The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: John Michell on May 23, 2013, 09:41:45 AM
-
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2369073 (http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2369073)
-
Interesting. I wonder if the crazies over there would laugh at the crazies over here.
-
Nice link. Literally every picture taken in 'space' looks completely artificial, I have yet to see a pic that can't be made by an amateur in photoshop.
The only crazy ones are the ones who have looked at all the pictures, and still believe they are real.
-
Nice link. Literally every picture taken in 'space' looks completely artificial, I have yet to see a pic that can't be made by an amateur in photoshop.
The only crazy ones are the ones who have looked at all the pictures, and still believe they are real.
What would a real picture of the ISS in space look like? Do you seriously believe the second you see one you'd realise it was genuine and not fake as you proclaim?
-
Nice link. Literally every picture taken in 'space' looks completely artificial, I have yet to see a pic that can't be made by an amateur in photoshop.
The only crazy ones are the ones who have looked at all the pictures, and still believe they are real.
Three things. Yes the outside walk could be faked in water, because they could make a human float like they would in space. However, this does not include metal wrenches for example, which would sink in water. We have seen these videos too.
That is one.
They could fake a human floating in water with a space suit on, to supply the person with oxygen, to pass it on as walking in space. This however is a different story in videos where we see astronauts inside the ISS floating around. Again this can be done in water, but then the person would be out of breath within 2 minutes max, yet we see continious footage of people floating through air. This can only be done in space.
If all of it was filmed in a pool, then what the hell do we see flying above us. Many of us has observed the ISS and people like me have even seen the ISS using a telescope. Some even took pictures. That is three
A Cool and Candid Look Inside the International Space Station - Hosted by Astronaut Suni Williams (http://#ws)
-
What would a real picture of the ISS in space look like? Do you seriously believe the second you see one you'd realise it was genuine and not fake as you proclaim?
While this is a good point, simply google'ing 'earth' and looking at the pictures gives me serious, serious doubts about its veracity.
If all of it was filmed in a pool, then what the hell do we see flying above us. Many of us has observed the ISS and people like me have even seen the ISS using a telescope. Some even took pictures. That is three
I have never observed it, but I'm guessing it's just a point of light (or ISS-shaped light) in the sky that moves in an expected pattern given to you by a website. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that a technology exists that can simulate this. I don't know what it is or have an explanation for you.
-
I can propose that any person who claims to have seen the ISS in space, in the pictures that get shown are shills and just basic liars.
That's just my opinion.
That's also slander (or libel, if you do it in print) if you can't prove it.
-
You have not observed the ISS. You have observed what you believe to be the ISS.
I even doubt you have seen any shape up there, unless you've been observing objects in the atmosphere, like planes and what not.
You certainly have not seen, (with your own eyes) a craft that looks like the ISS in the pictures we get shown, unless you have been in the modelling department.
Care to explain what it is?
The ISS cannot be seen in detail with the naked eye, but you are able to see the shape using a telescope. Use a Meade 8' LX90 and you are able to see the image I enclosed. It is not my image, but it is similar to what I have seen. Before you go cry out loud that I cannot have seen it, do some experiment yourself to see if it is true. You refuse to believe what I say, but you do not take the effort yourself to have a look through a telescope. Therefore I put no value on what you say. (http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/4247/issjpg.jpg).
-
When I see a black sky like this one, I'll be sure to have a look through a telescope and see if I can see this ISS effigy.
Any idea when the next 100% totally black sky will be?
Don't you feel bad you called me a liar?
Before you have a look, you need to know when to look. Take this tool http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php (http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php)
Fill in your location and you will know where to look. Just keep an eye out for the weather forecast for clear night skies.
-
No thanks. I stopped believing in fairies and stuff like that when I was a small child. Santa still had me for a few years after that but that's about it.
I've still got all my teeth thank god.
Can you imagine if I still believed in the tooth fairy, it would be like believing man made objects are in space, plus I'd have no teeth left and a bloody under pillow. ;)
Everything is a fairy tale to you. Perhaps you are also part of a fairy tale, but you just don't know about yet.
-
No thanks. I stopped believing in fairies and stuff like that when I was a small child. Santa still had me for a few years after that but that's about it.
I've still got all my teeth thank god.
Can you imagine if I still believed in the tooth fairy, it would be like believing man made objects are in space, plus I'd have no teeth left and a bloody under pillow. ;)
Everything is a fairy tale to you. Perhaps you are also part of a fairy tale, but you just don't know about yet.
We are all part of the fair tale. We have to live it as we have no other option but to live it, unless we expire.
If we are in a fairy tale, everything inside the fairy tale is also part of the fairy tale, even the FET, so we do not live on a flat earth or a sphere at all, but in someone's imagination or fairy tale book. You would just have to discover that.
-
No thanks. I stopped believing in fairies and stuff like that when I was a small child. Santa still had me for a few years after that but that's about it.
I've still got all my teeth thank god.
Can you imagine if I still believed in the tooth fairy, it would be like believing man made objects are in space, plus I'd have no teeth left and a bloody under pillow. ;)
Everything is a fairy tale to you. Perhaps you are also part of a fairy tale, but you just don't know about yet.
We are all part of the fair tale. We have to live it as we have no other option but to live it, unless we expire.
If we are in a fairy tale, everything inside the fairy tale is also part of the fairy tale, even the FET, so we do not live on a flat earth or a sphere at all, but in someone's imagination or fairy tale book. You would just have to discover that.
If that's how you view it, then it's fine by me. I'm just talking about us all being a part of the fairy tales that get told to us. It's called the mass media.
Mass media does not direct what my eyes see or my ears hear. I can watch a very real sunset and it is not told to me that night is upon me. Is this sunset part of the fairytale? And I'm not talking about how the sunset works, just that the Sun no longer lights my area of the world.
-
There is another derail. None of the FE step forward to explain the 3 points I mentioned earlier...
what a surprise...
-
There is another derail. None of the FE step forward to explain the 3 points I mentioned earlier...
what a surprise...
Partly filmed in water, partly filmed in a vomit comet. Throw in some editing and you have a single video.
-
There is another derail. None of the FE step forward to explain the 3 points I mentioned earlier...
what a surprise...
Partly filmed in water, partly filmed in a vomit comet. Throw in some editing and you have a single video.
Junker, as I said, there is no way you can have one continiously shot of a person experiencing weightlessness. The Vomit Comet only allows you to be weightless for about 25 seconds. We see videos from the ISS in which the astronauts are continiously weightless, and there are no cuts in any of these videos.
The Apollo 13 film from 1995 used the Vomit Comet (or a similar method) to recreate weightlessness for the movie. However, they never show you a long continious shot of weightlessness. There can be scenes which last for some minutes, but they all have cuts and switch to other views all the time. We don't see that in the ISS videos. All videos are seamless.
You just deny the fact it is impossible to fake the ISS videos from the inside.
-
Junker, as I said, there is no way you can have one continiously shot of a person experiencing weightlessness. The Vomit Comet only allows you to be weightless for about 25 seconds. We see videos from the ISS in which the astronauts are continiously weightless, and there are no cuts in any of these videos.
The Apollo 13 film from 1995 used the Vomit Comet (or a similar method) to recreate weightlessness for the movie. However, they never show you a long continious shot of weightlessness. There can be scenes which last for some minutes, but they all have cuts and switch to other views all the time. We don't see that in the ISS videos. All videos are seamless.
That video is 25 min long. Is there a particular segment you can reference? I don't want to watch the whole thing. The first segment with the girl before the next scene didn't seem to be that long.
You just deny the fact it is impossible to fake the ISS videos from the inside.
I don't deny anything. I think it is possible.
-
If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.
-
If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.
The CGI technology does not exist to create videos that life like, for that amount of time, in the short amount of time between them coming out.
-
If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.
The CGI technology does not exist to create videos that life like, for that amount of time, in the short amount of time between them coming out.
Yes it does. Ever seen the 2 Star Trek movies in the last few years, Avatar, etc.
-
There is another derail. None of the FE step forward to explain the 3 points I mentioned earlier...
what a surprise...
Partly filmed in water, partly filmed in a vomit comet. Throw in some editing and you have a single video.
Junker, as I said, there is no way you can have one continiously shot of a person experiencing weightlessness. The Vomit Comet only allows you to be weightless for about 25 seconds. We see videos from the ISS in which the astronauts are continiously weightless, and there are no cuts in any of these videos.
The Apollo 13 film from 1995 used the Vomit Comet (or a similar method) to recreate weightlessness for the movie. However, they never show you a long continious shot of weightlessness. There can be scenes which last for some minutes, but they all have cuts and switch to other views all the time. We don't see that in the ISS videos. All videos are seamless.
You just deny the fact it is impossible to fake the ISS videos from the inside.
Or they used some editing and made it appear seamless because it was good editing.
-
Junker, as I said, there is no way you can have one continiously shot of a person experiencing weightlessness. The Vomit Comet only allows you to be weightless for about 25 seconds. We see videos from the ISS in which the astronauts are continiously weightless, and there are no cuts in any of these videos.
The Apollo 13 film from 1995 used the Vomit Comet (or a similar method) to recreate weightlessness for the movie. However, they never show you a long continious shot of weightlessness. There can be scenes which last for some minutes, but they all have cuts and switch to other views all the time. We don't see that in the ISS videos. All videos are seamless.
That video is 25 min long. Is there a particular segment you can reference? I don't want to watch the whole thing. The first segment with the girl before the next scene didn't seem to be that long.
From 0:50 onwards.
Here is another video. There are some cuts in the beginning, so you can skip to like 1:50 then till about 5:21 continious footage. The footage does continue, but they decided to put in a map next to the footage so you could get an idea where he is in the spacestation. Througout the video the footage continues, but you only see a map of where he is at in the spacestation. You could call these 'cuts' but if these were to film another scene, just see how everything just is the same in that 'next' scene.
International Space Station Tour 2012 (HD) ISS Tour (http://#ws)
Movies have lots of mistakes in them, because they do not film it in one go. If you pay close attention to any movie, you will find these errors. A lot of people do that and here is just an example of that.
(http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/lotr-movie-mistake.jpg)
-
If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.
Using CGI to create life like images takes a very, very long time to render and even then you are able to detect things which do not look real. But CGI is certainly not an option for live footage from the ISS, like happened on the TV show CBS the Talk for example. You can also see the astronauts doing their works using the live stream available to the public. Waking up, working, and going to sleep in Zero G (http://#ws)
-
If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.
The CGI technology does not exist to create videos that life like, for that amount of time, in the short amount of time between them coming out.
Yes it does. Ever seen the 2 Star Trek movies in the last few years, Avatar, etc.
Please cite a scene in any of those movies that realistically shows a shot of someone in a zero gravity environment for more than 30 seconds at a time.
-
If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.
The CGI technology does not exist to create videos that life like, for that amount of time, in the short amount of time between them coming out.
Yes it does. Ever seen the 2 Star Trek movies in the last few years, Avatar, etc.
Please cite a scene in any of those movies that realistically shows a shot of someone in a zero gravity environment for more than 30 seconds at a time.
My point is that the technology to pull this off very well exists.
Not only that, but this is the government were talking about. They probably have very advanced technology we don't.
-
If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.
The CGI technology does not exist to create videos that life like, for that amount of time, in the short amount of time between them coming out.
Yes it does. Ever seen the 2 Star Trek movies in the last few years, Avatar, etc.
Please cite a scene in any of those movies that realistically shows a shot of someone in a zero gravity environment for more than 30 seconds at a time.
With all due respect. Let them first give proper answer to the ISS videos. Now they will continue to discuss about Star Trek and ignore the ISS videos and everything that has been said about it.
-
My point is that the technology to pull this off very well exists.
How can you say that for certain if you can't show any examples?
-
If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.
The CGI technology does not exist to create videos that life like, for that amount of time, in the short amount of time between them coming out.
Yes it does. Ever seen the 2 Star Trek movies in the last few years, Avatar, etc.
Please cite a scene in any of those movies that realistically shows a shot of someone in a zero gravity environment for more than 30 seconds at a time.
Oh, I thought he was joking :-\
-
Not to detract from the ISS video, but exactly how long did it take for them to make the Star Trek movies or Avatar? And even then, the CGI in them is very good, but not good enough to make a human that looks real.
-
All the ISS vids look green screen'ed to me. Shoot under water with a green screen, put the space station in the background. Just like they do with every hollywood movie... they don't need GO to any of the locations any more.
I will stand by my comment that CGI could pull it all off too though. The scenes really aren't complicated... toughest part is the humans. But this is 2013 and nasa has access to petaflops of computing power. No way they couldn't cgi a dumb ISS video.
As an aside, ISS = 911 in numerology. We all know they like their number games.
-
All the ISS vids look green screen'ed to me. Shoot under water with a green screen, put the space station in the background. Just like they do with every hollywood movie... they don't need GO to any of the locations any more.
I will stand by my comment that CGI could pull it all off too though. The scenes really aren't complicated... toughest part is the humans. But this is 2013 and nasa has access to petaflops of computing power. No way they couldn't cgi a dumb ISS video.
As an aside, ISS = 911 in numerology. We all know they like their number games.
OH really? Then how come we can see the ISS in space with our own eyes and in detail using a telescope. You clearly are unable to grasp the entire picture of what we're saying. So typical...
-
OH really? Then how come we can see the ISS in space with our own eyes and in detail using a telescope. You clearly are unable to grasp the entire picture of what we're saying. So typical...
I responded to that last page, you may have missed it.
I have never observed it, but I'm guessing it's just a point of light (or ISS-shaped light) in the sky that moves in an expected pattern given to you by a website. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that a technology exists that can simulate this. I don't know what it is or have an explanation for you.
I suppose I am supposed to believe the ISS is real, because of a light moving across the sky... right. What next, I live on a giant ball?
-
i suggest those who dont believe it to be in space to go view it yourselves with a telescope. it is a fairly simple experiment that people like septictank are not willing to do. why is that?
making comments that things are not real on a forum is very big of you all. how about you go outside and see for yourselves?
-
(http://i43.tinypic.com/ok92fs.png)
I'm just gonna ignore that...
Sceptimatic, have you ever photographed the night sky???
-
OH really? Then how come we can see the ISS in space with our own eyes and in detail using a telescope. You clearly are unable to grasp the entire picture of what we're saying. So typical...
I have never observed it, but I'm guessing it's just a point of light (or ISS-shaped light) in the sky that moves in an expected pattern given to you by a website. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that a technology exists that can simulate this. I don't know what it is or have an explanation for you.
You never observed it, so you shouldn't jump to conclusions. If you use a telescope you can see it is more than a light to you. If you do not want to take our word on it and you resist to observe it yourself, your words will have no value.
You are right that a technology exists that can create it...it is called the international space station, orbiting the earth.
-
You are right that a technology exists that can create it...it is called the international space station, orbiting the earth.
