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 ... 26 27 [28]
811
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Reality
« on: March 16, 2016, 03:35:41 AM »
Apparently, swells that are relatively close can block part of relatively larger objects that are farther away.  Welcome to the world of perspective.
Welcome to the world of being proven wrong.  You've been living in it for years, but you haven't realized it yet.  Surprise!  It's shaped like a globe. 

I seem to be the only one in this discussion who is not trying to deny the laws of perspective.
No, everyone else understands perspective.  But maybe consider that the "swell" is the curvature of the earth.  The peak is clearly very far out, and doesn't resemble anything like a wave. 

812
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My Journey
« on: March 16, 2016, 03:32:14 AM »
What are your greatest achievements that you speak of?
Moon landings, space travel, and exploration of the universe. 

You're an astronaut?
No, I'm an aerospace engineering student.  But since you don't want to believe in what NASA does, and are actively working against them, we believers and supporters will keep the achievements to ourselves. 

You know the story of the little red hen, where she goes through all the work to bake the bread, and then gets to eat it herself because nobody else helped her?  You play the figurative fox that tries to accuse the hen of fraud for his own purposes.  No bread for you!

You probably just believe anything that your liberal teachers tell you.  Perhaps, one day, you could try using your own mind for a change?
I believe what the evidence supports. 

You believe whatever your wiki says. 

813
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Reality
« on: March 16, 2016, 03:30:14 AM »
Apparently, swells that are relatively close can block part of relatively larger objects that are farther away.  Welcome to the world of perspective.
Welcome to the world of being proven wrong.  You've been living in it for years, but you haven't realized it yet.  Surprise!  It's shaped like a globe. 

814
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Scientific Method vs. FE Zetetic Method
« on: March 16, 2016, 03:27:15 AM »
Oh, so you have not actually accomplished anything and simply ride the coattails of others.  I see.  :-\
No, I've done my own independent work to design a system that will take us to Mars.  And it's a damn good one.  And I'll be ready to put it into action when I get my Master's. 
You actively oppose NASA and everything it stands for.  So if you use or benefit from any of the technologies on this list (and you do), you're the one riding the coattails. 

I am not the one running around the flat Earth society trying to take credit for other people's accomplishments.  :-\
I just told you that I'm not either.  I make my own accomplishments, and defend others.  You have done nothing in your life to benefit humanity or advance discovery, yet you prance around your forums and claim to be better than the people that do.  Shut your goddamn mouth. 

815
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intikam is here now
« on: March 16, 2016, 03:17:19 AM »
Watch the video:

Watch the defences are destroying the devil.  ;D

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Nobody can explain how a half moon created on a sun light.

It is clearly, %100 impossible!

Thank you Frederick  :D I think it was a "Godly gift" or something other. Can you see the winner?. :D

Frederic done the score 6 points. :D


I don't see how that video poses any sort of problem for a globe earth. 

However, it does show a serious problem with your research.  You are getting your information from the worst, most radical and biased sources, and you're showing yourself to be radical and biased as well.  Your arguments are invalid. 

816
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Scientific Method vs. FE Zetetic Method
« on: March 16, 2016, 03:00:06 AM »
Oh, so you have not actually accomplished anything and simply ride the coattails of others.  I see.  :-\
No, I've done my own independent work to design a system that will take us to Mars.  And it's a damn good one.  And I'll be ready to put it into action when I get my Master's. 
You actively oppose NASA and everything it stands for.  So if you use or benefit from any of the technologies on this list (and you do), you're the one riding the coattails. 

817
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My Journey
« on: March 16, 2016, 02:49:50 AM »
What are your greatest achievements that you speak of?
Moon landings, space travel, and exploration of the universe. 

You're an astronaut?
No, I'm an aerospace engineering student.  But since you don't want to believe in what NASA does, and are actively working against them, we believers and supporters will keep the achievements to ourselves. 

You know the story of the little red hen, where she goes through all the work to bake the bread, and then gets to eat it herself because nobody else helped her?  You play the figurative fox that tries to accuse the hen of fraud for his own purposes.  No bread for you!

818
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Southern cross issue
« on: March 16, 2016, 02:37:46 AM »
I have read the debates on the southern cross issue, and finally hit on a question.
Southern cross is not a star like Polaris.
For Polaris, many people have made beautiful Concentric circles of time lapse photographs.
But for southern cross, it seems to be "none".
How comes? Can any supporter of Global earther point out why?

