The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: XaeXae on September 05, 2015, 10:34:58 AM
-
How could Google Earth catch every single detail on Earth (with a precision of less than one meter) ? We clearly see these are satellites views. Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
How ? ;)
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
You have to be fucking kidding me...
In any case, there's a great thread somewhere here that disproves the theory that satellites are not where they're supposed to be.
Also, all of this is rendered irrelevant, because I've seen the shape of the ISS with my telescope, and you can also see many, many other satellites with the naked eye crossing the sky, but they look like dots.
-
You have to be fucking kidding me...
...but only in your wildest dreams.
In reality, somebody else clearly is doing that to you. You do not even believe the crap you are spewing. Sad shill.
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Really? There are quite a few of the GPS transmitters spread throughout the world. Funny how there isn't one photograph of these so-called GPS balloons being 'held down by cables'. If there is a picture somewhere on the internet, please provide the link.
Here we have another classic example of a FEer just making shit up.
-
You have to be fucking kidding me...
...but only in your wildest dreams.
In reality, somebody else clearly is doing that to you. You do not even believe the crap you are spewing. Sad shill.
Idiot... Why don't you do some research? I know somebody on this site recorded the raw data that indicated where the transmitter was... Surprise surprise. In space.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
'Neither rockets - nor anything else man made can get into space......'? Really?
The documented and observed evidence plainly shows that ROCKETS CAN GET INTO SPACE. Why wouldn't they? If your answer is going to be something along the lines that rockets need an atmosphere to push off, then sadly your knowledge of physics is virtually non-existent. The Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage engines ejected 15 tons of burnt fuel every second, at a speed of over 4 km/second. Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket engine is reactionary. In other words, the action of the huge mass of burnt fuel travelling at hypersonic speed going in one direction causes the rocket to be propelled in the opposite direction. If anything, the atmosphere actually impedes a rocket's progress due to drag, until it reaches higher altitudes, where the rocket engine becomes much more efficient due to a lack of atmosphere.
-
You have to be fucking kidding me...
...but only in your wildest dreams.
In reality, somebody else clearly is doing that to you. You do not even believe the crap you are spewing. Sad shill.
How appropriate that your avatar depicts an upside down head. This certainly typifies your whole way of thinking - upside down.
If anybody is sad, it is you. There is a whole world and universe out there, but sadly you are stuck in your own little FE fantasy world, devoid of facts and proven observations.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
'Neither rockets - nor anything else man made can get into space......'? Really?
The documented and observed evidence plainly shows that ROCKETS CAN GET INTO SPACE. Why wouldn't they? If your answer is going to be something along the lines that rockets need an atmosphere to push off, then sadly your knowledge of physics is virtually non-existent. The Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage engines ejected 15 tons of burnt fuel every second, at a speed of over 4 km/second. Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket engine is reactionary. In other words, the action of the huge mass of burnt fuel travelling at hypersonic speed going in one direction causes the rocket to be propelled in the opposite direction. If anything, the atmosphere actually impedes a rocket's progress due to drag, until it reaches higher altitudes, where the rocket engine becomes much more efficient due to a lack of atmosphere.
Why doesn't a car's exhaust push it forward. It may not go as fast as a rocket, but surely it should move a little.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
'Neither rockets - nor anything else man made can get into space......'? Really?
The documented and observed evidence plainly shows that ROCKETS CAN GET INTO SPACE. Why wouldn't they? If your answer is going to be something along the lines that rockets need an atmosphere to push off, then sadly your knowledge of physics is virtually non-existent. The Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage engines ejected 15 tons of burnt fuel every second, at a speed of over 4 km/second. Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket engine is reactionary. In other words, the action of the huge mass of burnt fuel travelling at hypersonic speed going in one direction causes the rocket to be propelled in the opposite direction. If anything, the atmosphere actually impedes a rocket's progress due to drag, until it reaches higher altitudes, where the rocket engine becomes much more efficient due to a lack of atmosphere.
Why doesn't a car's exhaust push it forward. It may not go as fast as a rocket, but surely it should move a little.
Exhaust does push a car forwards. By an amount so small it's incomprehensible for the human brain, that it's practically zero.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
'Neither rockets - nor anything else man made can get into space......'? Really?
The documented and observed evidence plainly shows that ROCKETS CAN GET INTO SPACE. Why wouldn't they? If your answer is going to be something along the lines that rockets need an atmosphere to push off, then sadly your knowledge of physics is virtually non-existent. The Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage engines ejected 15 tons of burnt fuel every second, at a speed of over 4 km/second. Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket engine is reactionary. In other words, the action of the huge mass of burnt fuel travelling at hypersonic speed going in one direction causes the rocket to be propelled in the opposite direction. If anything, the atmosphere actually impedes a rocket's progress due to drag, until it reaches higher altitudes, where the rocket engine becomes much more efficient due to a lack of atmosphere.
Why doesn't a car's exhaust push it forward. It may not go as fast as a rocket, but surely it should move a little.
Exhaust does push a car forwards. By an amount so small it's incomprehensible for the human brain, that it's practically zero.
I didn't realize that. Why do we need jet engines, why not just use rockets on planes?
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
'Neither rockets - nor anything else man made can get into space......'? Really?
The documented and observed evidence plainly shows that ROCKETS CAN GET INTO SPACE. Why wouldn't they? If your answer is going to be something along the lines that rockets need an atmosphere to push off, then sadly your knowledge of physics is virtually non-existent. The Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage engines ejected 15 tons of burnt fuel every second, at a speed of over 4 km/second. Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket engine is reactionary. In other words, the action of the huge mass of burnt fuel travelling at hypersonic speed going in one direction causes the rocket to be propelled in the opposite direction. If anything, the atmosphere actually impedes a rocket's progress due to drag, until it reaches higher altitudes, where the rocket engine becomes much more efficient due to a lack of atmosphere.
Why doesn't a car's exhaust push it forward. It may not go as fast as a rocket, but surely it should move a little.
Lol, now you're trying to compare a car's exhaust with a rocket engine?
As I stated in my previous post, the Apollo Saturn V rocket engines ejected 15 tons of burnt fuel every second, at a speed of over 4 km/second.
And you're actually expecting that the ejected fuel from a car's engine should aid in its propulsion over the ground? Would you like to guess what the mass of ejected burnt fuel (gases) is that is being ejected out of a car's exhaust pipe every second? It would be much less than even one gram, and the speed of this coming coming out the exhaust would be pathetic.
Considering what this tiny mass would be, how could you ever expect this to actually help with the propulsion of a car, that might weigh in excess of 2000 kg?
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
So why did we could see the launch of the rockets, and see them going to space, if they can't go to space ? ::)
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Oh, I've seen we're in a section named "Flat Earth Debate", not "Flath Earth Affirmations". So... ;)
Until then, f**k off.
"Debate"
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
'Neither rockets - nor anything else man made can get into space......'? Really?
The documented and observed evidence plainly shows that ROCKETS CAN GET INTO SPACE. Why wouldn't they? If your answer is going to be something along the lines that rockets need an atmosphere to push off, then sadly your knowledge of physics is virtually non-existent. The Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage engines ejected 15 tons of burnt fuel every second, at a speed of over 4 km/second. Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket engine is reactionary. In other words, the action of the huge mass of burnt fuel travelling at hypersonic speed going in one direction causes the rocket to be propelled in the opposite direction. If anything, the atmosphere actually impedes a rocket's progress due to drag, until it reaches higher altitudes, where the rocket engine becomes much more efficient due to a lack of atmosphere.
Why doesn't a car's exhaust push it forward. It may not go as fast as a rocket, but surely it should move a little.
Exhaust does push a car forwards. By an amount so small it's incomprehensible for the human brain, that it's practically zero.
I didn't realize that. Why do we need jet engines, why not just use rockets on planes?
Oh my god, you actually don't know much about anything do you?
The fuel used in an aircraft's jet engine is a derivative of petroleum, is cheap and plentiful and can be contained easily within the fuel tanks of an aircraft. These tanks do not need to be pressurised either.
The fuel used by rockets on the other hand, is extremely expensive to manufacture, highly volatile and requires constant pressurisation, and normally involves 2 types of fuel (liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen) that must be contained separately until they are mixed in the combustion chamber.
The fact that you would even ask the question as to why rockets are not used on jet aircraft is a sad joke.
There have of course been aircraft that have used rocket engines, but these were only experimental. The X-1 and X-15 being examples.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
'Neither rockets - nor anything else man made can get into space......'? Really?
The documented and observed evidence plainly shows that ROCKETS CAN GET INTO SPACE. Why wouldn't they? If your answer is going to be something along the lines that rockets need an atmosphere to push off, then sadly your knowledge of physics is virtually non-existent. The Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage engines ejected 15 tons of burnt fuel every second, at a speed of over 4 km/second. Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket engine is reactionary. In other words, the action of the huge mass of burnt fuel travelling at hypersonic speed going in one direction causes the rocket to be propelled in the opposite direction. If anything, the atmosphere actually impedes a rocket's progress due to drag, until it reaches higher altitudes, where the rocket engine becomes much more efficient due to a lack of atmosphere.
Why doesn't a car's exhaust push it forward. It may not go as fast as a rocket, but surely it should move a little.
It does push it forward, but the force is so tiny that it can't overcome the forces of friction.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
'Neither rockets - nor anything else man made can get into space......'? Really?
The documented and observed evidence plainly shows that ROCKETS CAN GET INTO SPACE. Why wouldn't they? If your answer is going to be something along the lines that rockets need an atmosphere to push off, then sadly your knowledge of physics is virtually non-existent. The Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage engines ejected 15 tons of burnt fuel every second, at a speed of over 4 km/second. Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket engine is reactionary. In other words, the action of the huge mass of burnt fuel travelling at hypersonic speed going in one direction causes the rocket to be propelled in the opposite direction. If anything, the atmosphere actually impedes a rocket's progress due to drag, until it reaches higher altitudes, where the rocket engine becomes much more efficient due to a lack of atmosphere.
Why doesn't a car's exhaust push it forward. It may not go as fast as a rocket, but surely it should move a little.
Exhaust does push a car forwards. By an amount so small it's incomprehensible for the human brain, that it's practically zero.
I didn't realize that. Why do we need jet engines, why not just use rockets on planes?
Because rockets, although they are more powerful, are terribly inefficient, impractical, and really expensive compared to jet engines.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.
How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
'Neither rockets - nor anything else man made can get into space......'? Really?
The documented and observed evidence plainly shows that ROCKETS CAN GET INTO SPACE. Why wouldn't they? If your answer is going to be something along the lines that rockets need an atmosphere to push off, then sadly your knowledge of physics is virtually non-existent. The Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage engines ejected 15 tons of burnt fuel every second, at a speed of over 4 km/second. Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket engine is reactionary. In other words, the action of the huge mass of burnt fuel travelling at hypersonic speed going in one direction causes the rocket to be propelled in the opposite direction. If anything, the atmosphere actually impedes a rocket's progress due to drag, until it reaches higher altitudes, where the rocket engine becomes much more efficient due to a lack of atmosphere.
Why doesn't a car's exhaust push it forward. It may not go as fast as a rocket, but surely it should move a little.
