If The Sun Is Black...

No curvature in that second photo.

True. Yet it is the same window. It cannot be that the horizon will be curved on one picture and then straight on the other. There is a vital difference between the two photos though.Can you see what the difference is?

The answer: One is taken low above the ground (as you can see), the other has been taken high up in the sky (as you can see). The higher you get, the better you are able to see the curvature of the earth.

Most RE folks even agree that you can't see curvature at the altitude your first photo is at, even if you could it would be much less than that.  Looks like distortion from the lens/window.

Most RE folks even agree that you can't see curvature at the altitude your first photo is at, even if you could it would be much less than that.  Looks like distortion from the lens/window.

Look at the second photo. It is the same window, the same lens, but at a much lower altitude and yet there is no distortion. So unless you got another explanation to it, I don't see why the lens/window would distort the picture at one picture and then on the other it won't. The only thing that is relevant different from the two photos is the altitude. Then in addition to the two different photos I gave you a screen shot of Google earth of roughly the same location, same altitude and the same perspective. Now Google Earth is using a spherical earth as their model, but it matches the picture from the plane as one may expect. It adds up that the curvature is real.

I think why most RE folk say you can't see the curvature is because you don't often see such clear skies as on that photo. Clouds block your sight. Clouds are different in size and float at different heights, it obscures the curvature of the earth. I think (but can't speak for them) that the RE folk would agree to me that the picture is genuine (without any distortions) and shows the curvature of the earth. Let's wait for them to see the pictures and respond if you don't want to take my word on that.

Quote from: JUNKER on May 16, 2013, 08:02:32 PM

Most RE folks even agree that you can't see curvature at the altitude your first photo is at, even if you could it would be much less than that.  Looks like distortion from the lens/window.

Look at the second photo. It is the same window, the same lens, but at a much lower altitude and yet there is no distortion. So unless you got another explanation to it, I don't see why the lens/window would distort the picture at one picture and then on the other it won't. The only thing that is relevant different from the two photos is the altitude. Then in addition to the two different photos I gave you a screen shot of Google earth of roughly the same location, same altitude and the same perspective. Now Google Earth is using a spherical earth as their model, but it matches the picture from the plane as one may expect. It adds up that the curvature is real.

I think why most RE folk say you can't see the curvature is because you don't often see such clear skies as on that photo. Clouds block your sight. Clouds are different in size and float at different heights, it obscures the curvature of the earth. I think (but can't speak for them) that the RE folk would agree to me that the picture is genuine (without any distortions) and shows the curvature of the earth. Let's wait for them to see the pictures and respond if you don't want to take my word on that.

I think another explanation is that the curvature shown in the higher altitude photo is such as small amount that you need to examine the photo relatively closely to actually make it out.  Where as if the photo was taken from an even higher altitude, the curvature is much more prominent.  The obvious curvature is more often preferred because there is little doubting the fact that it looks curved.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 16, 2013, 08:30:48 PM

Quote from: JUNKER on May 16, 2013, 08:02:32 PM

Most RE folks even agree that you can't see curvature at the altitude your first photo is at, even if you could it would be much less than that.  Looks like distortion from the lens/window.

Look at the second photo. It is the same window, the same lens, but at a much lower altitude and yet there is no distortion. So unless you got another explanation to it, I don't see why the lens/window would distort the picture at one picture and then on the other it won't. The only thing that is relevant different from the two photos is the altitude. Then in addition to the two different photos I gave you a screen shot of Google earth of roughly the same location, same altitude and the same perspective. Now Google Earth is using a spherical earth as their model, but it matches the picture from the plane as one may expect. It adds up that the curvature is real.

I think why most RE folk say you can't see the curvature is because you don't often see such clear skies as on that photo. Clouds block your sight. Clouds are different in size and float at different heights, it obscures the curvature of the earth. I think (but can't speak for them) that the RE folk would agree to me that the picture is genuine (without any distortions) and shows the curvature of the earth. Let's wait for them to see the pictures and respond if you don't want to take my word on that.

