### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Messages - Blue_Moon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
1
##### The Lounge / Is Papa Legba Gone?
« on: January 22, 2017, 05:44:53 PM »
Haven't been on here for a long time, not sure I'll be back regularly.  Just wanted to see if Papa Legba has been banned for good.

2
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Preparing a tortilla in the ISS: how is this video possible???
« on: August 02, 2016, 05:26:00 PM »
What is with the hair on these chicks on ISS?
I'd eat her taco.

Oh, Hoppy, you little creepy sheepy, you!  How hard is it to add something to the conversation instead of asking stupid questions?

3
##### Flat Earth General / Re: iWitness - Air Pressure and Weight
« on: August 02, 2016, 03:02:39 AM »
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.

If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.

Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.

Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.

Bad analogy.  The atmosphere is more like having one person on the bottom, who carries a smaller person, who carries a smaller person, and so forth.  The problem comes when the "person" at the top, obviously the smallest and weakest, is expected to hold up a huge dome above them.
Wrong. And for that reason and the fact you're not interested in grasping it, you're out.

You must have missed my most recent question.

4
##### Flat Earth General / Re: iWitness - Air Pressure and Weight
« on: August 02, 2016, 02:58:27 AM »
If the atmosphere is held on by a dome, then why isn't all the air spread out evenly (as every gas experiment ever says it should)
The atmosphere isn't held on by a dome. The dome is the natural ending to a stacked molecule mass by greater expansion as the stack is built up.
The dome isn't solid. It's a constantly moving dome, sort of like breathing due to atmospheric changes or expansion and contraction of molecules, but we won't go into that.

Can you evenly spread out water in a concave pool?
Answer that question then think about a concave dome to out vision/perception, covering a flattish Earth.
So the dome is more like a soap skin than a solid structure?

5
##### Flat Earth General / Re: iWitness - Air Pressure and Weight
« on: August 02, 2016, 02:54:58 AM »
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.

If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.

Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.

Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.

Bad analogy.  The atmosphere is more like having one person on the bottom, who carries a smaller person, who carries a smaller person, and so forth.  The problem comes when the "person" at the top, obviously the smallest and weakest, is expected to hold up a huge dome above them.

6
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Preparing a tortilla in the ISS: how is this video possible???
« on: August 02, 2016, 02:38:49 AM »
I know that videos from the ISS are often faked/staged, either with wires, or filmed in a zero-G plane.

BUT this video shows an uncut footage of about 3 minutes, the italian astronaut Samantha Christoforetti preparing a tortilla in space:

- wires not possible because the tortilla itself is floating
- zero-G plane not possible, because as far as I know in zero G the maximum filming length would be 30 second or so?
- editing improbable, because the floating of the tortilla is very complex, long, and looks genuine

Does anyone have an idea how this video could have been faked?

Got another for ya.

25 minutes of continuous footage all around the space station.  No wires, no green screens, no neutral buoyancy tanks, and no frequent cuts.  Maybe it's the real deal after all!

7
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Scepti - scales and pressure
« on: August 01, 2016, 11:24:07 PM »
In my lab I have scales with glass box. Not sure if it's sealed though... Most probably this box is there to eliminate air flows and not atmospheric pressure:

Well, if that's a chem lab, it might be to contain volatile substances.

8
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Swinging weight or Hanging weight - proves the earth rotates
« on: August 01, 2016, 03:37:50 PM »

Will this work? It's not earth but the sun. Tell me those latitude lines curve.

They do.  Look at this:

It's a Gnomonic Projection, and it shows great circles as straight lines, hence why the longitude lines and equator are straight lines.  The other lines of latitude curve, because they aren't straight lines like you're suggesting.  I rest my case.

9
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Clock
« on: August 01, 2016, 03:29:25 PM »
Since the earth is round, it's just as valid to draw it the way he does, if not more.

