1

Flat Earth General / Re: Everything that proves a round earth is a lie

« on: July 03, 2018, 06:57:51 AM »

Because belief is more valid than fact?

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Forces of nature, Brian Cox - pt2.

« on: November 27, 2016, 10:26:11 AM »

My guess here is that sceptimatic's picking up on the slightly loose choice of words in the script. Cox talks about 'catching up' with the earth's spin. In many contexts catching up with something would mean travelling in the same direction. Here of course it has the same sense as 'catching up' with a treadmill - keeping pace with it so that in a wider frame you're not moving. Then he refers to matching the earth's speed without being specific about it being the same speed but in the opposite direction - leaving room for deliberate misinterpretation by anyone not wanting to understand.

The video is there for all normal thinking people to view and see that they tried to be clever by promoting a globe and kicked themselves in their own arses by destroying it. It's all there and no amount of utter utter bullshit attempts by you people will change that.

Precisely as the above quote.

The only way he could do it is going opposite to direction of rotation which is pretty much EXACTLY what the video proves. I don't recall one point in the video where he states with or against rotation. He merely states "catches up with". Traveling against rotation would let the jet keep exactly at the shadow line, although the earth is spinning below it. Everyone else including yourself and I would see the jet as still travelling at 650mph overhead. Perfectly matching rotational speed at the shadow line (as its the earths rotation that governs night and day) would see the sun stand still. Increase past 650mph (rotational speed) and the jet would overtake rotational speed and the shadow line. And as shown in the video, the sun would rise again.

Pretty easy stuff scepti, can't believe this is still being debated, 20 pages on...

There's no need for debate. Brian Cox and his pilot friend messed up. Well, the script writers messed up in reality, because Brian Cox is just a parrot for the establishment.

How you people can think you live on a globe that is spinning after being shown clearly that it's nonsense, beggars belief.
I can forgive severely naive people or those that just ignore anything and everything in favour of material goodies, but you people cannot be forgiven.
It's mildly funny and a little bit scary to think that you people really believe we live on a spinning globe.
But...life is life and there's much more to indoctrination of the masses than just being coaxed into a belief of living on a spinning ball in a vacuum of so called space.

Apart from they didn't? and it was easily explained both in the video and with a simple explanation I provided above.

Mildly funny? You think a spinning globe like every other planet, sun and moon for that matter in the entire universe is funny and not believeable? Something which people can measure and with a telescope can observe themselves?

But yet the earth being a flat pancake being shot directly upwards at 9.8m/s where the sun and moon are under the influence of this exact same acceleration, but yet they hover and somehow orbit around the disk earth with no other force, is not funny? Not only this but having absolutely no proof of what your backing up other than your own beleif? hahaha.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Forces of nature, Brian Cox - pt2.

« on: November 27, 2016, 06:07:08 AM »

My guess here is that sceptimatic's picking up on the slightly loose choice of words in the script. Cox talks about 'catching up' with the earth's spin. In many contexts catching up with something would mean travelling in the same direction. Here of course it has the same sense as 'catching up' with a treadmill - keeping pace with it so that in a wider frame you're not moving. Then he refers to matching the earth's speed without being specific about it being the same speed but in the opposite direction - leaving room for deliberate misinterpretation by anyone not wanting to understand.

The video is there for all normal thinking people to view and see that they tried to be clever by promoting a globe and kicked themselves in their own arses by destroying it. It's all there and no amount of utter utter bullshit attempts by you people will change that.

Precisely as the above quote.

The only way he could do it is going opposite to direction of rotation which is pretty much EXACTLY what the video proves. I don't recall one point in the video where he states with or against rotation. He merely states "catches up with". Traveling against rotation would let the jet keep exactly at the shadow line, although the earth is spinning below it. Everyone else including yourself and I would see the jet as still travelling at 650mph overhead. Perfectly matching rotational speed at the shadow line (as its the earths rotation that governs night and day) would see the sun stand still. Increase past 650mph (rotational speed) and the jet would overtake rotational speed and the shadow line. And as shown in the video, the sun would rise again.

Pretty easy stuff scepti, can't believe this is still being debated, 20 pages on...

