement about the "globe model." The Earth spins around its north pole-south pole axis. That axis is inclined 23.4 degrees from the plane of its ecliptic. All the speeds are correct.
You cannot circumnavigate in the flat earth model, because that would involve seeing a completely different field of stars in the southern hemisphere, compared to the northern hemisphere. Possible only if the Earth is a sphere. Moreover, the disk model would require southern-hemisphere distances to be large (Rio de Janiero to Cape Town) when in reality they are much smaller (spherical great circle). This has been known since the days of circumnavigation. In other words, the flat earth cannot and does not work in matters of navigation.
You don't know anything about rocket propulsion. It is frequently necessary to maintain cryogenic propellants at their boiling points to assure they do not overpressurize the tank. Helium pressurant is easy to control without risking the entire volume of the tank, and it will not condense in the presence of cryogenic propellants. And some systems use other kinds of propellants that still need to be pressurized. The ISS doesn't use fisheye lenses or greenscreen. You just don't know what you are looking at, as is frequently the case with claims that photos are fake. The photos taken during the Apollo flights were single frames. Photos since that time have to be assembled from photographic strips taken by low altitude satellites. No other way to do it. It would be like taking a photo of your own car---but you can only take pictures from an inch away. The recent Artemis I mission has taken photos of the whole Earth.
This all comes down to you not being very knowledgeable, and therefore very gullible.
I remember that level of antagonism, what you are feeling is called "cognitive dissonance". You've been trained, as I was, the position on the globe, that the globe travels around the sun, etc. Yes, 90 - 23.4 = 66.6 degrees from the equator, like I mentioned, and wiki rounds to 66000 mph (or 67000), but the number is 66600 mph in text books. The globe and solar centric model is exactly that, it is a model of reality, not necessarily reality.
Now, you've raised a few significant points, circumnavigation, propulsion, fisheye lenses and green screen. (Even though you completely ignored what was raised, I'll address even repeating if required)
Circumnavigation, east-west is absolutely possible regardless if the earth was flat or a sphere. The distinction is that one means travelling an ellipse vs travelling in a circle, though the only circumnavigation route possible is south of America and the tip of Africa, the route Magellan took was nowhere near an "ideal" route.
What is the force of gravity? Your initial response will be 9.8 m/s^2, BUT, the earth is rotating at 1100 mph which means that it needs to be 9.8 + the centrifugal force but varies on latitude. Further, relativity and discussions of gravity as a force ONLY accommodates about 5% of universal motion measurements, meaning that the relativity required for the globe model is at best inadequate or inaccurate, which is why there was the need to create "dark matter' (matter that does not interact with the rest of the universe) and "dark energy" (energy that does not interact with the EM spectrum).
Finally, with the "added pressure" of helium for propulsion, a gas form of a liquid is many times more than the liquid, so when the hydrogen becomes a gas, if there's anything needed would be to LIMIT the volume of gases being burned rather than adding pressure to the container (except maybe the last 5-10%).
Which also raises a different point, space is a vacuum, right? Gas laws are that two pressure systems will equalize without a container, so, the earth has an atmospheric pressure adjacent to an infinite vacuum. That is a physical impossibility without a container (and no, gravity does not suffice as it is a force that is 10^-40 smaller than required)
It's all real. You are the one who is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Travel is the basic investigative approach; there is no way to cross the globe and result with travel math that matches a flat Earth. There are such things as Great Circles and they are used all the time in navigation, to obtain the shortest routes. This has been known for 500 years---but not to you, apparently. (It is not a question of east to west, as you deliberately misdirect.) The fact that we can stand on the south pole should give you something to think about.
Did you ever compute the centrifugal acceleration of the Earth? I don't think so, or you would know that it is so small we cannot feel it. Meanwhile, at larger scale, we have the fact of the geoid, which is the surface along which the net forces are constant. This defines the shape of the surface of the oceans. And, as would be expected, they bulge at the equator by a matter of miles. You don't know anything about "dark matter"---because NO ONE knows anything about "dark matter" (which is only a conjecture)---and that does not pertain to this discussion.
And you don't know anything about rocketry. No one wants to have a hydrogen tank that vents; hydrogen is extremely flammable. And you don't want to lose any significant part of it. In any case, there are other propellants used in space systems that are NOT liquid hydrogen, and they also need pressurization for delivery when the vehicle is in free fall. The supply of helium is small (it evaporates out of the atmosphere) and the only other use is party balloons.
Earth's atmospheric "container" is called gravity. It pulls the upper atmosphere down onto the lower atmosphere. We have approximately one ton of atmosphere pressing on every square foot of surface from gravitational weight. The higher you go, the less it is. The space near the Earth is not a "complete" vacuum; it is exceedingly thin, but it will still cause satellites to eventually spiral inward. Farther out (the Moon) it is so thin, it makes no difference. But there is a solar wind. You don't know anything about astronomy or space travel, do you? Or anything about the atmosphere. In fact, there seems to be no limit to what you don't know.
You illustrate my point. You are simply an ignoramus, who does not know what he ventures to talk about. Your attempts to justify the ridiculous flat Earth idea are based on sheer ignorance of the points you bring up. Since you don't know much of anything, you are a total sucker for someone who also doesn't know anything, but packages it as unanswerable questions. Since I have been educated to understand these things, and practiced with these facts for 40 years of application, I don't have any respect for your ignorant, pompous attitude that you need to tutor me on things.
Meanwhile, we have an international, global-wide community that relies on navigation over a round Earth, complete with communication systems and overhead surveillance from satellites going AROUND the Earth. We have the passage of the sun over the opposite side of the Earth. We have a spherical distribution of stars---ALL of which we can see (but not all from one side). And, as I have said before, flat maps will not reconcile to what we find over long distances. Our cartograpics make sense only on a round Earth.
Can you bend light?
Is it SGT report? I stopped listening to that when he was talking favorably about da flat erf.
No, different guy. Folks think he chose the handle to confuse people with SGT Report. Sean with SGT/The Phazer is a good guy.
Thanks
Are you a bot? SGA and PG not even close. I think you need to get a life, there should enough going on in the world, focus!
Not to mention the fact that we are not helped by Crazy Shit in any event. Why go off your rocker just because you like the sensation?