If I wanted to read bullshit, I would go to wikipedia. No need for you to bring it here.
-
You are right that a technology exists that can create it...it is called the international space station, orbiting the earth.
If I wanted to read bullshit, I would go to wikipedia. No need for you to bring it here.
go see it for yourself then. please come back and explain how an object of that shape can travel so fast in the atmosphere. we eagerly await your opinion AFTER you actually research.
-
You are right that a technology exists that can create it...it is called the international space station, orbiting the earth.
If I wanted to read bullshit, I would go to wikipedia. No need for you to bring it here.
First investigate it, then come back to me and see if you would still call it bullshit.
-
go see it for yourself then. please come back and explain how an object of that shape can travel so fast in the atmosphere. we eagerly await your opinion AFTER you actually research.
See the funny thing is, the iss supposedly IS in the atmosphere. It's in the ionosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere), which extends 50-370 miles up. ISS is around 250 miles remember. The funny thing is, according to wiki (which you guys must believe), the iss travels through the DENSEST layer of the ionosphere -
The F layer or region, also known as the Appleton layer extends from about 200 km (120 mi) to more than 500 km (310 mi) above the surface of Earth. It is the densest point of the ionosphere, which implies signals penetrating this layer will escape into space.
- at speeds of 17,000 miles per hour. So why don't YOU explain how something can travel through the atmosphere at 17,000 miles per hour without ever slowing down or needing energy to speed back up, for TWELVE YEARS?
-
go see it for yourself then. please come back and explain how an object of that shape can travel so fast in the atmosphere. we eagerly await your opinion AFTER you actually research.
See the funny thing is, the iss supposedly IS in the atmosphere. It's in the ionosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere), which extends 50-370 miles up. ISS is around 250 miles remember. The funny thing is, according to wiki (which you guys must believe), the iss travels through the DENSEST layer of the ionosphere -
The F layer or region, also known as the Appleton layer extends from about 200 km (120 mi) to more than 500 km (310 mi) above the surface of Earth. It is the densest point of the ionosphere, which implies signals penetrating this layer will escape into space.
- at speeds of 17,000 miles per hour. So why don't YOU explain how something can travel through the atmosphere at 17,000 miles per hour without ever slowing down or needing energy to speed back up, for TWELVE YEARS?
ISS does speed up regularly to maintain altitude. FIrst thing I will do tomorrow is give you all the links to that. I am currently on my tablet, but if anyone else feels like sharing the following for me...feel free.
Go to YT search for ISS three laws of newton. I should give you the video of three astronauts flying to the backo f the station. He explains they are doing a reboost. Any others links are welcome as well...but if you want to wait for me, wait for about 4-6 hours...
Edit...it is also in the video I posted here earlier. The 55 minute long video of the ISS tour. He mentioned it as he goes towards the russian section. Not sure at what time that is...again you would have to wait if you want a better reference, from my memory it should be about half way into the video..
-
ISS does speed up regularly to maintain altitude. FIrst thing I will do tomorrow is give you all the links to that. I am currently on my tablet, but if anyone else feels like sharing the following for me...feel free.
Go to YT search for ISS three laws of newton. I should give you the video of three astronauts flying to the backo f the station. He explains they are doing a reboost. Any others links are welcome as well...but if you want to wait for me, wait for about 4-6 hours...
Such a quick response, I'd almost think you had an ulterior motive.
-
ISS does speed up regularly to maintain altitude. FIrst thing I will do tomorrow is give you all the links to that. I am currently on my tablet, but if anyone else feels like sharing the following for me...feel free.
Go to YT search for ISS three laws of newton. I should give you the video of three astronauts flying to the backo f the station. He explains they are doing a reboost. Any others links are welcome as well...but if you want to wait for me, wait for about 4-6 hours...
Such a quick response, I'd almost think you had an ulterior motive.
Sorry I can't help your over-active imagination. But again, you dont care what I say... no response to that. Let me know when you observed the ISS...
-
Nice link. Literally every picture taken in 'space' looks completely artificial, I have yet to see a pic that can't be made by an amateur in photoshop.
The only crazy ones are the ones who have looked at all the pictures, and still believe they are real.
Well I am an expert in photoshop and I would not be able to create anything like those images in Photoshop. So you are talking rubbish.
-
No thanks. I stopped believing in fairies and stuff like that when I was a small child. Santa still had me for a few years after that but that's about it.
I've still got all my teeth thank god.
Can you imagine if I still believed in the tooth fairy, it would be like believing man made objects are in space, plus I'd have no teeth left and a bloody under pillow. ;)
Everything is a fairy tale to you. Perhaps you are also part of a fairy tale, but you just don't know about yet.
We are all part of the fair tale. We have to live it as we have no other option but to live it, unless we expire.
But who is telling the tale??
-
- at speeds of 17,000 miles per hour. So why don't YOU explain how something can travel through the atmosphere at 17,000 miles per hour without ever slowing down or needing energy to speed back up, for TWELVE YEARS?
??? I thought that it was common knowledge that the ISS does slow down because of atmospheric drag. It requires periodic boosts to get back into its intended orbit.
http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx (http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx)
(http://www.heavens-above.com/OrbitHeightPlot.aspx?Width=600&Height=400&satid=25544)
This plot shows the orbital height of the ISS over the last year. Clearly visible are the re-boosts which suddenly increase the height, and the gradual decay in between. The height is averaged over one orbit, and the gradual decrease is caused by atmospheric drag. As can be seen from the plot, the rate of descent is not constant and this variation is caused by changes in the density of the tenuous outer atmosphere due mainly to solar activity.
-
The original point was
explain how an object of that shape can travel so fast in the atmosphere.
and look, here comes the Ball-Brigade now claiming that it's common knowledge that objects can travel that fast in the atmosphere. I'm blown away...
-
The original point was
explain how an object of that shape can travel so fast in the atmosphere.
and look, here comes the Ball-Brigade now claiming that it's common knowledge that objects can travel that fast in the atmosphere. I'm blown away...
The atmosphere is incredibly rarified at that height which makes that level of travel possible. Remember that Felix broke the sound barrier from a very small fraction of the height with no propulsion.
-
The original point was
explain how an object of that shape can travel so fast in the atmosphere.
and look, here comes the Ball-Brigade now claiming that it's common knowledge that objects can travel that fast in the atmosphere. I'm blown away...
Where you draw the atmosphere/space line is completely arbitrary. There will always be some matter, even in interstellar space, and it will slow you down somewhat. The point was, an object the shape of the ISS couldn't possibly be travelling at a lower altitude, in a denser layer of the atmosphere.
Further, the point is, the ISS is at a height you consider "impossible", and it's really there, you can see it yourself, anytime.
-
The original point was
explain how an object of that shape can travel so fast in the atmosphere.
and look, here comes the Ball-Brigade now claiming that it's common knowledge that objects can travel that fast in the atmosphere. I'm blown away...
How dense do you think the ionosphere is? ???
-
markjo why bother, this is basic th*rk tactics. he obviously understands what is happening otherwise they wouldnt mention that its in the densest part. however its nothing like the atmosphere aircraft travel through and that height is considered to be space.
-
Nice link. Literally every picture taken in 'space' looks completely artificial, I have yet to see a pic that can't be made by an amateur in photoshop.
The only crazy ones are the ones who have looked at all the pictures, and still believe they are real.
Well I am an expert in photoshop and I would not be able to create anything like those images in Photoshop. So you are talking rubbish.
Do you really think the big, powerful government with billions if not trillions of dollars uses Photoshop?
-
Do you really think the big, powerful government with billions if not trillions of dollars uses Photoshop?
Do you really think an organization like NASA is lying about something as simple as the shape's earth?
-
Do you really think an organization like NASA is lying about something as simple as the shape's earth?
Is that a rhetorical question?
-
Do you really think an organization like NASA is lying about something as simple as the shape's earth?
Is that a rhetorical question?
Yes. There is no reason and I mean a grounded reason to believe that NASA is lying about the shape of the earth. There is no specific benefit as why they would propagate a round earth, if the earth was in fact a flat one.
-
Do you really think an organization like NASA is lying about something as simple as the shape's earth?
Is that a rhetorical question?
Yes. There is no reason and I mean a grounded reason to believe that NASA is lying about the shape of the earth. There is no specific benefit as why they would propagate a round earth, if the earth was in fact a flat one.
If the earth is flat, they must be either lying or ignorant.
-
Do you really think an organization like NASA is lying about something as simple as the shape's earth?
Is that a rhetorical question?
Yes. There is no reason and I mean a grounded reason to believe that NASA is lying about the shape of the earth. There is no specific benefit as why they would propagate a round earth, if the earth was in fact a flat one.
If the earth is flat, they must be either lying or ignorant.
Would you provide a grounded reason why they would be lying? Not just your assumption..any grounded reason to believe they are lying?
-
Would you provide a grounded reason why they would be lying? Not just your assumption..any grounded reason to believe they are lying?
To hide the true shape of the Earth? ???
-
Would you provide a grounded reason why they would be lying? Not just your assumption..any grounded reason to believe they are lying?
To hide the true shape of the Earth? ???
That is no grounded reason, the grounded reason is the answer to the question why. Care to think for yourself?
Why would they hide the true shape of the earth?
-
That is no grounded reason, the grounded reason is the answer to the question why. Care to think for yourself?
Why would they hide the true shape of the earth?
To maintain the conspiracy? I am starting to think you are asking questions you already know the answer to.
-
That is no grounded reason, the grounded reason is the answer to the question why. Care to think for yourself?
Why would they hide the true shape of the earth?
To maintain the conspiracy? I am starting to think you are asking questions you already know the answer to.
I don't.
They lie about the shape of the earth to maintain the conspiracy. ???
Why would they conspire about the earth's shape in the first place? Is there a benefit to go with a spherical earth over a flat earth?
-
Why would they conspire about the earth's shape in the first place? Is there a benefit to go with a spherical earth over a flat earth?
To reap the substantial profit to be had by maintaining said conspiracy. I suggest you review the FAQ, Wiki, and do some searching.
-
Why would they conspire about the earth's shape in the first place? Is there a benefit to go with a spherical earth over a flat earth?
To reap the substantial profit to be had by maintaining said conspiracy. I suggest you review the FAQ, Wiki, and do some searching.
What profits do they get from propagating a round earth? They could propagate the same things about space if they would stick to a flat earth. If you say they are so brilliant as you think they could lie about anything, but they would still not necessarily have to lie about the shape.
There is no point for you to continue defending the conspiracy about the earth's shape as there is clearly no reason to believe there is one. The only possible option for you, but you did not admit it as of yet, is that NASA is ignorant about the shape.
-
What profits do they get from propagating a round earth? They could propagate the same things about space if they would stick to a flat earth. If you say they are so brilliant as you think they could lie about anything, but they would still not necessarily have to lie about the shape.
The money that is budgeted to NASA. Spend a portion on keeping up the show, keep the rest as profit. It wouldn't work in the case of Flat Earth as space travel is not possible. This is all in the FAQ/Wiki.
There is no point for you to continue defending the conspiracy about the earth's shape as there is clearly no reason to believe there is one.
I am sorry you don't agree with the idea, but that doesn't change anything.
The only possible option for you, but you did not admit it as of yet, is that NASA is ignorant about the shape.
If the earth is flat, they must be either lying or ignorant.
Are you done yet?
-
The money that is budgeted to NASA. Spend a portion on keeping up the show, keep the rest as profit.
NASA is a government agency, not a for profit company.
It wouldn't work in the case of Flat Earth as space travel is not possible.
If the various celestial objects can travel in space, then why can't NASA figure out a way to travel in space?
-
The money that is budgeted to NASA. Spend a portion on keeping up the show, keep the rest as profit. It wouldn't work in the case of Flat Earth as space travel is not possible. This is all in the FAQ/Wiki.
They might as well lie only about the space program and come up with some answers to how space travel is possible on a flat earth. There is no need to spend more money on the show for a spherical earth if all they want to do is to keep money in their pockets.
There is no point for you to continue defending the conspiracy about the earth's shape as there is clearly no reason to believe there is one.
I am sorry you don't agree with the idea, but that doesn't change anything.
It is not a matter of opinion. I am talking about grounded reasons, not just one's believes.
If the earth is flat, they must be either lying or ignorant.
Are you done yet?
No, because you still keep the option of a conspiracy open.
-
NASA is a government agency, not a for profit company.
Possibly. I imagine the contractors they outsource to are for-profit though.
If the various celestial objects can travel in space, then why can't NASA figure out a way to travel in space?
The most logical answer is that they are spending less to fake it to keep profits up. Actual attempts at exploration would likely be very expensive.
-
The most logical answer is that they are spending less to fake it to keep profits up. Actual attempts at exploration would likely be very expensive.
Hence they retired the space shuttle and the moon program. Their current annual budget is about 18 billion. Just one space shuttle launch costs 450 million dollars. That is almost half a billion. They would only be capable of launching 36 space shuttles every year and then forget about all other things they need to pay for.
To give a comparison the Russian Soyuz costs about 40 million dollar to launch.
-
I'd imagine that pumping out the amount of videos that come out of the ISS would be quite expensive.
-
I'd imagine that pumping out the amount of videos that come out of the ISS would be quite expensive.
Why is that? They have already invested the capital for the tech, just have to pay labor.
-
I'd imagine that pumping out the amount of videos that come out of the ISS would be quite expensive.
Why is that? They have already invested the capital for the tech, just have to pay labor.
The man hours that would need to be put into each video would be astronomical, the fact that videos come out fairly regularly and in a short span of time would mean lots of OT hours, needing to pay out "keep quiet" money would be a large sum. All in all, it would probably be less expensive for them to send people into space on the Russian capsule than it would be to completely fake the entire thing.
-
If the various celestial objects can travel in space, then why can't NASA figure out a way to travel in space?
The most logical answer is that they are spending less to fake it to keep profits up. Actual attempts at exploration would likely be very expensive.
Why is that the most logical answer? How can you be sure that NASA didn't figure out space travel 50+ years ago like they say that they did, regardless of the shape of the earth?
-
Why is that the most logical answer? How can you be sure that NASA didn't figure out space travel 50+ years ago like they say that they did, regardless of the shape of the earth?
Because space travel isn't possible.
-
Why is that the most logical answer? How can you be sure that NASA didn't figure out space travel 50+ years ago like they say that they did, regardless of the shape of the earth?
Because space travel isn't possible.
The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.
-
The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.
Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies. I don't see the conflict.
-
arnt they about the same size? what properties do 'planets and stars' have that rockets dont?
-
The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.
Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies.
Are you sure? How do you know that they don't use the same basic principles to travel in space? After all, airplanes are independent of birds, but they both fly using the same fundamental principles.
-
The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.
Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies.
Are you sure? How do you know that they don't use the same basic principles to travel in space? After all, airplanes are independent of birds, but they both fly using the same fundamental principles.