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Phase II: Satellites.ISS

« on: August 12, 2016, 09:29:47 AM »

I too have seen the ISS several times with binoculars and a telescope i own at home. As well as other LEO sats as well.

Scepti once again beleiving the impossible. Without actually testing it himself. 40-50x magnification is perfectly possible to view the ISS in reasonable detail with hand tracking. Enough to see the shape and solar panels. viewing a jet at that magnification takes up the entire field of view.

One of my favourite images captured by an amature astronomer in his back garden, like the other hundreds of thousands of us around the earth.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/#.V634_K2PnpI

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity

« on: August 11, 2016, 11:29:44 AM »

Just to let you all know, it is impossible to see gravity through binoculars. 

Mercury's light gets bent around the sun so we on earth can actually see it before its supposed calculated orbit.

Explain.

When did you discover this?  Oh, did you just read it in a text book?

Look it up, research it. Maybe even conduct the experiement yourself? Ohh wait FE's dont do that do they? 

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity

« on: August 11, 2016, 11:22:06 AM »

Just to let you all know, it is impossible to see gravity through binoculars. 

Mercury's light gets bent around the sun so we on earth can actually see it pass behind the sun before its calculated orbit.

Explain.

7

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Newtons third law

« on: July 21, 2016, 01:25:36 PM »

Papa lying again. Using useless information claiming it as fact.

Joules free expansion has more to do with a refrigeration system than it does a rocket.

I think it's about time you received a 24/7 ban.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: 100% proof earth is FLAT

« on: July 21, 2016, 07:58:14 AM »

Or not?



2:25. Enjoy.

9

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Newtons third law

« on: July 20, 2016, 12:40:27 PM »

And I'll just add this:
If a rockets engine requires leverage against atmosphere to create thrust. Why do they gain thrust as they gain altitude?

Surely it would loose thrust as the atmosphere gets less and less dense and thus less molecules to create the leverage against.

They don't gain thrust as they gain altitude. They lose thrust but keep a normal speed due to fuel burn, making the rocket lighter with every vertical push into and against, atmosphere.

Apart from air density at 80,000 metres is over 1 hundred thousand times less than ground level.

All vacuum engines are tested in vacuum chambers. And they all give out more thrust in a vacuum than in atmosphere.

How in the hell can you test a vacuum engine inside a vacuum chamber without it ceasing to become a vacuum chamber?

Also, what the hell is a vacuum engine?

What is thrust?...Explain what thrust is and how you gain it from your vacuum chamber.

They have tested a variety of rocket engines at plumb brook. It is the largest vacuum chamber in the world. Used to test rockets at simulated altitude and has been used to test rockets in a vacuum aswell.

Thrust is equal to:
F = m dot * Ve + (pe - p0) * Ae
m dot=mass flow rate
ve=exhaust velocity
pe=exhaust pressure
po=Atmospheric pressure
Ae=Area

The main reason it functions better in a vacuum is. Ve (exhaust velocity) There is no/little back pressure restriction on the exhaust so exhaust mass can flow easier and faster in a vacuum resulting in a higher thrust.

The reason why it is called a vacuum engine is the Ae or (nozzle area) is much larger than an atmospheric engine. The reasoning is because a rocket nozzle is most efficent when nozzle pressure is equal to external (atmospheric pressure). They are designed to have the largest area nozzle possible without adding too much mass to the craft in a vacuum situation. This is to keep the nozzle pressure as close to zero and as efficient as it possibly can in a vacuum.

10

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Newtons third law

« on: July 20, 2016, 09:54:31 AM »

And I'll just add this:
If a rockets engine requires leverage against atmosphere to create thrust. Why do they gain thrust as they gain altitude?

Surely it would loose thrust as the atmosphere gets less and less dense and thus less molecules to create the leverage against.

They don't gain thrust as they gain altitude. They lose thrust but keep a normal speed due to fuel burn, making the rocket lighter with every vertical push into and against, atmosphere.

Apart from air density at 80,000 metres is over 1 hundred thousand times less than ground level.

All vacuum engines are tested in vacuum chambers. And they all give out more thrust in a vacuum than in atmosphere.