Exhaust does push a car forwards. By an amount so small it's incomprehensible for the human brain, that it's practically zero.
I didn't realize that. Why do we need jet engines, why not just use rockets on planes?
Actually, we have fucking rocket reactors on a car. Yes, on a CAR. The Bloodhound SSC, who will in 2016 go at 1000 mph.
And for the rockets, they can go in space. Just go to Kourou or Cape Canaveral Air Force Station during a rocket launch and you will have the proof. You will see a thing like this : (http://)
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
'Neither rockets - nor anything else man made can get into space......'? Really?
The documented and observed evidence plainly shows that ROCKETS CAN GET INTO SPACE. Why wouldn't they? If your answer is going to be something along the lines that rockets need an atmosphere to push off, then sadly your knowledge of physics is virtually non-existent. The Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage engines ejected 15 tons of burnt fuel every second, at a speed of over 4 km/second. Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket engine is reactionary. In other words, the action of the huge mass of burnt fuel travelling at hypersonic speed going in one direction causes the rocket to be propelled in the opposite direction. If anything, the atmosphere actually impedes a rocket's progress due to drag, until it reaches higher altitudes, where the rocket engine becomes much more efficient due to a lack of atmosphere.
Why doesn't a car's exhaust push it forward. It may not go as fast as a rocket, but surely it should move a little.
Exhaust does push a car forwards. By an amount so small it's incomprehensible for the human brain, that it's practically zero.
I didn't realize that. Why do we need jet engines, why not just use rockets on planes?
Oh my god, you actually don't know much about anything do you?
The fuel used in an aircraft's jet engine is a derivative of petroleum, is cheap and plentiful and can be contained easily within the fuel tanks of an aircraft. These tanks do not need to be pressurised either.
The fuel used by rockets on the other hand, is extremely expensive to manufacture, highly volatile and requires constant pressurisation, and normally involves 2 types of fuel (liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen) that must be contained separately until they are mixed in the combustion chamber.
The fact that you would even ask the question as to why rockets are not used on jet aircraft is a sad joke.
There have of course been aircraft that have used rocket engines, but these were only experimental. The X-1 and X-15 being examples.
Below is an example of an air-breathing rocket plane that is both a rocket and a jet.
From Wikipedia
SABRE (Synergistic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine)[1] is a concept under development by Reaction Engines Limited for a hypersonic precooled hybrid air breathing rocket engine.[5][6] The engine has been designed to achieve single-stage-to-orbit capability, propelling the proposed Skylon launch vehicle. SABRE is an evolution of Alan Bond's series of liquid air cycle engine (LACE) and LACE-like designs that started in the early/mid-1980s for the HOTOL project.
The design comprises a single combined cycle rocket engine with two modes of operation.[4] The air breathing mode combines a turbo-compressor with a lightweight air precooler positioned just behind the inlet cone. At high speeds this precooler cools the hot, ram-compressed air leading to an unusually high pressure ratio within the engine. The compressed air is subsequently fed into the rocket combustion chamber where it is ignited with stored liquid hydrogen. The high pressure ratio allows the engine to continue to provide high thrust at very high speeds and altitudes. The low temperature of the air permits light alloy construction to be employed which gives a very lightweight engine—essential for reaching orbit. In addition, unlike the LACE concept, SABRE’s precooler does not liquefy the air letting it run more efficiently.[3]
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.
How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.
If these were holographic projections on a flat earth, they would be visible nearly at the same time everywhere. It's not the case, NASA give the observable time for each city, and we are clearly able to observe that these are the true observable times. So it's not an hologram, or the Earth isn't flat.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.
How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.
If these were holographic projections on a flat earth, they would be visible nearly at the same time everywhere. It's not the case, NASA give the observable time for each city, and we are clearly able to observe that these are the true observable times. So it's not an hologram, or the Earth isn't flat.
You believe in an organization that supposedly has the technology to send people into space, and you seriously doubt their ability to make a convincing projection?
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.
How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.
If these were holographic projections on a flat earth, they would be visible nearly at the same time everywhere. It's not the case, NASA give the observable time for each city, and we are clearly able to observe that these are the true observable times. So it's not an hologram, or the Earth isn't flat.
You believe in an organization that supposedly has the technology to send people into space, and you seriously doubt their ability to make a convincing projection?
Do you seriously think that making enormous holographic projections in the sky that are visible from everywhere and always appear solid and extremely bright is possible?
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.
How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.
If these were holographic projections on a flat earth, they would be visible nearly at the same time everywhere. It's not the case, NASA give the observable time for each city, and we are clearly able to observe that these are the true observable times. So it's not an hologram, or the Earth isn't flat.
You believe in an organization that supposedly has the technology to send people into space, and you seriously doubt their ability to make a convincing projection?
Do you seriously think that making enormous holographic projections in the sky that are visible from everywhere and always appear solid and extremely bright is possible?
Government technology is decades ahead of what most people believe to be possible today.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.
How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.
If these were holographic projections on a flat earth, they would be visible nearly at the same time everywhere. It's not the case, NASA give the observable time for each city, and we are clearly able to observe that these are the true observable times. So it's not an hologram, or the Earth isn't flat.
You believe in an organization that supposedly has the technology to send people into space, and you seriously doubt their ability to make a convincing projection?
It's not believing. It's only constating the observable time of the ISS is different for each town, wich would not be possible on a flat Earth.
Even with the best projections of the world, it wouldn't be possible at all on a flat Earth.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.
How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.
If these were holographic projections on a flat earth, they would be visible nearly at the same time everywhere. It's not the case, NASA give the observable time for each city, and we are clearly able to observe that these are the true observable times. So it's not an hologram, or the Earth isn't flat.
You believe in an organization that supposedly has the technology to send people into space, and you seriously doubt their ability to make a convincing projection?
Do you seriously think that making enormous holographic projections in the sky that are visible from everywhere and always appear solid and extremely bright is possible?
Government technology is decades ahead of what most people believe to be possible today.
There is no way in hell someone could ever make such a hologram. No way. It's impossible. Plus the ray from the laser shining onto it would probably be visible. Also, if you think that government technology is decades ahead of what we believe (although it would probably have to be a couple centuries ahead), then I guess that it was like that back in 1998, when the ISS was first put into orbit. Or as far back as 1986, when the Mir space station was put into orbit (fun fact: it wasn't even by NASA). Or as far back as the 70s, when the first satellites that could be seen from Earth were put in orbit. Wait. Holograms were only first invented in 1971, and back then, they weren't really much at all. They were kinda shitty. Very shitty actually.
Have you ever observed the ISS? It's easy to see with the naked eye. Sometimes, if sunlight bounces directly off of its solar panels, it gets extremely bright, much brighter than Venus even. There is no way that could be done with a hologram.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.
How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.
You see, this is all that you Flat Earth fantasists have as a counter-argument - perhaps all the rocket launches were just holographic projections, lol. But on the other hand, some of you also think that this is all the moon is, some sort of holographic projection? You people are so full of shit, I can smell you from my study.
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.
How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.
If these were holographic projections on a flat earth, they would be visible nearly at the same time everywhere. It's not the case, NASA give the observable time for each city, and we are clearly able to observe that these are the true observable times. So it's not an hologram, or the Earth isn't flat.
You believe in an organization that supposedly has the technology to send people into space, and you seriously doubt their ability to make a convincing projection?
That's an interesting comment you've just made. Apparently you're very confident that all of NASA's rockets are actually just holographic projections, based on your contention that because they 'have the technology to send people into space', therefore they also have the 'ability to make a convincing projection'?
But if it's your opinion that all of NASA's rockets never went into space at all, due to the impossibility of space travel, then why would you propose that they had the technology to make a convincing projection, when in fact they actually didn't even have the technology to get into space?
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
By calculating how much time it would take to get to you from the other side of the world. Even IF the Earth was flat, it would still be a massive distance.
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
It passes once every 90 minutes, right? I posted an equation in another thread that let's you calculate the height over the observer of the ISS' orbit (in miles). If that is H then the diameter of the orbit is 2x+8000miles, and the circumference is
[pi](2x+8000)miles, and then the speed of the ISS is [pi](2x+8000)miles/1.5hours
-
How could Google Earth catch every single detail on Earth (with a precision of less than one meter) ? We clearly see these are satellites views. Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
How ? ;)
Here's something for you. Go and look at google Earth and bring up your home. I don't mean google street maps. I mean google Earth. You know those satellites that see through clouds and such?
Anyway, on google satellite ::) :P...try and zoom in to one metre from your house. Better still, bring up a real time image of your home.
You'll find you can't do it but you will find that you can bring up an image from month's ago but not from 1 metre away.
Why is this?
The reason is so simple if you allow yourself to think about it. It's because it's taken by AIR craft, not space satellites.
-
How could Google Earth catch every single detail on Earth (with a precision of less than one meter) ? We clearly see these are satellites views. Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
How ? ;)
Here's something for you. Go and look at google Earth and bring up your home. I don't mean google street maps. I mean google Earth. You know those satellites that see through clouds and such?
Anyway, on google satellite ::) :P...try and zoom in to one metre from your house. Better still, bring up a real time image of your home.
You'll find you can't do it but you will find that you can bring up an image from month's ago but not from 1 metre away.
Why is this?
The reason is so simple if you allow yourself to think about it. It's because it's taken by AIR craft, not space satellites.
Did you seriously expect a real time view?
-
How could Google Earth catch every single detail on Earth (with a precision of less than one meter) ? We clearly see these are satellites views. Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
How ? ;)
Here's something for you. Go and look at google Earth and bring up your home. I don't mean google street maps. I mean google Earth. You know those satellites that see through clouds and such?
Anyway, on google satellite ::) :P...try and zoom in to one metre from your house. Better still, bring up a real time image of your home.
You'll find you can't do it but you will find that you can bring up an image from month's ago but not from 1 metre away.
Why is this?
The reason is so simple if you allow yourself to think about it. It's because it's taken by AIR craft, not space satellites.
Did you seriously expect a real time view?
I'd expect nothing less than a recent image. I mean, what do they do? Do they just store a few months old image in the satellite and beam it back then simply take another image in a few month's when they decide the times right?
What an utter utter load of crap.
The reason why your images are months and months old when yous ee them is because the planes and equipment do not get back around to update those images.
Wake the eff up.
-
How could Google Earth catch every single detail on Earth (with a precision of less than one meter) ? We clearly see these are satellites views. Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
How ? ;)
Here's something for you. Go and look at google Earth and bring up your home. I don't mean google street maps. I mean google Earth. You know those satellites that see through clouds and such?
Anyway, on google satellite ::) :P...try and zoom in to one metre from your house. Better still, bring up a real time image of your home.
You'll find you can't do it but you will find that you can bring up an image from month's ago but not from 1 metre away.
Why is this?
The reason is so simple if you allow yourself to think about it. It's because it's taken by AIR craft, not space satellites.
Did you seriously expect a real time view?
I'd expect nothing less than a recent image. I mean, what do they do? Do they just store a few months old image in the satellite and beam it back then simply take another image in a few month's when they decide the times right?
What an utter utter load of crap.
The reason why your images are months and months old when yous ee them is because the planes and equipment do not get back around to update those images.