Thanks.

Perhaps I can help.  Polaris is the pole star purely by chance, and it won't remain the pole star forever, due to precession and proper motion.  In fact, it's not even exactly on the polar axis. 
There is no apparent south pole star.  But there is a pole, and we do get time-lapse photos of it. 
This image is from the ALMA observatory in Chile, which is very much in the southern hemisphere:

(Sorry about the size, but what a view!)

More info here

819
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My Journey
« on: March 16, 2016, 02:16:09 AM »
What are your greatest achievements that you speak of?
Moon landings, space travel, and exploration of the universe. 

820
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Scientific Method vs. FE Zetetic Method
« on: March 16, 2016, 02:13:15 AM »
What exactly are your accomplishments that you speak of not sharing?
Everything we have ever done or discovered about space.  We, Upper Humanity, have landed on the moon and sent spacecraft all over the solar system.  You, Lower Humanity, can just continue to deny all of it.  They wouldn't be your accomplishments, anyway. 

821
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My Journey
« on: March 16, 2016, 02:03:04 AM »
One incident that occurred the summer of 1964 is burned in my memory. I was in my maternal Grandfather’s study sitting in a leather arm chair discussing the ideas of the philosopher and lexicographer, Samuel Johnson, one afternoon. I can still remember the sun light streaming through the old fashioned wooden blinds of the windows and lighting up the dust particles in a warm glow. My Grandfather (Great Papa to me) gave me a quizzical look and said, right out of the blue, “You do KNOW that the earth is NOT a globe, Richard?”

   I actually had no response to that unprovoked question other than thinking “well the old gentleman is in his dotage and his brain has finally untracked itself”. But he rummaged amongst the stacks of books littering his desk, and the floor beside it, and handed me a well worn green leather bound book with the title “The Earth is Not a Globe”. “Here”, he said, pushing it towards me, “read this and think upon what it says and it will place your engineering studies in an entire new light.”

   I wish I could say that I read it immediately- but being young and foolish I did not. It lingered on my bookshelf for a number of years- until one day after I had been accepted to the bar, about a year after my grandfather’s death. I had been thinking about the old man and saw the book sitting in a nook in my study and I begin reading it. It aligned perfectly with ideas that had been swimming in my head, just out of sight, doubts and other interpretation of the phenomena and engineering principles I had studied in school.
That's why I'm here.  Someday, if you don't turn away from the flat earth, you will be in the same place as your grandfather, teaching your children or grandchildren that the earth is flat, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and permanently poisoning their minds with your seeming wisdom.  They will grow up to scorn our greatest achievements, and encourage others to do the same, living in constant paranoia of an organization they have no valid reason to distrust.  They will be wrong, as you and your grandfather are wrong in ways beyond what either of you could comprehend.  I can't afford not to try and set the record straight. 

822
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Scientific Method vs. FE Zetetic Method
« on: March 16, 2016, 01:30:47 AM »
The zetetic method would have you perform experiments, collect and analyse data, and form conclusions.  I am not sure what problem you are having understanding this.
Except that FE zetetic method doesn't actually do that.  If the forums and wiki are any authority, your real zetetic method is:
  • decide that you're being lied to
  • bend select observations to your preconceived ideas, ignore others
  • never do a real experiment in your life
  • tell everyone that your method is so much better than science

You seem to be very upset.  I would be too, if I was watching my world collapse around me.
My world remains perfectly solid and spherical.  It is my faith in humanity that is collapsing.  How can somebody so wrong be so certain that they're right? 

I kind of wish we would split into two separate species, so we wouldn't have to share our accomplishments with less intelligent people who refuse to appreciate them. 

823
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Scientific Method vs. FE Zetetic Method
« on: March 15, 2016, 11:31:10 PM »
The zetetic method would have you perform experiments, collect and analyse data, and form conclusions.  I am not sure what problem you are having understanding this.
Except that FE zetetic method doesn't actually do that.  If the forums and wiki are any authority, your real zetetic method is:
  • decide that you're being lied to
  • bend select observations to your preconceived ideas, ignore others
  • never do a real experiment in your life
  • tell everyone that your method is so much better than science

824
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Transit of Venus = Round Earth Reality
« on: March 15, 2016, 02:36:00 PM »
I remember observing this myself.  My family and I viewed it using welding hoods, sunglasses, and binoculars. 