I think another explanation is that the curvature shown in the higher altitude photo is such as small amount that you need to examine the photo relatively closely to actually make it out.  Where as if the photo was taken from an even higher altitude, the curvature is much more prominent.  The obvious curvature is more often preferred because there is little doubting the fact that it looks curved.

Just for the record and to prevent misunderstandings. You agree that the photos on the previous page are real and that you see no distortion on the first photo caused by the lens/window of the plane, given the facts that the two photos are made from the same plane, from the same seat, by the same person, on the same flight as the information provided by the photographer says?

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 16, 2013, 04:21:20 PM

Quote from: JUNKER on May 16, 2013, 04:16:37 PM

No one is saying they aren't real, just distorted.

How many times do I have to post this...

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 16, 2013, 08:17:33 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 23, 2013, 05:53:24 AM

Fish eye lense does not equal round Earth.  Nothing there proves anything but a fisheye lense.

Let me make this clear. It's actually very easy to verify curvature even on a fish-eye lens capture.

Pause the video on a frame where the horizon is in a horizontal position on screen, and exactly at the middle of the screen (at the midpoint of the vertical axis). Now look at the horizon. If it's curved on the frame, it's curved in reality. A straight line would appear as a straight line in a fish-eyed frame, if it's horizontal or vertical and in the middle.

What video?  I was referring to a picture.  Not only lens distortion, but distortion through the glass of the window.

And I was referring to the countless videos from weather balloons, which you at least admitted to be real.

On the original question about a "black sun", space telescopes such as the Spitzer telescope need to be pointing away from the sun (no more than 120 degrees so that the solar panels can still harness energy of sunlight) and can only see about a third of the sky at any one time due to this.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=pDceExkoqQsLBM&tbnid=OpaLS6boFdsD7M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Famazing-space.stsci.edu%2Fresources%2Fexplorations%2Fgroundup%2Flesson%2Fscopes%2Fspitzer%2Fscope.php&ei=W-iVUbWOOMrR0QWAkYDIDw&bvm=bv.46471029,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNFSf7HRmKmpQgdnH3DNOm37a83XDQ&ust=1368865240802141

P.S Please don't call Eric Dollard and Tom Brown scientists, they are most certainly not scientists, they are cranks with idiosyncratic and fringe ideas that have yet to provide any evidence for their ideas.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 16, 2013, 10:03:01 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 16, 2013, 08:30:48 PM

Quote from: JUNKER on May 16, 2013, 08:02:32 PM

Most RE folks even agree that you can't see curvature at the altitude your first photo is at, even if you could it would be much less than that.  Looks like distortion from the lens/window.

Look at the second photo. It is the same window, the same lens, but at a much lower altitude and yet there is no distortion. So unless you got another explanation to it, I don't see why the lens/window would distort the picture at one picture and then on the other it won't. The only thing that is relevant different from the two photos is the altitude. Then in addition to the two different photos I gave you a screen shot of Google earth of roughly the same location, same altitude and the same perspective. Now Google Earth is using a spherical earth as their model, but it matches the picture from the plane as one may expect. It adds up that the curvature is real.

I think why most RE folk say you can't see the curvature is because you don't often see such clear skies as on that photo. Clouds block your sight. Clouds are different in size and float at different heights, it obscures the curvature of the earth. I think (but can't speak for them) that the RE folk would agree to me that the picture is genuine (without any distortions) and shows the curvature of the earth. Let's wait for them to see the pictures and respond if you don't want to take my word on that.

I think another explanation is that the curvature shown in the higher altitude photo is such as small amount that you need to examine the photo relatively closely to actually make it out.  Where as if the photo was taken from an even higher altitude, the curvature is much more prominent.  The obvious curvature is more often preferred because there is little doubting the fact that it looks curved.

Just for the record and to prevent misunderstandings. You agree that the photos on the previous page are real and that you see no distortion on the first photo caused by the lens/window of the plane, given the facts that the two photos are made from the same plane, from the same seat, by the same person, on the same flight as the information provided by the photographer says?

