The Anti-Moon...

You're right, there are no ancient civilizations. We just popped into being as we are.

Quote from: James on December 22, 2009, 12:54:26 PM

Quote from: onetwothreefour on December 22, 2009, 12:45:20 PM

Quote from: James on December 22, 2009, 11:34:00 AM

Which rebuttals exactly? The ones which take the form, "if there's an Antimoon, why can't I see it?" to which I've more or less replied a couple of times, "you can"?

When can I see it, and what is its purpose?

At night, and what makes you think celestial bodies have inherent purposes?

why can't it be seen at daytime? it should be a black circle in the blue sky. Why hasn't anyone got a photo of it blocking out stars at night? or before or after an esclipse. Where is it hiding?

Hahaha, seriously? It's been a while since I literally laughed out loud at a globularist post, but this one had me.
Here's an explanation of why the sky is blue: http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
Now see if you can figure out why the Antimoon should not be a black circle in the blue sky.

Quote from: James on December 22, 2009, 12:43:58 PM

The presence of the Antimoon has been known for millenia, check out Earth: Not a Globe p 149. There are plenty of ancient accounts of invisible celestial bodies too.

Earth Not a Globe does not count as a source. Give me an unbiased account of someone like the Mayans (who kicked ass at astronomy) discovering an anti-moon. Oh wait, they didn't.

I think you'll find that all published works "count as sources", and if you'd checked that one like an actual academic would, you would see that I was referring to its citation of three FURTHER, independent sources (of course, you did not read the suggestion I offered you). It's a reiterating process. That's how proper referencing works, which I'm sure you'll learn if you ever manage to stumble onto a university campus.

I don't know about you, but if I were to cite a source that was another citation of another source, I would get some major points taken off.

Earth is Not a Globe counts as a source about as much as Harry Potter does, by the way. If it's biased, it's completely intellectually worthless.

I think you'll find that all published works "count as sources", and if you'd checked that one like an actual academic would, you would see that I was referring to its citation of three FURTHER, independent sources (of course, you did not read the suggestion I offered you). It's a reiterating process. That's how proper referencing works, which I'm sure you'll learn if you ever manage to stumble onto a university campus.
[/quote]

Many books have been published from talking bears, rabbits that hide chocolate eggs, to a jolly man that flies across the sky being pulled by anti-logic. But that does not make it true. And i don't think you can cite yourself as a source when trying to prove a point. (back up the thread a bit)

 I prefer polarized sunglasses

James said:

Hahaha, seriously? It's been a while since I literally laughed out loud at a globularist post, but this one had me.
Here's an explanation of why the sky is blue: http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
Now see if you can figure out why the Antimoon should not be a black circle in the blue sky.

___________________________________________________________________

Blue light scattering does not making large flying objects invisible. The antimoon should be visible. planes, satellites, the moon, birds, balloons are all visible when flying.

James, I'd really appreciate an answer to this one simple question. If I launch a giant balloon same size and height as the antimoon and park it next to it, how come I can see the balloon and not the antimoon?

If you have an answer this question then your antimoon idea is ok. If not it is not reasonable and you must reject it.

you also have forgotten to explain why there are no photos of the antimoon blocking stars at night.

It could blind you, mentally perturb you and eventually kill you. You can find out more in this research I recently posted: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0

Ah yes, your "research" in which the only experiment you did was killing a plant by depriving it of sunlight, and most of which is merely regurgitating nonsense from the 1800s or earlier. Including such gems as "the moon emits no heat" to which I posted a picture of the moon taken by a thermal imaging camera. And "the moon will blind you" which you described as a "well documented phenomenon" and yet when we demanded you to provide any documented evidence whatsoever, you declined to do so. And your comedy theory that the reason sailors sleep in bunks inside ships rather than in sleeping bags on the deck is because the moonlight will make them unwell.
I just wanted to make sure that everyone reading this thread understands what sort of research you actually do, James. I wouldn't want anyone to labour under the misapprehension that you are anywhere near sane.

Blue light scattering does not making large flying objects invisible. The antimoon should be visible. planes, satellites, the moon, birds, balloons are all visible when flying.

You didn't specify "while flying". Again, I believe the Antimoon will be completely "visible" only as an absence of stars, IF any stars could be seen in the first place.