Apparently, there's a lot of data to be gained from the transit that would only be possible from a round earth. 

http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2012/articles/ttt_75.php

825
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity is magic?
« on: March 15, 2016, 12:29:10 PM »
Can someone give me a reason why gravity is magic, that doesn't also apply to electromagnetism, or the universal accelerator?
My bet is that no one can give a correct answer.

First: You sound like you already have your mind made up. Why ask a question if you aren't going to listen to the answer? Better yet, if you are the sole judge of what a "correct" answer is, why are you asking the question? Seems to imply that if you are judging what's correct that you already know. Do you think you've checkmated us after putting in two seconds of thought into flat-earth theory? Regardless, I'll answer your question and perhaps you'll not agree with me but I hope that at the end you'll at least agree that you are not qualified to determine the "correct" answer.


This is a non-issue. Ask any physicist, they don't know how gravity works. They just see its effects and define it. It's sort of like a blind man telling you what a ball looks like. They can't see it, but they measure it in other ways and do a pretty good job of telling you what it looks like. However, they cannot tell you what color it is, what the writing on it says, and perhaps not even how much wear it's been though, perhaps.

I'll let you verify that claim at your leisure. For now I'll assume we agree that mainstream physicists say that they do not know how gravity works and we'll move on. So, how does mankind get so technologically advanced and now know how gravity works?! Well, it turns out that it just really doesn't matter in day to day life. Things fall down, the sun rises in the East, taxes go up, and sand keeps slipping through the hourglass.

Now, this is a crack in science that many people look though and see the flat-earth. No, it's not a "magic-bullet" argument that proves the shape of the earth, but it's something that gets people thinking. "Wow, if colloquial science spuriously claims to know how gravity works then what else are they telling me that's wrong?" Turns out, a lot. The shape of the atom isn't the "solar system" shape that you were taught in school. Dark matter is another great example. Scientists couldn't balance an equation so they made up something called dark matter to make their numbers work! No one has seen dark matter, no one know what it is or ever where it is, but round-earth science doesn't work without it!

This doesn't stop scientists from theorizing how it works though or what causes gravity and it shouldn't stop them. Just as they theorize that the mass of objects causes them to pull on each other (still no answer to how) we theorize that a universal accelerant is always pushing us upwards and creates what you know of as gravity. The elegance to the flat-earth answer is that there is no need for "how" to be answered as it does in the round-earth explanation. Our answer is simply objects in motion, theirs requires an unknown aspect of the universe. (Shave that one with Occom's Razor)

So, while we don't literally mean that there are wizards in towers casting magical spells to create gravity, I hope you can now understand why we facetiously say gravity is magic.
You raise some interesting points, but your arguments are not entirely valid.  Gravity is a fact.  Just because we don't fully understand its finer points, like how it factors in with the other forces we observe in the universe, doesn't mean it can be ignored.  We know for a fact that large masses attract each other.  We know that this attraction diminishes with distance.  We can quantify this effect, and see it in other bodies in the solar system, as well as us on the ground.  That we understand, and we use it to launch satellites of our own. 
Your aether is different.  It's not the elegant solution you claim it to be, and is actually worse than dark matter.  Dark matter is a hypothesis based on observation. Aether is an explanation that is based on the assumption that the earth is flat, that you pin everything you can't explain onto, and never bother to study or define mathematically.  It's pseudoscience of the worst kind. 

826
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity is magic?
« on: March 15, 2016, 10:13:17 AM »
Why is your magic better than mine?  ???
Our "magic" is rigorously defined and tested.  Aether is just a catch-all explanation for why things behave as if the earth is round. 

827
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« on: March 15, 2016, 10:08:28 AM »
what makes you think I don't understand it. And Just because I understand something does not make it true
Your whole argument is "It's complicated so it must be false." Sounds like you don't understand much of anything to be quite honest.

Actually you grabbed onto my comment about complexity which was in response to a post that said the FE theory is  to complicated.  That does not imply that I think complicated is wrong- it simply means that both theories have their complexities.
As far as understanding the arguments- believe me I do. I simply look at them from a differing paradigm. The rounders accept a spinning ball thesis which I reject.