I mean aesthetically. His way looks clumsy and the land masses are all lumped together and upside down. He even had to label it all because he probably couldn't recognize places on his inside out map either :^)

Since the earth is round
I didn't come here to argue with a self proclaimed "Defender of NASA"

Aesthetically, it's still better.  The map is not inverted, he just chose to go with a south pole azimuthal projection.  It means that landmasses are "right way up" during the day.  The labels are not for his own reference either.

My point is that the earth doesn't have to be flat to make a map/clock, as you would suggest.
It only works because it's the truth

10
##### Flat Earth General / Re: So, who wants to play NASA Photoshop Tennis?
« on: August 01, 2016, 12:27:16 PM »
Well, shouldn't we all agree that the Sun is always behind the Deep Space Climate Observatory Satellite lined up with planet Earth at L1 in space and then ... it happens ... the Moon moved in between, so you could not see part of the Earth behind the Moon from the satellite.

It can only happen when a solar eclipse occurs on Earth.
If that were true, then there would be a solar eclipse every time there was a new moon.  However, because of the moon's orbital inclination, a new moon does not always result in a solar eclipse and a full moon does not always result in a lunar eclipse.

You are right. But when the NASA Deep Shit/Space Climate Observatory Satellite takes a photo of the sunny, gray side of the new Moon passing in front of our planet Earth behind it from position L1 in the shit, there should be a solar eclipse on the Earth below. No doubts about it. Only NASA shills/shit believe otherwise.

DSCOVR is in a Lissajous Orbit around the L1 Libration Point, such that it is never less than 4 degrees from solar centre as seen from earth.

Source: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150018272.pdf

Since the angle subtended by the sun and moon from earth is around half a degree I'm pretty sure this means a solar eclipse would never be expected when the moon is between DSCOVR and earth.

Right you are.  I'd like to point out that at the time of the eclipse, the Sun/Earth/Vehicle angle was 6.1°.

I'd also like to point out the thin crescent of yellow and green along the right side of the moon, and the moon's overall blurriness.  This is due to the fact that the red, blue, and green filters each captured their images about 30 seconds apart.  This is understandable when you consider that a satellite took these images, but it makes no sense if it's photoshopped.

11
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Clock
« on: August 01, 2016, 12:04:03 PM »
No, the one I posted updates live and is correct to the nearest 15 minute increment.  Randall, the creator, knows that the earth is round, and he chose a projection that puts the places in the northern hemisphere closer to the information around the outside, while not turning Antarctica into a ring.

https://xkcd.com/1335/

I think mine is way better, I couldn't really tell the time everywhere on his clock, it's inside out in my humble opinion.

Since the earth is round, it's just as valid to draw it the way he does, if not more.

12
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Swinging weight or Hanging weight - proves the earth rotates
« on: August 01, 2016, 12:02:13 PM »
This GIF depicts what is real. Picture your pendulum at one spot on the globe and you can see that you are not traveling abound an arc and constantly turning left, you are going straight as an arrow. Sure, if someone was on the moon watching you from an angle go around it would look like you were following an arc, but you are not, you are just going straight. That is how planes fly around the earth. To fly from San Francisco to NYC, the pilot is not constantly turning left, he flying straight. If you tilt this glob a little so you could see more of the north pole, it would look like arcs as well. It is all very deceiving. This is how I look at it.

Hope this helps you understand.
Wrong again.  If someone is 10 feet from the N. pole, and they follow a path directly east (keeping the north pole to their left, do they make a continuous left turn?

Here is what you said earlier though...

On a globe, we can agree that one can follow the equator without turning left or right, correct?

Now pick any latitude between the equator and one of the poles on a globe.  Let's say 30 degrees N.  In order to follow that latitude east and stay at that same latitude, a person would have to constantly turn left slightly.  Do you agree?

I agree with that, but you are still traveling eastward and the floor of the structure that hold the pendulum would be traveling eastward or being dragged along with the earth going eastward, not in circles. The only place it can work the way it is shown is at the poles.
So you agreed with the continuous left turn, but now you don't.