11

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Newtons third law

« on: July 20, 2016, 02:51:06 AM »

And I'll just add this:
If a rockets engine requires leverage against atmosphere to create thrust. Why do they gain thrust as they gain altitude?

Surely it would loose thrust as the atmosphere gets less and less dense and thus less molecules to create the leverage against.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Will a baby rocket in a vacuum help anyone?

« on: July 17, 2016, 12:52:12 PM »

HA!!! Just another key will go missing as Legba profusely assaults his unsuspecting keyboard out of rage, inferiority and pure distain.

His rage has increased systemically as more and more put him on their ignore list....

The days are long....the days are sad for Legba.

I am sure his pet Cocker Spaniel will keep things going until his return.

How's the experiment coming? Cannot wait! /sarcasm off as the whole thing is utter fantasy!

Quite clearly when anyone can replicate the same experiment themselves. Fantasy in what way? that it proves rockets work or are you just in denial. I posted this a while back.

This is peter leane testing a rocket inside a vacuum.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: casual conversation about space

« on: July 16, 2016, 02:13:12 PM »

Note the words large mass.

I did.

And my house is one.

But there is nothing orbiting it.

Yeah, a house is a large mass compared to a planet or sun. Well done.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: casual conversation about space

« on: July 16, 2016, 01:55:36 PM »

a good bit of evidence is objects with large mass always have objects with a lesser mass orbiting them.

Yeah; my house is a large mass and it has all sortsa shit spinning round it all the time...

Oh, wait, no it fucking doesn't you mental snotrag.

You don't even have a house. Either:
A) you live in a mental institution.
B) you live in a dungeon.

Note the words large mass. You're comparing a house to an object the size of the sun? When we're talking about gravity here?

Is it me or do you have some kind of disorder where you feel the need to disagree with everyone. Do you deny your own existence?

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Forces of nature, Brian Cox - pt2.

« on: July 16, 2016, 10:48:37 AM »

lets explain it so even Scepti can understand it.

Take a ball on an axis. Put an X on it, this is you. Now spin the ball at let's say 10rpm.

Now if a jet needed to stay at the X it would appear stationary mid air, correct?

BUT. Add a spotlight 1 metre away. So you have 50% in light and 50% in darkness. This is the sun.

Now rotate the ball at 10rpm. What do you have?

You effectively have a stationary light source with land rotating beneath it. Look at earth rotating gifs.

In order to keep up with the edge of the shadow (sunset) as Brian cox demonstrated how fast would the jet need to go.

The answer is against or with rotation +10rpm on top dependent of sunrise/sunset.

Although the real question is can you explain the experiment Brian did with a FE map. The answer is no. Not at all.

Considering I understand what the globalists go on about with their fantasy, I'll explain why it works on a stationary flat-ish Earth.

A person on the ground sees the sun set. The person cannot see any more of the sun.
Brian Cox and pilot take off and ascend to 5000 feet. They now see the sun two thirds set. Why?
Because the sun was moving away on the stationary Earth and it moved away from the vision of the person on the ground but the Tyhoon gave Brian and pilot the chance to see through a lot more atmosphere with it being thinner at that height; Hence the sun reappearing as two thirds setting.

They now head towards that MOVING sun, which is moving away from them at 650 mph over the STATIONARY Earth, so they accelerate to 650 mph to catch that movement of that sun.
They now manage to equalise their speed with the suns speed and now they can see a frozen sun, neither setting nor rising.

They then decide to accelerate more so they are now going faster than the moving sun on a STATIONARY Earth and now see that sun as a rising sun due to them pushing through more atmosphere to bring that suns light back to their eyes in a more clear optical view.

There is no rotating globe. I'm 100% certain of that. Not 99.9% - 100% certain.

We do not walk on top of a globe and water does not stick to it. Planes do not fly with a spinning atmosphere nor get dragged by one at the same speed as a so called rotation of a globe.

Brian Cox, along with the pilot and script writers, have proved to anyone who cares to find the truth, that the Earth is at the very least NOT a globe.