Wake the eff up.
Check again. The most recent picture of my house that was taken less than 2 months ago, and the second most recent less than 3 months ago.
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
It passes once every .......
What difference, at this point, does it make?!?
"Then how do birds fly over us at 170 miles per hour? Last I check, balloons do not have feathers."
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
It passes once every .......
What difference, at this point, does it make?!?
"Then how do birds fly over us at 170 miles per hour? Last I check, balloons do not have feathers."
So you're saying that balloons are capable of going as fast as 17000 miles per hour.
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
It passes once every .......
What difference, at this point, does it make?!?
"Then how do birds fly over us at 170 miles per hour? Last I check, balloons do not have feathers."
So you're saying that balloons are capable of going as fast as 17000 miles per hour.
So, are you saying that every light moving across the sky is going 17,000 miles per hour?
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
It passes once every .......
What difference, at this point, does it make?!?
"Then how do birds fly over us at 170 miles per hour? Last I check, balloons do not have feathers."
So you're saying that balloons are capable of going as fast as 17000 miles per hour.
So, are you saying that every light moving across the sky is going 17,000 miles per hour?
I already told you why we know it is going approximately that fast.
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
It passes once every .......
What difference, at this point, does it make?!?
"Then how do birds fly over us at 170 miles per hour? Last I check, balloons do not have feathers."
So you're saying that balloons are capable of going as fast as 17000 miles per hour.
So, are you saying that every light moving across the sky is going 17,000 miles per hour?
I already told you why we know it is going approximately that fast.
Yes, I don't have anything to comment on your fairy tales. Don't just make stuff up when you don't have something adult to say. :P
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
It passes once every .......
What difference, at this point, does it make?!?
"Then how do birds fly over us at 170 miles per hour? Last I check, balloons do not have feathers."
So you're saying that balloons are capable of going as fast as 17000 miles per hour.
So, are you saying that every light moving across the sky is going 17,000 miles per hour?
I already told you why we know it is going approximately that fast.
Yes, I don't have anything to comment on your fairy tales. Don't just make stuff up when you don't have something adult to say. :P
If mathematic proofs aren't something adult... ::)
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
It passes once every .......
What difference, at this point, does it make?!?
"Then how do birds fly over us at 170 miles per hour? Last I check, balloons do not have feathers."
So you're saying that balloons are capable of going as fast as 17000 miles per hour.
So, are you saying that every light moving across the sky is going 17,000 miles per hour?
I already told you why we know it is going approximately that fast.
Yes, I don't have anything to comment on your fairy tales. Don't just make stuff up when you don't have something adult to say. :P
If mathematic proofs aren't something adult... ::)
There are elves living in the woods behind my house. They sneak in and hide my keys every night. They also drink all of my beer, so I have to make sure I finish it every night so that those little bastards have none to steal.
Do you see how making baseless claims means nothing at all? You can make all of the unsupported statements that you wish, but that does not make the statements true. You are new to this public forum thing, are you not?
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
It passes once every .......
What difference, at this point, does it make?!?
"Then how do birds fly over us at 170 miles per hour? Last I check, balloons do not have feathers."
So you're saying that balloons are capable of going as fast as 17000 miles per hour.
So, are you saying that every light moving across the sky is going 17,000 miles per hour?
I already told you why we know it is going approximately that fast.
Yes, I don't have anything to comment on your fairy tales. Don't just make stuff up when you don't have something adult to say. :P
If mathematic proofs aren't something adult... ::)
There are elves living in the woods behind my house. They sneak in and hide my keys every night. They also drink all of my beer, so I have to make sure I finish it every night so that those little bastards have none to steal.
Do you see how making baseless claims means nothing at all? You can make all of the unsupported statements that you wish, but that does not make the statements true.
If the statements are coming with proofs, it allows us to consider them true. Your example has no proof. The speed of the satellites was mathematically proven a few posts ago.
You are new to this public forum thing, are you not?
Looks like an ad hominem... ::)
-
Now you are getting it. I can't just make statements and expect you to believe that they are true without providing evidence that would lead you to conclude they are true. Good. You are finally on your way to getting de-brainwashed.
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
It passes once every .......
What difference, at this point, does it make?!?
"Then how do birds fly over us at 170 miles per hour? Last I check, balloons do not have feathers."
So you're saying that balloons are capable of going as fast as 17000 miles per hour.
So, are you saying that every light moving across the sky is going 17,000 miles per hour?
I already told you why we know it is going approximately that fast.
Yes, I don't have anything to comment on your fairy tales. Don't just make stuff up when you don't have something adult to say. :P
I really wonder why the ISS is always where it's supposed to be according to Stellarium and that ISS tracker that I really don't remember how it was called... It's only natural to assume that it's not only accurate for my home, but for every other region in the Earth. Now when I check Stellarium, I see that it takes approximately 30 minutes for the ISS to get from the USA to Greece. I'll leave it up to you to decide what that could mean.
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.
How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.
you do know that holograms need something to be projected on right?
-
Here's something for you. Go and look at google Earth and bring up your home. I don't mean google street maps. I mean google Earth. You know those satellites that see through clouds and such?
Anyway, on google satellite ::) :P...try and zoom in to one metre from your house. Better still, bring up a real time image of your home.
You'll find you can't do it but you will find that you can bring up an image from month's ago but not from 1 metre away.
Why is this?
The reason is so simple if you allow yourself to think about it. It's because it's taken by AIR craft, not space satellites.
Satellites don't need to see through clouds because in case you haven't noticed clouds are often not there and clear skies are a thing that exists.
The cameras on satellites have to zoom a lot to see your house and so they have a tiny field of view. It takes over a month to capture the entire Earth with those cameras.
If all the images were taken from airplanes then how do you explain stuff like this?:
(http://www.gearthblog.com/images/plane2.jpg)
-
Here's something for you. Go and look at google Earth and bring up your home. I don't mean google street maps. I mean google Earth. You know those satellites that see through clouds and such?
Anyway, on google satellite ::) :P...try and zoom in to one metre from your house. Better still, bring up a real time image of your home.
You'll find you can't do it but you will find that you can bring up an image from month's ago but not from 1 metre away.
Why is this?
The reason is so simple if you allow yourself to think about it. It's because it's taken by AIR craft, not space satellites.
Satellites don't need to see through clouds because in case you haven't noticed clouds are often not there and clear skies are a thing that exists.
The cameras on satellites have to zoom a lot to see your house and so they have a tiny field of view. It takes over a month to capture the entire Earth with those cameras.
If all the images were taken from airplanes then how do you explain stuff like this?:
(http://www.gearthblog.com/images/plane2.jpg)
"The Google Librarian Central site has up a piece by Mark Aubin, a Software Engineer who works on Google Earth. Aubin explains some of the process behind capturing satellite imagery for use with the product. 'Most people are surprised to learn that we have more than one source for our imagery. We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes - even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight. This overlap of images is what provides us with enough detail to remove distortions caused by the varying shape of the Earth's surface.'
http://science.slashdot.org/story/07/04/30/0237218/how-google-earth-images-are-made (http://science.slashdot.org/story/07/04/30/0237218/how-google-earth-images-are-made)
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2014/04/google-earth-imagery.html (http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2014/04/google-earth-imagery.html)
-
"The Google Librarian Central site has up a piece by Mark Aubin, a Software Engineer who works on Google Earth. Aubin explains some of the process behind capturing satellite imagery for use with the product. 'Most people are surprised to learn that we have more than one source for our imagery. We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes - even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight. This overlap of images is what provides us with enough detail to remove distortions caused by the varying shape of the Earth's surface.'
http://science.slashdot.org/story/07/04/30/0237218/how-google-earth-images-are-made (http://science.slashdot.org/story/07/04/30/0237218/how-google-earth-images-are-made)
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2014/04/google-earth-imagery.html (http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2014/04/google-earth-imagery.html)
I know that there is more then one source of imagery, but satellites is one of them.
-
So you're saying that balloons are capable of going as fast as 17000 miles per hour.
No, I am not taking the bait from your shill manual.
Yes, I am saying that NASA is clearly wasting tax-payers money.
Note to honorable and honest folks:
Do not get trapped by the shill modus operandi. Nobody has to respond to the obvious lock-step stupid questions from trolls. Discussing anything remotely connected to "science" is nobody's responsibility. Do not get trapped into thinking you need to have answers to their obvious miserable duplicity.
Tell them you do not want your taxes to fund their neurotic games. All you need to tell them is to pay for their sick play with their own dimes --- not with yours. They can never win that argument.
Heck, you can even humor them by saying you are convinced 100% by all of the boring "science" fiction ---- just that you would rather you taxes went to better things like, stopping child abuse.
-
So you're saying that balloons are capable of going as fast as 17000 miles per hour.
No, I am not taking the bait from your shill manual.
Yes, I am saying that NASA is clearly wasting tax-payers money.
Note to honorable and honest folks:
Do not get trapped by the shill modus operandi. Nobody has to respond to the obvious lock-step stupid questions from trolls. Discussing anything remotely connected to "science" is nobody's responsibility. Do not get trapped into thinking you need to have answers to their obvious miserable duplicity.
Tell them you do not want your taxes to fund their neurotic games. All you need to tell them is to pay for their sick play with their own dimes --- not with yours. They can never win that argument.
Heck, you can even humor them by saying you are convinced 100% by all of the boring "science" fiction ---- just that you would rather you taxes went to better things like, stopping child abuse.
OK. So there are balloons up there that look like satellites and space stations that travel at 17,000mph, always turning up when they are supposed to exactly where they are supposed to. Gotcha.
-
OK. So there are balloons up there that look like satellites and space stations that travel at 17,000mph, always turning up when they are supposed to exactly where they are supposed to and wasting tax-payers money. Gotcha.
Fixed that for you.
-
OK. So there are balloons up there that look like satellites and space stations that travel at 17,000mph, always turning up when they are supposed to exactly where they are supposed to and wasting tax-payers money. Gotcha.
Fixed that for you.
So you do believe that such balloons exist. If they can make balloons like that, why can't they make actual space stations and satellites again?
-
As a non USA person, I am always surprised that people are okay with the massive military budget, but freak out with the relatively tiny NASA budget. Just the development of one aircraft for the air force, the JSF (which is underperforming on almost all aspects of intended design) cost about as much as NASA's entire budget since 1970's to 2015
-
As a non USA person, I am always surprised that people are okay with the massive military budget, but freak out with the relatively tiny NASA budget. Just the development of one aircraft for the air force, the JSF (which is underperforming on almost all aspects of intended design) cost about as much as NASA's entire budget since 1970's to 2015
Do you work in the general accounting office?
-
Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
Easy: the transmitters are held up high in the sky by weather balloons and held down by cables.
Then how do low orbit satellites fly over us at 17,000 miles per hour? Last I checked, balloons don't do that.
How can you determine the speed of a small dot that slowly moves across the sky?
It passes once every .......
What difference, at this point, does it make?!?
"Then how do birds fly over us at 170 miles per hour? Last I check, balloons do not have feathers."
So you're saying that balloons are capable of going as fast as 17000 miles per hour.
So, are you saying that every light moving across the sky is going 17,000 miles per hour?
