Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat is weird. Really weird. A really cool weird.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
But otherwise, you got a hit.
How can you miss the amount of times I've referenced my own observations?
Is that purposeful?
Or just daft?
My observations.
My observations.
My observance of objects which should be below the horizon.
My observance of others' perspectives of the same thing.
Like you, I scoffed at t ...[text shortened]... haven't.
Ever.
And there are thousands of them up in the sky, right?
Never.
Weird, huh.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLike the priests that go out of their way to make one doubly fit for hell?
It's as though people stopped using their minds and allowed the priests to do all the thinking.
Maybe the timing is off, but could the current scientific model be the "strong delusion"?
I'm asking that with an open mind. How dare I question the priests! 😉
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAgain you can't answer my questions. Your standard MO, just talk about meaningless bullshyte.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
But otherwise, you got a hit.
How can you miss the amount of times I've referenced my own observations?
Is that purposeful?
Or just daft?
My observations.
My observations.
My observance of objects which should be below the horizon.
My observance of others' perspectives of the same thing.
Like you, I scoffed at t ...[text shortened]... haven't.
Ever.
And there are thousands of them up in the sky, right?
Never.
Weird, huh.
Taken from earth bound telescopes having nothing to do with NASA:
https://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+satellites+in+front+of+the+moon/&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS606US606&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi65-DM9sXNAhXCaD4KHfQECOgQ7AkIOA&biw=1920&bih=975
You are pathological in your stupid quest to prove a flat earth which is impossible since Earth is a globe and not a perfect sphere if that's what you will say next.
You just scoff at known effects like Coriolis and have no answer to the magnetic field of Earth, for instance, how we have on in the first place negates a flat Earth. A magnetic field is generated by a moving conductor which happens to be the core of the Earth churning around creating a world wide field.
A flat Earth would be too skinny to have a core and would therefore not have a magnetic field and if it did it would not have field lines converging in the south pole region.
Your flatassness is a HUGE fail.
I guess this photographer is part of the big lie also:
https://fstoppers.com/landscapes/photographer-captures-image-iss-crossing-front-moon-75310
With Google making searchers so easy why would you even bring up that subject as if that was going to prove anything?
I think the answer is you just spout the first thing that comes into your brain with no idea of the consequences just like your idiot flatassers thinking somehow if you spew a lie, say it often enough, people like Joe who is easily swayed, you will bring people into your sphere of nonsense.
You know good and well Earth is a globe but you just want to continue rattling our chains to see how long you can make it last.
Originally posted by josephwI think that is entirely possible, but there is no denying that what started as an open-minded inquiry into the nature of reality--- by Christian men--- has been diminished to a rigid system which consists of several critical off-limit topics.
Like the priests that go out of their way to make one doubly fit for hell?
Maybe the timing is off, but could the current scientific model be the "strong delusion"?
I'm asking that with an open mind. How dare I question the priests! 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNobody said Flatassness was off limits. You just make yourself look silly thinking it real.
I think that is entirely possible, but there is no denying that what started as an open-minded inquiry into the nature of reality--- by Christian men--- has been diminished to a rigid system which consists of several critical off-limit topics.
So what will be your next non-answer to my points about Earth's magnetic field? That would be because you don't even know what a magnetic field is and probably think that's another lie.
Originally posted by sonhouseTaken from earth bound telescopes having nothing to do with NASA:
Again you can't answer my questions. Your standard MO, just talk about meaningless bullshyte.
Taken from earth bound telescopes having nothing to do with NASA:
https://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+satellites+in+front+of+the+moon/&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS606US606&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi65-DM9sXNAhXCaD4KHfQECOgQ7AkIOA&biw=1920&bih=975 ...[text shortened]... a globe but you just want to continue rattling our chains to see how long you can make it last.
First image in the link is of ISS.
Second one is a YouTube video which purports to record two satellites transiting the moon.
Most of the rest are ISS passing in front of the moon, and there's even one claiming to be an alien ship... so you got that going for you.
Back to the second one, however.
It describes the recording as two satellites passing in front of the moon, and offers a higher resolution recording on Mega.
However, on both recordings, only one object is visible transiting the moon--- and it's impossible to tell what the object is with any certainty at all.
That being said, even if there are indeed two passing within twenty minutes of each other, with the thousands upon thousands that are allegedly up there, why so infrequently are they ever detected?
Also, that link contained this gem from NASA.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif
That's the one which claims this "animation features actual satellite images of the far side of the moon, illuminated by the sun, as it crosses between the DSCOVR spacecraft's Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) and telescope, and the Earth - one million miles away."