James, I'd really appreciate an answer to this one simple question. If I launch a giant balloon same size and height as the antimoon and park it next to it, how come I can see the balloon and not the antimoon?

I don't believe that you necessarily could see the balloon. Where is the empircal evidence for this?

you also have forgotten to explain why there are no photos of the antimoon blocking stars at night.

Why would you take a picture of something which was the absence of something else? Do you photograph your empty toilet bowl? Would an flower artist paint a vase with no flowers in it? Would you hail a cab with no driver?

Quote from: James on December 22, 2009, 11:15:51 AM

It could blind you, mentally perturb you and eventually kill you. You can find out more in this research I recently posted: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0

Ah yes, your "research" in which the only experiment you did was killing a plant by depriving it of sunlight, and most of which is merely regurgitating nonsense from the 1800s or earlier. Including such gems as "the moon emits no heat" to which I posted a picture of the moon taken by a thermal imaging camera. And "the moon will blind you" which you described as a "well documented phenomenon" and yet when we demanded you to provide any documented evidence whatsoever, you declined to do so. And your comedy theory that the reason sailors sleep in bunks inside ships rather than in sleeping bags on the deck is because the moonlight will make them unwell.
I just wanted to make sure that everyone reading this thread understands what sort of research you actually do, James. I wouldn't want anyone to labour under the misapprehension that you are anywhere near sane.

What I did in my experiment was to kill a plant by exposing it to moonlight. There is a subtle, but crucial difference. If by "regurgitating nonsense" you mean "citing previous scientific literature" then yes, I did a bit of that.

The moon DOES emit no heat, your NASA pictures don't prove a thing, especially not when contradicted by actual empirical evidence rather than some whacko computer drawing.

And finally, if you can think of another reason sailors aren't permitted to sleep on deck, despite the fact that I've provided historical evidence that this was the rationale behind these ordinances, then I'm all ears.

What I did in my experiment was to kill a plant by exposing it to moonlight. There is a subtle, but crucial difference. If by "regurgitating nonsense" you mean "citing previous scientific literature" then yes, I did a bit of that.

The moon DOES emit no heat, your NASA pictures don't prove a thing, especially not when contradicted by actual empirical evidence rather than some whacko computer drawing.

And finally, if you can think of another reason sailors aren't permitted to sleep on deck, despite the fact that I've provided historical evidence that this was the rationale behind these ordinances, then I'm all ears.

1. The plant you killed was deprived of sunlight. You are therefore unable to determine if it was exposure to moonlight or deprivation from sunlight which killed the plant. Clue: there are billions of healthy plants growing all over the world which have regular exposure to moonlight. Let's just make sure everyone knows this, then they can make their own minds up about why the plant in your experiment died.

2. It wasn't a NASA picture. Anyone with a thermal imaging camera can do this. Basically, your defence is to call the picture fake. Let's just make sure everyone realises this is your only defence, then they can make their own minds up about whether you're right.

3. You are unable to think of any other reason sailors are given indoor berths. Let's just make sure that everyone knows you can't think of any other reasons for this, then they can make their own minds up about how intelligent you are.

I do not criticise here, I merely present the facts as they stand. No further questions. Your witness.

[i]Quote from: Sutekh on Today at 02:12:02 PM
Blue light scattering does not making large flying objects invisible. The antimoon should be visible. planes, satellites, the moon, birds, balloons are all visible when flying.

James:

You didn't specify "while flying". Again, I believe the Antimoon will be completely "visible" only as an absence of stars, IF any stars could be seen in the first place.[/i]

I ment those things when they are flying in the sky are all visible. But your antimoon has only been seen by ancient people and YOU personally, noone else in the history of the world. And you are refusing to take a photo of it cause it's too boring for you to do so.


Quote from: Sutekh on Today at 02:12:02 PM
James, I'd really appreciate an answer to this one simple question. If I launch a giant balloon same size and height as the antimoon and park it next to it, how come I can see the balloon and not the antimoon?

James:
I don't believe that you necessarily could see the balloon. Where is the empircal evidence for this?

 I can honestly tell you large Balloons exist and they fly high! Big ones too. many colours, including black, none disappeared, even the black ones. The kind that take tourists up. I have seen clouds of them in christchurch, new zealand. Although I could be lying, I'm not.