Also, according to that statement, if a continuous steady turn is made, how would that not result in a complete circle?

Hey buddy,
Yes, I was wrong. I thought, like the rest of you, that you need to turn left as you track a lateral path around the ball earth. To make sure I was right, I used a beach ball and drew an equator and a latitude line on it. Low and behold, I discovered there is no left turning arc as you follow a latitude line around the ball. Don't believe me, you should try it yourself.

There is a turn, because you're following a circle of latitude rather than a great circle.

13
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Clock
« on: August 01, 2016, 11:54:27 AM »
Your idea is unoriginal and proves nothing about the shape of the earth.  It's already been done better in xkcd by Randall Munroe.
That is only a picture. Mine is a working clock. Also he has south pole center so it's very ugly to look at and very unbelievable as a model for flat earth.

No, the one I posted updates live and is correct to the nearest 15 minute increment.  Randall, the creator, knows that the earth is round, and he chose a projection that puts the places in the northern hemisphere closer to the information around the outside, while not turning Antarctica into a ring.

14
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Swinging weight or Hanging weight - proves the earth rotates
« on: August 01, 2016, 11:43:20 AM »
Stop lying.

I had an apartment that had north and south windows. At and sunset light would come through the north window. At noon it would come in the south window.

I'm still waiting for a published paper against the Foucault's Pendulum.

I always thought you were from another planet, that explains a lot.

I've learned my lesson about posting papers from other people. They may agree with me on one issues and then someone finds something else they wrote that makes me look bad. Besides, you would only cut them down and say something negative about them.

Sorry Rodney, If you aren't trolling,   then I'm not sure I understand how could anyone can help you?

It's not me getting the help, I'm trying to help you guys understand what is happening.

We know exactly what's happening; we're trying to explain to you how and why it works the way it does.

15
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Clock
« on: August 01, 2016, 11:41:22 AM »
Your idea is unoriginal and proves nothing about the shape of the earth.  It's already been done better in xkcd by Randall Munroe.

16
##### Flat Earth General / Re: iWitness - Air Pressure and Weight
« on: August 01, 2016, 11:32:03 AM »
Have a jet of air blowing straight up.
Able?
Come back when you have (a) constructed such a magical jet and (b) proven it is blowing air "straight" up.

HINT:  Do not bother.  It is impossible to construct what you propose as an experiment and your proposal has NO BEARING upon reality.

I don't see what your problem is.  What AdamSK is describing could easily be accomplished with a hair dryer.

17
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Is the moon flat or spherical?
« on: July 31, 2016, 07:11:51 PM »

The moon is flat.  Period.  Have YOU ever seen the 'other side of it'?  No.  Because it's FLAT.  has ANYONE seen the 'other side' of the moon.  Nope, because it's flat.  Don't give me that NASA fake 'dark side of the moon' picture from the 1960's - Fake.  I aint seen the other side, nobody has.. the ONLY 'people' that have seen it is 'NASA'... 50 years ago...

Nope, just because you assert something doesn't make it true.  We can see about 59% of the Moon's surface from the earth due to the moon's libration.  The fact that the moon librates in the way that it does is extremely strong evidence that the moon is round and that it orbits the earth.  And let's not forget all the imagery of the back of the moon before or since the moon landings, taken by probes.

Not happening.  Sorry.  That is NOT a real picture.  Its -- again FROM NASA!

You know this.  Look up in the sky and tell me when YOU see that image you posted.

Fact:  YOU (yes YOU, not me, but YOU) have NEVER SEEN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOON.  You will DIE having NEVER seen it.  I can guarantee that.  So any claim of the moon being ROUND comes from NASA, your IMAGINATION, or BOTH.

Science=OBSERVABLE  and again, don't go pulling the "NASA CARD" BILLIONS of REAL PEOPLE's OBSERVATIONS versus "NASA" is simply not happenin'.