It's taken over the course of nearly five hours, and yet we see zero rotation of the moon--- as it passes in a straight line instead of the expected orbit around the earth, not a single one of the absurdly disproportionate cloud formations changes position, and they even threw in a Lego-like cloud formation just for good measure.
This perspective also suggests how dominating the earth would be in the moon's sky--- nothing at all like the images NASA has produced from the moon.
You are pathological in your stupid quest to prove a flat earth which is impossible since Earth is a globe and not a perfect sphere if that's what you will say next.
Again with your pathetic attempts at diagnosing someone.
I have no quest to prove a flat earth: it either is or it isn't.
All of the evidence up to this point suggests that the earth is definitely not a sphere, perfect or otherwise... although NASA always presents it as perfectly round, for whatever reason.
You just scoff at known effects like Coriolis...
No, I scoff at those who have attempted to use it to prove a spinning earth, when it actually works against the same.
According to the video "proof," when a bullet is fired as it leaves the muzzle it is leaving the spin of the earth, with the earth now spinning away from its original position.
So you wish it to work on bullets but have no answer why it doesn't work on planes.
Or hot air balloons.
Or baseballs.
I think the answer is you just spout the first thing that comes into your brain with no idea of the consequences just like your idiot flatassers thinking somehow if you spew a lie, say it often enough, people like Joe who is easily swayed, you will bring people into your sphere of nonsense.
It's good to have theories, but you really should put a little more work into them before presenting them to the rest of the class.
Unlike you, I have done extensive research on the topic and its sundry off-shoots.
To wit, I put two questions forward here and despite all of your buss and fluster, only one of them has been anywhere near responded to.
That final, at last response was directed to the question of why NASA would lie.
The best anyone could come up with?
For better funding.
Gee, that's not a problem for anyone, is it?
5 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have said over and over and for the last time, Coriolis has to be taken into account by aircraft because it effects them too but modified by the fact the atmosphere is also spinning so it will be the difference between the forces of atmosphere and the plane as to how much Coriolis effects them. Why do you keep on with the airplane bit when we have said several times it effects planes also? Are you missing your memory pills or what?
[b]Taken from earth bound telescopes having nothing to do with NASA:
First image in the link is of ISS.
Second one is a YouTube video which purports to record two satellites transiting the moon.
Most of the rest are ISS passing in front of the moon, and there's even one claiming to be an alien ship... so you got that going for you.
Back to the se ...[text shortened]... st anyone could come up with?
For better funding.
Gee, that's not a problem for anyone, is it?[/b]
I get the feeling if you were put on a Soyuz taking off to ISS you would believe you were drugged. That is how pathological you are.
Again, not a word about Earth's magnetic field, how can it happen on a flat Earth.
That is also your MO, ignore, ignore, ignore, maybe it will go away.
I am covering my ears, I can't hear you, I can't hear you.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think is happening when a giant rocket takes off, burning a 200 foot flame beneath it and disappearing into the sky? You think they just fly off and come back down to Earth on a parachute so the big lie can continue?
The question there would be why would the entire world's space faring nations do exactly the same AND NOBODY COMES OUT AS WHISTLE BLOWER? You seriously think a scam of international scope could possibly be hidden for 60 or more years from scrutiny, that out of the hundreds of thousands of people involved, NOBODY comes out and says, wait a minute, this is a big scam and I have inside photo's of the fake satellites?
So the very first liars would have been the Russians launching Sputnik, eh. That wasn't even NASA you cretin.
Actually it would have been even earlier with the Nazi's launching V2's which can go over a hundred miles up and THEY took photo's back then and the curve of Earth was clear even in WW2.
So the Nazi's were in on the big lie too. Wow, such a world wide scam you have to believe in. And no whistle blowers. It's funny, the Brits in WW2 thought V2's were real.
And screw your little argument about seeing some city across the water. What about being in an aircraft at 30,000 feet, you can't see 10000 miles away from them either. If Earth was flat, a telescope could see the Pentagon from Paris. Funny thing about that, you can't. EVER.
For instance, at night a flight at 30,000 feet would see all the lights of Earth at once if there was a flat Earth. I guess they somehow hide those lights from aircraft too. So the power companies must be in on the big scam too. Incredible, isn't it.
Originally posted by sonhouseI have said over and over and for the last time, Coriolis has to be taken into account by aircraft because it effects them too but modified by the fact the atmosphere is also spinning so it will be the difference between the forces of atmosphere and the plane as to how much Coriolis effects them. Why do you keep on with the airplane bit when we have said several times it effects planes also?