I already told you why we know it is going approximately that fast.
Yes, I don't have anything to comment on your fairy tales. Don't just make stuff up when you don't have something adult to say. :P
Sadly, if anybody has the market cornered on fairy tales, it is without a doubt, the flat earth fraternity. You people are constantly 'just making stuff up' to account for this and that. You completely discount modern science, for the simple reason that it completely destroys the flat earth model. The proven observation of 24 hour Antarctic summer sun being a prime example. You NEVER provide any proof to counter the round earth model, yet you seem to think that your ignorant and misguided opinions are somehow sufficient?
Yep, fairies down the bottom of your garden for sure, lol.
-
OK. So there are balloons up there that look like satellites and space stations that travel at 17,000mph, always turning up when they are supposed to exactly where they are supposed to and wasting tax-payers money. Gotcha.
Fixed that for you.
So you do believe that such balloons exist. If they can make balloons like that, why can't they make actual space stations and satellites again?
That was a stupid question. Balloons are much closer to Earth, and much smaller, making their apparent diameter nearly the same as that of satellites. However, to be able to send a balloon at 40 km isn't the same as to be able to send a satellite at 600 km.
-
The majority of the population that knows NASA is full of crap are actually Round Earthers, and yet all the Round Earthers I have seen post on this site believe NASA and trust the government.
I feel like you guys know the Earth is Flat but can't admit it for some stubborn reason or another the truth. You need to look up the definition of denialism. :-\
-
The majority of the population that knows NASA is full of crap are actually Round Earthers, and yet all the Round Earthers I have seen post on this site believe NASA and trust the government.
I feel like you guys know the Earth is Flat but can't admit it for some stubborn reason or another the truth. You need to look up the definition of denialism. :-\
The majority of the population that thinks NASA is full of crap are Round Earthers only because there are only a few hundreds (thousands?) Flat Earthers in the world. Even if a million RE thinks that, the probability that one of them would be on this website is extremely low. No contradiction.
However, the proportion of RE thinking that NASA is full of crap is far lower than the proportion of FE thinking that.
-
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/u/uptonsincl138285.html)
-
The majority of the population that knows NASA is full of crap are actually Round Earthers, and yet all the Round Earthers I have seen post on this site believe NASA and trust the government.
I feel like you guys know the Earth is Flat but can't admit it for some stubborn reason or another the truth. You need to look up the definition of denialism. :-\
Not everyone here is American you know... Even if I didn't believe in the physics associated to the RE model, I would believe in the latter for a single reason : on a geopolitical aspect, I would NEVER believe in a model that would imply that Russia, the USA, China, Europe in general, etc, to maintain a conspiracy together. That would NEVER happen.
But I do believe in the physics associated to the RE model, so np :)
-
As a non USA person, I am always surprised that people are okay with the massive military budget, but freak out with the relatively tiny NASA budget. Just the development of one aircraft for the air force, the JSF (which is underperforming on almost all aspects of intended design) cost about as much as NASA's entire budget since 1970's to 2015
Do you work in the general accounting office?
Let me help you here.
As a non USA person...
Probably not.
-
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/u/uptonsincl138285.html)
Here's a picture that hoax nutters such as yourself must hate - a satellite deployment by one of the space shuttles, obviously in orbit around a spherical earth - what beautiful curvature we have here.
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/51f111a0e4b0caab88cc8e70/51f111a0e4b0caab88cc8e7f/52570c1ce4b0b08a7fabd515/1382050211022/sts70_pic18.jpg)
-
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/u/uptonsincl138285.html)
Here's a picture that hoax nutters such as yourself must hate - a satellite deployment by one of the space shuttles, obviously in orbit around a spherical earth - what beautiful curvature we have here.
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/51f111a0e4b0caab88cc8e70/51f111a0e4b0caab88cc8e7f/52570c1ce4b0b08a7fabd515/1382050211022/sts70_pic18.jpg)
Before calling this photograph a fake, please prove us it is a fake.
-
Before calling this photograph a fake, please prove us it is a fake.
Before wasting tax-payers money, please get a real job.
-
Before calling this photograph a fake, please prove us it is a fake.
Before wasting tax-payers money, please get a real job.
What the WTF ? ???
-
The majority of the population that knows NASA is full of crap are actually Round Earthers, and yet all the Round Earthers I have seen post on this site believe NASA and trust the government.
I feel like you guys know the Earth is Flat but can't admit it for some stubborn reason or another the truth. You need to look up the definition of denialism. :-\
Actually, it's the flat earthers that have the market cornered on 'denialism'.
The denial of the spherical earth is the saddest joke doing the rounds at the moment.
The picture below was taken by an astronaut on one of the Apollo missions, as they orbited the moon - beautiful isn't it.
(http://www.satindergrewal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/earth-from-space.jpg)
-
The majority of the population that knows NASA is full of crap are actually Round Earthers, and yet all the Round Earthers I have seen post on this site believe NASA and trust the government.
I feel like you guys know the Earth is Flat but can't admit it for some stubborn reason or another the truth. You need to look up the definition of denialism. :-\
Actually, it's the flat earthers that have the market cornered on 'denialism'.
The denial of the spherical earth is the saddest joke doing the rounds at the moment.
The picture below was taken by an astronaut on one of the Apollo missions, as they orbited the moon - beautiful isn't it.
(http://www.satindergrewal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/earth-from-space.jpg)
It is a nice work of art, I"ll give you that. Too bad they forgot to add the stars.
-
The majority of the population that knows NASA is full of crap are actually Round Earthers, and yet all the Round Earthers I have seen post on this site believe NASA and trust the government.
I feel like you guys know the Earth is Flat but can't admit it for some stubborn reason or another the truth. You need to look up the definition of denialism. :-\
Actually, it's the flat earthers that have the market cornered on 'denialism'.
The denial of the spherical earth is the saddest joke doing the rounds at the moment.
The picture below was taken by an astronaut on one of the Apollo missions, as they orbited the moon - beautiful isn't it.
(http://www.satindergrewal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/earth-from-space.jpg)
It is a nice work of art, I"ll give you that. Too bad they forgot to add the stars.
Ah, here's the flat earth/hoax nutter ignorance rearing its ugly head again.
It takes about 15 seconds exposure time to capture the image of stars during the night here on earth.
The relatively bright environment of sunlit space, would require a camera exposure setting of somewhere around 1/125th of a second, but technophobes such as yourself wouldn't know this.
Of course there would be no stars in a picture such as this, as the required exposure time is way too short to ever capture stars.
The following link might explain it to your satisfaction -
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae323.cfm (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae323.cfm)
-
It utterly amazes me that 99.9% of all normal sounding FE arguments come from complete ignorance of the subject they are talking about. Much like the photograph there and the lack of stars. If he/she had a clue about how a photograph works, then he would understand that his argument was invalid before he/she splattered it out here on my screen like a monkey throwing feces.
-
Mikey T. is the only smart one here.
-
Mikey T. is the only smart one here.
Jroa, have you misunderstood Mikey T's comment? He is agreeing with me, not you.
And just to establish the level of your knowledge concerning photography, do you agree that in order to prevent an image from being overexposed, a fast shutter setting must be used in bright lighting conditions?
-
Mikey T. is the only smart one here.
Jroa, have you misunderstood Mikey T's comment? He is agreeing with me, not you.
And just to establish the level of your knowledge concerning photography, do you agree that in order to prevent an image from being overexposed, a fast shutter setting must be used in bright lighting conditions?
Do you understand what sarcasm is?
-
Mikey T. is the only smart one here.
Jroa, have you misunderstood Mikey T's comment? He is agreeing with me, not you.
And just to establish the level of your knowledge concerning photography, do you agree that in order to prevent an image from being overexposed, a fast shutter setting must be used in bright lighting conditions?
Do you understand what sarcasm is?
Yes, but your attempt was so bad, I didn't want to give you the satisfaction of acknowledgement. It seems you've been played, lol.
So just going back a few posts, did you understand my question re photography? Do you concede that the faint images of stars would never show on pictures taken when using a fast exposure setting on a camera?
-
I am sorry, but I can only concede that you are an idiot.
-
I am sorry, but I can only concede that you are an idiot.
You don't actually have much general knowledge do you. I think I'm dealing with a bit of a simpleton here. It's quite an easy question, but I guess the answer is way beyond your scope of understanding, hence your lame response.
It never ceases to amaze me, how pig ignorant flat earthers are. With each and every post, they display the pathetic ignorance they are infamous for. It wouldn't surprise me if you also thought that a rocket engine requires air to push off against, lol.
(http://studyonline.zohosites.com/files/rocket-engine-thrust.jpg)
-
wow, that proves it, right? lol
-
wow, that proves it, right? lol
If you've got a different opinion about how a rocket engine propels a rocket forward, then we would all like to hear it - please proceed.
(https://www.teachengineering.org/collection/cub_/lessons/cub_images/cub_rockets_lesson02_figure3.jpg)
-
Ok, just so that we can get rid of these "arguments" once and for all,
1) Rockets eject mass and are pushed back because they do that, they don't push against the atmosphere, so, therefore, they don't need it,
and 2) Stars don't appear in photos from space because they are too faint. Get outside during the night, and try to capture video of stars. Can you see any?
-
I am sorry, but I can only concede that you are an idiot.
Are you being sarcastic again?
-
wow, that proves it, right? lol
Do you understand what forces are involved in the picture below?
When the cannon ball is fired out of the cannon, which way does the cannon go?
When a rocket fires fuel out of its engines, which way does the rocket go?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZOU3GLnyi_M/UlGNpUQVxnI/AAAAAAAAA1o/E8cFLR8pdGw/s1600/cub_rockets_lesson02_figure3.jpg)
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
'Neither rockets - nor anything else man made can get into space......'? Really?
The documented and observed evidence plainly shows that ROCKETS CAN GET INTO SPACE. Why wouldn't they? If your answer is going to be something along the lines that rockets need an atmosphere to push off, then sadly your knowledge of physics is virtually non-existent. The Apollo Saturn V rocket's 1st stage engines ejected 15 tons of burnt fuel every second, at a speed of over 4 km/second. Newton's 3rd law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket engine is reactionary. In other words, the action of the huge mass of burnt fuel travelling at hypersonic speed going in one direction causes the rocket to be propelled in the opposite direction. If anything, the atmosphere actually impedes a rocket's progress due to drag, until it reaches higher altitudes, where the rocket engine becomes much more efficient due to a lack of atmosphere.
Why doesn't a car's exhaust push it forward. It may not go as fast as a rocket, but surely it should move a little.
Exhaust does push a car forwards. By an amount so small it's incomprehensible for the human brain, that it's practically zero.
I didn't realize that. Why do we need jet engines, why not just use rockets on planes?
Actually, that's a good question, and we *do* use rockets on planes -- we did in the past, pre-MASA, when they tested the X-planes - and we do even today with something called JATO, which is an acronym for "Jet Assisted Take Off"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO
-
Neither rockets - nor anything else man-made - can get into space, so it must be some other technology.
Think about it, then return with Answers rather than Questions & maybe we'll give you the time of day...
Until then, f**k off.