And there is no known physics that would mean a large balloon disappears as it rises, other than if its too far away to see anymore. But the antimoon is HUGE and covers the moon, so is MOON SIZED IN THE SKY. It has to be visible.


Quote from: Sutekh on Today at 02:12:02 PM
you also have forgotten to explain why there are no photos of the antimoon blocking stars at night.

James: Why would you take a picture of something which was the absence of something else? Do you photograph your empty toilet bowl? Would an flower artist paint a vase with no flowers in it? Would you hail a cab with no driver?

But you beleive in a conspiracy! such a photo is evidence of its existence! It's like a photo of the man on the grassy knoll. You'd be famous! But it's too boring for you to unmask the biggest scam in history?!? sorry that's jsut a tiny tiny wee bit unbelievable.

Not one photo of the anti moon blotting out stars. Not one!
It's like you believing in bigfoot, telling us he lives in your backyard, joining a forum about bigfoot, then not taking a photo cause "who cares he's just a big hairy monkey thing"!! then stating there is a conspiracy to hide his existence from the public. Because he disproves evolution or something, and the biologists don't want to reveal this. But you won't photo your bigfoot pet and show us. cause that's too boring.

p.s. James,

there are only 2 ways to cloak an antimoon so noone ever sees it, maybe light bends round it to make it invisible, or maybe it glows blue during the day in just such a way as to fool you into thinking its just an innocent patch of blue sky. Both are not reasonable, both could only be due to some great powerful superbeing or alien force, and if so we are millimetres away from schizophrenic thinking. Any other ways you can think of?

p.s. James,

there are only 2 ways to cloak an antimoon so noone ever sees it, maybe light bends round it to make it invisible, or maybe it glows blue during the day in just such a way as to fool you into thinking its just an innocent patch of blue sky. Both are not reasonable, both could only be due to some great powerful superbeing or alien force, and if so we are millimetres away from schizophrenic thinking. Any other ways you can think of?

The anti-moon is, in my opinion. the most logical available to explaining solar eclipse. I believe that it is possible that some kind of radiation that ommits from the sun could make the anti-moon dark when it passes over the sun. But otherwise, when the anti-moon is not moved near the sun, it is so dark that it is invisible.

Quote from: Sutekh on December 22, 2009, 05:56:44 PM

p.s. James,

there are only 2 ways to cloak an antimoon so noone ever sees it, maybe light bends round it to make it invisible, or maybe it glows blue during the day in just such a way as to fool you into thinking its just an innocent patch of blue sky. Both are not reasonable, both could only be due to some great powerful superbeing or alien force, and if so we are millimetres away from schizophrenic thinking. Any other ways you can think of?

The anti-moon is, in my opinion. the most logical available to explaining solar eclipse. I believe that it is possible that some kind of radiation that ommits from the sun could make the anti-moon dark when it passes over the sun. But otherwise, when the anti-moon is not moved near the sun, it is so dark that it is invisible.

I think its ok to wonder or imagine if there is such a cloaking effect, but isin't it getting to the point with the incredibly simple explanation of a round earth orbiting a round sun with a moon going round us, is so damn good we can't reject it? it's so damn good, we can even predict when eclipses occur years in advance! an anti moon explantion can't predict any times whatsover. It can't even say where the antimoon is at this very instant! the round earth astronoemrs can tell ya when the next one is and what it'll look like from your country.

those astronomers you speak so highly of are those i agree are apart, or are being threatend by, the conspiracy. it is probably that what happens is that NASA and other organizations are apart of this conspiracy and are working hard. they probably know more about FET than every1 on this board! they probably are tracking the anti-moon in my opinion.

those astronomers you speak so highly of are those i agree are apart, or are being threatend by, the conspiracy. it is probably that what happens is that NASA and other organizations are apart of this conspiracy and are working hard. they probably know more about FET than every1 on this board! they probably are tracking the anti-moon in my opinion.

I'm a physicist and I've worked with astronomers, if the threatening behavior exists or astronomers are scared, I've seen no evidence of it! And not one scientist has ever complained about being threatened. If such a conspiracy exists it is huge, perfectly effective and somehow, the world's scientists are either scared or don't notice the earth is flat.