I have said over and over and for the last time, Coriolis has to be taken into account by aircraft because it effects them too but modified by the fact the atmosphere is also spinning so it will be the difference between the forces of atmosphere and the plane as to how much Coriolis effects them. Why do you keep on with the airplane bit when we have said se ...[text shortened]... from aircraft too. So the power companies must be in on the big scam too. Incredible, isn't it.
It's having to be repeated because you have consistently failed to understand the implications of what you are claiming.
If CE affects a bullet, it will impact an airplane as well.
For a globe spinning eastward at 1,007 MPH, an airplane lifting off the surface and flying at 500 MPH westward--- with the earth's spin---- would arrive at its destination 2,500 miles away inside of two hours.
Conversely, an airplane flying at the same speed but intending to fly eastward--- against the earth's spin--- would reach its destination only by loss: every hour in the air, the plane would be 507 miles behind its previous position, so piloting the craft toward the east would take 44 hours of effort to make it to the other coast.
If the pilot wanted to take the CE into effect and travel with the spin, it would take nearly 15 hours to travel by air.
Of course we know this to be ridiculous, as it takes the same amount of time to travel from Boston to Seattle as it does to go from Seattle to Boston: about five hours, depending upon headwinds and average speed otherwise.
Translation: the CE is not a factor in flying.
You seriously think a scam of international scope could possibly be hidden for 60 or more years from scrutiny, that out of the hundreds of thousands of people involved, NOBODY comes out and says, wait a minute, this is a big scam and I have inside photo's of the fake satellites?
You have fake pictures of the earth provided by NASA and any other space agency, so... what's the issue, again?
There never has been a rash of deaths among NASA employees, right?
And screw your little argument about seeing some city across the water.
That's a great counter.
Very compelling.
You are presented with clear cut evidence which convincingly contradicts a sphere... and you just say screw it.
As with the CE, your issue is an inability to apply or analyze the information you are receiving.
Objects which are plainly visible when they shouldn't be is a HUGE problem for a globe model.
It's an insurmountable problem for the globe model.
It proves that either the earth isn't the dimensions assumed, the formula is incorrect, or the earth is not a sphere.
We've eliminated the first two, leaving only the last one.
If Earth was flat, a telescope could see the Pentagon from Paris. Funny thing about that, you can't. EVER.
I am not surprised that perspective and vanishing points are lost on you.
Next time you are being driven to the local bingo hall, observe mail boxes on the side of the road.
By experience, you know that a mail box is typically ~3.5' off the ground.
And yet the mail boxes just two houses down from you at any point look only an inch or two tall.
How can that be?
Those that are several houses down the street appear to be exceedingly small from your perspective, while those which are half a mile or more are nearly indistinguishable from the remaining landscape.
Why?
Perspective.
No matter what the size, given enough distance between it and the observer EVERYTHING will diminish into the vanishing point.
That only happens on a very large plane.
On a globe anything with remarkable size would appear as though it is leaning away from the observer the further the distance between the two.
For instance, at night a flight at 30,000 feet would see all the lights of Earth at once if there was a flat Earth.
You're high.
An air balloon at over 125,000' above Washington state can't even take in the whole of the state which is only 360 miles across.
How in the world could 30,000' offer a better perspective?
Math, shapes, perspective are definitely not your strong suit.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThe earth appears curved in two situations:
Apparently a griffon vulture has been spotted flying at 37,000 feet.- Now when one considers that the curvature of the Earth can be detected at 35,000 feet, we are left with the startling realization that a vulture knows more about the shape of the Earth than our Freaky friend does.
😲
One, when viewed through the prism of a fish-eye lens.
Two, when viewed through the prism of a NASA image.
Otherwise, we see a flat plane stretching out into the distance--- from 25,000' to over 200,000'.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou don't know perspective from your ass in the ground. It is not perspective that causes the loss of imaging a distant object. It is the curvature of Earth. If you were in a balloon at 100,000 feet and had a telescope on a flat Earth, you would be able to see to China. And that is a fact JACK. You also should be able to see all the lights on the planet regardless of whether you can visualize them or not. You fail to see even the smallest ideas of basic physics 101 or 99 for that matter. You are delusional and can't think your way out of a wet paper bag.
[b]I have said over and over and for the last time, Coriolis has to be taken into account by aircraft because it effects them too but modified by the fact the atmosphere is also spinning so it will be the difference between the forces of atmosphere and the plane as to how much Coriolis effects them. Why do you keep on with the airplane bit when we have sai ...[text shortened]... 000' offer a better perspective?
Math, shapes, perspective are definitely not your strong suit.
You also need to take a remedial course in optics since you don't know a thing about what you are talking about when you spout the 'perspective' line.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse"From my ass in the ground?"