Only I can see satellites and the ISS with my telescope, so... Yeah. I think you get the idea.
How can you be certain that what you are seeing is not just holographic projections set up by NASA? They seemed to convince a lot of people that they landed on the moon in the past using smoke and mirror theatrics.
Uh...Occam's Razor?
Plus, look, if we start to believe, as some Flat Earthers do, that the entire night sky is a fake hologram, then at what point do we know that *anything* we see is real? Perhaps our entire reality is some giant Truman Show level conspiracy to full us into believing that the what we see and hear and smell and touch is real? Hell, perhaps we ALL live in the Matrix? (Though in the latter case, no need for holograms and "fake" Moon Landings, you could just program all that stuff into your simulation...make it real...)
And if everything IS a hologram then how can I know that any of the so-called "evidence" for a Flat Earth is real as well? How do I know *that* is faked, if I can't trust my senses about *ANYTHING*!? How do I know that ANYTHING I think to be true, and real, is in fact true and real and not some sort of elaborate trick...!?!?
I actually believe that if I could take a Flat Earther up in a rocket, and show them out the window that were were literally in *orbit* around the Earth, they would claim that the window was a super-high-resolution TV screen or something, or some kid of planetarium projection, and that the only reason we were all suddenly weightless is because we were falling inside of an airplane in free-fall.
And if I were to take the very same Flat Earther outside in a suit for a spacewalk, they would claim that I drugged them or I'm projecting images into their mind. Why? Because *NOTHING* - NO amount of empirical evidence will convince someone that something that they religiously believe to be true, isn't in fact true at all.
-
I actually believe that if I could take a Flat Earther up in a rocket,
Is this what they call "blind faith"?
-
I actually believe that if I could take a Flat Earther up in a rocket,
Is this what they call "blind faith"?
That's exactly what it is and something these people tend to use as if it proves anything. It's like it's almost as if they actually own and run the particular things being talked about. ;D
-
I actually believe that if I could take a Flat Earther up in a rocket,
Is this what they call "blind faith"?
That's exactly what it is and something these people tend to use as if it proves anything. It's like it's almost as if they actually own and run the particular things being talked about. ;D
Whatever evidence is provided to support the round earth model, you are obliged to reject it outright. To do anything else would be an admission that your flat theory is flawed and obviously you would never do this.
Accordingly, you are completely ignorant of even basic principles which govern how this planet works. EVERYTHING that is connected to the round earth model is therefore part of a worldwide conspiracy. There must be a lot of people, and I mean a lot, that must know the truth about the conspiracy. Funny how not one of these people have ever blown the whistle on the round earth hoax.
Therefore the only conclusion that can drawn from this, is that -
THE WORLD IS A SPHERICAL PLANET ORBITING THE SUN. THE MOON IS ORBITING THE EARTH - FACT.
-
I actually believe that if I could take a Flat Earther up in a rocket,
Is this what they call "blind faith"?
That's exactly what it is and something these people tend to use as if it proves anything. It's like it's almost as if they actually own and run the particular things being talked about. ;D
Whatever evidence is provided to support the round earth model, you are obliged to reject it outright. To do anything else would be an admission that your flat theory is flawed and obviously you would never do this.
Accordingly, you are completely ignorant of even basic principles which govern how this planet works. EVERYTHING that is connected to the round earth model is therefore part of a worldwide conspiracy. There must be a lot of people, and I mean a lot, that must know the truth about the conspiracy. Funny how not one of these people have ever blown the whistle on the round earth hoax.
Therefore the only conclusion that can drawn from this, is that -
THE WORLD IS A SPHERICAL PLANET ORBITING THE SUN. THE MOON IS ORBITING THE EARTH - FACT.
Wow another one of your riveting, edjemecational posts!
Old mate said "I actually believe that if I could take a FEer up in a rocket"
That's kiddy talk. Can you take us up in a rocket?
Tell us again why you can not. I'm all ears.
-
I actually believe that if I could take a Flat Earther up in a rocket,
Is this what they call "blind faith"?
That's exactly what it is and something these people tend to use as if it proves anything. It's like it's almost as if they actually own and run the particular things being talked about. ;D
Whatever evidence is provided to support the round earth model, you are obliged to reject it outright. To do anything else would be an admission that your flat theory is flawed and obviously you would never do this.
Accordingly, you are completely ignorant of even basic principles which govern how this planet works. EVERYTHING that is connected to the round earth model is therefore part of a worldwide conspiracy. There must be a lot of people, and I mean a lot, that must know the truth about the conspiracy. Funny how not one of these people have ever blown the whistle on the round earth hoax.
Therefore the only conclusion that can drawn from this, is that -
THE WORLD IS A SPHERICAL PLANET ORBITING THE SUN. THE MOON IS ORBITING THE EARTH - FACT.
Wow another one of your riveting, edjemecational posts!
Old mate said "I actually believe that if I could take a FEer up in a rocket"
That's kiddy talk. Can you take us up in a rocket?
Tell us again why you can not. I'm all ears.
We don't know who you actually are, we don't have the rocket ourselves and we don't have nearly enough funds. This makes it really hard to bring you on a rocket trip.
-
I actually believe that if I could take a Flat Earther up in a rocket,
Is this what they call "blind faith"?
That's exactly what it is and something these people tend to use as if it proves anything. It's like it's almost as if they actually own and run the particular things being talked about. ;D
Whatever evidence is provided to support the round earth model, you are obliged to reject it outright. To do anything else would be an admission that your flat theory is flawed and obviously you would never do this.
Accordingly, you are completely ignorant of even basic principles which govern how this planet works. EVERYTHING that is connected to the round earth model is therefore part of a worldwide conspiracy. There must be a lot of people, and I mean a lot, that must know the truth about the conspiracy. Funny how not one of these people have ever blown the whistle on the round earth hoax.
Therefore the only conclusion that can drawn from this, is that -
THE WORLD IS A SPHERICAL PLANET ORBITING THE SUN. THE MOON IS ORBITING THE EARTH - FACT.
Wow another one of your riveting, edjemecational posts!
Old mate said "I actually believe that if I could take a FEer up in a rocket"
That's kiddy talk. Can you take us up in a rocket?
Tell us again why you can not. I'm all ears.
See, the rocket thing was a hypothetical argument. Though heck, maybe I am Elon Musk or Branson, and zI *do* have a rocket! I'm not and I don't, the closest I get is that I was friends in college with Chris Lexicon, who is a co-founder of Planetary Resources, but I don't have ready access to a rocket, that wasn't ny point, ny point was that I think that, hypothetically, if I did, and if I could take a die-hard Flat Rather don't think that it would matter - at least not with some of you - because once you get to the point where you start believing that the sky is a hologram, you get into schizophrenic levels of parinoia, and nothing you see, hear, touch, or taste could be trusted to be real.
But hey, with space tourism going the way it is, in 10 or 20 years you *will* be able tinfoil up in a rocket.
Of course, my friend Chris Lewicki could be *in* or the conspiracy now too!! I mean, he'd kinda have ro be at this point, if there really was a massive cover-up by "THEM". Which brings me to a point was just made by here by someone else....if there was a cover-up, it would have to be the most MASSIVE cover-up ever. You would be talking every member of every government on Earth (even the ones that hate each other and are trying to discredit each other) and it would have to include every military on Earth, and every space program, public and private, every astronaut and taikonaut and cosmonaut, and all those private launch companies and space tourism companies, and all those companies building and launching satellites, and all those scientists building and launching space probes. And pretty much every scientist ever, astronomers, geologists, geographers, seismologists, etc. And well, and every GPS device manufacturer. And the phone and internet back on companies would have to be in on it. And every airline and most of the pilots. And a lot of private pilots too. And a lot of ice shipping companies plus a lot of private sailors. Oh, and don't forgot all those scientists *living* and working in Antarctica and at the South Pole. And the tourism companies that take people to Antarctica. Well, and we can't forget every media outlet ever. And I could go on, but pretty much a sizable percentage of humanity itself would be in this conspiracy and cover-up. And that would be so un-manageable that it would make to fictional cover-up in the Stargate TV shows look believable by comparison.
In fact, we are talking about an impossible cover-up.
And, yeah, I can't take you up in a rocket, but I am a part-time educational outreach volunteer at a local planetarium, and mainly I run the public telescope on public viewing nights, and anyone can come up and see stars and galaxies and planets and their moons...you can see Saturn's rings, and see how they change over time. You can see nebula and star clusters. You can see comets when they pass through the Solar System and this weekend their will be a big event around Friday's Lunar Eclipse (just a there was for the Transit of Venus a few years ago.)
Of course...maybe the telescopes are all triggers to beam CGI into you eyes!! (Even to private telescopes which *anyone* can buy and take apart!)
Maybe *I* am in on the conspiracy too...
Maybe *I* am a shill!!
(And if I am, somebody seriously owns me some f**king serious back pay, because I live in a dump...)
-
I actually believe that if I could take a Flat Earther up in a rocket,
Is this what they call "blind faith"?
That's exactly what it is and something these people tend to use as if it proves anything. It's like it's almost as if they actually own and run the particular things being talked about. ;D
Whatever evidence is provided to support the round earth model, you are obliged to reject it outright. To do anything else would be an admission that your flat theory is flawed and obviously you would never do this.
Accordingly, you are completely ignorant of even basic principles which govern how this planet works. EVERYTHING that is connected to the round earth model is therefore part of a worldwide conspiracy. There must be a lot of people, and I mean a lot, that must know the truth about the conspiracy. Funny how not one of these people have ever blown the whistle on the round earth hoax.
Therefore the only conclusion that can drawn from this, is that -
THE WORLD IS A SPHERICAL PLANET ORBITING THE SUN. THE MOON IS ORBITING THE EARTH - FACT.
Wow another one of your riveting, edjemecational posts!
Old mate said "I actually believe that if I could take a FEer up in a rocket"
That's kiddy talk. Can you take us up in a rocket?
Tell us again why you can not. I'm all ears.
See, the rocket thing was a hypothetical argument. Though heck, maybe I am Elon Musk or Branson, and zI *do* have a rocket! I'm not and I don't, the closest I get is that I was friends in college with Chris Lexicon, who is a co-founder of Planetary Resources, but I don't have ready access to a rocket, that wasn't ny point, ny point was that I think that, hypothetically, if I did, and if I could take a die-hard Flat Rather don't think that it would matter - at least not with some of you - because once you get to the point where you start believing that the sky is a hologram, you get into schizophrenic levels of parinoia, and nothing you see, hear, touch, or taste could be trusted to be real.
But hey, with space tourism going the way it is, in 10 or 20 years you *will* be able tinfoil up in a rocket.