So, birds, planes, and rockets/satellites are all confined to earth.
-
The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.
Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies.
Are you sure? How do you know that they don't use the same basic principles to travel in space? After all, airplanes are independent of birds, but they both fly using the same fundamental principles.
So, birds, planes, and rockets/satellites are all confined to earth.
If the celestial objects aren't confined to the earth, then why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space?
-
The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.
Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies.
Are you sure? How do you know that they don't use the same basic principles to travel in space? After all, airplanes are independent of birds, but they both fly using the same fundamental principles.
So, birds, planes, and rockets/satellites are all confined to earth.
If the celestial objects aren't confined to the earth, then why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space?
Because they can't reach space.
-
The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.
Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies.
Are you sure? How do you know that they don't use the same basic principles to travel in space? After all, airplanes are independent of birds, but they both fly using the same fundamental principles.
So, birds, planes, and rockets/satellites are all confined to earth.
If the celestial objects aren't confined to the earth, then why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space?
Because they can't reach space.
Circular logic at its finest.
Here goes in a nutshell.
They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.
Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.
They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...
-
Do you really think the big, powerful government with billions if not trillions of dollars uses Photoshop?
Do you really think an organization like NASA is lying about something as simple as the shape's earth?
Yes.
Why? Well, let's see all the tax money they rake in. And whatever political reasons.
-
it can be said that celestial objects are also confined to earth. they are pushed with it with the UA. i see no reason as to why a flat earth believer would think the celestial objects are even outside the earths atmosphere.
-
Circular logic at its finest.
Here goes in a nutshell.
They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.
Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.
They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...
The premise of these forums is explained in the FAQ. If you wish to present another view then the burden of proof is on you.
-
Circular logic at its finest.
Here goes in a nutshell.
They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.
Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.
They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...
The premise of these forums is explained in the FAQ. If you wish to present another view then the burden of proof is on you.
Why don't you start by refuting these 10?
TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round (http://#ws)
-
Circular logic at its finest.
Here goes in a nutshell.
They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.
Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.
They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...
The premise of these forums is explained in the FAQ. If you wish to present another view then the burden of proof is on you.
Why don't you start by refuting these 10?
TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round (http://#ws)
This video has been discussed to death already.
-
Circular logic at its finest.
Here goes in a nutshell.
They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.
Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.
They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...
The premise of these forums is explained in the FAQ. If you wish to present another view then the burden of proof is on you.
Why don't you start by refuting these 10?
TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round (http://#ws)
This video has been discussed to death already.
Oh really? Give me a nutshell explanation then...oh wait, you can't and you can't provide the links to these discussions either, because there aren't any.
-
Oh really? Give me a nutshell explanation then...oh wait, you can't and you can't provide the links to these discussions either, because there aren't any.
That video gets moved to CN for good reason. This is not going anywhere. You refuse to do any research. I can't help you if you don't want to help yourself.
-
Circular logic at its finest.
Here goes in a nutshell.
They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.
Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.
They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...
The premise of these forums is explained in the FAQ. If you wish to present another view then the burden of proof is on you.
Why don't you start by refuting these 10?
TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round (http://#ws)
This video has been discussed to death already.
Oh really? Give me a nutshell explanation then...oh wait, you can't and you can't provide the links to these discussions either, because there aren't any.
Like I said, this video doesn't mean anything. You think it disproves FE, but we are still FEers, so you can tell it means nothing to us.
-
Oh really? Give me a nutshell explanation then...oh wait, you can't and you can't provide the links to these discussions either, because there aren't any.
That video gets moved to CN for good reason. This is not going anywhere. You refuse to do any research. I can't help you if you don't want to help yourself.
I have done researh and experiments myself. What experiments did you do to proof the FET?
-
Circular logic at its finest.
Here goes in a nutshell.
They can't reach space --> Reply from RE: Why not, celestial bodies, etc, etc, are in space? --> They are not the same are they? - Reply from RE: Planes are independent from birds, etc, etc --> Are all confined to earth. --> RE, why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space? --> Because they can't reach space.
Never, ever does Junker ever explain WHY they can't reach space. No reasons whatsoever. My nutshell example shows exactly the reasoning behind the FET. The earth is flat --> Because the earth is flat.
They can't reach space --> because they can't reach space
They are conspiring --> Because to maintain the conspiracy
etc, etc...
The premise of these forums is explained in the FAQ. If you wish to present another view then the burden of proof is on you.
Why don't you start by refuting these 10?
TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round (http://#ws)
This video has been discussed to death already.
Oh really? Give me a nutshell explanation then...oh wait, you can't and you can't provide the links to these discussions either, because there aren't any.
This is why searching the forum is a good thing.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58309.0.html#.UaA60ZycZI0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58309.0.html#.UaA60ZycZI0)
-
That video gets moved to CN for good reason. This is not going anywhere. You refuse to do any research. I can't help you if you don't want to help yourself.
I have done researh and experiments myself. What experiments did you do to proof the FET?
[/quote]
I looked outside? What research and experiments have you done? Also, if that is the case, why do you refuse to do any research on FET? Did you burn up all your research ability on RET?
-
I have done researh and experiments myself. What experiments did you do to proof the FET?
I looked outside? What research and experiments have you done? Also, if that is the case, why do you refuse to do any research on FET? Did you burn up all your research ability on RET?
-
The celestial objects traveling in space prove otherwise.
Supposed satellites and rocket launches are independent of other celestial bodies.
Are you sure? How do you know that they don't use the same basic principles to travel in space? After all, airplanes are independent of birds, but they both fly using the same fundamental principles.
So, birds, planes, and rockets/satellites are all confined to earth.
If the celestial objects aren't confined to the earth, then why should rockets and satellites if they use the same principles to travel in space?
Because they can't reach space.
Why not? What principle in FET precludes rockets from reaching space?
-
Why not? What principle in FET precludes rockets from reaching space?
They can't escape the UA. Or, if sandokhan is right, the pressure from aether.
-
This is why searching the forum is a good thing.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58309.0.html#.UaA60ZycZI0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58309.0.html#.UaA60ZycZI0)
Wow, finally a more sensible person. I have seen it before, but let me show you that you made no point at all.
According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.
The big question. WHY? Why would you think the earth is different. What are the grounded reasons?
I see no answer to that.
This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.
This issue has been raised a hundred times already. If the sun were a sunlight it would look like the following video. On a flat earth the south will always be dark at some point. This totally contradicts real world observations where (depending on the seasons) parts of the earth is continiously lit up 24/7.
Flat disc (http://tinypic.com/r/122m340/5)
Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.
No explanation as what this effect is, the Aetheric winds or anything. On the other hand there is a perfect explanation of the Coriolis effect which match our observations coriolis effect (2-11) (http://#)
4. Triangles
This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.
If it works on a smaller scale, there is no reason to believe it wouldn't work on a larger scale.
Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth , the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.
Henry is not assuming anything, but is using grounded reasons to proof his right. On the other hand...the highlighted part says it all.."If we assume a flat earth..."
"If we assume pink flying hippos....."
6. Stars Change
Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.
On a disc I have the same night sky as someone standing somewhere else. Here is a simple diagram to show you just that. Person A sees the same thing as Person B. (http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/2912/starsy.jpg)
Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.
Only thing I can say is true. If you make a 360 degree on a disc you can end up at the same spot you started.
This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.
Do buildings qualify as small objects? Not true, since we can see the top. The base is not smaller than the top, in the contrary. The base is often wider
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQb2oOX1mTOk8K7UC2gJXlb4yUBq6c31mQKZgsz31mo8GW8masRzQ)
Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.
No explanation as to why the moon is sometimes in front and sometimes behind the sun.
Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.
In another thread I asked for evidence supporting this claim and all I get is that it is mere speculation and Junker replied like --> There is a conspiracy, because they maintain a conspiracy.
But let's not wander to far off now...there are lots of amateurs who have sent up weather balloons with cameras. Amateurs...
-
Why not? What principle in FET precludes rockets from reaching space?
They can't escape the UA. Or, if sandokhan is right, the pressure from aether.
Then what keeps the celestial objects in space if the UA (or aether pressure) can't be escaped?
-
I have done researh and experiments myself. What experiments did you do to proof the FET?
I looked outside? What research and experiments have you done? Also, if that is the case, why do you refuse to do any research on FET? Did you burn up all your research ability on RET?
Is that all you did? I have seen the ISS with a telescope. I have also seen it often with the naked eye as a light passing by.
I have been to the beach and I could not see England, while in a plane I could.
I have been near the equator and the stars and moon look different then at home.
I have been in different time zones. I have spoken to people in different time zones.
I have been on a boat and saw land dissapear behind the horizon as we ventured further out on sea.
These are the things I can think of now which testify for a round earth.
As far as the FET, I have my own experiencing contradicting the earth is flat + ample issues with the FET I have raised which go unexplained and even contradict itself. For example at spotlight or an oribitng suns means either the earth is completely dark at one moment or one part always gets dark at some point at the day. This contradicts real life observations.
-
Then what keeps the celestial objects in space if the UA (or aether pressure) can't be escaped?
Either celestial gears, or they are possibly not affected by the UA.
-
Then what keeps the celestial objects in space if the UA (or aether pressure) can't be escaped?
Either celestial gears, or they are possibly not affected by the UA.
If they are not affected by the UA, then what keeps them from falling as the earth accelerates upwards?
-
Then what keeps the celestial objects in space if the UA (or aether pressure) can't be escaped?
Either celestial gears, or they are possibly not affected by the UA.
If they are not affected by the UA, then what keeps them from falling as the earth accelerates upwards?
Why worry about such small details... They will figure it out soon! (-ish)
-
Then what keeps the celestial objects in space if the UA (or aether pressure) can't be escaped?
Either celestial gears, or they are possibly not affected by the UA.
If they are not affected by the UA, then what keeps them from falling as the earth accelerates upwards?
Why worry about such small details... They will figure it out soon! (-ish)
Oh, I'm not worried at all. I'm just wondering how dedicated Junker is.
-
Junker just ignore the Ball-Brigade, they have a little too much "space" in their heads ;)
-
Junker just ignore the Ball-Brigade, they have a little too much "space" in their heads ;)
Markjo brought up a valid question, if the UA is accelerating the Earth and it may not effect the celestial bodies, then why haven't we collided?
-
Nice link. Literally every picture taken in 'space' looks completely artificial, I have yet to see a pic that can't be made by an amateur in photoshop.
The only crazy ones are the ones who have looked at all the pictures, and still believe they are real.
I disagree. I'm a "regular" citizen, though with an advanced degree--not in math or physics, though--and have no reason to disbelieve the space program or ISS. I've looked at the naysayers' diatribes and am not convinced. It makes perfect sense that there is a space program and a space station orbiting a round earth that rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun that is 93 million miles away. This is basic science by now and anyone who doubts that must be REAL bored. I don't want to say crazy because I was just basically called crazy and if I shoot back, we basically cancel each other out. I'm just saying that mainstream astronomy isn't evil. Please, people.
-
Why is that the most logical answer? How can you be sure that NASA didn't figure out space travel 50+ years ago like they say that they did, regardless of the shape of the earth?
Because space travel isn't possible.
I hate to jump in at random, but to say that space travel isn't possible in this day and age astounds me. It IS possible and has been going on for over 50 years!
-
If you sat back and looked at the wider picture, you will see that no man made craft has ever been into space.
High altitude, yes. What they tell us is space...no.
You don't move on from windows 95 all the way through to windows 7 to windows 30, then decide to revert back to using windows 95 again as an operating system, except for novelty value.
Well that's what they done with Apollo to shuttle and back to the old style rocket again with a re-entry capsule.
What utter, utter bollocks.
That is not the right comparison Sceptimatic. The space shuttle had a whole different purpose. It was used a freighter to carry large payloads into space. For other missions, for example to Mars or just to carry people up into space, it is actually a very clumsy spacescraft. The concept of a re-usable spacecraft is nice and would save costs, but sending such a large spacecraft up costs actually more than if they use an one-time usable rocket.
Also they are not going to go back to the technology used at that time, only the concept of an one time usable rocket. To give you some other examples. Your car is not much different from the first Model T Ford. Your car has, just like the Model T, 4 wheels, a steering wheel and an engine. The concept of your car did not change, but the technology did.
Boeing still uses the same design for their Boeing 737, which has been around since 1967. Only the technologies have changed. If you have a look at the fuselage, it is derived from the Boeing 707, which is already around since 1958.
A rocket with a re-entry capsule is not outdated. The soviets still use it to send persons up in space. It is in fact the cheapest way to send people up. The new NASA rockets wouldn't be like the Apollo capsules at all, only the concept of a re-entry capsule will. If you want to compare computers with the spacecrafts NASA had used Windows 1 (whatever), then switched to Macintosh because it operated better for the purposes they wanted to use it for. Now they switch back to Windows, but with all the new technologies that will be in fact Windows 30.
-
If you sat back and looked at the wider picture, you will see that no man made craft has ever been into space.
High altitude, yes. What they tell us is space...no.
OK, if it'll make life easier for us, then I'm willing to say that the ISS is about 230 miles high but not quite in space because there is still the tiniest traces of atmosphere left.
You don't move on from windows 95 all the way through to windows 7 to windows 30, then decide to revert back to using windows 95 again as an operating system, except for novelty value.
Well that's what they done with Apollo to shuttle and back to the old style rocket again with a re-entry capsule.
What utter, utter bollocks.
Funny that you should mention operating systems. If windows 30 is too expensive, too difficult and requires too many resources to use effectively, then maybe going back to windows 95 to get the job done quicker, cheaper and easier makes sense. After all, there are still a lot of businesses that refuse to give up on Windows XP because it's a lot cheaper, easier, more reliable and needs a lot fewer resources than Windows 8. Sometimes you it is, indeed, better to go back to the basics.
-
If that shuttle had never been operating for 30 years I would have no problem accepting your answer about going back to basics.
The truth is, you don't invent something like a shuttle with re-usable parts, including the actual payload carrier in the shuttle itself, then ditch it due to costs do you, as all you're losing is the large rusty foam coloured tank, whilst the rest just needs tweaking and cleaning up, allegedly.
Put yourself in an astronauts position.
That is the problem... it is not the astronaut's call.
Put yourself in the CEO position. The governments wants to reduce your annual budget. You have an oversized vehicle with great payload, but the payload capacity is not being used. It costs $500 million to get it ready for launch every time. Everytime you can send up 7 astronauts in all the comfort they could wish for.
Or you could use a disposable rocket which costs $40 million to launch and can carry 3 astronauts. The astronauts may not have the same comfort as on board the Space Shuttle, but it is not the astronaut who is paying for it, so you have the call.
Will you continue to spend $500 million to send 7 people up, or would you spend $150 million and send 9 people up? What shall it be mr CEO?
