Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Only America decided that a moon landing was the finish line.
Altitude numbers is different ….
At least for globe model, it will be disqualified if the day time is different for two locations with the same latitudes.
I'm in no way a flat earther, I wrote the OP. I just do not think it is ever appropriate to be 100% certain of anything, that's dogmatism and that's what open minded people need to avoid.
My claim here is that you can prove to yourself that the Earth is round by learning to navigate on it.
As a result of personally monitoring distances all over the planet, I can say with confidence that distances around the globe are consistent with a round earth.
Under a flat earth model, the distances in the southern ocean would be very much bigger than in the north and all my charts would be wrong. That is simply not the case.
There is no way a boat doing a max speed of about 35 knots could go around flat earth non stop in 42 days. Do the math yourself using whatever distances your flat earth model say the southern ocean should be.
I guarantee you you will then be able to see for yourself that the concept of a flat earth is simply nonsense. As a sailor, you will be forced to accept the fact that Earth is round.
I'm having a little bit of trouble justifying falling objectsGood! This is only one of the many things you should "have a little trouble justifying" in FE thought. Notice as other things crop up. Keep questioning, both what you "ardently believe" and what you are taught. See which theory best fits the data.
can you share the location where that picture comes from. Seems Google Maps, so that should be easy.
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
Read the OP again:
Let's do that . . .
If I stand in the northern hemisphere and look up at the night sky, . . .
"Up" and "North" are not the same thing.
The OP said "Up" not "North".
You and JB are so glow-in-the-dark sure of your own superiority that you don't feel any need to pay attention to the actual words the OP used.
Why are you trying to attack a model that was officially rejected by our society in the early 1900's in favor of a bipolar model?
He did link the article. What did you think the blue text in his post was?You misunderstand him. He means "Thanks (not really thanking you)..."
Cursing Elon, gimme a break. We are laughing at you and the Elon fanboys. I think is funny that you boys believe that his Tesla is flying in space. You are so brainwashed that you believe anything NASA tells you, and now you believe Elon. It is pitiful and funny at the same time.
If I was trying to deceive people, would I not have deleted my early posts from back before I saw the light? The fact that I have studied flat Earth theory and came to the conclusion that the Earth is, in fact, flat, after giving up my roundy indoctrination should, in and of itself, be a sign of my ingenuous nature.
So I turn the question around on round Earthers. What would it take to convince you that the Earth was flat?
Who is the acknowledged master of Flat Earth Theory?This question has no single answer, because there is no single Flat Earth Theory.
It could not be any more clear that at no point did they say it was a shportz kar stuck to a shpayze rokkit, yes.Suppose rain is forecast, and suppose all the streets and sidewalks in your town get wet but you don’t say specifically that it got rained on. The rest of us wouldn’t say “Ah, but you didn’t say it was RAIN, I bet there wasn’t even a cloud”
You're just making the second bit up aintcha, S.Hill?
They aren't in the business of determining the shape and makeup of the objects they detect. They are in the business of detecting objects. The automated system found an object, calculated the path, and determined the object to be near the earth. Which it was, quite near. Not "just a near earth object". The fact that there is a near earth object exactly where the Tesla is expected to be, that's what is important here. This is an automated system that wasn't looking specifically for the Tesla, and it accurately reported it as an object (type unspecified) that is near earth (which it was, it was only a few hours into its flight, it was VERY near the earth). Exactly as you would expect it to do.
Okay... that may have made sense in your head, but now you've written it down do you still feel the same?
They aren't in the business of determining the shape and makeup of the objects they detect. They are in the business of detecting objects. The automated system found an object, calculated the path, and determined the object to be near the earth. Which it was, quite near.The University of Hawaiʻi ATLAS (Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System) telescope on Mauna Loa captured it during routine observing work and reported it as a “near earth object”
If they reported it as a near Earth object then why are you now claiming it's a shportz car in shpayze?
Oh right, your name - S Hill = shill.
Off you go then, Paul.
The observatory in Hawaii already said it was just a near Earth object.
No mention of a shpayze shportz kar.
And your video shows two objects, not one.
We done lying yet, muskbot?
As I said, an object was spotted exactly were the Tesla should have been.
You are not going to be able to discernibly resolve an object the size of an automobile at that distance.How terrible, but I think I have to agree with totallackey.
There is the faint possibility that a reflection on it may show as a point of light, but I doubt it.
https://www.space.com/39647-spacex-tesla-roadster-spotted-in-space.html
I have already been to Antarctica, I was on a ship that sailed around the Antarctic Peninsula
I too have been to Antarctica, I was on a sportfishing boat in the Pacific Ocean off San Diego.
And people who use compass also use magnetic declination maps and know what corrections they need.
They know how to use magnetic compass correctly.
Magnetic declination maps are public and available, so everybody knows what compass readings really mean.
Everybody who really wants to know.
Very well Mr. Hill, but according to your spinney pear model, it would have moved around the sun during that time, so Earth in that diagram would be at a slightly different angle in the lower vs upper drawings. LIES!Ah, but I meant solar days, not sidereal days, you see!
Ok, I'm done being a flat Earther. That was kind of fun though.I wouldn’t make a habit of it, the cognitive dissonance is unsettling.
Right you are JackBlack. I should also point out that nary an hour has passed on Earth between the two diagrams, yet the moon has rotated around half it's orbit. This makes no sense. You RE'rs need to figure your BS out.
My question is: "Do star constellations change their viewing size as they come from the horizon and pass over head?The answer is “No, they do not”
I disagree with the sun being 1.3 times the angular size of the moon. Where did you get that number?He made it up.
But that is the least of the issues.
Phew FE Map Logic is so *strong*.. like Hercules ~
Would you, please, be so kind to explain where is North pole on your map?
Anyone may differently define where North Pole is situated according their location.
"North Pole" (NP) is just an expression which doesn't represent the meaning of either "north" or "pole", for NP is not an axis nor a definite location.
NP is either lands or sea which circles the FE and "has not revealed yet" due to the sun's limitation to illuminate locations beyond its ability to reach.
I tend to perceive what Admiral Byrd described "a continent larger than America" (CMIIW) as the one situated on "north pole". Precisely beyond Arctic sea.
It's likely still kinda 'secret' among certain governments.