All that gets done to people who try to think rationally, is for globalists to muddy the waters and attempt ridicule, as well as use ridiculous words that describe nothing worth describing, to baffle them.

Anyone who watches the video with a clear mind and no global peer pressure, will clearly see that the sun is moving away from the vision of anyone from that vicinity.

I never thought I'd see the day when this shenanigan would be used to try and coax people into believing in a globe. They royally messed up doing it, because it's a an eye opener for a free thinker rather than a grab for indoctrinated minds for global proof.

Another thing you are missing is this. On a globe earth a cross section view, the earth effectively has two shadow points. 50% dark 50% light.

Now on both sides of that you can fly with or against rotation and match the shadow on both points opposite each other.

What happens on the FE model?

You have the disk and spotlight presented by the sun. It's orbiting the disk one way only.

Now with this you can only fly with the rotation of the sun. What happens when you try to match the shadow going against it?

On both sides of the spotlight you cannot match and keep up going against rotation or orbit whatever. The jet will pass through the spotlight and out the other side even matching its orbit speed.

This isn't what happens in the shown experiments.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Will a baby rocket in a vacuum help anyone?

« on: July 16, 2016, 04:12:40 AM »

I'll look forward to it... It would be nice... vacuum gauges... I'm looking forward to... Be nice...

STFU.

Let's compare your 7000 posts of copy and paste nonsense shit which isn't even valid in anyway shape or form.

When he does this test and verifies rockets work in a vacuum. You will be crying for weeks. The realisation that all your BS comments are 100% utter lies.

His comments aren't lies but you and your posse friends are spewing plenty of lies, whether you do it knowingly or by sheer naivety.

Well they clearly are, nothing he says is truth or proven in the slightest.

You're the one spewing plenty of lies and misinformation, doing a poor job of it too.

As for my lies, care to explain.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Will a baby rocket in a vacuum help anyone?

« on: July 16, 2016, 04:04:16 AM »

I'll look forward to it... It would be nice... vacuum gauges... I'm looking forward to... Be nice...

STFU.

Let's compare your 7000 posts of copy and paste nonsense shit which isn't even valid in anyway shape or form.

When he does this test and verifies rockets work in a vacuum. You will be crying for weeks. The realisation that all your BS comments are 100% utter lies.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: casual conversation about space

« on: July 16, 2016, 03:47:43 AM »

I don't see how gravitation is any less plausible than the earth being fired straight up at a constant acceleration yet the sun and moon don't feel its effects and continue as spherical objects orbiting the disk for no reason.

Gravity explains a lot we can physically see not just an invisible force.

For one thing a good bit of evidence is objects with large mass always have objects with a lesser mass orbiting them.

Moons orb planets. Planets orbit Suns. Solar system orbiting in Galaxy etc etc. The way UA works cannot explain this.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Will a baby rocket in a vacuum help anyone?

« on: July 16, 2016, 03:08:34 AM »

I'll look forward to it.

It would be nice to add as much data as possible. Selection of vacuum gauges etc.

I'm looking forward to seeing it work and papa reduced to the blubbering child that he is.

Be nice with a test with vacuum conditions and atmospheric conditions to see if there is any difference.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: Forces of nature, Brian Cox - pt2.

« on: July 15, 2016, 04:50:09 PM »

lets explain it so even Scepti can understand it.

Take a ball on an axis. Put an X on it, this is you. Now spin the ball at let's say 10rpm.

Now if a jet needed to stay at the X it would appear stationary mid air, correct?

BUT. Add a spotlight 1 metre away. So you have 50% in light and 50% in darkness. This is the sun.

Now rotate the ball at 10rpm. What do you have?

You effectively have a stationary light source with land rotating beneath it. Look at earth rotating gifs.

In order to keep up with the edge of the shadow (sunset) as Brian cox demonstrated how fast would the jet need to go.

The answer is against or with rotation +10rpm on top dependent of sunrise/sunset.

Although the real question is can you explain the experiment Brian did with a FE map. The answer is no. Not at all.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford Level Experiment doesn't support FE

« on: July 15, 2016, 04:20:33 PM »

Thank you for your friendly words, it a good tactic for doing nothing at all.