-
A tenner in modelling supplies.
-
If that shuttle had never been operating for 30 years I would have no problem accepting your answer about going back to basics.
The truth is, you don't invent something like a shuttle with re-usable parts, including the actual payload carrier in the shuttle itself, then ditch it due to costs do you, as all you're losing is the large rusty foam coloured tank, whilst the rest just needs tweaking and cleaning up, allegedly.
Put yourself in an astronauts position.
That is the problem... it is not the astronaut's call.
Put yourself in the CEO position. The governments wants to reduce your annual budget. You have an oversized vehicle with great payload, but the payload capacity is not being used. It costs $500 million to get it ready for launch every time. Everytime you can send up 7 astronauts in all the comfort they could wish for.
Or you could use a disposable rocket which costs $40 million to launch and can carry 3 astronauts. The astronauts may not have the same comfort as on board the Space Shuttle, but it is not the astronaut who is paying for it, so you have the call.
Will you continue to spend $500 million to send 7 people up, or would you spend $150 million and send 9 people up? What shall it be mr CEO?
40 million to launch and how much to build?
It does not say. It says it is the estimated launch price http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/soyuz_specs.shtml. (http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/soyuz_specs.shtml.)
I guess that would include the construction price as well, since it is only used once.
If you want to know how much it costs to build one space shuttle... 1.7 billion dollar (NASA website).
-
To those of you saying NASA is supposedly winning money by keeping most of the budget while using a fraction to do perfect CGI videos...
A top-grossing Hollywood movie with decent CGI (which you can still tell is CGI) costs about $200 million for a one and a half hour movie, on average.
NASA's yearly budget currently is about 18 billion dollars. This means they would have exact money for 135 hours of Hollywood quality CGI footage. Since they're supposedly using much higher tech CGI, this number would be less.
Now compare that to the actual hours of footage NASA produces a year. In reality, their yearly budget wouldn't account for a few percents of that footage! I suppose the rest of the cost is payed by some lizard people? How is this conspiracy theory still considered plausible?
-
To those of you saying NASA is supposedly winning money by keeping most of the budget while using a fraction to do perfect CGI videos...
A top-grossing Hollywood movie with decent CGI (which you can still tell is CGI) costs about $200 million for a one and a half hour movie, on average.
NASA's yearly budget currently is about 18 billion dollars. This means they would have exact money for 135 hours of Hollywood quality CGI footage. Since they're supposedly using much higher tech CGI, this number would be less.
Now compare that to the actual hours of footage NASA produces a year. In reality, their yearly budget wouldn't account for a few percents of that footage! I suppose the rest of the cost is payed by some lizard people? How is this conspiracy theory still considered plausible?
Go and factor in the wages of the film stars in those movies, as well as the other props, extras and what not, then re-evaluate the cost.
And NASA in this conspiracy doesn't have countless actors, employees, CGI artists, payment to all those who know to keep their mouth shut, and also countless Hollywood-quality props?
-
To those of you saying NASA is supposedly winning money by keeping most of the budget while using a fraction to do perfect CGI videos...
A top-grossing Hollywood movie with decent CGI (which you can still tell is CGI) costs about $200 million for a one and a half hour movie, on average.
NASA's yearly budget currently is about 18 billion dollars. This means they would have exact money for 135 hours of Hollywood quality CGI footage. Since they're supposedly using much higher tech CGI, this number would be less.
Now compare that to the actual hours of footage NASA produces a year. In reality, their yearly budget wouldn't account for a few percents of that footage! I suppose the rest of the cost is payed by some lizard people? How is this conspiracy theory still considered plausible?
Go and factor in the wages of the film stars in those movies, as well as the other props, extras and what not, then re-evaluate the cost.
And NASA in this conspiracy doesn't have countless actors, employees, CGI artists, payment to all those who know to keep their mouth shut, and also countless Hollywood-quality props?
The beauty about N.A.S.A props is, they can make sequel after sequel for as long as they want to, just with different F list actors and the odd prop thrown in every now and again.
Once the initial cost of the first film is made, it's a walk in the park.
And why would these actors be okay with lame salaries when they can basically fuck over NASA's conspiracy at any time... I think they'd demand at least as much as movie stars.
Also, there's a reason why, even during a single movie, multiple props are used for the same purpose (object in movie), it's because props aren't that reusable, they can get damaged.
-
Perks of being famous for something they know themselves is fake? That's a bad reason.
I'm sorry but I don't see why they would be okay with such low salaries for such a high-risk job. I mean, many times they have live performances, in which a single mistake on their part could cost NASA the whole conspiracy.
How much would you accept as payment to be a fake astronaut? Would 100000 a year really do it? And what cut in merchandise? The few hundred dollars NASA makes with gift shops?
-
Perks of being famous for something they know themselves is fake? That's a bad reason.
I'm sorry but I don't see why they would be okay with such low salaries for such a high-risk job. I mean, many times they have live performances, in which a single mistake on their part could cost NASA the whole conspiracy.
How much would you accept as payment to be a fake astronaut? Would 100000 a year really do it? And what cut in merchandise? The few hundred dollars NASA makes with gift shops?
The "astronauts" know that accidents and disaster can happen at anytime.
-
Perks of being famous for something they know themselves is fake? That's a bad reason.
I'm sorry but I don't see why they would be okay with such low salaries for such a high-risk job. I mean, many times they have live performances, in which a single mistake on their part could cost NASA the whole conspiracy.
How much would you accept as payment to be a fake astronaut? Would 100000 a year really do it? And what cut in merchandise? The few hundred dollars NASA makes with gift shops?
Politicians act every day, what's the difference here?
There's a reason why only a few so called astronauts are picked to fill us full of crap whilst the rest are simply in the background as paid extras.
No amount of money could make me bullshit the public like this. The problem is, there are many that would.
You can get most people to do anything for varying prices, it just depends how down on their luck they are .
A failed musician would no doubt disown his own family if the chance of fame came along again. It depends on the scruples of any individual and also many other factors, as in, how many are duped into doing something, only to find it's all a lie and now have little choice to follow it through or be ridiculed or worse.
If you think this stuff can't happen then fair enough...I don't share it.
It's not that it's impossible that people can be bought off, but that it's highly unlikely that you could get hundreds or thousands of people over the course of decades to all play along perfectly, and never blow the whistle.
Perks of being famous for something they know themselves is fake? That's a bad reason.
I'm sorry but I don't see why they would be okay with such low salaries for such a high-risk job. I mean, many times they have live performances, in which a single mistake on their part could cost NASA the whole conspiracy.
How much would you accept as payment to be a fake astronaut? Would 100000 a year really do it? And what cut in merchandise? The few hundred dollars NASA makes with gift shops?
The "astronauts" know that accidents and disaster can happen at anytime.
Even if you say people are threatened to keep silent if money is not enough, why would so many people get involved with that? And that would make it even more likely that they'd defect or tell all, especially toward the end of their lives. You'd think Neil (R.I.P.) or Buzz would have no problem squealing in their sunset years.
And if these people were such moral degenerates as to lie for money, why wouldn't they just sell their big tell-all story for even more money? Again, makes no sense.
-
No. I want to know how much to build the rockets that send up the cramped astroliars to the massive 3 football pitch sized supposed space station.
There looks a hell of a lot more to building those rockets than a gliding shuttle, so any idea of the cost of build?
They are called cosmonauts or astronauts. As said. $40 million dollar for a Soyuz.The Soyuz has a very low cost and is very reliable. From all spacecraft the Soyuz (its design) was used over 1700 times. More than any other spacecraft.
The rockets are relatively easy build. They are build near the launch pad. Shot up into space and they make another one. With the space shuttle it is much more clumsy. First they need to work on three different things. The Space Shuttle, the external tank and the two boosters. The boosters are reusable, but they will need to be refit and filled with fuel.
The space shuttle is launched, the boosters drop in the ocean and needed to be collected. The external tank burns up in the atmosphere and the space shuttle goes on to its mission. The Soyuz re-enters and they go collect the cosmonauts/astronauts and scrap the capsule. They can aim for the big plains of Kazachstan. Nothing to be worried about. The capsule will land itself, no need to be accurate. There are radio transmitters to locate its location and it is just a very simple and easy concept.
The space shuttle needs a lot of accuracy. Once it starts to re-enter the atmosphere there is no turning back. The weather at the landing site has to be perfect and if not the space shuttle would have to land at a different airfield somewhere else in the USA. This is all being looked upon before reentry, but takes lots more effort. Then when the shuttle comes in for a landing, everything has to go perfect. Pilots need excessive training in order to land the space shuttle. No need for that with the Soyuz.
If the space shuttle lands at a different airfield it will need to be flown on the back of a modified 747 to Cape Canaveral to be re-used again. It all takes much more planning and effort to get the space shuttle safely back to earth then it takes with the Soyuz.
Again, if you were a CEO, which of the two would you choose?
-
This is why searching the forum is a good thing.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58309.0.html#.UaA60ZycZI0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58309.0.html#.UaA60ZycZI0)
It certainly does help to do a thorough search: "Top 10 Reasons We Know The Earth is Round" Debunked? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58346.0.html)
-
Even if you say people are threatened to keep silent if money is not enough, why would so many people get involved with that?
Tens of thousands of people don't seem to have a problem getting secret clearances and keeping government secrets under the threat of their life and liberty if they commit treason. People with secret and top secret clearances for the Department of Defense aren't exactly being showered with lavish riches to keep their silence. Being paid a bit above average and living under constant threat is enough.
-
Tens of thousands of people don't seem to have a problem getting secret clearances and keeping government secrets under the threat of their life and liberty if they commit treason. People with secret and top secret clearances for the Department of Defense aren't exactly being showered with lavish riches to keep their silence. Being paid a bit above average and living under constant threat is enough.
Tom, a few things about government people keeping secrets. First of all, those people need to go through extensive background checks before being granted clearance. Secondly, once they do get the clearance, those secrets are still on a need to know basis. Thirdly, there is no extra pay (at least none that I know of) associated with high level clearance. Fourthly, the fact that there are leaks and double agents proves that the treat of treason isn't always an effective deterrent.
-
Tom, a few things about government people keeping secrets. First of all, those people need to go through extensive background checks before being granted clearance. Secondly, once they do get the clearance, those secrets are still on a need to know basis. Thirdly, there is no extra pay (at least none that I know of) associated with high level clearance. Fourthly, the fact that there are leaks and double agents proves that the treat of treason isn't always an effective deterrent.
If someone leaks nuclear secrets onto an internet website, those secrets aren't going to stay leaked on the internet for very long. The government will deal with such things instantly, sending out however many warrants it takes. Secrets may be transmitted from one party to another, but something like that will never be leaked to the public at large.
-
If someone leaks nuclear secrets onto an internet website, those secrets aren't going to stay leaked on the internet for very long. The government will deal with such things instantly, sending out however many warrants it takes. Secrets may be transmitted from one party to another, but something like that will never be leaked to the public at large.
Web sites aren't the only way for leaks to propagate. The decentralized nature of the internet, anonymous email accounts, IP address spoofing and the like can make leaks tough to track down, even for the government.
-
If someone leaks nuclear secrets onto an internet website, those secrets aren't going to stay leaked on the internet for very long. The government will deal with such things instantly, sending out however many warrants it takes. Secrets may be transmitted from one party to another, but something like that will never be leaked to the public at large.
Web sites aren't the only way for leaks to propagate. The decentralized nature of the internet, anonymous email accounts, IP address spoofing and the like can make leaks tough to track down, even for the government.
Like I said, leaks may be transmitted from one party to another, but something like that will never be leaked to the public at large. If someone leaked maps of all the secret US Nuclear Missile Silos around the US, it's not going to stay on the public internet for very long. Any ISP will take it down within minutes of a call from the government, even without a warrant, and probably even on their own volition, without needing a take down request at all.
Even overseas webhosts aren't going to host US Top Secret documents. The US Government controls the main top level domain registrars and can filter the main internet backbones, and raids on foreign data centers are not unheard of.
-
Tom,
Firstly, comparing government secrets (that are an issue of national security) to a global coverup like you think is happening, you will see they aren't really balanced. If a government employee throws government secrets out into the world, he stands to gain nothing, most likely a prison sentence or death.
But if a group of 4-5 astronauts, who have been in space, stand up and do media coverage of the NASA coverup, they don't risk prison, NASA can't just kill them after they've been exposed, and there's really no stopping the snowball effect, as more and more people hear and get involved in it.
Also, "within minutes" is an eternity on the internet. By that time, if it's a big thing, it'll have been copied to thousands of hard drives. Many government secrets have been leaked like this before. Most of them can't be perfectly contained once out.
Basically, it would take no time whatsoever for the astronauts to expose this NASA conspiracy if they wanted to, so either NASA gives them whatever the hell they ask, or, alternatively, there's no conspiracy, and that makes the most sense.
-
Yes, covering a thing like up this might've been possible in the days before the internet. But these days, I believe it's utterly impossible. If there was any conspiracy, it would've surfaced by now.
-
Like I said, information on the internet can't really be controlled like that. So it should be the case of employees being payed enough to shut their mouths. Which brings me back to the budget argument. Either NASA makes much more money than their budget, or the whole conspiracy isn't possible. I'm leaning toward the latter, of course.
If it had surfaced already, then it wouldn't be a conspiracy anymore, as everyone would know about it. You mean there are a few old, ambiguous references which can be interpreted as possible attempts to surface. That's not conclusive, though it may seem like it if you really want it to be true.
-
I don't expect to be told the truth either, but I also don't consider everything I know about anything as the absolute truth. There's some things I'm very informed in, and some things I just have an opinion about, and some things I can't even get information on.
For instance, talking conspiracies: I consider it entirely possible that 9/11 was somehow orchestrated by the US.
I don't know for sure, and I'm certain I'll never find out whether it's true or not, and I don't consider it to be the truth either, just a possibility. It doesn't really change anything to me anyway, whether it's true or not. I'm not a US citizen, this is their issue, I don't care.
My point is, if it's anything that by its nature doesn't provide enough information, you can never know for sure if it is true or not. You can only guess and theorize. And no matter how much I theorize, while I can consider the 9/11 conspiracy to be possible, I can't consider this NASA conspiracy to be possible. The information I have and my own brain processes just tell me that it doesn't work out.
PS: Videos being taken down don't matter on the internet. Like I said, a few minutes are an eternity there, and if the subject is controversial and it's an important subject (which this certainly qualifies as), the video gets copied and downloaded thousands of times before it's taken down. That means it can't be stopped anymore.
Of course, some random guy talking about the conspiracy doesn't get this attention, since there's nothing supporting he knows anything about it (and in fact, doesn't). But actual, known astronauts and other NASA employees doing the same thing is sure to be an instant attention magnet. Once such a video was posted, there would be no way to "take it down". It'd just pop back up again, and gain even more attention, instantly.