Of course, my friend Chris Lewicki could be *in* or the conspiracy now too!! I mean, he'd kinda have ro be at this point, if there really was a massive cover-up by "THEM". Which brings me to a point was just made by here by someone else....if there was a cover-up, it would have to be the most MASSIVE cover-up ever. You would be talking every member of every government on Earth (even the ones that hate each other and are trying to discredit each other) and it would have to include every military on Earth, and every space program, public and private, every astronaut and taikonaut and cosmonaut, and all those private launch companies and space tourism companies, and all those companies building and launching satellites, and all those scientists building and launching space probes. And pretty much every scientist ever, astronomers, geologists, geographers, seismologists, etc. And well, and every GPS device manufacturer. And the phone and internet back on companies would have to be in on it. And every airline and most of the pilots. And a lot of private pilots too. And a lot of ice shipping companies plus a lot of private sailors. Oh, and don't forgot all those scientists *living* and working in Antarctica and at the South Pole. And the tourism companies that take people to Antarctica. Well, and we can't forget every media outlet ever. And I could go on, but pretty much a sizable percentage of humanity itself would be in this conspiracy and cover-up. And that would be so un-manageable that it would make to fictional cover-up in the Stargate TV shows look believable by comparison.
In fact, we are talking about an impossible cover-up.
And, yeah, I can't take you up in a rocket, but I am a part-time educational outreach volunteer at a local planetarium, and mainly I run the public telescope on public viewing nights, and anyone can come up and see stars and galaxies and planets and their moons...you can see Saturn's rings, and see how they change over time. You can see nebula and star clusters. You can see comets when they pass through the Solar System and this weekend their will be a big event around Friday's Lunar Eclipse (just a there was for the Transit of Venus a few years ago.)
Of course...maybe the telescopes are all triggers to beam CGI into you eyes!! (Even to private telescopes which *anyone* can buy and take apart!)
Maybe *I* am in on the conspiracy too...
Maybe *I* am a shill!!
(And if I am, somebody seriously owns me some f**king serious back pay, because I live in a dump...)
Or there are a lot of stupid people. In which group do you belong, stupid or not stupid?
Have a good think before you answer.
-
Or there are a lot of stupid people. In which group do you belong, stupid or not stupid?
Have a good think before you answer.
Dude, I have a MENSA card and started college when I was 15, I was an astronomy major, physics minor and an honors student and at one time I even had a 4.0 GPA (until I met a girl and blew off classes for sex) and I *still* consider myself a dumb as a sack of hammers. Basically, I am just smart enough to know how stupid I am, especially compared to REALLY smart people.
But, on the upside, I'm not the idiot who thinks that the Earth is flat.
I mean, even 5th graders know the Earth is round. (I know, my stepson is in 5th grade this year.)
So, if you think that the Earth is flat, you are *literally* dumber than a 5th grader.
(Funny how you Flatheads all resort to insults when you can't win an argument with, you know, facts and logic and reason.)
-
Or there are a lot of stupid people. In which group do you belong, stupid or not stupid?
Have a good think before you answer.
Dude, I have a MENSA card and started college when I was 15, I was an astronomy major, physics minor and an honors student and at one time I even had a 4.0 GPA (until I met a girl and blew off classes for sex) and I *still* consider myself a dumb as a sack of hammers. Basically, I am just smart enough to know how stupid I am, especially compared to REALLY smart people.
But, on the upside, I'm not the idiot who thinks that the Earth is flat.
I mean, even 5th graders know the Earth is round. (I know, my stepson is in 5th grade this year.)
So, if you think that the Earth is flat, you are *literally* dumber than a 5th grader.
(Funny how you Flatheads all resort to insults when you can't win an argument with, you know, facts and logic and reason.)
Believing you are smarter than dumb flatties. Do you think these flatties were born like this and have never changed believing in flat earth since day one?
Or do you think its possible they were educated just like you, believed the earth was round just like you, criticize others that see things differently, just like you do?
Then one day they smell some shit, but you don't. To you it all smells like roses, and who knows, shit may always smell like a rose to you.
-
Or there are a lot of stupid people. In which group do you belong, stupid or not stupid?
Have a good think before you answer.
Dude, I have a MENSA card and started college when I was 15, I was an astronomy major, physics minor and an honors student and at one time I even had a 4.0 GPA (until I met a girl and blew off classes for sex) and I *still* consider myself a dumb as a sack of hammers. Basically, I am just smart enough to know how stupid I am, especially compared to REALLY smart people.
But, on the upside, I'm not the idiot who thinks that the Earth is flat.
I mean, even 5th graders know the Earth is round. (I know, my stepson is in 5th grade this year.)
So, if you think that the Earth is flat, you are *literally* dumber than a 5th grader.
(Funny how you Flatheads all resort to insults when you can't win an argument with, you know, facts and logic and reason.)
Believing you are smarter than dumb flatties. Do you think these flatties were born like this and have never changed believing in flat earth since day one?
Or do you think its possible they were educated just like you, believed the earth was round just like you, criticize others that see things differently, just like you do?
Then one day they smell some shit, but you don't. To you it all smells like roses, and who knows, shit may always smell like a rose to you.
The phenomenon of the 24 hour Antarctic summer sun is established, verified and well documented FACT. It has been witnessed by thousands of people who have either worked in or visited Antarctica during its summer. There has not been one, not one person who has visited Antarctica during its summer, that has called into question the 24 hour summer sun and exposed this as a round earth deception.
This one feature of the spherical earth model completely debunks the flat earth model.
It's patently obvious what is causing this smell of shit that you speak of, and it certainly ISN'T the round earth model.
-
I don't know what shape the earth is and I make no claim to.
Flat or round both smell of shit.
-
I don't know what shape the earth is and I make no claim to.
Flat or round both smell of shit.
There are actually 2 things that smell of shit.
The first thing is the flat earth model, and the second is the stuff that constantly streams out of your mouth.
So you don't think the earth is a spherical planet? State one thing that leads you to this conclusion?
-
I don't know what shape the earth is and I make no claim to.
Flat or round both smell of shit.
There are actually 2 things that smell of shit.
The first thing is the flat earth model, and the second is the stuff that constantly streams out of your mouth.
So you don't think the earth is a spherical planet? State one thing that leads you to this conclusion?
Look at a picture of your round ball earth, look at the curve all the clouds are smooth on top. The ocean is at the same height as the top of the clouds and they all join together to make a nice smooth round ball. Smells like shit to me, but no doubt tasty to you.
-
I don't know what shape the earth is and I make no claim to.
Flat or round both smell of shit.
There are actually 2 things that smell of shit.
The first thing is the flat earth model, and the second is the stuff that constantly streams out of your mouth.
So you don't think the earth is a spherical planet? State one thing that leads you to this conclusion?
Look at a picture of your round ball earth, look at the curve all the clouds are smooth on top. The ocean is at the same height as the top of the clouds and they all join together to make a nice smooth round ball. Smells like shit to me, but no doubt tasty to you.
Do you know at what height are the clouds ? 0.7 to 15 kilometers. Now consider a 12730 kilometers-wide ball, and try to imagine if we could ever notice a 15 kilometer difference... ;)
If you like numbers, consider that, if you took a 1000x1000 pixel round Earth picture, the highest clouds on the border of the picture would be 1 pixel further from the center than the sea. Smells logical to me, but I don't think you will understand why. ;)
-
Or there are a lot of stupid people. In which group do you belong, stupid or not stupid?
Have a good think before you answer.
Dude, I have a MENSA card and started college when I was 15, I was an astronomy major, physics minor and an honors student and at one time I even had a 4.0 GPA (until I met a girl and blew off classes for sex) and I *still* consider myself a dumb as a sack of hammers. Basically, I am just smart enough to know how stupid I am, especially compared to REALLY smart people.
But, on the upside, I'm not the idiot who thinks that the Earth is flat.
I mean, even 5th graders know the Earth is round. (I know, my stepson is in 5th grade this year.)
So, if you think that the Earth is flat, you are *literally* dumber than a 5th grader.
(Funny how you Flatheads all resort to insults when you can't win an argument with, you know, facts and logic and reason.)
Believing you are smarter than dumb flatties. Do you think these flatties were born like this and have never changed believing in flat earth since day one?
Or do you think its possible they were educated just like you, believed the earth was round just like you, criticize others that see things differently, just like you do?
Then one day they smell some shit, but you don't. To you it all smells like roses, and who knows, shit may always smell like a rose to you.
You know, I came into my study of Flat Earth theories trying to keep and open mind, despite the mountains of evidence (and I mean "mountains of evidence" both figuratively and literally)...mountains of evidence to the contrary. But I really wanted to know *why* people thought tho s way - maybe it was genuinely smart people who were genuinely misguided. And maybe I could come to some sort of sympathetic understanding of why they believed this obviously untrue thing. And, as improbable as I thought, maybe they *were* right after all? (And hell, *if* thet were right, I personally think it would be the most amazing fucking thing ever! I would want to know what is *under* the Earth, what was really beyong the ice wall and the dome! I woild want to know who constructed it, and why z- it would be the greatest and coolest mystery ever! Maybe we really live in some Truman Show or The Signal or The Starlost type of habitat designed to fool us into thinking we were on a real planet. And hell maybe UFOs are real too, and think that would *ROCK*!!)
But all I found were a lot of people who, just like Creationists, base their whole beliefs about EVERYTHING on a book written by a bunch of wandering desert savages who 's entire cosmology was based on the idea the their entire cornor of the world in the Middle East *was* the entire world, and was the centre of everything, and thay history only goes back a few tens of generations to when, coimcidentally, they reckoned that their own tribe was founded, and who believed that the Sun and Moon *literally* rise and set just for them.
And I found people who pick and choose from science and fact when they think that they can be reinterpreted to fit their preconceived world view, and who refuse to really adress information that contradicts that worldview. And who often wont even venture outside to witness things like eclipses which would call their worldview into question, or who can't be bothered to even simply visit a planetarium, borrow a telescope, or book a trip to Antarctica, to test their worldview. Or they think of convenient outs for why they can't even look at the sjky, like "dangerous Moon rays". And who insult anyone who argues to the contrary "shills".
Flat Earthers don't *want* to know - because they think that they already do know.
And that, to me, reeks of some serious shit.
-
You know, I came into my study of Flat Earth theories trying to keep and open mind, despite the mountains of evidence (and I mean "mountains of evidence" both figuratively and literally)...mountains of evidence to the contrary. But I really wanted to know *why* people thought tho s way - maybe it was genuinely smart people who were genuinely misguided. And maybe I could come to some sort of sympathetic understanding of why they believed this obviously untrue thing.
You came to this forum for truth, but you are looking in the wrong direction. The answers you are looking for are really in plain sight, but you are ignoring them. Even now while you read these words you are reading them within the wrong frame of mind. You were given a MENSA card, maybe you need to rethink this paradigm.
-
You know, I came into my study of Flat Earth theories trying to keep and open mind, despite the mountains of evidence (and I mean "mountains of evidence" both figuratively and literally)...mountains of evidence to the contrary. But I really wanted to know *why* people thought tho s way - maybe it was genuinely smart people who were genuinely misguided. And maybe I could come to some sort of sympathetic understanding of why they believed this obviously untrue thing.
You came to this forum for truth, but you are looking in the wrong direction. The answers you are looking for are really in plain sight, but you are ignoring them. Even now while you read these words you are reading them within the wrong frame of mind. You were given a MENSA card, maybe you need to rethink this paradigm.
You've got no answers ! (Only hypothesis, and a good lack of scientific credibility...)
-
I don't know what shape the earth is and I make no claim to.
Flat or round both smell of shit.
There are actually 2 things that smell of shit.