As far as Newtonian Physics, Electricity and Magnetism etc I had more than my fill of such whilst gaining my degree. You misconstrue disagreement as not understanding. I do understand which is why I reject such.
You're trying to complicate the concept of gravity by attaching it to quantum mechanics.  Yes, quantum mechanics is complicated.  No, it does not affect the motion of satellites. 
Think of it as an attractive force between mass that increases with the amount of mass and decreases with distance.  Sure, some of the implications are complicated, but the concept is rigorously defined and tested. 
This is not the case with aether.  There are no studies on the currents of aether, no measurements of its strength, no explanation for how it can carry objects like a fluid without tearing them apart.  Instead, it's just a catch all explanation for why things behave like the earth is round, without having to admit that it is. 

828
Oh crap!  They're on to me! 
...
I mean...

Look, there's no way NASA could get by with that level of compartmentalization of information.  Much of the things attributed to NASA are actually handled by contractors, which have their own individual levels of organization.  Things go wrong, and when they do, NASA needs to consult the contractors to know how to handle the issue.  If NASA was feeding them bullshit, they would know, and if not, they would find out as soon as something went wrong.  And NASA couldn't possibly let them in on the conspiracy, because that involves too many variables wrapped up in one big variable that they have no control over. 

Imagine the conversation that might have taken place:
"Hey, we've got a bit of a problem over here."
"Yeah, we're already on it.  It looks like the inclination is slightly off.  One of the thrusters must have been a little sluggish on ascent, but it looks like we'll have enough dV to correct it."
"Actually, it's a bit worse..."
"What?"
"The satellite was swept into the wrong stream of aetheric wind and, um, it's now floating around on a polar orbit instead of a geosynchronous one." 
"'Aetheric wind?'  What are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense." 
"So, um, it's like, satellites aren't actually in orbit, they're just being carried around on a path that looks exactly like an orbit by this wind stuff." 
"What do you mean, 'wind stuff?'  How would it not have blown off our solar panels?" 
"It just usually does whatever we need it to do to make the earth look like a globe.  We need you to get enough velocity to switch currents, and-" [click] "-hello?"

829
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« on: March 14, 2016, 03:05:52 PM »
I suggest before you begin your ad hominem attacks you might try READING CAREFULLY before replying. My post started with "Satellites exist as DO high altitude balloons" not "to high altitude balloons". Those two statements mean differing things.

The existence of satellites is of no more import to the Flat Earth Theory than the moving of celestial objects.  Once a satellite is launched via a delivery system through the atmosphere it encounters aether, or more precisely the ethereal wind (see Isaac Newton- one of the "rounder's favorites). The aetherial wind moves in a rotational manner (see my post on Coriolis Effect Exists But Not In The Way Rounders Think it Does).

I could start a thread, I suppose that was entitled "Satellites about the earth- But Not The Way Rounders Think They Do"

As the Aether rushes by the earth objects that it intersects with are also pulled along the path taking them around the disc. We also have to remember that the disc (or earth) is also moving upward (along with the aether and the atmosphere) at a constant acceleration of 32/f/s/s. The objects (in this case satellites) that interact with the ethereal wind then travel lower, but along the edge of the Aetheric "whirl pool). The satellites experience the same "eye wash" effect as the sun and the moon- but with light reflected by such and with such low luminosity (compared to those latter two objects) that the "satellite Rise and Setting are not as noticeable.

It seems to me that many "rounders" are a bit touchy - when we explain our theories the posts seem to be extremely emotional and almost paranoid. I certainly can understand that - my own view is that people who explode and enter into name calling are probably beginning to realize the pack of lies about the universe and the construction of such that they have been fed. It is understandable that such a reaction would result in emotional responses like this one. It must be difficult when one finally begins glimpsing the TRUTH through the "veil of lies"
We "explode" because you have the gall to call our greatest achievements a "veil of lies," insult the integrity and intelligence of the people who accomplish them, and when you're faced with a real challenge to your own theory, you hide behind "aether," "celestial gravitation," and more bullshit.  Your "theory" has no self-consistency at all, and is really nothing more than vain, uninformed speculation. 

Did you not see my list of other satellite orbits?  Take polar orbits for example.  If they were travelling over a flat earth, they would have to teleport to the other end, every single orbit.  Now take Molniya orbits.  They are highly elliptical, semi-synchronous orbits.  They keep the satellite over a given area for a longer period.  Geostationary orbits are motionless over the equator, and geosynchronous orbits follow analemmas relative to the surface.  Each of these orbits is carefully chosen for the purpose at hand, and their altitude and velocity can be verified via parallax.  Do you seriously think that they would rely on some "aetheric whirlpool" bullshit?  Of course not!  Their paths can only be explained by a spherical earth and gravity. 