-
Point is, people are not asleep. They just use the information they get.
You can't say for certain something like this conspiracy is true, since you don't actually have information about it. You can analyze and theorycraft and have opinions and beliefs, but you can't be certain it's true. There's nothing telling you that.
And if you start all points of view with already being absolutely sure something like this is true, you will inevitably fall into a trap set by your own thoughts. If before analysis you assume you know something to be true, your brain will automatically ignore any evidence to the contrary, no matter how hard, and focus on anything that can be interpreted as supporting it. This is not a good thought process and can very easily lead to further misinformation and beliefs.
Again, I'm not saying any conspiracy theory is automatically false. I'm saying that by assuming it to be true, you can very easily fall into a downward spiral of thoughts that reinforce your belief in it being true and ignore anything else.
-
Tom,
Firstly, comparing government secrets (that are an issue of national security) to a global coverup like you think is happening, you will see they aren't really balanced. If a government employee throws government secrets out into the world, he stands to gain nothing, most likely a prison sentence or death.
But if a group of 4-5 astronauts, who have been in space, stand up and do media coverage of the NASA coverup, they don't risk prison, NASA can't just kill them after they've been exposed, and there's really no stopping the snowball effect, as more and more people hear and get involved in it.
Also, "within minutes" is an eternity on the internet. By that time, if it's a big thing, it'll have been copied to thousands of hard drives. Many government secrets have been leaked like this before. Most of them can't be perfectly contained once out.
Basically, it would take no time whatsoever for the astronauts to expose this NASA conspiracy if they wanted to, so either NASA gives them whatever the hell they ask, or, alternatively, there's no conspiracy, and that makes the most sense.
There appears to have been many people , astronauts included that have attempted to talk and leave cryptic clues etc.
They leave cryptic clues...? That is too far fetched. You are looking for things which aren't there. IMO, it fits the disorder I mentioned before.
-
They leave cryptic clues...? That is too far fetched. You are looking for things which aren't there. IMO, it fits the disorder I mentioned before.
Yeah, cryptic clues is very far-fetched. No sane person in that situation would try to leave cryptic clues. When your "enemy" is a powerful organization, it's much more likely they will decipher your clues way before any average person.
On the other hand, it's very easy to consider something a cryptic clue when in reality it isn't. The human brain sees patterns in everything.
-
When people see things that are blatant and defy the laws of physics as they know them, then I can only surmise 2 things.
1. They are so brainwashed that they will deny anything against official lines.
2. They are shills, who either know it's fake or are simply paid to simply deny anything without actually knowing what the real truth is.
That's just my opinion.
Alright. However, I don't see anything that defies the laws of physics as I know them, and I know them fairly well.
You seem to think I have been brainwashed. I seem to think you are a bit too low on that spiral I described earlier. It is obvious we will probably never get a resolution about this matter. I honestly hope neither of us is right, however. In the meantime, I will continue enjoying the conversations we have, I just feel this topic in particular is futile.
-
Before I make any view either way, I scrutinise stuff. I don't just dive straight in and say, " oh, I don;t need to see this, I know it's fake"...I actually do scrutinise things.
Judging from your posting history and your inability to grasp such fundamental concepts as Newton's laws of motion, I find your statement hard to believe.
-
Before I make any view either way, I scrutinise stuff. I don't just dive straight in and say, " oh, I don;t need to see this, I know it's fake"...I actually do scrutinise things.
Judging from your posting history and your inability to grasp such fundamental concepts as Newton's laws of motion, I find your statement hard to believe.
Believe what you like, it doesn't affect me either way.
Yes, we get that you seem to be impervious to learning anything new.
-
Before I make any view either way, I scrutinise stuff. I don't just dive straight in and say, " oh, I don;t need to see this, I know it's fake"...I actually do scrutinise things.
Judging from your posting history and your inability to grasp such fundamental concepts as Newton's laws of motion, I find your statement hard to believe.
Newton? He was a part of the conspiracy, wasn't he? :P
-
Before I make any view either way, I scrutinise stuff. I don't just dive straight in and say, " oh, I don;t need to see this, I know it's fake"...I actually do scrutinise things.
Judging from your posting history and your inability to grasp such fundamental concepts as Newton's laws of motion, I find your statement hard to believe.
Newton? He was a part of the conspiracy, wasn't he? :P
No. He was simply used as a name to further an agenda, just like many others have, in my opinion.
The history we are told is not the real history I don't think.
Our history is a great big fabrication.
Whether Newton drafted the equations or Gibson did, it doesn't change the fact that the equations work in the real world.
-
This man (I believe) has spent his entire life from 1969, a very troubled man. A man that actually had scruples and a conscience.
Neil Armstrong's Cryptic Speech (http://#)
So you get your information out of this 'cryptic' message. The fact he is sobbing and he said something similar like the young students "will remove thruth protective layers". You totally interpret that as that there is a conspiracy, but as he started. They did a job (going to the moon, making the baby steps) and now the young students are there to get it even further, to discover what else the universe has to offer. Back in the 60s they did not understand as much of the universe as we do today.
He was not onto something, he never questioned he went to the moon and if all these new students should be onto something that men like Neil Armstrong discovered about this conspiracy, how come the vast mayority is not bothered about it. Look at how small this community is which proclaim the earth is flat. Look how many times we have debunked the FEH and shown you the issues. If there was really thruth in your FEH, then more people would be onto it and you would have answers to the issues we have raised.
You may think you are doing a heroic act, but all you do is making up stories. It reminds me of a movie "A Beautiful Mind", a true story about a professor who suffered paranoid schizophrenia. After 25 years he finally discovered himself he was hallucinating three people who seemed to be all too real to him.
I am not a psychiatrist myself, but you already replied that either:
1. They are so brainwashed that they will deny anything against official lines.
2. They are shills, who either know it's fake or are simply paid to simply deny anything without actually knowing what the real truth is.
When I have a look at Paranoid personality disorder. It is described as: Individuals with this personality disorder may be hypersensitive, easily feel slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions that may validate their fears or biases
You made up two options for yourself to confirm your bias.
then I can only surmise 2 things.
You do not even consider the option
I am wrong, they are right.
-
This man (I believe) has spent his entire life from 1969, a very troubled man. A man that actually had scruples and a conscience.
Neil Armstrong's Cryptic Speech (http://#)
So you get your information out of this 'cryptic' message. The fact he is sobbing and he said something similar like the young students "will remove truth's protective layers".
It sounds like he is saying that the truth we know is false.
-
This man (I believe) has spent his entire life from 1969, a very troubled man. A man that actually had scruples and a conscience.
Neil Armstrong's Cryptic Speech (http://#)
So you get your information out of this 'cryptic' message. The fact he is sobbing and he said something similar like the young students "will remove truth's protective layers".
It sounds like he is saying that the truth we know is false.
Or he could be telling the students to be imaginative and creative in scientific endeavors. The greatest breakthroughs in science do not come from upholding a view in a protected bubble, but from testing the view and delving deeper. There are many interpretations and Neil Armstrong is likely the only person that will ever know what he meant.
-
You say, "look at how many flat earth believers there is"...I can say, go outside and look at how many earth worms are in your garden. Very few, yet underneath there are hundreds if not thousands in your area alone.
A lot of those worms know that once they pop their heads out of the ground, they are sitting ducks to be plucked away from it and devoured.
People are getting wiser to all the bull crap, that's why you have so many debunkers on patrol to make sure it doesn't reach any kind of level where their voices will be heard far and wide and heeded.
Debunkers are "on patrol" for the integrity of knowledge. Without debunkers there would be not stop claims of all sorts being passed off as 100% truth, like a picture of a unicorn out mermaid. Conspiracy theorists critically analyze the official evidence and debunkers critically analyze the conspiracy evidence.
-
You say, "look at how many flat earth believers there is"...I can say, go outside and look at how many earth worms are in your garden. Very few, yet underneath there are hundreds if not thousands in your area alone.
A lot of those worms know that once they pop their heads out of the ground, they are sitting ducks to be plucked away from it and devoured.
People are getting wiser to all the bull crap, that's why you have so many debunkers on patrol to make sure it doesn't reach any kind of level where their voices will be heard far and wide and heeded.
Debunkers are "on patrol" for the integrity of knowledge. Without debunkers there would be not stop claims of all sorts being passed off as 100% truth, like a picture of a unicorn out mermaid. Conspiracy theorists critically analyze the official evidence and debunkers critically analyze the conspiracy evidence.
Most people that want the truth, AKA, "conspiracy theorists" do so to allow people to gain real knowledge instead of the bullshit that's constantly fed to the masses.
Or to validate a preconceived notion or to alleviate a fear of a randomly chaotic universe that is not being controlled by someone oora group of people. There are several reasons for conspiracy theorists to promote their vviews, it is rarely out of pure concern for society.
-
The guilt displayed on his face. every time he's ever had to come out in public should tell anyone that is awake, as to what really went on.
He's basically telling students that they can make great discoveries but only if the truth comes out, instead of being hidden from them.
You don't make a statement like he did for it not to mean anything other than the truth is masked by the lies.
It is also very easy to see something that's not there, if you already think it's there beforehand.
-
The guilt displayed on his face. every time he's ever had to come out in public should tell anyone that is awake, as to what really went on.
He's basically telling students that they can make great discoveries but only if the truth comes out, instead of being hidden from them.
You don't make a statement like he did for it not to mean anything other than the truth is masked by the lies.
It is also very easy to see something that's not there, if you already think it's there beforehand.
It's also very easy to hum a song that someone has hummed all day long, because it sort of gets ingrained into your mind.
It's a bit like seeing a rotating round earth at every turn in life. You automatically see it and believe it.
Just like you'll hum the same tune of the professor that bashes his theories into your skull time and time again.
Like I said, see how this topic is pointless? You think I'm brainwashed because I don't see something while you clearly see it. I think I'm fine and you're seeing things that aren't there.
It is logical that with this predicament we cannot reach a conclusion regarding this topic.
-
Obviously, we can't physically prove any claim while debating on a forum.
-
This man (I believe) has spent his entire life from 1969, a very troubled man. A man that actually had scruples and a conscience.
Neil Armstrong's Cryptic Speech (http://#)
So you get your information out of this 'cryptic' message. The fact he is sobbing and he said something similar like the young students "will remove truth's protective layers".
It sounds like he is saying that the truth we know is false.
No, to me it means that we don't know yet the full thruth, but as we continue to investigate and discover more, we will learn more about the mysteries of the universe. We will peel off layers to get to a wider picture of the universe. We do not know yet why or how the universe started. We only know through our observations that at one point it must have been together in one point. We only know what it has been, based on our most current findings. Who knows what for example the scientists at CERN will find and what kind of layers they will peel off to get closer to the thruth.
Neil Armstrong was talking about these steps. They paved the way for next generations to discover more. The next generation does not have to re-invent the wheel to get started. They will base their discoveries on what previous scientists have found. Since no one is born with the knowledge we have schools which start at the very basic and show you that the very basics are right. Hence in physic and chemistry class many examples and real-life experiments. When I was in school we also did all kinds of tests to see for ourselves how it works. Sometimes these experiments go wrong and we see these kind of videos ;D
Science Teacher's Experiment Gone Wrong! (http://#ws)
-
Obviously, we can't physically prove any claim while debating on a forum.
Nor can we physically prove it if we were face to face, with any definitive proof that would be accepted as that.
Of course, we could just go outside and start making our own observations of the world we live in, independent of the media or anything else we have been told. If the observations are made with care, and assessed without bias*, the truth of the matter will become clear.
* When I say "assessed without bias", I mean that, when you look at something, you don't ask yourself "what does this tell me about a flat earth", or "what does this tell me about a round earth". I mean, ask yourself "what does this tell me about earth?" I have done this myself, and everything I have seen tells me that, although the earth looks flat when I am standing on the ground, it can't be, because there are just too many things that only work if it is round.
-
Obviously, we can't physically prove any claim while debating on a forum.
Nor can we physically prove it if we were face to face, with any definitive proof that would be accepted as that.
You can conduct experiments and make direct observations, and since it's face-to-face, nobody can say the other party is making things up, since you can see them too. It would, however, take a long time.
-
Obviously, we can't physically prove any claim while debating on a forum.
Nor can we physically prove it if we were face to face, with any definitive proof that would be accepted as that.
You can conduct experiments and make direct observations, and since it's face-to-face, nobody can say the other party is making things up, since you can see them too. It would, however, take a long time.
And probably end up with both parties throttling each other unless they both saw it all the same way. ;D
I don't know, I usually keep calm. If I get angry for something, I usually just turn to sarcasm.
It's also much easier to explain things face to face.
-
Obviously, we can't physically prove any claim while debating on a forum.
Nor can we physically prove it if we were face to face, with any definitive proof that would be accepted as that.
You can conduct experiments and make direct observations, and since it's face-to-face, nobody can say the other party is making things up, since you can see them too. It would, however, take a long time.
And probably end up with both parties throttling each other unless they both saw it all the same way. ;D
We have seen what comes from this, hurt feelings, death threats, lawsuits, and slander. Check the Wallace stuff.
-
Like I said, leaks may be transmitted from one party to another, but something like that will never be leaked to the public at large. If someone leaked maps of all the secret US Nuclear Missile Silos around the US, it's not going to stay on the public internet for very long. Any ISP will take it down within minutes of a call from the government, even without a warrant, and probably even on their own volition, without needing a take down request at all.
Even overseas webhosts aren't going to host US Top Secret documents. The US Government controls the main top level domain registrars and can filter the main internet backbones, and raids on foreign data centers are not unheard of.
I don't think you understand how the internet works. "Filter the main internet backbones"? What are you talking about? The State Dept should have used it's awesome-delete-o-tron machine to delete the Wikileaks from the internet. Why didn't they just filter the main internet backbones with ISP-sniffing router block deleters and hyper-machine link eraser code? Wouldn't the ISPs have just erased that information from the internet after getting a call from the government? I mean, they can just hit the 'erase that from the internet' button, right?
Anyone with direct evidence of the conspiracy could virtually instantly distribute that information globally and publicly at virtually no risk to herself. Take ten minutes to email it to every journalist for whom you can find an address. You could then take another five minutes and email it to politicians, academics, police officers, foreign governments, torrent sites, blogs, facebook, twitter, the local weather person, the GAO, the FBI, John Boehner, Tom Brady, whoever else. That would take you no time at all, and you could do it totally anonymously.
-
Of course, we could just go outside and start making our own observations of the world we live in, independent of the media or anything else we have been told. If the observations are made with care, and assessed without bias*, the truth of the matter will become clear.
* When I say "assessed without bias", I mean that, when you look at something, you don't ask yourself "what does this tell me about a flat earth", or "what does this tell me about a round earth". I mean, ask yourself "what does this tell me about earth?" I have done this myself, and everything I have seen tells me that, although the earth looks flat when I am standing on the ground, it can't be, because there are just too many things that only work if it is round.