You don't know perspective from your ass in the ground. It is not perspective that causes the loss of imaging a distant object. It is the curvature of Earth. If you were in a balloon at 100,000 feet and had a telescope on a flat Earth, you would be able to see to China. And that is a fact JACK. You also should be able to see all the lights on the planet reg ...[text shortened]... e you don't know a thing about what you are talking about when you spout the 'perspective' line.
What's my mule doing in the ground?
Did he fall into a pit?
Is he the victim of some nefarious plot to bury donkeys?
What in God's name is happening with your mixed phetamores?
On any surface, objects diminish when distance is in play.
On a flat plane, the object will eventually blend with the horizon no matter how tall the object is to begin with.
On a curved surface, the object will both diminish with distance as well as appear to drop out of sight according to the curvature of the sphere as well as the size of the object --- again: dependent upon distance and the size of the object.
Of the sphere, one of those situations will cause the object to disappear in greater degrees than the other, although both will have impact on visibility.
As has been aptly and amply demonstrated, we are able to see distant objects which should be well below the horizon.
You're making a big deal of noise about non-sensical scenarios involving Paris and the Pentagon which is so far afield from common sense, it's hardly worth mentioning.
Like it or not, distance diminishes the appearance of ALL objects, ala the vanishing point.
On a sphere, a vanishing point is mostly irrelevant, due to the extreme loss of visibility on account of curvature.
And yet we see this is simply not the case.
It has also been demonstrated how a 125,000' vantage point doesn't allow to even see a 360 mile span of area, so how do you think dropping 25,000' would somehow offer more visibility?
Bizarre.
Your grasp on physics is as tenuous as your grasp on the rest of reality: non-existent.
The day you teach me about any of the topics yet covered is the day I quit life in general.
Your asshat-ery and general confusion is so pathetic, it has become tragic instead of comedic
(that means sad, not funny).
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFunny thing about perspective. We know things get smaller at distance but according to you we can't see stuff only a few hundred miles away. The thing about that is, why can we see the moon? Even in your fantasy world it has to be a few thousand miles away so according to your reckoning we should not be able to see it at all.
"From my ass in the ground?"
What's my mule doing in the ground?
Did he fall into a pit?
Is he the victim of some nefarious plot to bury donkeys?
What in God's name is happening with your mixed phetamores?
On any surface, objects diminish when distance is in play.
On a flat plane, the object will eventually blend with the horizon no matter how tal ...[text shortened]... confusion is so pathetic, it has become tragic instead of comedic
(that means sad, not funny).
Originally posted by sonhouseThe funny thing about perspective is that you have idea what you are talking about.
Funny thing about perspective. We know things get smaller at distance but according to you we can't see stuff only a few hundred miles away. The thing about that is, why can we see the moon? Even in your fantasy world it has to be a few thousand miles away so according to your reckoning we should not be able to see it at all.
We can see objects far more than a few hundred miles away.
I haven't found physical support for it, but I have read several accounts of visibility between 18,946' Pico Cristóbal Colón, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia and 12,240' Paramillo... a distance of 300 miles.
At that distance from the former, only 728' of the former ought to be visible.
Here's one between Washington state and Vancouver, BC, that's ~194 miles point to point:
http://www.summitpost.org/big-view/486827
The longest (that I could find) line-of-sight photograph in the continental US is 190 miles, also involving mountains:
http://www.viewfinderpanoramas.org/gallery/usa/whitney.html
What's interesting about these several shots on these two sites is both what they show as well as what is not detectable.
In the first case, the 193 mile distance between 5,269' East Lion, BC, and 14,416' Mt. Rainier, WA, should realize over 7,223' of loss due to curvature.
Although the clouds are obscuring a portion of the mountain, there's no way the loss is anywhere near a thousand feet, let alone over seven thousand.
Too, all of the distant mountains are literally at the exact same angle as the image available in the picture: there is no sloping away of any of them, even those peaks more distant than Mt. Rainier.
In the second case, it's not possible to make a strong case for any loss of visibility due to curvature on account of the clustering of the peaks, but there is clearly no increase in angle to the views available: all of the mountains within view point in exactly the same direction as what is directly above the head of the photographer.
Just as with the analogy of the mailboxes, we see all of the distant objects lined parallel with the observer, without any sloping away of any of them.
Same holds true for the distant objects visible for me here on the North Coast of Ohio.
None of the city's buildings, not the Lincoln Electric windmill, neither of the two stacks of the old Euclid power plant are angling away from my position--- all ranging from ~20- 30+ miles away, or 240'-523' loss of visibility due to curvature, none of it obscured.
We can see the moon when it is overhead because there is no atmosphere to obscure it otherwise.
A better question is: how can we see the moon and the sun at the same time in the same sky, both overhead?