Again when YOU see it, it's true.  Otherwise, science is science.  You are more than welcome to post up YOUR photos OR photos of REAL PEOPLE of the 'other side of the moon'... but... you simply cannot.

..but you BELIEVE you can...

-- hives

I'm not totally sure if you're serious or not but I thought I'd just point out that you don't need to take Nasa's word for it. Telescopes powerful enough to observe the spherical nature of the moon are pretty cheap these days.

Again, TALK TO ME LIKE I'm IN 1st grade...

HOW do I get to see a view, or picture like this OTHER than by NASA:

HOW DO I GET TO SEE THIS other than through 'NASA's eyes'?

When I, you (yes YOU) look at the moon we both see this:

RIGHT?

OK -- so TELL ME HOW WE (ie YOU AND ME) can get to see this:

WILL you, me, or ANYONE you know or will eve know, EVER get to see ^ this other than via a NASA website?

Again since when did BILLIONS of peoples eyes take second fiddle to a few NASA images from 6 decades ago?

When people stopped thinking?

-- hives

The part outlined in green is the extent we can view from earth.  The rest was taken by probes fairly recently, and not all of them US probes.

18
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: give me real evidence of the earth being flat
« on: July 31, 2016, 07:06:36 PM »

You want "EVIDENCE" that the earth is FLAT?

- it is EVIDENT that I am standing on a flat surface
- it is EVIDENT that as far as I can see, no matter how high I or you can go, I see flatness

NOW - what is the "EVIDENCE" that the earth is round?

- is it EVIDENT that I am standing on a round surface?
- is it EVIDENT that as far as I can see, no matter how high I or you can go, I see roundess or curvature?

What is *EVIDENT*?

Not what you 'believe'.  What *IS* *EVIDENT*?

The end.

-- hives

The earth is big, not flat.  The end.

19
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Prove to me that the earth is flat.
« on: July 31, 2016, 07:05:35 PM »
djhives, the moon turns reddish during a lunar eclipse for the same reason sunsets are reddish.  The moon is receiving a "sunset" from the entire circumference of the earth.  As for the extreme red seen in the first image you linked, that is because the moon is rising at the same time the eclipse is occurring.  Have you ever seen how the moon is red and distorted when it is rising?  Same phenomenon here, but compounded with the red of the eclipse.  The rest of the world observed a regular blood moon.  If the earth didn't have an atmosphere, the moon would just be darkened instead of reddened.

You will never see the new moon at night, because they only happen when the moon is between the sun and the earth.  Same with solar eclipses.  There's no other object but the moon that could cause a solar eclipse.  The moon has the correct angular diameter (give or take a few arc-minutes, which is explained by the moon's current distance from earth, and is observed as an annular eclipse).

Prediction of eclipses is done using ephemerides to determine the positions of the sun and moon in the sky.  This is the only way that will work for total solar eclipses, because they are only visible from narrow strips of earth.

Nope.  Wrong and illogical answer, here's why:

I dont' remember a Lunar eclipse being called "A SUNSET PROJECTED ON THE MOON".  Everyone knows that the implication of a TOTAL lunar eclipse is a SHADOW on the moon (presumably from the round earth).

A SUNSET is a sunset.

Stay with me:

A lunar ECLIPSE - if it is the earth's SHADOW needs to show me a shadow.  I does not.  It shows me a red-tint DURING "TOTALITY".  Every--single--time.  The RED TINT happens at TOTALITY, ie supposedly completley covered by a SHADOW.  Yet, I see a BLOOD RED MOON.

We cannot change lunar eclipses into 'sunsets being projected on the moon'.  Period.

Sunset is sunset.

Can you have a shadow AND a sunset at the same time?  Paradox!

PLEASE go out and try to replicate this simeultanous 'sunset/shadow' thingy for me?  You will have difficulty.  The shadow object KETU is OCCULTING the moon during a flat-earth lunar eclipse.

I have NEVER seen a 'red shadow'.
When I see something that is one colour being tinted red I do not think "Oh gosh, it must be a shadow".