Agreed.
But when scepti with his superior logic sees the sun fall below the horizon, he can only conclude that the sun never falls below the Earth but is moving away from him at a constant height above a flat Earth into the distance.
It's obvious examples like this that show without a shadow of a doubt that he isn't basing his conclusions on what he thinks he's seeing, but rather skewing his interpretations of the results to work with a flat Earth.
-
I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way to be fair.
How could I see it any other way? The sun falls into the horizon, not into the distance.
-
It appear to fall into the horizon but it doesn't actually do that.
But when scepti with his superior logic sees the sun fall below the horizon, he can only conclude that the sun never falls below the Earth but is moving away from him at a constant height above a flat Earth into the distance.
It's obvious examples like this that show without a shadow of a doubt that he isn't basing his conclusions on what he thinks he's seeing, but rather skewing his interpretations of the results to work with a flat Earth.
Exactly.
-
I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way to be fair.
How could I see it any other way? The sun falls into the horizon, not into the distance.
It appear to fall into the horizon but it doesn't actually do that.
They're quite the bullies but the question is fair. If you base your conclusions on what your eyes see, then how can you claim the Sun does one thing when your eyes see another?
-
I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way to be fair.
How could I see it any other way? The sun falls into the horizon, not into the distance.
It appear to fall into the horizon but it doesn't actually do that.
They're quite the bullies but the question is fair. If you base your conclusions on what your eyes see, then how can you claim the Sun does one thing when your eyes see another?
What do you mean?
The basic point is: You value observational evidence above everything else. You believe what you see. Then you say the Sun can be seen going below the horizon, but it's just an illusion because it's actually not.
How did you come by this information that the Sun doesn't actually go below the horizon? Because by observation you would say it does. I believe you came by this information seeing it written somewhere in a FET book. Which is a way of getting information that yourself told me is not right.
-
They're quite the bullies but the question is fair. If you base your conclusions on what your eyes see, then how can you claim the Sun does one thing when your eyes see another?
What do you mean?
He means you're a hypocrite :P
-
I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way to be fair.
How could I see it any other way? The sun falls into the horizon, not into the distance.
It appear to fall into the horizon but it doesn't actually do that.
They're quite the bullies but the question is fair. If you base your conclusions on what your eyes see, then how can you claim the Sun does one thing when your eyes see another?
What do you mean?
The basic point is: You value observational evidence above everything else. You believe what you see. Then you say the Sun can be seen going below the horizon, but it's just an illusion because it's actually not.
How did you come by this information that the Sun doesn't actually go below the horizon? Because by observation you would say it does. I believe you came by this information seeing it written somewhere in a FET book. Which is a way of getting information that yourself told me is not right.
I didn't say it does. I said, to you, it might appear to go below but it's not. I didn't say, to me.
But, I believe we do see the same image when we look at the sunset, don't we?
If it were a spotlight going far away and near the horizon, I'd expect it to flatten out before touching it, but it doesn't, it's still a pretty neat circular shape. Does it turn towards us as it goes further? But that's not possible, it'd mean it's turning away from whatever is to the east of it, upsetting the whole day/night cycle.
-
I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way to be fair.
How could I see it any other way? The sun falls into the horizon, not into the distance.
It appear to fall into the horizon but it doesn't actually do that.
They're quite the bullies but the question is fair. If you base your conclusions on what your eyes see, then how can you claim the Sun does one thing when your eyes see another?
What do you mean?
The basic point is: You value observational evidence above everything else. You believe what you see. Then you say the Sun can be seen going below the horizon, but it's just an illusion because it's actually not.
How did you come by this information that the Sun doesn't actually go below the horizon? Because by observation you would say it does. I believe you came by this information seeing it written somewhere in a FET book. Which is a way of getting information that yourself told me is not right.
I didn't say it does. I said, to you, it might appear to go below but it's not. I didn't say, to me.
But, I believe we do see the same image when we look at the sunset, don't we?
If it were a spotlight going far away and near the horizon, I'd expect it to flatten out before touching it, but it doesn't, it's still a pretty neat circular shape. Does it turn towards us as it goes further? But that's not possible, it'd mean it's turning away from whatever is to the east of it, upsetting the whole day/night cycle.
The sheer size of it can warp your sense of reality.
No it can't. 30 miles? Not a lot. When you see a big city from an airplane below, it still gets smaller as you move further, and it flattens in my point of view as the angle I'm viewing it at increases.
A big city can be 20-30 miles wide with suburbs and all. Why doesn't it present similar magic mind-warping capabilities? Well, because your eyes don't work like that. A small coin held at arms length is just as large to your eyes as the Sun, and your eyes don't work any different on the two. As far as your eyes are concerned, the Sun may as well be a shiny coin held at arms length.
-
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/3504/perspectivey.png (http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/3504/perspectivey.png)
Here you go, Scepti. On the left is what you see a city doing as you move away on an airplane. On the right is what you DON'T see the Sun doing as it moves away from you high above.
-
Here is a much clearer example of what I'm talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=h1mAx0jAYSs&NR=1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=h1mAx0jAYSs&NR=1)
Scepti, the Sun doesn't change size in these videos. What happens is that its brightness increases, saturating the camera and creating a larger and larger spot of saturation around itself. The actual size of the Sun's disk doesn't change, it stays as small as it is in the beginning.
You can see this by using a solar filter when filming, making nothing but the actual disk of the Sun visible, and then you can see it doesn't grow in size.
They get that perception because they have been brainwashed into believing in a global earth.
Being brainwashed doesn't change the way your eyes work, nor the way perspective works for them. Every human with a functional pair of eyes sees the same sunrise and sunset.
-
Okay, but this effect I'm talking about, the Sun not shrinking and flattening out at the horizon... If this effect isn't explained by FET, then sunrise just doesn't work in FET. There may be some explanation to it (though I haven't seen it and can't think of any), but at least you do understand that it's a problem?
-
Okay, but this effect I'm talking about, the Sun not shrinking and flattening out at the horizon... If this effect isn't explained by FET, then sunrise just doesn't work in FET. There may be some explanation to it (though I haven't seen it and can't think of any), but at least you do understand that it's a problem?
I haven't fully explained it all in it's entirety and it is hard to explain to actually gain a full on idea but I'll try.
You know when I said that the sun comes "at you" from height rather than people seeing it as a sun rise. Well it's not exactly that, it just appears like that at first but the reality is, it's coming in and circling at the same time but isn't quite observed as that and because it appears larger due to the light emitted , it's not actually that. as you know.
Because it circles, we see it as it comes around or as we see it getting high in the sky type of thing.
It's hard to explain but it's our perception of it that can sway the thinking of what it's really doing.
If it's circling then the sunrise makes even less sense because the Sun should be a considerable distance north of its sunrise location.
-
I know what you mean by circling effect, Scepti, though its path looks the same with a round Earth (well, that's because the current FET model of the Sun was built upon the regular round Earth, to try to explain why it behaves exactly as it does if the Earth was round).
What I mean is, with everything we know, the sunrise itself should not look like that in the FET model, and the FET model does nothing to explain why.
-
A better idea of the circling effect.
(http://)
The circling effect of that video is an illusion created by a rotating camera. If the camera were to have moved in a vertical 180 degree arc it wouldn't have shown that effect.
-
A better idea of the circling effect.
(http://)
The circling effect of that video is an illusion created by a rotating camera. If the camera were to have moved in a vertical 180 degree arc it wouldn't have shown that effect.
I'm just giving you a basic idea of what I was trying to say that's all.
The concept is well understood. We what you're trying to tell us. We are telling you that the concept does not fit reality and observations.
-
A better idea of the circling effect.
(http://)
The circling effect of that video is an illusion created by a rotating camera. If the camera were to have moved in a vertical 180 degree arc it wouldn't have shown that effect.
I'm just giving you a basic idea of what I was trying to say that's all.
The concept is well understood. We what you're trying to tell us. We are telling you that the concept does not fit reality and observations.
I fail to see how.
It's like talking to a brick wall with you sometimes. Go back and read the last few posts on this thread and the heliocentric thread, it's all spelled out there.
-
Scepti, I live in Australia, so for me the sun would always rise and set a very long way north of east and west if it were circling above a planar earth. The simple fact is, in November, December, January and February, it rises and sets a significant distance to the south of east and west. This alone breaks the flat earth model, rendering it useless.
-
Scepti. Here is a video of a sunset with a filter. Look from 0:44 onwards. Does the sun shrink in size as it goes down?
(http://)
-
Scepti. Here is a video of a sunset with a filter. Look from 0:44 onwards. Does the sun shrink in size as it goes down?
(http://)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)
-
Scepti. Here is a video of a sunset with a filter. Look from 0:44 onwards. Does the sun shrink in size as it goes down?
(http://)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)
That explains the light, but not the object itself. Lol posted a filtered video showing the Sun, without the solar glare caused by the light it emits. That link even specifies the luminous aura of the light is larger, especially when the air is moist.
-
Scepti. Here is a video of a sunset with a filter. Look from 0:44 onwards. Does the sun shrink in size as it goes down?
(http://)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)
That explains the light, but not the object itself. Lol posted a video of a filtered video showing the Sun, without the solar glare caused by the light it emits. That link even specifies the luminous aura of the light is larger, especially when the air is moist.
Yes, thank you. It is not the light, it is the object, the sun itself that does not shrink
Here is another one
of a sunrise this time...does the sun become larger as it rises? Have a look at 1:10 and 2:10. No difference. (http://)
-
I know what you're saying but remember, the sun isn't always coming in straight at a person. It's circling remember.
I don't profess to know it all but I know it does not rise like people say it does.
They get that perception because they have been brainwashed into believing in a global earth.
Nonsense. You don't even get the perception that it's coming in from a distance, you see the same thing as the rest of us, but you're so deeply engrossed in the idea that mainstream science has to be wrong that you can't abandon a broken FET and everything that you observe has to fit into the model.
Some scientists can work on something for their entire lives and after all of it, it's proven that they were working on a wrong theory. Even if the scientist doesn't want to believe it, it's the peer review and research into other related theories that knocks it off the cliff. No way in hell would FET make it through peer review on this one anomaly alone, and that's not because everyone believes the Earth is round and won't even consider your theory, it's because it very clearly doesn't work.
-
Some scientists can work on something for their "entire" lives and get it "wrong."
I want you to remember this.
The reason why, is because you are 100% wrong about how you believe the sun operates. That's just my opinion of course.
I've told you many times already that I'm not considering how I believe the sun operates, I'm merely commenting on my observations which you've always endorsed. Well, I observe the sun to fall into the horizon, and now you're turning the tables on everything you've stood for by saying that "it may appear to look like it's falling into the horizon, but it doesn't work that way".
If there was ever a more accurate representation of what a hypocrite is, I haven't seen it.
-
Some scientists can work on something for their "entire" lives and get it "wrong."
I want you to remember this.
The reason why, is because you are 100% wrong about how you believe the sun operates. That's just my opinion of course.
I've told you many times already that I'm not considering how I believe the sun operates, I'm merely commenting on my observations which you've always endorsed. Well, I observe the sun to fall into the horizon, and now you're turning the tables on everything you've stood for by saying that "it may appear to look like it's falling into the horizon, but it doesn't work that way".
If there was ever a more accurate representation of what a hypocrite is, I haven't seen it.
Don't twist things. I said it may appear to fall into the horizon to "you" but it's not.
Twisting things isn't going to get you any further forward.
But... you said yourself that it looks like it falls into the horizon, to all of us. We all see the same thing when we look at it.
If not, what does it look like to you? I'm not asking what you think is happening, just what it looks like when you observe it.
-
Some scientists can work on something for their "entire" lives and get it "wrong."
I want you to remember this.
The reason why, is because you are 100% wrong about how you believe the sun operates. That's just my opinion of course.
I've told you many times already that I'm not considering how I believe the sun operates, I'm merely commenting on my observations which you've always endorsed. Well, I observe the sun to fall into the horizon, and now you're turning the tables on everything you've stood for by saying that "it may appear to look like it's falling into the horizon, but it doesn't work that way".
If there was ever a more accurate representation of what a hypocrite is, I haven't seen it.
Don't twist things. I said it may appear to fall into the horizon to "you" but it's not.
Twisting things isn't going to get you any further forward.
And I still stand by my position that you're only saying that you see something different to what the rest of us are seeing because you cannot simultaneously hold that stance and believe in FET. And how many times have you told us to critically analyze a scenario without any round Earth bias? Well now you're using flat Earth bias.
-
To me, it looks like FET predicts that it is coming in from distance
or shall I say, we see it appear through the dense air coming towards the horizon that we see and as it starts moving along it circle we see it start to appear fully and appear to get higher, yet all it is doing is coming into clearer view as it carries on in it's circular motion.
I'll try and make a diagram to show you exactly what I'm saying, just not yet. Give me a few hours.
I understand exactly what you're saying only because I can imagine what the sun must do if the Earth were flat. The thing is though, the sun doesn't do anything close to what it should do on a flat Earth.
Have you ever seen an aeroplane approach from the distance? The sun's change in shape would be pretty much like that. It would begin small (and still visible above the horizon) and get larger and larger as it approached you.
Of course, you disagree with this because that isn't what we observe to happen, and so you've created your own little fairy tale in your head about how what you see happening is what it would look like on a flat Earth.
-
I'm using flat earth truth, because the earth is basically flat or shall I say the floor of the known universe.
It's full of lumps and bumps and dents and such but it's effectively an infinite floor.
It's like walking through a large building and seeing massive floor space then hitting a wall and finding the door through that wall and finding another large space and so on and so on until you simply get sick of opening the doors to the next huge space, which happens in any direction you go.
There's your earth. It's a big infinite office building floor space with closed doors all around, which only opening them can reveal what's on the other side...let's call these doors, "ice doors."
All too often you stop a conversation dead in its tracks to give your little unrelated speech that no one asked for about what you believe the Earth is like.
Honestly, you must either be trolling or there might be something a little wrong with you.
-
Where are the stars Scepti, are they in essentially a flat ceiling above the earth carpet?
-
I certainly cannot blame you for thinking I'm talking fairy tales, because that's exactly what I believe round earth believers are actually doing.
What a person observes to happen is dependant on how conditioned that person is in whatever view is taken to be fair.
So everyone here is conditioned to believe that the Earth looks like it's falling into the horizon and not moving off into the distance? I think it's a little too late to bring you back to reality.
-
I'm using flat earth truth, because the earth is basically flat or shall I say the floor of the known universe.
It's full of lumps and bumps and dents and such but it's effectively an infinite floor.
It's like walking through a large building and seeing massive floor space then hitting a wall and finding the door through that wall and finding another large space and so on and so on until you simply get sick of opening the doors to the next huge space, which happens in any direction you go.