Furthermore, it is you doing the ad hominem attacks and straw men attacks, specifically on Newton.  Newton had no way to know about the nature of gravity.  We just credit him for the notion of gravity, and the laws of motion.  He's not a god, and we don't care about his personal life or opinions. 

Also, fuck you for calling NASA a "veil of lies," and fuck you in general.

As I said earlier- you rounders are are bit touch and emotional. That strikes me as not being scientific.  Lets think this through- YOU are posting on what is clearly a Flat Earth Forum.  I am a FE you are a ROUNDER. I could understand you insulting me and telling me to try a physically impossible sex act if I were posting on, say, A NASA site. But I am not. So I am trying to understand the anger when someone posts something CONTRARY to ROUNDER beliefs on a website DEVOTED to Flat Earth Theories. Yet the ones who explode emotionally and insult people and throw around curse words are the rounders.  Does that strike you as IRONIC and funny - or are you in possession of the qualities, so admired when found in humans, of that of introspection and self awareness?

As I said earlier- I find it "funny" (and I mean "haha" funny and also "strange" funny) that rounders get bent out of shape whilst posting on a flat earth board.  Seriously I would be interested in a thread or a post where a FE theorist called people names and cursed at them (and I am not talking about the innocent jibes but rather calling people "Stupid", Ignorant, or telling the to go F8ck themselves). I am serious - the one who loses his cool and rants is probably on the short end of the logic stick.

As for Newton I think he had the right of it. I think he understood aether and his works have been buried and suppressed.
I find it "funny" (and I mean "punch my screen in frustration" funny) that you completely ignored the core of my argument, the one I had in bold so you wouldn't miss it, and instead proceeded to try to lecture me on my use of language.  Your arguments have no substance, so you avoid mine completely.  Fuck you for that as well. 
Actually, I generally am pretty restrained with my language, but you need to know that I'm not here to play games.  I'm here to stand for NASA, which has done nothing to deserve your insults. 

830
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« on: March 14, 2016, 02:23:51 PM »
I suggest before you begin your ad hominem attacks you might try READING CAREFULLY before replying. My post started with "Satellites exist as DO high altitude balloons" not "to high altitude balloons". Those two statements mean differing things.

The existence of satellites is of no more import to the Flat Earth Theory than the moving of celestial objects.  Once a satellite is launched via a delivery system through the atmosphere it encounters aether, or more precisely the ethereal wind (see Isaac Newton- one of the "rounder's favorites). The aetherial wind moves in a rotational manner (see my post on Coriolis Effect Exists But Not In The Way Rounders Think it Does).

I could start a thread, I suppose that was entitled "Satellites about the earth- But Not The Way Rounders Think They Do"

As the Aether rushes by the earth objects that it intersects with are also pulled along the path taking them around the disc. We also have to remember that the disc (or earth) is also moving upward (along with the aether and the atmosphere) at a constant acceleration of 32/f/s/s. The objects (in this case satellites) that interact with the ethereal wind then travel lower, but along the edge of the Aetheric "whirl pool). The satellites experience the same "eye wash" effect as the sun and the moon- but with light reflected by such and with such low luminosity (compared to those latter two objects) that the "satellite Rise and Setting are not as noticeable.

It seems to me that many "rounders" are a bit touchy - when we explain our theories the posts seem to be extremely emotional and almost paranoid. I certainly can understand that - my own view is that people who explode and enter into name calling are probably beginning to realize the pack of lies about the universe and the construction of such that they have been fed. It is understandable that such a reaction would result in emotional responses like this one. It must be difficult when one finally begins glimpsing the TRUTH through the "veil of lies"
We "explode" because you have the gall to call our greatest achievements a "veil of lies," insult the integrity and intelligence of the people who accomplish them, and when you're faced with a real challenge to your own theory, you hide behind "aether," "celestial gravitation," and more bullshit.  Your "theory" has no self-consistency at all, and is really nothing more than vain, uninformed speculation. 