Remember, go by what you OBSERVE, not by your programming that states shadows are 'red' and mixed in with some 'shadow sunset' for good measure:

The moon gets dark because of the shadow.  It turns red because of sunlight coming through the atmosphere.  A lunar eclipse is far darker than your picture would suggest.

I live in the desert.  My view of these things is a clear as it gets.

SHADOW = "sunlight coming through the atmosphere"?

Go out in the sun, make a shadow, and tell me when you see "sunlight coming through the atmosphere" affecting your SHADOW.  Does it turn RED too?  Let's again talk like we're in 1st grade.  Do shadows make RED?

"Earth's atmosphere, sunset, .." a SHADOW is a SHADOW.  *IF* it's a shadow, it should LOOK like the 1 billion other shadows you've seen in your life... not RED TINT... aka 'blood moon'.  EVERY total lunar eclipse is BLOOD RED.  It is REMARKABLY red.  Unmistakably red.  I ain't ever seen a 'red shadow'..anywhere in this reality.

.

Go out during a sunset.  Is the sun red?  That's because the sun is passing through the most atmosphere.  Since the moon is so far away, during an eclipse, the sunset light is received from all around the earth.  This only works because the earth, which has an atmosphere, is the eclipsing body, which is why shadows aren't always red.

20
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: give me real evidence of the earth being flat
« on: July 31, 2016, 04:09:50 PM »
sorry. any 'evidence' provided here is false and can be debunked (i havent thorougly read through it so...)
Ha! Well, I'm certainly convinced...

Quote
there is no evidence of the earth being flat that is completely verifiable on all conditions

That sounds like dogma, not science.

But he's right.  There is no evidence supporting a flat earth that is more statistically significant than what we have showing that the earth is round.

21
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Prove to me that the earth is flat.
« on: July 31, 2016, 04:05:25 PM »
djhives, the moon turns reddish during a lunar eclipse for the same reason sunsets are reddish.  The moon is receiving a "sunset" from the entire circumference of the earth.  As for the extreme red seen in the first image you linked, that is because the moon is rising at the same time the eclipse is occurring.  Have you ever seen how the moon is red and distorted when it is rising?  Same phenomenon here, but compounded with the red of the eclipse.  The rest of the world observed a regular blood moon.  If the earth didn't have an atmosphere, the moon would just be darkened instead of reddened.

You will never see the new moon at night, because they only happen when the moon is between the sun and the earth.  Same with solar eclipses.  There's no other object but the moon that could cause a solar eclipse.  The moon has the correct angular diameter (give or take a few arc-minutes, which is explained by the moon's current distance from earth, and is observed as an annular eclipse).

Prediction of eclipses is done using ephemerides to determine the positions of the sun and moon in the sky.  This is the only way that will work for total solar eclipses, because they are only visible from narrow strips of earth.

Nope.  Wrong and illogical answer, here's why:

I dont' remember a Lunar eclipse being called "A SUNSET PROJECTED ON THE MOON".  Everyone knows that the implication of a TOTAL lunar eclipse is a SHADOW on the moon (presumably from the round earth).

A SUNSET is a sunset.

Stay with me:

A lunar ECLIPSE - if it is the earth's SHADOW needs to show me a shadow.  I does not.  It shows me a red-tint DURING "TOTALITY".  Every--single--time.  The RED TINT happens at TOTALITY, ie supposedly completley covered by a SHADOW.  Yet, I see a BLOOD RED MOON.

We cannot change lunar eclipses into 'sunsets being projected on the moon'.  Period.

Sunset is sunset.

Can you have a shadow AND a sunset at the same time?  Paradox!

PLEASE go out and try to replicate this simeultanous 'sunset/shadow' thingy for me?  You will have difficulty.  The shadow object KETU is OCCULTING the moon during a flat-earth lunar eclipse.

I have NEVER seen a 'red shadow'.
When I see something that is one colour being tinted red I do not think "Oh gosh, it must be a shadow".