There's your earth. It's a big infinite office building floor space with closed doors all around, which only opening them can reveal what's on the other side...let's call these doors, "ice doors."
All too often you stop a conversation dead in its tracks to give your little unrelated speech that no one asked for about what you believe the Earth is like.
Honestly, you must either be trolling or there might be something a little wrong with you.
You're quite entitled to think what you want, I'm easy with whatever you choose but I must warn you, it will do nothing to enhance your stance on what you are trying to achieve.
Maybe a psychology degree could be up your street. Have a think about it.
I have no interest to "enhance my stance" when you clearly showed that you have no interest in continuing the conversation by changing the topic to your little office building Earth story.
-
You've just made me think about another point where the sun we observe does not behave like an FE sun should: change of angular position during the day.
Okay, to keep it simple, we'll take a 12 hour day (an equinox) at the equator, where the sun does near enough to a 180° arc overhead. That's 15° per hour which, if you go out and observe the sun for one day, you can easily confirm. (This can easily be confirmed away from the equator too, just incline your angle measuring device to suit your latitude)
The problem with the FE sun model is that, if the sun moves the way they say it does, it would appear to move far more slowly in the morning and afternoon, and very quickly around midday. Similar to the effect you get when a plane flies overhead.
-
You've just made me think about another point where the sun we observe does not behave like an FE sun should: change of angular position during the day.
Okay, to keep it simple, we'll take a 12 hour day (an equinox) at the equator, where the sun does near enough to a 180° arc overhead. That's 15° per hour which, if you go out and observe the sun for one day, you can easily confirm. (This can easily be confirmed away from the equator too, just incline your angle measuring device to suit your latitude)
The problem with the FE sun model is that, if the sun moves the way they say it does, it would appear to move far more slowly in the morning and afternoon, and very quickly around midday. Similar to the effect you get when a plane flies overhead.
At other times of the year you should see the sun experience retrograde motion too.
-
Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.
There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.
-
Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.
Sorry, haven't got around to uploading images of my own yet, but as Puttah said, you can just go outside and see it for yourself.
-
Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.
There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.
We observe what we observe. What does this prove?
If what you observe doesn't match what your model predicts then one is wrong, usually your model but occasionally what you observe. The observed motion of the sun doesn't match what the FE models predict so one is wrong this is where the bendy light theory comes from.
-
Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.
There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.
We observe what we observe. What does this prove?
If what you observe doesn't match what your model predicts then one is wrong, usually your model but occasionally what you observe. The observed motion of the sun doesn't match what the FE models predict so one is wrong this is where the bendy light theory comes from.
If we can have a "tilted" earth for some inexplicable reason as to why it should do this, then all theories are open in truth aren't they.
I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this statement as I have no idea what it has to do with trying to tie observed data with a flat earth model.
-
Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.
There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.
We observe what we observe. What does this prove?
If what you observe doesn't match what your model predicts then one is wrong, usually your model but occasionally what you observe. The observed motion of the sun doesn't match what the FE models predict so one is wrong this is where the bendy light theory comes from.
If we can have a "tilted" earth for some inexplicable reason as to why it should do this, then all theories are open in truth aren't they.
I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this statement as I have no idea what it has to do with trying to tie observed data with a flat earth model.
You are going on about the sun and bendy light not being a reason and yet you can have a tilted earth to explain your seasons etc.
Do you see where I'm coming from here?
Just because you think someone else's explanation is wrong doesn't make your explanation right.
We're not talking about the seasons here, we're just talking about the observed motion and size of the sun during a day, if you use the FE models to predict where the sun is then at any time except around noon your predictions will be wildly inaccurate when compared with actual observation.
You may not like the RE model but it accurately predicts where the sun will be.
-
Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.
There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.
We observe what we observe. What does this prove?
If what you observe doesn't match what your model predicts then one is wrong, usually your model but occasionally what you observe. The observed motion of the sun doesn't match what the FE models predict so one is wrong this is where the bendy light theory comes from.
If we can have a "tilted" earth for some inexplicable reason as to why it should do this, then all theories are open in truth aren't they.
I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this statement as I have no idea what it has to do with trying to tie observed data with a flat earth model.
You are going on about the sun and bendy light not being a reason and yet you can have a tilted earth to explain your seasons etc.
Do you see where I'm coming from here?
Just because you think someone else's explanation is wrong doesn't make your explanation right.
We're not talking about the seasons here, we're just talking about the observed motion and size of the sun during a day, if you use the FE models to predict where the sun is then at any time except around noon your predictions will be wildly inaccurate when compared with actual observation.
You may not like the RE model but it accurately predicts where the sun will be.
It only accurately predicts where the sun will be, because of the way in which they have the earth set up, as in tilted, bulging with a hint of wobble and a big 93 million mile 1000,000 plus km wide ball of nuclear fusion sitting smack bang in the middle and all merrily going around it.
Of course observations are going to match.
So let me clarify, as far as you're concerned observational data matches the predictions made by the RE model.
Now try the same with a FE model.
-
Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.
There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.
We observe what we observe. What does this prove?
If what you observe doesn't match what your model predicts then one is wrong, usually your model but occasionally what you observe. The observed motion of the sun doesn't match what the FE models predict so one is wrong this is where the bendy light theory comes from.
If we can have a "tilted" earth for some inexplicable reason as to why it should do this, then all theories are open in truth aren't they.
I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this statement as I have no idea what it has to do with trying to tie observed data with a flat earth model.
You are going on about the sun and bendy light not being a reason and yet you can have a tilted earth to explain your seasons etc.
Do you see where I'm coming from here?
Just because you think someone else's explanation is wrong doesn't make your explanation right.
We're not talking about the seasons here, we're just talking about the observed motion and size of the sun during a day, if you use the FE models to predict where the sun is then at any time except around noon your predictions will be wildly inaccurate when compared with actual observation.
You may not like the RE model but it accurately predicts where the sun will be.
It only accurately predicts where the sun will be, because of the way in which they have the earth set up, as in tilted, bulging with a hint of wobble and a big 93 million mile 1000,000 plus km wide ball of nuclear fusion sitting smack bang in the middle and all merrily going around it.
Of course observations are going to match.
So are you trying to say that the observations match the model because the model was created based on the observations?
-
So how is the observed data being manipulated to match a round earth. Afterall you can go online, use a round earth model to predict when and where the sun will rise, where it will be at any specific time and then when and where it will set. You can then verify this yourself anytime you want, well almost anytime it's a bit grey in the UK at the moment. ;D
-
The flat earth model needs more work but it's the logical choice
lol
and very few people have worked on this theory, unlike the many that's made a round earth fit when things didn't work. Cue , Einstein and the rest of the motley crew.
You don't even know what Einstein did. The anomaly in gravitation was off by small percentages (which can't be ignored), while things like FET and the sun are off by huge margins, which you're happy to explain away with "it looks like that but isn't really blah blah".
-
Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.
There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.
We observe what we observe. What does this prove?
If what you observe doesn't match what your model predicts then one is wrong, usually your model but occasionally what you observe. The observed motion of the sun doesn't match what the FE models predict so one is wrong this is where the bendy light theory comes from.
If we can have a "tilted" earth for some inexplicable reason as to why it should do this, then all theories are open in truth aren't they.
I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this statement as I have no idea what it has to do with trying to tie observed data with a flat earth model.
You are going on about the sun and bendy light not being a reason and yet you can have a tilted earth to explain your seasons etc.
Do you see where I'm coming from here?
Just because you think someone else's explanation is wrong doesn't make your explanation right.
We're not talking about the seasons here, we're just talking about the observed motion and size of the sun during a day, if you use the FE models to predict where the sun is then at any time except around noon your predictions will be wildly inaccurate when compared with actual observation.
You may not like the RE model but it accurately predicts where the sun will be.
It only accurately predicts where the sun will be, because of the way in which they have the earth set up, as in tilted, bulging with a hint of wobble and a big 93 million mile 1000,000 plus km wide ball of nuclear fusion sitting smack bang in the middle and all merrily going around it.
Of course observations are going to match.
So are you trying to say that the observations match the model because the model was created based on the observations?
The round earth model was created based on lies, lies and more lies.
Name one "lie" that you have actually experimentally proven to be a lie and I'll start to believe you. "It's crap because the Earth is flat" doesn't cut it.
-
I can't prove it that will make you or others like you accept and you know this, so just accept from me, that your model is based on lies and fabrication and although it won't cut it for you...the earth is flat, 100% certain.
It's just the finer points needed to iron out how it all fully works in it's entirety, which we may never fully find out, yet it appears your round earth is all done and dusted until the shit hits the fan and some discrepancy comes to light, which will then be accounted for by some other fabricated crap.
Okay, I just wanted to clarify that your statement that it is all lies is based solely on your belief that the Earth is flat, so the science has to be filled with lies it else that view can be dispelled fairly quickly.
-
I can't prove it that will make you or others like you accept and you know this, so just accept from me, that your model is based on lies and fabrication and although it won't cut it for you...the earth is flat, 100% certain.
It's just the finer points needed to iron out how it all fully works in it's entirety, which we may never fully find out, yet it appears your round earth is all done and dusted until the shit hits the fan and some discrepancy comes to light, which will then be accounted for by some other fabricated crap.
Okay, I just wanted to clarify that your statement that it is all lies is based solely on your belief that the Earth is flat, so the science has to be filled with lies it else that view can be dispelled fairly quickly.
Incorrect.
My statement that the rotating globe is a lie is based on the fictional means that are made for it to work. One of which is air to solid rotation of which has been discussed to death but that is just one small part of a larger lie and has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief in a flat earth.
So tell us again how all the data about the suns movements has been manipulated to fit a round earth when you can go out and collect your own data and it will match with the RE model?
-
I can't prove it that will make you or others like you accept and you know this, so just accept from me, that your model is based on lies and fabrication and although it won't cut it for you...the earth is flat, 100% certain.
It's just the finer points needed to iron out how it all fully works in it's entirety, which we may never fully find out, yet it appears your round earth is all done and dusted until the shit hits the fan and some discrepancy comes to light, which will then be accounted for by some other fabricated crap.
Okay, I just wanted to clarify that your statement that it is all lies is based solely on your belief that the Earth is flat, so the science has to be filled with lies it else that view can be dispelled fairly quickly.
Incorrect.
My statement that the rotating globe is a lie is based on the fictional means that are made for it to work. One of which is air to solid rotation of which has been discussed to death but that is just one small part of a larger lie and has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief in a flat earth.
So tell us again how all the data about the suns movements has been manipulated to fit a round earth when you can go out and collect your own data and it will match with the RE model?
Of course it will match the round earth model, because it's been made to match. That's what I've been saying.
They even had to rotate the moon the opposite way to make it all fit.
Do you even realise what you're typing anymore?
What has been made to match? The model to the data or the data to the model?
What you're actually saying at the moment is "of course observations match the model, the model was made to match them"
-
I can't prove it that will make you or others like you accept and you know this, so just accept from me, that your model is based on lies and fabrication and although it won't cut it for you...the earth is flat, 100% certain.
It's just the finer points needed to iron out how it all fully works in it's entirety, which we may never fully find out, yet it appears your round earth is all done and dusted until the shit hits the fan and some discrepancy comes to light, which will then be accounted for by some other fabricated crap.
Okay, I just wanted to clarify that your statement that it is all lies is based solely on your belief that the Earth is flat, so the science has to be filled with lies it else that view can be dispelled fairly quickly.
Incorrect.
My statement that the rotating globe is a lie is based on the fictional means that are made for it to work. One of which is air to solid rotation of which has been discussed to death but that is just one small part of a larger lie and has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief in a flat earth.
So tell us again how all the data about the suns movements has been manipulated to fit a round earth when you can go out and collect your own data and it will match with the RE model?
Of course it will match the round earth model, because it's been made to match. That's what I've been saying.
They even had to rotate the moon the opposite way to make it all fit.
Do you even realise what you're typing anymore?
What has been made to match? The model to the data or the data to the model?
What you're actually saying at the moment is "of course observations match the model, the model was made to match them"
The model has been set out to match what people see. Oh hang on...ok I'll change this, I realise I have to be careful in what I type.
The model has been set out to dupe the person into believing that what they see is due to the earth's rotation.
So where people seeing this before RE was pushed and the model of RE was pushed to match these observations so people would start to believe in a RE?
-
I can't prove it that will make you or others like you accept and you know this, so just accept from me, that your model is based on lies and fabrication and although it won't cut it for you...the earth is flat, 100% certain.
It's just the finer points needed to iron out how it all fully works in it's entirety, which we may never fully find out, yet it appears your round earth is all done and dusted until the shit hits the fan and some discrepancy comes to light, which will then be accounted for by some other fabricated crap.
Okay, I just wanted to clarify that your statement that it is all lies is based solely on your belief that the Earth is flat, so the science has to be filled with lies it else that view can be dispelled fairly quickly.
Incorrect.
My statement that the rotating globe is a lie is based on the fictional means that are made for it to work. One of which is air to solid rotation of which has been discussed to death but that is just one small part of a larger lie and has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief in a flat earth.
So tell us again how all the data about the suns movements has been manipulated to fit a round earth when you can go out and collect your own data and it will match with the RE model?
Of course it will match the round earth model, because it's been made to match. That's what I've been saying.
They even had to rotate the moon the opposite way to make it all fit.
Do you even realise what you're typing anymore?
What has been made to match? The model to the data or the data to the model?
What you're actually saying at the moment is "of course observations match the model, the model was made to match them"
The model has been set out to match what people see. Oh hang on...ok I'll change this, I realise I have to be careful in what I type.
The model has been set out to dupe the person into believing that what they see is due to the earth's rotation.
I'm not trying to trip you up here just trying to get a grip of where you think the problem is.
Would you agree that the data related to where and when you see the sun rise, where it's zenith is and where and when it sets is reliable and testable? At least in your experience.
-
First of all let me start by saying you guys need to learn what quoting is for and the forum rules for quoting.
And sceptic is being intellectually dishonest. I showed him months ago in kiddy terms (because that's how he likes it) exactly how a circling sun does not match observations. He knows very well that the current model is not the most logical.
-
The model has been set out to match what people see.
So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? ???
-
The roatating sun model doesn't work. The areas that are in the spotlight during the winter requires the sun to be circling outside the rim. If you combine that with tfes excuse for sun sets then we wouldn't even see the sun in the winter!
These issues have never been addressed.
-
Scepti. Here is a video of a sunset with a filter. Look from 0:44 onwards. Does the sun shrink in size as it goes down?
(http://)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)
That explains the light, but not the object itself. Lol posted a filtered video showing the Sun, without the solar glare caused by the light it emits. That link even specifies the luminous aura of the light is larger, especially when the air is moist.
The effect would still occur through a camera filter. It's an effect on the atmosphere, not an effect of the eye/lense.