Yes iron melting point happen because of combination of few entities with a mind and a thought that give you the wrong impression of a "nature law".

What people see in microscope is a real mystery because what they think they see is absolutely not the true thing.
they see a reflection because the lens create you an immediate reflection.
No one knows what we actually see in the microscope, all the guesses are followed by the tendentiousness  of meaningless.

I told once the word Prove is cultivated by two words:Pr-fear and rv-multiply - to multiply the fear,to avoid the meaning.

A real mystery... So looking at the moon with a telescope or binoculars is actually a reflection as the moon cannot be seen at more magnification than human eyes...?

Even though you can use a magnifying glass to inspect lets say an onion cell. Place said cell in a microscope and see the same cell you saw with a magnifying glass but in more detail due to greater magnification.

They are proven to work and not some mysterious reflection.

Know why they are proven to work? Look at the design and shape of your eyeball or is that an illusion aswell?

What you are saying here is based on absolutely nothing.

Because you can see the moon with bare eyes and you magnify it with binoculars and see the moon does it mean its not a reflection ? not at all, it mean it well-suited reflection for your size and understanding.

It is sophisticated reflection like my eyeglasses, I have eyeglasses and I see supposedly the world the same without eyeglasses right ? its a sophisticated reflection trying to deceive you there are innumerable kinds of reflection.
by the way eyeglasses is a reflection that bring your sight to a frequency that you don't see blurry, here is something that can be an "evidence"(I have no suitable word in English for it) that eyeglasses are just the same as microscope.
When you magnify things in the microscope you change the reflection all the time like in a camera, that doesn't mean its not a wrong impression because as you magnify the picture the distortion become huge,till the point their is nothing true about what you see, and actually you don't know what you see.

Your missing the point here.

A lense all be it a telescope or binoculars takes photons and focuses  them. Hense the shape of the lense.

That's how they work.

When designed well a mirror or lense will have no image distortion what so ever. After all all it is doing is taking light and focusing it. More light more detail.

If you zoom it in too far that's to do with the design of the instrument, focal lengths etc...

I don't see your point when you can view a number plate from 50miles away walk up to the car and see the exact same image.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford Level Experiment doesn't support FE

« on: July 15, 2016, 02:25:41 PM »

Thank you for your friendly words, it a good tactic for doing nothing at all.

Yes iron melting point happen because of combination of few entities with a mind and a thought that give you the wrong impression of a "nature law".

What people see in microscope is a real mystery because what they think they see is absolutely not the true thing.
they see a reflection because the lens create you an immediate reflection.
No one knows what we actually see in the microscope, all the guesses are followed by the tendentiousness  of meaningless.

I told once the word Prove is cultivated by two words:Pr-fear and rv-multiply - to multiply the fear,to avoid the meaning.

A real mystery... So looking at the moon with a telescope or binoculars is actually a reflection as the moon cannot be seen at more magnification than human eyes...?

Even though you can use a magnifying glass to inspect lets say an onion cell. Place said cell in a microscope and see the same cell you saw with a magnifying glass but in more detail due to greater magnification.

They are proven to work and not some mysterious reflection.

Know why they are proven to work? Look at the design and shape of your eyeball or is that an illusion aswell?

What you are saying here is based on absolutely nothing.

23

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Newtons third law

« on: July 15, 2016, 02:18:00 PM »

You've already been proven wrong in this thread, and countless others you have created.

A rocket is NOTHING like joules free expansion. It's like connecting two balloons together one with a lower pressure and one side with a higher pressure. Open the valve in the centre and expecting it to take off.

If it means so much to you papa, build a vacuum chamber and test yourself.

Otherwise stop posting the same nonsense shit.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford Level Experiment doesn't support FE

« on: July 15, 2016, 02:12:45 PM »

Point of confusion, why is the Bedford Level Experiment held up as evidence of Flat Earth? It took me all of 10 minutes to find multiple sources discrediting the FE results and analyzing how that result was obtained, why the procedure was flawed, and how a corrected experiment indicated a curvature.

Seems to me that if FE believers want to support their theory, using a flawed experiment does not bode well for the validity of their theory. Any thoughts?