We are talking about the smartest group of people in the world. If there really was a conspiracy such people would find it trivial to bring it to the attention of the world

Quote from: James on December 22, 2009, 03:50:36 PM

What I did in my experiment was to kill a plant by exposing it to moonlight. There is a subtle, but crucial difference. If by "regurgitating nonsense" you mean "citing previous scientific literature" then yes, I did a bit of that.

The moon DOES emit no heat, your NASA pictures don't prove a thing, especially not when contradicted by actual empirical evidence rather than some whacko computer drawing.

And finally, if you can think of another reason sailors aren't permitted to sleep on deck, despite the fact that I've provided historical evidence that this was the rationale behind these ordinances, then I'm all ears.

1. The plant you killed was deprived of sunlight. You are therefore unable to determine if it was exposure to moonlight or deprivation from sunlight which killed the plant. Clue: there are billions of healthy plants growing all over the world which have regular exposure to moonlight. Let's just make sure everyone knows this, then they can make their own minds up about why the plant in your experiment died.

2. It wasn't a NASA picture. Anyone with a thermal imaging camera can do this. Basically, your defence is to call the picture fake. Let's just make sure everyone realises this is your only defence, then they can make their own minds up about whether you're right.

3. You are unable to think of any other reason sailors are given indoor berths. Let's just make sure that everyone knows you can't think of any other reasons for this, then they can make their own minds up about how intelligent you are.

I do not criticise here, I merely present the facts as they stand. No further questions. Your witness.

(1) Well it happens I also deprived of whiskey, though you wouldn't say it died for want of whiskey would you? (If you would, I pity you). And yes, there are plants which do manage to eke out an existence despite the horrid effects of moonlight, but most of these have evolved defense mechanisms (why do you think daisys close up at night???) OR are adversely affected (see Lardner's study on German lumber, quoted in my longer writing on this subject in FEB).

(2) Well if I remember rightly it was literally drawn with a computer. I'll put my stock in a perfectly good thermometer/moonbeam concentrating apparatus before some MS Paint jobby.

(3) Cheers for the ad hominem. Let every know how vindictive you are!

I ment those things when they are flying in the sky are all visible. But your antimoon has only been seen by ancient people and YOU personally, noone else in the history of the world. And you are refusing to take a photo of it cause it's too boring for you to do so.

Well now hold the boat for a minute because I don't have some special Antimoon-viewing power. As I've said, if you have a mind to, YOU personally can just step outside on a clear night and LOOK for the Antimoon if you want, and again, as I've said, it's not much of a sight. Many quite recent astronomers have acknowledged the Antimoon, it's mostly globular fundamentalists who keep quiet about it, but there have been globularists even who admit it exists, because well, how can you NOT?

I can honestly tell you large Balloons exist and they fly high! Big ones too. many colours, including black, none disappeared, even the black ones. The kind that take tourists up. I have seen clouds of them in christchurch, new zealand. Although I could be lying, I'm not.

And there is no known physics that would mean a large balloon disappears as it rises, other than if its too far away to see anymore. But the antimoon is HUGE and covers the moon, so is MOON SIZED IN THE SKY. It has to be visible.

I can guarantee that no Balloon has ever flown as high as the Antimoon, which is ABOVE the Earth's atmolayer. I rest my case.

Quote from: Sutekh on Today at 02:12:02 PM
you also have forgotten to explain why there are no photos of the antimoon blocking stars at night.

James: Why would you take a picture of something which was the absence of something else? Do you photograph your empty toilet bowl? Would an flower artist paint a vase with no flowers in it? Would you hail a cab with no driver?

But you beleive in a conspiracy! such a photo is evidence of its existence! It's like a photo of the man on the grassy knoll. You'd be famous! But it's too boring for you to unmask the biggest scam in history?!? sorry that's jsut a tiny tiny wee bit unbelievable.

Nobody's trying to hide the Antimoon, it's out there if you want to "see" it.

Not one photo of the anti moon blotting out stars. Not one!

The Antimoon is only visible as a moon-sized patch of starless sky, there are probably thousands of photos of it, but nobody even bothers to check because it looks exactly like the rest of the sky. Why would people care?

James :

[/quote]

The Antimoon is only visible as a moon-sized patch of starless sky, there are probably thousands of photos of it, but nobody even bothers to check because it looks exactly like the rest of the sky. Why would people care?
[/quote]

Don't you care? don't you care that people know the earth is really flat?

why can't you photo it? why can't you post a message in the forum, when you notice the anti moon blotting out a constellation? then we can all see it too.