Remember, go by what you OBSERVE, not by your programming that states shadows are 'red' and mixed in with some 'shadow sunset' for good measure:

The moon gets dark because of the shadow.  It turns red because of sunlight coming through the atmosphere.  A lunar eclipse is far darker than your picture would suggest.

22
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Is the moon flat or spherical?
« on: July 31, 2016, 03:16:06 PM »

Not happening.  Sorry.  That is NOT a real picture.  Its -- again FROM NASA!

You know this.  Look up in the sky and tell me when YOU see that image you posted.

Fact:  YOU (yes YOU, not me, but YOU) have NEVER SEEN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOON.  You will DIE having NEVER seen it.  I can guarantee that.  So any claim of the moon being ROUND comes from NASA, your IMAGINATION, or BOTH.

Science=OBSERVABLE  and again, don't go pulling the "NASA CARD" BILLIONS of REAL PEOPLE's OBSERVATIONS versus "NASA" is simply not happenin'.

Again when YOU see it, it's true.  Otherwise, science is science.  You are more than welcome to post up YOUR photos OR photos of REAL PEOPLE of the 'other side of the moon'... but... you simply cannot.

..but you BELIEVE you can...

-- hives

Again:

And for good measure:

All of them real images taken by real people.

23
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Prove to me that the earth is flat.
« on: July 31, 2016, 03:05:11 PM »
djhives, the moon turns reddish during a lunar eclipse for the same reason sunsets are reddish.  The moon is receiving a "sunset" from the entire circumference of the earth.  As for the extreme red seen in the first image you linked, that is because the moon is rising at the same time the eclipse is occurring.  Have you ever seen how the moon is red and distorted when it is rising?  Same phenomenon here, but compounded with the red of the eclipse.  The rest of the world observed a regular blood moon.  If the earth didn't have an atmosphere, the moon would just be darkened instead of reddened.

You will never see the new moon at night, because they only happen when the moon is between the sun and the earth.  Same with solar eclipses.  There's no other object but the moon that could cause a solar eclipse.  The moon has the correct angular diameter (give or take a few arc-minutes, which is explained by the moon's current distance from earth, and is observed as an annular eclipse).

Prediction of eclipses is done using ephemerides to determine the positions of the sun and moon in the sky.  This is the only way that will work for total solar eclipses, because they are only visible from narrow strips of earth.

24
##### Flat Earth General / Re: So, who wants to play NASA Photoshop Tennis?
« on: July 31, 2016, 02:36:01 PM »
Because I really can't stop laughing at this one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nasa-photo-into-meme_us_579a747fe4b0e2e15eb51fb5?ir=UK%20Comedy&section=uk_comedy

Those NASA guys really make this too easy, don't they? They are going to put me out of a job.
That should be in complete nonsense.

Or at least the lounge or something.  General is a place for serious discussion.

25
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Phase 0: Gravitation
« on: July 31, 2016, 02:34:28 PM »

Flat earth, round earth, pear earth.  Gravity and the shape of the earth have nothing to do with each other.  Gravitational rules on a flat earth are the same as on a globe earth.  Gravity have NEVER ben explained in terms of 'why it happens'.  Gravity is just here, a force of nature, it doesn't prove any shape of the earth.

People have some deep programmed notion that gravity exists BECAUSE the earth is round and spinning.  What does one have to do with the other?  Nothing!

It's the other way around.  The earth is round because of gravity causing it to reach hydrostatic equilibrium.  Same with all planets.

26
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Is the moon flat or spherical?
« on: July 31, 2016, 02:29:06 PM »

The moon is flat.  Period.  Have YOU ever seen the 'other side of it'?  No.  Because it's FLAT.  has ANYONE seen the 'other side' of the moon.  Nope, because it's flat.  Don't give me that NASA fake 'dark side of the moon' picture from the 1960's - Fake.  I aint seen the other side, nobody has.. the ONLY 'people' that have seen it is 'NASA'... 50 years ago...