Did you not see my list of other satellite orbits?  Take polar orbits for example.  If they were travelling over a flat earth, they would have to teleport to the other end, every single orbit.  Now take Molniya orbits.  They are highly elliptical, semi-synchronous orbits.  They keep the satellite over a given area for a longer period.  Geostationary orbits are motionless over the equator, and geosynchronous orbits follow analemmas relative to the surface.  Each of these orbits is carefully chosen for the purpose at hand, and their altitude and velocity can be verified via parallax.  Do you seriously think that they would rely on some "aetheric whirlpool" bullshit?  Of course not!  Their paths can only be explained by a spherical earth and gravity. 

Furthermore, it is you doing the ad hominem attacks and straw men attacks, specifically on Newton.  Newton had no way to know about the nature of gravity.  We just credit him for the notion of gravity, and the laws of motion.  He's not a god, and we don't care about his personal life or opinions. 

Also, fuck you for calling NASA a "veil of lies," and fuck you in general. 

831
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What shape is the Earth?
« on: March 14, 2016, 01:36:56 PM »
A few of us RE'ers have converted to the "donut" earth model. We've done all the measurements and proven our theories because that is the most parsimonious explanation...

Lies, aether predicts right angles, the Earth is clearly a square. Possibly 4 squares.
False.  The earth is a hemisphere, where the flat part is our side, and the rest is cheese, the same material the moon is made of.  Cheese is the universal attractor.  :P

832
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« on: March 14, 2016, 08:19:51 AM »
Satellites exist as do high altitude balloons. So what. They just don't orbit some fictional spinning globe. The sun is also real- just not the way you think it is. Your question is pedantic and probably pejorative. Hard
Well, your answer is parsimonious, pretentious, and predictable (since you are so fond of large words that start with P).  Of course you don't address the paths that they take, even though it's right there in the OP. 

How are they able to follow these paths in a manner that exactly follows what we would expect in an orbit?  Don't forget that there are:
  • Polar orbits
  • Molniya orbits
  • Geosynchronous and Geostationary orbits
  • Semi-synchronous orbits
  • Tundra orbits
  • Sun-synchronous polar orbits
among others, and you can see that Jupiter's moons also follow orbits with a simple pair of binoculars. 

833
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam’s razor
« on: March 14, 2016, 07:42:19 AM »
The round earth theory is much less parsimonious than the FE theory. Fo example rounders have to develop huge distances because of lack of parallax. And those huge silly distances cause so many other problems that the number of mental gymnastics required are almost beyond number.
Such as?

How about flat Earth's number of mental (or optical to be more exact) gymnastics required to allow multiple observers from different directions to always see the same face of the moon (or sun), to have it appear the same size from rise to set even though (according to FET) it's 32 miles across and 3,000 miles up, to allow it to appear to sink below the horizon at a constant rate even though it would need to be 30,000 miles away just to get within about 6 degrees of the horizon and would approach the horizon at an increasingly slowing rate, and allows it to pass overhead on the tropic of Capricorn during the southern summer at the same speed it passes overhead on the tropic of Cancer during the northern summer even though those would be two vastly different circumferences to complete over the same 24 hour period?

Then there is the movement of the stars and how the south celestial pole even fits into mono-pole model (which model do you prefer anyway?)
Such as the lack of parallax and the "invention" of huge distances in order to explain the lack there of as just ONE example
No, there's definitely parallax.  We don't "invent" anything about the universe, we simply discover what is already there.  It is you that invents problems for RE where none exist, instead of simply looking up the answer. 

834
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can nobody explain satellites?
« on: March 13, 2016, 11:44:52 AM »
they just dont believe in satellites, its all ""part of conspiracy"".

any radio, gps whatever signal is by some hidden tower system
I'm talking about satellites we can see and trace.  But whatever explanation they come up with should explain the signals we receive. 

835
And don't forget that they often have their own evidence to contribute.  I believe it was JAXA that operated the SELENE spacecraft, which got the topographical data that Google Moon uses. 
I think they should count as third-party. 

836
Flat Earth Debate / Can nobody explain satellites?
« on: March 13, 2016, 11:35:49 AM »
Do FEers have a good explanation for the motions of satellites?  Of course there's a good reason in RE, but satellites are something FE seems to avoid.  If you tried to overlay the paths of satellites onto your FE azimuthal projection, you would have a mess.  Highly elliptical orbits would be especially difficult to explain, with their peaks and troughs.  Has anyone ever tried this?  Keep in mind that you can tell the height of a satellite through parallax. 

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28]