-
So announcing another thory is the right one doesn't make it correct. Especially when it's been shown as incorrect with simple observations.
-
Most people that believe in a rotating globe, do so, not because they know any particular reasons for it, it's just that they are shown a globe, time and time again and in geography lessons they use it.
No one has ever denied this. You also are told that Australia is a very large island, and even though you've never witnessed it for yourself, you have no reason to deny it and are also incapable of proving it to be otherwise. This is how most of the population works in regards to believing in a round Earth, but it has no bearing on the validity of RET.
You're trotting around as though you're superior to everyone that just blindly follows mainstream science, and not only that, but you automatically think that you must be correct. Why not go to the "Australia is not an island" forum and feel like a superior being there too?
In reality you can't expect them to think any other really but I would expect intelligent people who study this to know, yet it appears too many are still grazing.
That's right, and intelligent people that study this do know. Personally, I know more about why the Earth is round now than I did when I first joined this forum. If grazing means to not agree with your illogical arguments then sure, I'm grazing.
-
Scepti. Here is a video of a sunset with a filter. Look from 0:44 onwards. Does the sun shrink in size as it goes down?
(http://)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)
That explains the light, but not the object itself. Lol posted a filtered video showing the Sun, without the solar glare caused by the light it emits. That link even specifies the luminous aura of the light is larger, especially when the air is moist.
The effect would still occur through a camera filter. It's an effect on the atmosphere, not an effect of the eye/lense.
It is an effect of the atmosphere magnifying the luminous aura. The filter removes this and allows you to see the Sun without the glow. So it would remove this from the equation and we are back to a major issue of the Sun not decreasing in size by the time it reaches the horizon. If you carefully read what you linked, you would have seen it was related only to the glow.
-
Go read your private message from me again where I show you how the sun works on a flat earth.
You are clearly the brainwashed one here.
-
The model has been set out to match what people see.
So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? ???
Not at all. I'd rather people took a more critical look at what they have accepted as correct but that would require a full on unbiased scrutinisation, meaning a rotating globe has to be omitted from the mind.
Not an easy thing to do, when someone's mind has been focused on just that, or their work has been based around that, as in study.
I'd rather you take a critical look at the sun's movement through the sky, but you're too engrossed in nonsensical theories to have that happen.
-
Most people that believe in a rotating globe, do so, not because they know any particular reasons for it, it's just that they are shown a globe, time and time again and in geography lessons they use it.
No one has ever denied this. You also are told that Australia is a very large island, and even though you've never witnessed it for yourself, you have no reason to deny it and are also incapable of proving it to be otherwise. This is how most of the population works in regards to believing in a round Earth, but it has no bearing on the validity of RET.
You're trotting around as though you're superior to everyone that just blindly follows mainstream science, and not only that, but you automatically think that you must be correct. Why not go to the "Australia is not an island" forum and feel like a superior being there too?
In reality you can't expect them to think any other really but I would expect intelligent people who study this to know, yet it appears too many are still grazing.
That's right, and intelligent people that study this do know. Personally, I know more about why the Earth is round now than I did when I first joined this forum. If grazing means to not agree with your illogical arguments then sure, I'm grazing.
My stance is your stance, except our stances are for different earth shapes.
Round earth believers come over as saying, "this is that and that is this, deal with it."
I'm simply saying, "no it's not, you just think it is."
You say you have learned a lot from being on here. Good for you.
Try and look at the alternative view and you might learn a whole lot more. It's possible.
I know I've looked at FET to see what evidence there was, and I found it very lacking. You assume we believe the earth is round because we never questioned it. We have been telling you that we have performed experiments that match with what we expect on a round earth. These same experiments give a vastly different result when applied to FET. We are telling you that you can't deny simple observations that can be done across the world by anyone at almost any time.
-
Scepti. Here is a video of a sunset with a filter. Look from 0:44 onwards. Does the sun shrink in size as it goes down?
(http://)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)
That explains the light, but not the object itself. Lol posted a filtered video showing the Sun, without the solar glare caused by the light it emits. That link even specifies the luminous aura of the light is larger, especially when the air is moist.
The effect would still occur through a camera filter. It's an effect on the atmosphere, not an effect of the eye/lense.
It is an effect of the atmosphere magnifying the luminous aura. The filter removes this and allows you to see the Sun without the glow. So it would remove this from the equation and we are back to a major issue of the Sun not decreasing in size by the time it reaches the horizon. If you carefully read what you linked, you would have seen it was related only to the glow.
Lens filters only removes glare and glow which manifests on the lens. A lens filter wouldn't remove remove a physical projection upon the atmosphere. The atoms and molecules are all lit up, projecting the image of the sun to the observer. A lens filter couldn't turn that off, only dim the scene equally.
Nor would a lens filter used in a movie theater remove the projected image of a movie on the screen. Lens filters are only used to mitigate local lens flares on the lens.
-
My stance is your stance, except our stances are for different earth shapes.
Round earth believers come over as saying, "this is that and that is this, deal with it."
I'm simply saying, "no it's not, you just think it is."
So when it comes to the topic of the sun falling below the horizon, you're saying that it doesn't. Based on what? Definitely not your observation, because you know exactly what objects that move away from you do. You even said it yourself that "It doesn't work the same way for larger objects like the sun". Did this come from observation? No. It came from your determination to support FET.
You say you have learned a lot from being on here. Good for you.
Try and look at the alternative view and you might learn a whole lot more. It's possible.
You don't think I've looked at FET? This whole time I've been on this forum and I haven't looked at FET? lol
I've seen at least 3 different flat Earth maps, all of which fail to explain intercontinental travel times in the southern hemisphere or from east to west, I've seen the sun fall below the horizon and be told that it doesn't, etc. etc. etc.
I've seen FET and none of it makes sense.
-
The model has been set out to match what people see.
So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? ???
Not at all. I'd rather people took a more critical look at what they have accepted as correct but that would require a full on unbiased scrutinisation, meaning a rotating globe has to be omitted from the mind.
Not an easy thing to do, when someone's mind has been focused on just that, or their work has been based around that, as in study.
I'm not sure that you understand what "critical look" really means. Regardless of whether I believe that the earth is rotating or not, I can see the sun move behind and below the horizon. If I assume that the earth is not rotating, then this still tells me that the earth is smaller than the orbit of the sun.
-
Tom as little as I'd like to converse with you, you need to be corrected. It was stated in this thread that the sun gets bigger during the day.
Isn't your stance that it DOES stay the same size but due to atmospheric magnification the sun appears the same size?
-
The model has been set out to match what people see.
So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? ???
Not at all. I'd rather people took a more critical look at what they have accepted as correct but that would require a full on unbiased scrutinisation, meaning a rotating globe has to be omitted from the mind.
Not an easy thing to do, when someone's mind has been focused on just that, or their work has been based around that, as in study.
I'm not sure that you understand what "critical look" really means. Regardless of whether I believe that the earth is rotating or not, I can see the sun move behind and below the horizon. If I assume that the earth is not rotating, then this still tells me that the earth is smaller than the orbit of the sun.
Perhaps septic should illustrate what he believes.
He can the account for the spotlight, seasons and differences for the hemiplanes. Also taking into account for the distance required to be able to see the sun during our winter while making sure it is possible for the sun to illuminate the correct areas.
-
Scepti. Here is a video of a sunset with a filter. Look from 0:44 onwards. Does the sun shrink in size as it goes down?
(http://)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)
That explains the light, but not the object itself. Lol posted a filtered video showing the Sun, without the solar glare caused by the light it emits. That link even specifies the luminous aura of the light is larger, especially when the air is moist.
The effect would still occur through a camera filter. It's an effect on the atmosphere, not an effect of the eye/lense.
It is an effect of the atmosphere magnifying the luminous aura. The filter removes this and allows you to see the Sun without the glow. So it would remove this from the equation and we are back to a major issue of the Sun not decreasing in size by the time it reaches the horizon. If you carefully read what you linked, you would have seen it was related only to the glow.
Lens filters only removes glare and glow which manifests on the lens. A lens filter wouldn't remove remove a physical projection upon the atmosphere. The atoms and molecules are all lit up, projecting the image of the sun to the observer. A lens filter couldn't turn that off, only dim the scene equally.
Nor would a lens filter used in a movie theater remove the projected image of a movie on the screen. Lens filters are only used to mitigate local lens flares on the lens.
Solar filters block a majority of the light that reaches them, they also block the em spectrum above and below the visible light spectrum. So yes, they would reduce the atmospheric glow, and they do seeing as how you can see the Sun in the video lol posted with hardly any glow.
-
The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.
Scepti, care to explain why the sun doesn't get smaller as it approaches the horizon?
-
The model has been set out to match what people see.
So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? ???
Not at all. I'd rather people took a more critical look at what they have accepted as correct but that would require a full on unbiased scrutinisation, meaning a rotating globe has to be omitted from the mind.
Not an easy thing to do, when someone's mind has been focused on just that, or their work has been based around that, as in study.
I'm not sure that you understand what "critical look" really means. Regardless of whether I believe that the earth is rotating or not, I can see the sun move behind and below the horizon. If I assume that the earth is not rotating, then this still tells me that the earth is smaller than the orbit of the sun.
The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.
Tell that to the people who live in Australia.
-
The model has been set out to match what people see.
So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? ???
Not at all. I'd rather people took a more critical look at what they have accepted as correct but that would require a full on unbiased scrutinisation, meaning a rotating globe has to be omitted from the mind.
Not an easy thing to do, when someone's mind has been focused on just that, or their work has been based around that, as in study.
I'm not sure that you understand what "critical look" really means. Regardless of whether I believe that the earth is rotating or not, I can see the sun move behind and below the horizon. If I assume that the earth is not rotating, then this still tells me that the earth is smaller than the orbit of the sun.
The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.
Tell that to the people who live in Australia.
Why? what will they tell me?
That they live beyond the circular path of the sun.
-
The model has been set out to match what people see.
So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? ???
Not at all. I'd rather people took a more critical look at what they have accepted as correct but that would require a full on unbiased scrutinisation, meaning a rotating globe has to be omitted from the mind.
Not an easy thing to do, when someone's mind has been focused on just that, or their work has been based around that, as in study.
I'm not sure that you understand what "critical look" really means. Regardless of whether I believe that the earth is rotating or not, I can see the sun move behind and below the horizon. If I assume that the earth is not rotating, then this still tells me that the earth is smaller than the orbit of the sun.
The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.
Tell that to the people who live in Australia.
Why? what will they tell me?
That they live beyond the circular path of the sun.
Now why would they say that?
Because the circular path of the sun ranges from 23.5 degrees north latitude to 23.5 degrees south latitude. Most people in Australia live outside of this range.
-
The Sun below 23.5 degrees v would always rise north of east. Where as above that mark the Sun could be north or south of east depending on the time of year.
-
The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.
So no supposed sun rise over the waters of Tasmania then?
According to you, there should be no Tasmania in the first place. Perhaps this is conclusive proof of the long held FE assertion that Australia doesn't exist.
-
Tom as little as I'd like to converse with you, you need to be corrected. It was stated in this thread that the sun gets bigger during the day.
Isn't your stance that it DOES stay the same size but due to atmospheric magnification the sun appears the same size?
The sun gets bigger due the magnification of the atmosphere as it recedes, but it's also getting smaller to perspective as it recedes, balancing itself out. This was explained in the article.
-
The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.
So no supposed sun rise over the waters of Tasmania then?
According to you, there should be no Tasmania in the first place. Perhaps this is conclusive proof of the long held FE assertion that Australia doesn't exist.
That's not the answer I was looking for.
That's your problem, not mine.
-
Tom as little as I'd like to converse with you, you need to be corrected. It was stated in this thread that the sun gets bigger during the day.
Isn't your stance that it DOES stay the same size but due to atmospheric magnification the sun appears the same size?
The sun gets bigger due the magnification of the atmosphere as it recedes, but it's also getting smaller to perspective as it recedes, balancing itself out. This was explained in the article.
If by explained you mean stated, like a bumper sticker then sure, it's a long bumper sticker. There is no real explanation or support thereof though. Just some assertion akin to "Zeus is the cause of thunder."
-
Tom as little as I'd like to converse with you, you need to be corrected. It was stated in this thread that the sun gets bigger during the day.
Isn't your stance that it DOES stay the same size but due to atmospheric magnification the sun appears the same size?
The sun gets bigger due the magnification of the atmosphere as it recedes, but it's also getting smaller to perspective as it recedes, balancing itself out. This was explained in the article.
So the suns motions perfectly mimic what you would expect to see on a round earth due to the atmosphere? Any evidence for this other than your say so and circular reasoning?
-
Tom as little as I'd like to converse with you, you need to be corrected. It was stated in this thread that the sun gets bigger during the day.
Isn't your stance that it DOES stay the same size but due to atmospheric magnification the sun appears the same size?
The sun gets bigger due the magnification of the atmosphere as it recedes, but it's also getting smaller to perspective as it recedes, balancing itself out. This was explained in the article.
Yeah that's what I said :P septic didn't state that though. He said it gets bigger during the day. You said it stays the same. That was the point.
-
Yes it is.
-
The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.
Scepti, care to explain why the sun doesn't get smaller as it approaches the horizon?
Probably due to a magnification type effect. It's like being at the opticians and him constantly making you view each lens , saying, "better or worse, better or worse"...see what I'm saying?
And you say RET makes up a lot of stuff so observation can fit the model? Heh...
Now explain why the sun moves throughout the sky with a constant angular speed. This is something that couldn't happen if the sun was moving at a constant speed and constant height in the sky.
-
So the suns motions perfectly mimic what you would expect to see on a round earth due to the atmosphere? Any evidence for this other than your say so and circular reasoning?
Yeah. While original FET models had the Sun going above and below the Earth (at least it fit the observation of sunsets as the Sun goes below the horizon), the current FET model of the Sun's dynamics is based on making it look exactly as it would on the round earth. It was derived from the actual Earth map and globe to try an make it work as a more modern theory.
Of course, it's still very clunky at explaining the Sun and daily cycles.
-
Who said it had to be a constant height in the sky?
It doesn't have to be, but always needs to be above ground. Anyway, this is dodging my question. How does the sun move through the sky at a constant angular speed? Watch an aeroplane zoom passed above your head, but then your eyes barely need to move to keep locked onto the plane at a distance. Why doesn't the sun do this? It's basically "zooming" passed your head at the same rate as it's "zooming" into the ground.
-
Who said it had to be a constant height in the sky?
I almost has to be at a constant height in the sky over a flat disk, otherwise a person in Russia would see a Sun one size, lets say 5 cm, and someone in London would see the Sun a different size, lets say 3 cm if it is getting further away over London, and someone else in Canada would see the Sun with a third size, lets say 7 cm if it is getting closer. The Sun's size does not change significantly no matter which side of the world you are at the same latitude or during the course of the day, two highly conflicting ideas