The first thing is the flat earth model, and the second is the stuff that constantly streams out of your mouth.
So you don't think the earth is a spherical planet? State one thing that leads you to this conclusion?
Look at a picture of your round ball earth, look at the curve all the clouds are smooth on top. The ocean is at the same height as the top of the clouds and they all join together to make a nice smooth round ball. Smells like shit to me, but no doubt tasty to you.
Do you know at what height are the clouds ? 0.7 to 15 kilometers. Now consider a 12730 kilometers-wide ball, and try to imagine if we could ever notice a 15 kilometer difference... ;)
If you like numbers, consider that, if you took a 1000x1000 pixel round Earth picture, the highest clouds on the border of the picture would be 1 pixel further from the center than the sea. Smells logical to me, but I don't think you will understand why. ;)
So perfectly smooth around this ball and yet its spinning at 1000 mph in the middle and 0 mph on top and bottom. How does gravity keep these clouds and oceans so perfectly smooth and round with such speed variation. Magical smelly stuff me thinks.
-
I don't know what shape the earth is and I make no claim to.
Flat or round both smell of shit.
There are actually 2 things that smell of shit.
The first thing is the flat earth model, and the second is the stuff that constantly streams out of your mouth.
So you don't think the earth is a spherical planet? State one thing that leads you to this conclusion?
Look at a picture of your round ball earth, look at the curve all the clouds are smooth on top. The ocean is at the same height as the top of the clouds and they all join together to make a nice smooth round ball. Smells like shit to me, but no doubt tasty to you.
Do you know at what height are the clouds ? 0.7 to 15 kilometers. Now consider a 12730 kilometers-wide ball, and try to imagine if we could ever notice a 15 kilometer difference... ;)
If you like numbers, consider that, if you took a 1000x1000 pixel round Earth picture, the highest clouds on the border of the picture would be 1 pixel further from the center than the sea. Smells logical to me, but I don't think you will understand why. ;)
So perfectly smooth around this ball and yet its spinning at 1000 mph in the middle and 0 mph on top and bottom. How does gravity keep these clouds and oceans so perfectly smooth and round with such speed variation. Magical smelly stuff me thinks.
Ohh please, that argument has been debunked way too many times for someone to bring it up again. Do a search.
-
I don't know what shape the earth is and I make no claim to.
Flat or round both smell of shit.
There are actually 2 things that smell of shit.
The first thing is the flat earth model, and the second is the stuff that constantly streams out of your mouth.
So you don't think the earth is a spherical planet? State one thing that leads you to this conclusion?
Look at a picture of your round ball earth, look at the curve all the clouds are smooth on top. The ocean is at the same height as the top of the clouds and they all join together to make a nice smooth round ball. Smells like shit to me, but no doubt tasty to you.
Do you know at what height are the clouds ? 0.7 to 15 kilometers. Now consider a 12730 kilometers-wide ball, and try to imagine if we could ever notice a 15 kilometer difference... ;)
If you like numbers, consider that, if you took a 1000x1000 pixel round Earth picture, the highest clouds on the border of the picture would be 1 pixel further from the center than the sea. Smells logical to me, but I don't think you will understand why. ;)
So perfectly smooth around this ball and yet its spinning at 1000 mph in the middle and 0 mph on top and bottom. How does gravity keep these clouds and oceans so perfectly smooth and round with such speed variation. Magical smelly stuff me thinks.
Ohh please, that argument has been debunked way too many times for someone to bring it up again. Do a search.
Where is the best place to start the search?
-
I don't know what shape the earth is and I make no claim to.
Flat or round both smell of shit.
There are actually 2 things that smell of shit.
The first thing is the flat earth model, and the second is the stuff that constantly streams out of your mouth.
So you don't think the earth is a spherical planet? State one thing that leads you to this conclusion?
Look at a picture of your round ball earth, look at the curve all the clouds are smooth on top. The ocean is at the same height as the top of the clouds and they all join together to make a nice smooth round ball. Smells like shit to me, but no doubt tasty to you.
Do you know at what height are the clouds ? 0.7 to 15 kilometers. Now consider a 12730 kilometers-wide ball, and try to imagine if we could ever notice a 15 kilometer difference... ;)
If you like numbers, consider that, if you took a 1000x1000 pixel round Earth picture, the highest clouds on the border of the picture would be 1 pixel further from the center than the sea. Smells logical to me, but I don't think you will understand why. ;)
So perfectly smooth around this ball and yet its spinning at 1000 mph in the middle and 0 mph on top and bottom. How does gravity keep these clouds and oceans so perfectly smooth and round with such speed variation. Magical smelly stuff me thinks.
Ohh please, that argument has been debunked way too many times for someone to bring it up again. Do a search.
Where is the best place to start the search?
The search tab maybe?
-
Could not find any debunking?
-
Could not find any debunking?
Here's an example:
If the earth is orbitting the sun at thousands of miles per hour...Why do we not all fly off into space?
The force of gravity in your hypothetical round earth, is only 9.8 meters per second. Yet...the earth orbits the sun at thousands of meters per second!
That would be like trying to hold unto a merry go round, going thousands of miles per hour, with only a fridge magnet!
Explain yourselves, 'round earthers'.
Ugh... Your posts have so many inaccuracies that it will take me a long post to point them all out (please don't take offense, I don't mean to be rude or anything). Anyway, I will give you the "short" answer (and please reply if you disagree with it):
We can't feel the centrifugal "force" (you are right that it is not actually a force in its own, it's merely the "reaction" to the centripetal force, which is the force that prevents the object for flying away. Example: when swinging a rock with a rope, the rope exerts the centripetal force, and the centrifugal "force" is what seems to make the rock "want" to fling away, although it's actually the inertia. The use of the word is actually a mere convention, just like "g-force" is merely acceleration divided by the acceleration of gravity, just to put into perspective the force of that acceleration) because... well... the centripetal force is being applied on our entire bodies, every single molecule of them. I have to ask you, what keeps the earth revolving and not flying away? "The sun's gravitational attraction", you will say. So, gravity is the centripetal force here. Remember, gravity is applied on EVERY BODY WITH A NON ZERO MASS. What does that mean? The exact same force that is applied to the earth to prevent it from flying away is applied on us to prevent us from flying away. If the earth were to suddenly disappear, we would keep revolving around the sun. It's like being inside a free-falling, totally opaque elevator. Say you were born in one. Would you have any way of knowing that you are actually accelerating? No. It would be identical to being in 0 gravity, because the elevator below you (and above you) would be accelerating due to gravity exactly as much as you would be accelerating due to gravity. The sun accelerates the earth exactly as much as it accelerates you. Thus, you don't feel anything.
Now for the other question: why don't we fly off of the surface of earth because of its spin/why don't the oceans migrate to the equator? The Earth at the equator is spinning at about 460 meters per second at the equator. Its radius is about 6,400,000 meters. The formula for the centripetal acceleration (and, therefore, for the centrifugal acceleration) is a=v^2/r, where a is the acceleration, v is the velocity, and r is the radius. Do the math. Actually, no, I already did them for you. The acceleration is about 0.033m/s^2. The acceleration of earth is about 9.8m/s^2. Don't worry, you're not going to fly off into space any time soon :)
I hope you realized your mistake. After all, we learn from them :)
-
I don't know what shape the earth is and I make no claim to.
Flat or round both smell of shit.
There are actually 2 things that smell of shit.
The first thing is the flat earth model, and the second is the stuff that constantly streams out of your mouth.
So you don't think the earth is a spherical planet? State one thing that leads you to this conclusion?
Look at a picture of your round ball earth, look at the curve all the clouds are smooth on top. The ocean is at the same height as the top of the clouds and they all join together to make a nice smooth round ball. Smells like shit to me, but no doubt tasty to you.
Do you know at what height are the clouds ? 0.7 to 15 kilometers. Now consider a 12730 kilometers-wide ball, and try to imagine if we could ever notice a 15 kilometer difference... ;)
If you like numbers, consider that, if you took a 1000x1000 pixel round Earth picture, the highest clouds on the border of the picture would be 1 pixel further from the center than the sea. Smells logical to me, but I don't think you will understand why. ;)
So perfectly smooth around this ball and yet its spinning at 1000 mph in the middle and 0 mph on top and bottom. How does gravity keep these clouds and oceans so perfectly smooth and round with such speed variation. Magical smelly stuff me thinks.
I see what is going on here.
Just because YOU don't understand how 'things' work, you immediately fall back to the 'must be BS' position - so typical of flat earthers.
And this is the primary reason why flat earthers stay ignorant, because they never want to delve into the subject any more deeply, as they are already in denial mode and NEVER contemplate any research to educate themselves.
-
I don't know what shape the earth is and I make no claim to.
Flat or round both smell of shit.
There are actually 2 things that smell of shit.
The first thing is the flat earth model, and the second is the stuff that constantly streams out of your mouth.
So you don't think the earth is a spherical planet? State one thing that leads you to this conclusion?
Look at a picture of your round ball earth, look at the curve all the clouds are smooth on top. The ocean is at the same height as the top of the clouds and they all join together to make a nice smooth round ball. Smells like shit to me, but no doubt tasty to you.
Do you know at what height are the clouds ? 0.7 to 15 kilometers. Now consider a 12730 kilometers-wide ball, and try to imagine if we could ever notice a 15 kilometer difference... ;)
If you like numbers, consider that, if you took a 1000x1000 pixel round Earth picture, the highest clouds on the border of the picture would be 1 pixel further from the center than the sea. Smells logical to me, but I don't think you will understand why. ;)
So perfectly smooth around this ball and yet its spinning at 1000 mph in the middle and 0 mph on top and bottom. How does gravity keep these clouds and oceans so perfectly smooth and round with such speed variation. Magical smelly stuff me thinks.
I see what is going on here.
Just because YOU don't understand how 'things' work, you immediately fall back to the 'must be BS' position - so typical of flat earthers.
And this is the primary reason why flat earthers stay ignorant, because they never want to delve into the subject any more deeply, as they are already in denial mode and NEVER contemplate any research to educate themselves.
Stop insulting FEers you dummy. I do not claim to be a FEer You show me a picture of coloured ball and I will tell you as I see it.
I do not need a head full of your shit to see what it is.
-
Could not find any debunking?
Here's an example:
If the earth is orbitting the sun at thousands of miles per hour...Why do we not all fly off into space?
The force of gravity in your hypothetical round earth, is only 9.8 meters per second. Yet...the earth orbits the sun at thousands of meters per second!
That would be like trying to hold unto a merry go round, going thousands of miles per hour, with only a fridge magnet!
Explain yourselves, 'round earthers'.