Nope, just because you assert something doesn't make it true.  We can see about 59% of the Moon's surface from the earth due to the moon's libration.  The fact that the moon librates in the way that it does is extremely strong evidence that the moon is round and that it orbits the earth.  And let's not forget all the imagery of the back of the moon before or since the moon landings, taken by probes.

27
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Is the moon flat or spherical?
« on: July 31, 2016, 11:41:09 AM »
The moon is as flat as a hologram can look 3d.

Observation suggests otherwise.

28
##### Flat Earth General / Re: iWitness - Air Pressure and Weight
« on: July 31, 2016, 11:38:37 AM »
Sceptimatic, iWitness, and Anarchist, I want you to listen to this.

Imagine you're in the KC-135 "Vomit Comet," the plane used to train astronauts for microgravity.  The plane starts to accelerate downward at 9.8 m/s2, and you start to become weightless, along with everything else inside the plane.  But the pressure in the plane hasn't changed at all, and you're not in contact with the outside air, so if weight is caused by pressure and density instead of gravity, how can that be?
Think of the dropped lift. If it dropped at the same speed as you fell and there were scales on the floor with you on them, then you would basically (as a man made weight measurement) weigh nothing.
Now imagine the lift ascends at speed and you are on those scales. You now appear to weigh a lot more due to the force upon you.

Basically in the plane or lift you are free falling (sort of) but due to your enclosed environment, you simply appear to float.
The plane pressurises a lot more on the dive, aiding in that apparent ease of free fall (float appearance).

Ascending in a lift at speed/acceleration is pushing you into atmosphere that is resisting that push. Think of a spring.
This creates more pressure upon you and it would be registered on a scale plate if you were stood on it.
It's made out to be G-force but the real name for it should be A-force.
No, the plane does not do anything with pressure to make you seem weightless.  It's all acceleration.  Anytime you're accelerated toward the earth at the same rate as G, in our case about 9.8 m/s2, you feel weightless, regardless of whether the air around you is doing the same.  I'll give you another example:

It's called a drop tower.  You may or may not have ridden on one before, but it lifts you and drops you.  I've been on a few of them in my lifetime.  I can tell you that you will feel weightless when you're being dropped, despite there being no enclosure around you to manipulate pressure.

29
##### Flat Earth General / Re: iWitness - Air Pressure and Weight
« on: July 30, 2016, 12:12:37 PM »
Sceptimatic, iWitness, and Anarchist, I want you to listen to this.

Imagine you're in the KC-135 "Vomit Comet," the plane used to train astronauts for microgravity.  The plane starts to accelerate downward at 9.8 m/s2, and you start to become weightless, along with everything else inside the plane.  But the pressure in the plane hasn't changed at all, and you're not in contact with the outside air, so if weight is caused by pressure and density instead of gravity, how can that be?

30
##### Flat Earth General / Re: The Difference between Flat and Ball Earth
« on: July 28, 2016, 05:05:13 PM »
Flat Earth is based on Science, Facts, Reasoning and Repeatable Experiments:
- Water is Flat
- Horizon is Flat
- Barometric Pressure and Density, known measurable forces, can account for Gravity
- Horizon doesn't drop when gaining altitude from Amateur rockets and balloons
- Star Constellations haven't changed in 5000 years

Ball Earth is based on Eye Deceptions, Questionable Pictures and Eye Witness Testimony, Atmospheric Refractions, Invisible forces that cannot be measured:
- NASA composite images that have been caught manipulating (duplicate clouds, admitted photoshops)
- You can see Chicago skyline across Lake Michigan but it is a Mirage.
- Suggesting GPS proves the earth is round when it can work from cell-tower triangulation

Hahaha!
Leave it to iWitness to make a fool of the entire FES!
Again!

Don't bother reasoning with him; his points are so terrible that they eat themselves!

Jesus Christ, what an idiot!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28