Science works on principals,therefore whenever you want to take away the meaningless of science you can't beat it,
science is meaningless, if you want to use science to assure something which is not scientific aka meaningful and inspiring and opening new etches you can't do it.

In my opinion, things like medicine so people don't die in infancy from disease, refrigeration to store food for longer rather than having it go bad, and the dozen other scientific discoveries and advancements a person encounters daily are pretty "meaningful and inspiring" but I digress.

Yea yea sure,
Do you really that naïve to think that science has something to do with not dying in infancy ?
It is an illusion it is a prophecy that make itself come true.
refrigeration is just entities which befriend with human and make them believe in this illusion.
There are no advancements in science, there are only repeating of the same thing we call it:the same lady with other adornments.probably even other adornments is not true regarding science.

Disclaimer:
I am not telling people not to use medicine,there are no principals that should make you not use medicine.
I Myself do receive vaccines because:
I can make it in my ways meaningful.

Absolute garbage comment.

Science is proven and can be proven fact by anyone.

Refrigeration is proven to work at a microscopic level tested as fact that bacteria A) die at low temperature B) Grow/Develop vastly slower at a low temperature.

Very much the same way with vaccines.

What is the melting point of iron? illusion?

25

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Newtons third law

« on: July 12, 2016, 02:40:06 PM »

Explain how a rocket is a closed adiabatic system or stop spouting crap.

Even joule himself knew it would have to be a closed adiabatic system in order to work.

All the experiment means is no work is done on the vacuum.

But before that point and before the gas leaves the rocket nozzle into space.

It is safe to say that the burning fuel particles have come into contact internally with the engine and nozzle?

Then work is done. Basic physics there papa.

I like how you said "similar". Well its not the same then is it. So how can you even compare lol...

Let me ask you this. You have an ice comet. It comes into contact with the suns rays. The ice melts and turns to gas leaving the comet entirely. Has the comets momentum changed?

26

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Newtons third law

« on: July 11, 2016, 04:15:32 PM »

Enough of dogshit dumb unbannable lying shills...

Back to this:

A rocket in space very much resembles a pressurised vessel separated from a vacuum by a valve.

Which is remarkably similar to the conditions of the Joule free expansion experiment.

Once the valve of the Joule expansion experiment was opened, the pressurised gas released into the vacuum was found to do no work.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

This proves a gas-powered rocket would also do no work in a vacuum.

PROVES, markjo.

Here is the definition of 'work':

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

No work=no force=no movement.

Game fucking over shills.

Although free expansion is a closed adiabatic system and a rocket is neither. please...

27

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Newtons third law

« on: July 11, 2016, 12:16:49 PM »

Papa's still here and preaching the same garbage lol.

Still failing to see a rocket engine and the vacuum is not free expansion.

The most easiest way to disprove this is the expelled matter (propellant) completely leaves the rocket system. Free expansion you have two glass bulbs, pressure expands into the opposite bulb (vacuum) but the fundamental flaw here with papa's argument is it is still part of the same system.

Another flaw is pressure. The pressure is equalised throughout the entire system once the valve is opened. A rocket in a vacuum. This does not happen.

28

Flat Earth General / Re: Just another SpaceX launch

« on: April 14, 2016, 07:31:01 PM »

The fact many of people can and have been to live launches? Can be faked? Yeah lol right.

Maybe planes don't work either and all these air shows are faked aswell.

Maybe ww1 and ww2 was fake aswell.

That is FET logic...

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Real proof of the dome? Rocket just stops. Plus ice belt around Earth?

« on: April 14, 2016, 04:20:58 PM »

The video shows merely that the rocket expends its fuel. It no longer is producing thrust and as a consequence cannot combat gravity.

It may look like it stops dead but I fact it is still accelerating all be it slower and slower pretty quickly.

Other than that the photo is clouds.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shadows in the Solar System

« on: April 03, 2016, 01:23:14 PM »

They dont even attempt anything they dont understand or can't explain that cannot have aether or phlogiston thrown at it.

And nice photo's. That is most definitely an eclipse on jupiter. I've seen them a few times with my scope. Only ever seen saturn once. Looked great.