Could you please tell us where to look next time you see it. If you can't then it'
s bigfoot living in your backyard.

James :

Quote

The Antimoon is only visible as a moon-sized patch of starless sky, there are probably thousands of photos of it, but nobody even bothers to check because it looks exactly like the rest of the sky. Why would people care?

Don't you care? don't you care that people know the earth is really flat?

why can't you photo it? why can't you post a message in the forum, when you notice the anti moon blotting out a constellation? then we can all see it too.

Could you please tell us where to look next time you see it. If you can't then it'
s bigfoot living in your backyard.

Well the Antimoon will exist whether the Earth is flat, round or a donut. I don't see what the issue is here.

Next time I'm out staring into the night sky (a rarity, since I know the dangers of Moonlight), I will let you know if I see the Antimoon. In the mean time, you could do yourself a favour by looking for it yourself, in the spirit of zetetic science (you know, actually going out and learning from the universe instead of the screeds of globularist academics).

Quote from: Sutekh on December 22, 2009, 06:48:12 PM

James :

Quote

The Antimoon is only visible as a moon-sized patch of starless sky, there are probably thousands of photos of it, but nobody even bothers to check because it looks exactly like the rest of the sky. Why would people care?

Don't you care? don't you care that people know the earth is really flat?

why can't you photo it? why can't you post a message in the forum, when you notice the anti moon blotting out a constellation? then we can all see it too.

Could you please tell us where to look next time you see it. If you can't then it'
s bigfoot living in your backyard.

Well the Antimoon will exist whether the Earth is flat, round or a donut. I don't see what the issue is here.

Next time I'm out staring into the night sky (a rarity, since I know the dangers of Moonlight), I will let you know if I see the Antimoon. In the mean time, you could do yourself a favour by looking for it yourself, in the spirit of zetetic science (you know, actually going out and learning from the universe instead of the screeds of globularist academics).

James the day you post with the location and we all see it, I will congratulate you, as that's the day the conspiracy falls down.

James the day you post with the location and we all see it, I will congratulate you, as that's the day the conspiracy falls down.

The night sky, possibly right now!

I don't see why the existence or not of the Antimoon is the litmus-test for the existence of the Conspiracy. They seem like radically different issues to me. Could you explain?

Quote from: Sutekh on December 22, 2009, 06:52:51 PM

James the day you post with the location and we all see it, I will congratulate you, as that's the day the conspiracy falls down.

The night sky, possibly right now!

I don't see why the existence or not of the Antimoon is the litmus-test for the existence of the Conspiracy. They seem like radically different issues to me. Could you explain?

Isin't it a way to explain that eclipses aren't due to the scientific opionion about the solar system? It's something we can't see that fools us into thinking the earth is round, orbits the sun and the moon orbits us.

And it is a great litmus test. nasa would certainly having noticed a moving black spot by now! come to think of it, all the thousands of ameteur astronomers who look for comets etc, strange they haven't noticed a big moving black spot the size of the moon.

Nasa etc can predict eclipses really really well using the round earth solar system model, they would have to instead have a secret antimoon method, know it's motion, and be hiding it, otherwise how can they using a fake round earth theory to predict eclipses??? as another poster mentioned above. its a conspiracy.

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html

here's a link preidcting lunar eclipses UNTIL 2050 lol!!!

how do they do that with a fake round earth model? must be accurate knowledge fo a black moving spot, the antimoon.

(3) Cheers for the ad hominem. Let every know how vindictive you are!

Your exact words "if you can think of another reason... I'm all ears".
Implication - you yourself are unable to think of another reason and therefore curious as to ideas other people might have for this.
Conclusion - my statement "You are unable to think of any other reason sailors are given indoor berths" is not an ad hominem, merely what appears to be fact based on your post. Similarly, my statement " Let's just make sure that everyone knows you can't think of any other reasons for this, then they can make their own minds up about how intelligent you are" is also not an ad hominem, merely a suggestion that everyone on the forum should be aware of what you yourself have already stated, and that once they have read that they should make their own assessment of your intellectual ability. Nowhere do I even imply anything derogatory. You are imagining an insult that is not actually written.