Ugh... Your posts have so many inaccuracies that it will take me a long post to point them all out (please don't take offense, I don't mean to be rude or anything). Anyway, I will give you the "short" answer (and please reply if you disagree with it):
We can't feel the centrifugal "force" (you are right that it is not actually a force in its own, it's merely the "reaction" to the centripetal force, which is the force that prevents the object for flying away. Example: when swinging a rock with a rope, the rope exerts the centripetal force, and the centrifugal "force" is what seems to make the rock "want" to fling away, although it's actually the inertia. The use of the word is actually a mere convention, just like "g-force" is merely acceleration divided by the acceleration of gravity, just to put into perspective the force of that acceleration) because... well... the centripetal force is being applied on our entire bodies, every single molecule of them. I have to ask you, what keeps the earth revolving and not flying away? "The sun's gravitational attraction", you will say. So, gravity is the centripetal force here. Remember, gravity is applied on EVERY BODY WITH A NON ZERO MASS. What does that mean? The exact same force that is applied to the earth to prevent it from flying away is applied on us to prevent us from flying away. If the earth were to suddenly disappear, we would keep revolving around the sun. It's like being inside a free-falling, totally opaque elevator. Say you were born in one. Would you have any way of knowing that you are actually accelerating? No. It would be identical to being in 0 gravity, because the elevator below you (and above you) would be accelerating due to gravity exactly as much as you would be accelerating due to gravity. The sun accelerates the earth exactly as much as it accelerates you. Thus, you don't feel anything.
Now for the other question: why don't we fly off of the surface of earth because of its spin/why don't the oceans migrate to the equator? The Earth at the equator is spinning at about 460 meters per second at the equator. Its radius is about 6,400,000 meters. The formula for the centripetal acceleration (and, therefore, for the centrifugal acceleration) is a=v^2/r, where a is the acceleration, v is the velocity, and r is the radius. Do the math. Actually, no, I already did them for you. The acceleration is about 0.033m/s^2. The acceleration of earth is about 9.8m/s^2. Don't worry, you're not going to fly off into space any time soon :)
I hope you realized your mistake. After all, we learn from them :)
Nothing was debunked, that was just gibberish.
-
Could not find any debunking?
Here's an example:
If the earth is orbitting the sun at thousands of miles per hour...Why do we not all fly off into space?
The force of gravity in your hypothetical round earth, is only 9.8 meters per second. Yet...the earth orbits the sun at thousands of meters per second!
That would be like trying to hold unto a merry go round, going thousands of miles per hour, with only a fridge magnet!
Explain yourselves, 'round earthers'.
Ugh... Your posts have so many inaccuracies that it will take me a long post to point them all out (please don't take offense, I don't mean to be rude or anything). Anyway, I will give you the "short" answer (and please reply if you disagree with it):
We can't feel the centrifugal "force" (you are right that it is not actually a force in its own, it's merely the "reaction" to the centripetal force, which is the force that prevents the object for flying away. Example: when swinging a rock with a rope, the rope exerts the centripetal force, and the centrifugal "force" is what seems to make the rock "want" to fling away, although it's actually the inertia. The use of the word is actually a mere convention, just like "g-force" is merely acceleration divided by the acceleration of gravity, just to put into perspective the force of that acceleration) because... well... the centripetal force is being applied on our entire bodies, every single molecule of them. I have to ask you, what keeps the earth revolving and not flying away? "The sun's gravitational attraction", you will say. So, gravity is the centripetal force here. Remember, gravity is applied on EVERY BODY WITH A NON ZERO MASS. What does that mean? The exact same force that is applied to the earth to prevent it from flying away is applied on us to prevent us from flying away. If the earth were to suddenly disappear, we would keep revolving around the sun. It's like being inside a free-falling, totally opaque elevator. Say you were born in one. Would you have any way of knowing that you are actually accelerating? No. It would be identical to being in 0 gravity, because the elevator below you (and above you) would be accelerating due to gravity exactly as much as you would be accelerating due to gravity. The sun accelerates the earth exactly as much as it accelerates you. Thus, you don't feel anything.
Now for the other question: why don't we fly off of the surface of earth because of its spin/why don't the oceans migrate to the equator? The Earth at the equator is spinning at about 460 meters per second at the equator. Its radius is about 6,400,000 meters. The formula for the centripetal acceleration (and, therefore, for the centrifugal acceleration) is a=v^2/r, where a is the acceleration, v is the velocity, and r is the radius. Do the math. Actually, no, I already did them for you. The acceleration is about 0.033m/s^2. The acceleration of earth is about 9.8m/s^2. Don't worry, you're not going to fly off into space any time soon :)
I hope you realized your mistake. After all, we learn from them :)
Nothing was debunked, that was just gibberish.
The bold part. Quoted here:
Now for the other question: why don't we fly off of the surface of earth because of its spin/why don't the oceans migrate to the equator? The Earth at the equator is spinning at about 460 meters per second at the equator. Its radius is about 6,400,000 meters. The formula for the centripetal acceleration (and, therefore, for the centrifugal acceleration) is a=v^2/r, where a is the acceleration, v is the velocity, and r is the radius. Do the math. Actually, no, I already did them for you. The acceleration is about 0.033m/s^2. The acceleration of earth is about 9.8m/s^2. Don't worry, you're not going to fly off into space any time soon :)
Read that and if you have a complaint tell us properly what it is and back yourself up.
-
Er, my question was why is the picture of the ball so perfectly curved as though it is in a glass bubble with everything from land, water to clouds smooth at the same level whilst spinning at a 1000 mph in the middle and zero mph on top?
I am not interested in things flying off.
-
Er, my question was why is the picture of the ball so perfectly curved as though it is in a glass bubble with everything from land, water to clouds smooth at the same level whilst spinning at a 1000 mph in the middle and zero mph on top?
I am not interested in things flying off.
It is not perfect. But it looks perfect because of the perspective. Earth is slightly squished, but you won't notice it with your bare eyes on a picture of the full globe.
-
Er, my question was why is the picture of the ball so perfectly curved as though it is in a glass bubble with everything from land, water to clouds smooth at the same level whilst spinning at a 1000 mph in the middle and zero mph on top?
I am not interested in things flying off.
I think the problem is that you just don't grok how HUGE the sphere of the Earth is, compared to (relatively tiny, by comparison) features like mountains and clouds.
Looking at a "Blue Marble" type picture, it's like looking an orange a few feet in front of you face, and the atmosphere and mountains are all basically in a layer as thing as the skin of that orange. The orange skin *looks* smooth, because of the scale that you are looking at it.
BUT, look at the same orange skin with a jeweler's loop, or a microscope, and then you will start to see the imperfections on the surface that look like mountain peaks and valleys. Look at a piece of the skin with an electron microscope, and you will see even more detail.
And and for that picture of the Earth from space...*if* NASA (and every other space agency, both public and private) were going to go out of their way and spend billions of dollars a year to "fake" a globe Earth, don't you think that they would "manufacture" a picture of a globe Earth that looks "wrong" to so many people like you? No, I think they would go out of their way to make sure that *everything* was as perfect as it could look.
But look, here's the question you should ask yourself: What is your motivation for reading all this stuff and arguing about it? Is it that you really want to learn the truth - be it a flat Earth or a round one, whatever the ultimate truth is...? Or do you just want to get into an argument about who's preconceived views are right? Because if you really want to learn, there *are* answers, you just have to actually take the time and bother to listen and try to understand them. And THEN if they are wrong, and you can prove it, well, you are right, and we don't live on a ball.
-
You have a think about this.
Oranges do not spin at 1000 mph and have clouds and water and shit hanging off them.
The pictures are shit, and this no up and down in space but Australia is always down under is a joke!!!
And as to why I am here? I have said it before, to point out bull shitters.
-
You have a think about this.
Oranges do not spin at 1000 mph and have clouds and water and shit hanging off them.
The pictures are shit, and this no up and down in space but Australia is always down under is a joke!!!
If you spin an orange, won't every bacteria fly off it since they are so lightweight?
Do you see the flaw in your logic?
-
You have a think about this.
Oranges do not spin at 1000 mph and have clouds and water and shit hanging off them.
The pictures are shit, and this no up and down in space but Australia is always down under is a joke!!!
And as to why I am here? I have said it before, to point out bull shitters.
Most of the satellites are in equatorial orbit. There are also "up" and "down" for these satellites, most commonly the same as ours, but sometimes images appear "tilted", because the satellite himself is in fact tilted.
And clouds and water don't "hang", they are keeped on Earth by gravity.
-
You have a think about this.
Oranges do not spin at 1000 mph and have clouds and water and shit hanging off them.
The pictures are shit, and this no up and down in space but Australia is always down under is a joke!!!
And as to why I am here? I have said it before, to point out bull shitters.
Don't measure rotation rate in miles per hour. It's misleading and it doesn't produce the same results if scaled down. Earth rotates 15 degrees per hour, think of it that way.
If I had an orange floating in space it would be possible for it to hold onto a very thin atmosphere although the clouds would not be visible because of probelem a with scale. Things work differently at different scales, that's why crashing toy cars together and crashing real cars together produces different results.
-
You have a think about this.
Oranges do not spin at 1000 mph and have clouds and water and shit hanging off them.
The pictures are shit, and this no up and down in space but Australia is always down under is a joke!!!
And as to why I am here? I have said it before, to point out bull shitters.
tappet constantly points at himself in the mirror.
-
You have a think about this.
Oranges do not spin at 1000 mph and have clouds and water and shit hanging off them.
The pictures are shit, and this no up and down in space but Australia is always down under is a joke!!!
And as to why I am here? I have said it before, to point out bull shitters.
Don't measure rotation rate in miles per hour. It's misleading and it doesn't produce the same results if scaled down. Earth rotates 15 degrees per hour, think of it that way.
If I had an orange floating in space it would be possible for it to hold onto a very thin atmosphere although the clouds would not be visible because of probelem a with scale. Things work differently at different scales, that's why crashing toy cars together and crashing real cars together produces different results.
Liar, 1000 mph = 1000 mph case closed.
-
You have a think about this.
Oranges do not spin at 1000 mph and have clouds and water and shit hanging off them.
The pictures are shit, and this no up and down in space but Australia is always down under is a joke!!!
And as to why I am here? I have said it before, to point out bull shitters.
Don't measure rotation rate in miles per hour. It's misleading and it doesn't produce the same results if scaled down. Earth rotates 15 degrees per hour, think of it that way.
If I had an orange floating in space it would be possible for it to hold onto a very thin atmosphere although the clouds would not be visible because of probelem a with scale. Things work differently at different scales, that's why crashing toy cars together and crashing real cars together produces different results.
Liar, 1000 mph = 1000 mph case closed.
1000mph relative to what?
-
Relative to not moving, dumdum
-
Relative to not moving, dumdum
Relative to what fixed position?
Could be the earth is not moving and everything else is moving round us.
-
How could Google Earth catch every single detail on Earth (with a precision of less than one meter) ? We clearly see these are satellites views. Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
How ? ;)
The google Earth images are just juxtaposed images made like putting pieces of a puzzle together and GPS is designed to navigate through the juxtaposed images, but neither google Earth nor GPS respects Ocean Sea Bed nor Continental Land Mass.
.
-
How could Google Earth catch every single detail on Earth (with a precision of less than one meter) ? We clearly see these are satellites views. Same for the GPS : without satellites, gravitation and general relativity, how could this fucking work ???
How ? ;)
The google Earth images are just juxtaposed images made like putting pieces of a puzzle together and GPS is designed to navigate through the juxtaposed images, but neither google Earth nor GPS respects Ocean Sea Bed nor Continental Land Mass.
.
GPS works and is used by millions of people. Provided by satellites from various countries.