(2) Well if I remember rightly it was literally drawn with a computer. I'll put my stock in a perfectly good thermometer/moonbeam concentrating apparatus before some MS Paint jobby.

Here are some other images which, according to you, were literally drawn with a computer.




Of course, these MS Paint jobbies are totally unreliable, and cannot be believed!

If the antimoon blocks out stars, why can I watch a lunar eclipse (the antimoon covering the moon) and still see all the same stars around the moon before and after the eclipse. Surely I would be able to predict where the rest of the circular antimoon is from the arc of it covering the moon. If it moves in a regular fashion I could even predict where it would be going and wonder why I can't see a path of stars being blocked out by it.

If the antimoon blocks out stars, why can I watch a lunar eclipse (the antimoon covering the moon) and still see all the same stars around the moon before and after the eclipse. Surely I would be able to predict where the rest of the circular antimoon is from the arc of it covering the moon. If it moves in a regular fashion I could even predict where it would be going and wonder why I can't see a path of stars being blocked out by it.

That's a good point, you should be able to follow the anti-moon's path after it blocks out the moon during a lunar eclipse.

On top of that, this is one diverse celestial body, can you explain what the anti-moon is doing in this video?

Perhaps the anti-moon normally exists on the dark side of the moon and follows it's path like a twin.

Perhaps the anti-moon normally exists on the dark side of the moon and follows it's path like a twin.

Well that's certainly possible...

Okay, so...

You're inviting me to look for the Anti-Moon, which I can't see anyway, and even if I did want to look at it, its cold light would harm me, so I shouldn't look for it. James, you claim to have "seen" the Anti-Moon on many occasions, yet you just haven't gotten around to taking a picture, day-by-day, to show us where the stars were not and where the stars suddenly are. So, basically, we have to believe in something that is invisible that will hurt us if we try to find it? Is this right? And all of this is to explain eclipses.

And plus, you wouldn't study it anyway because what's the point? It's invisible and boring and stupid. Ho-hum.

Dumb.

Right?

 

Quote from: Dino on December 23, 2009, 12:47:20 PM

Perhaps the anti-moon normally exists on the dark side of the moon and follows it's path like a twin.

Well that's certainly possible...

No it isin't. Nasa can predict esclipes for decades into the future using the round earth model.

Or they somehow know when the antimoon is going to poke it's head out? and the antimoon pokes its head out in a way exactly in agreement with the round earth model's predictions?

surely thats beyond any possibility of being true.

Quote from: onetwothreefour on December 23, 2009, 12:58:35 PM

Quote from: Dino on December 23, 2009, 12:47:20 PM

Perhaps the anti-moon normally exists on the dark side of the moon and follows it's path like a twin.

Well that's certainly possible...

No it isin't. Nasa can predict esclipes for decades into the future using the round earth model.

Or they somehow know when the antimoon is going to poke it's head out? and the antimoon pokes its head out in a way exactly in agreement with the round earth model's predictions?

surely thats beyond any possibility of being true.

There are many consiliences in nature. Is it merely a huge coincidence that the theory of gravity and relativity both come very close to describing the same phenomenon but from different perspectives? RE model's predictions are just a consilience with the FE model. Thus the ongoing confusion and debate.    

Quote from: Sutekh on December 23, 2009, 09:27:42 PM

Quote from: onetwothreefour on December 23, 2009, 12:58:35 PM

Quote from: Dino on December 23, 2009, 12:47:20 PM

Perhaps the anti-moon normally exists on the dark side of the moon and follows it's path like a twin.

Well that's certainly possible...

No it isin't. Nasa can predict esclipes for decades into the future using the round earth model.

Or they somehow know when the antimoon is going to poke it's head out? and the antimoon pokes its head out in a way exactly in agreement with the round earth model's predictions?

surely thats beyond any possibility of being true.

There are many consiliences in nature. Is it merely a huge coincidence that the theory of gravity and relativity both come very close to describing the same phenomenon but from different perspectives? RE model's predictions are just a consilience with the FE model. Thus the ongoing confusion and debate.    

nasa has been in space, it's not a case of I wonder which theory is true, we've been in space, right now there is an international space station look down at a rotating round earth. It's like saying, I wonder if france exists. yes it does.