Yes,  I believe the two photos would show the same distortion if there were any.  I do not see any distortion in either,  I see curvature,  granted a slight amount

Ryan,

You actually believe there are satellites in space?     Why aren't any of them visible when we see videos from the ISS (which isn't up there either).

Although you ask the question to Ryan, I feel I can answer this one for you as well.

We can see satellites in space from earth. Go out on a clear night sky, away from any lights in your vicinity. That way you can see the stars clearly. Occassionaly you will see a star-like light that is moving across the sky. These are the lights reflected from the satellites. The ISS will show up to you as a somewhat bigger star and is the brightest of all satellites. You can verify  it is the ISS by using one of the many ISS trackers available to you. You will be able to see it passes right over your location and if the weather allows it, you will able to see it with your naked eye. That will proof to you the ISS is in fact up there. If you use a telescope or a good set of binoculars, you might even distinquish the solar panels from the rest of the spacecraft.

Now to your real question why we never see satellites in ISS videos? Well, there are no motorways up in space, so it is not like you will pass by sattelites in the opposite direction or that the ISS will occassionaly overtake another satellite. Also, they will make sure they steer all the satellites   clear of the ISS, because you do not want to risk one crashing into it. So making it even rarer that you will see a satellite on an ISS video. Furthermore, there are about 3000 active satellites up there and about 11,000 dead satellites. Now satellites is a collection name of all sorts of things, and what even is considered a satellite are pieces no bigger than 10 cm ^3. That is about the size of a small book. Imagine there are about 14,000 cars driving around the earth. You could go on for a very long time, before you encounter one.

Then there is also the different heights at which satellites are. The ISS is at about 350 km (roughly 200 miles), while most of the satellites are up from 200 miles to even more than 22,000 miles (35200 km and more). Almost all videos we seen from the ISS are pointed 'down' towards earth and not 'up' to space. So given all these facts, it is not surprising we do not see other satellites in ISS videos.

And I have told you also how you could see for yourself that the ISS is real, down here from earth.

Please explain this video to me:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

What is the dip in the atmosphere?  Also, what I thought was the sun, later appears to be the moon.  So I'm guessing that the dip in the atmosphere is where the sun went down and the white light is the full moon.

Easy enough.

The 'dip in the atmosphere' is the shadow of the solar eclipse. 

You were looking at both the sun and the moon.  The moon passed in front of the sun, which is why sun appeared smaller and less bright part way through.

Lol,

Regarding the ISS, can you tell me what the longest duration (in weeks or months) that the ISS has been consistently seen in the sky? I'm curious to know if and how many times it's not seen.  Just because it can be seen at the scheduled time on a website, doesn't mean it's orbiting the Earth.  We can see and track airplanes too and we know they eventually land.

You mean physically seen from the ground? Well the problem is the ISS is constantly moving, so constantly seeing it from one location is impossible, but you can see it as it passes by. In broad daylight you will need a telescope to see it. During night it is much easier to distinguish a white spot on a black sky, so you can see it with the naked eye.

It will look something like this. Just a star like light moving across the sky. If you want to be sure it is the ISS, that is when you can use one of the many trackers. Because satellites can also be seen, although none of them is as bright as the ISS.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">International Space Station, ISS, as seen from Earth

There are also live streams available. http://spacestationlive.nasa.gov/timeline/index.html
But at the moment of writing the astronauts have some free time, before going to bed (as said by the schedule), so there is not much to be seen. If you don't believe the footage is real. Go out on a clear night sky and check the ISS tracker when it will pass your location and just look up and see the ISS for yourself.

Edit: Just heard some talking over the live stream, but there is not constant talking.

Maybe I should've said consecutively from one location.  Or at least from two nearby locations, in case one can't see it due to clouds.  And I know you say (and many others do too) that it can be seen in the sky.  That's just not enough evidence to me that it is what they say it is.  How do you know it's orbiting and not just flying? Also, why isn't that live view from the ISS showing the Earth?  I would really like to view the Earth as it "orbits" and shows the Earth going from day to night.

Can you honestly say that you would accept that live feed if it were pointed at the Earth?  And the fact that any random person across the globe can verify it's location, impossible for any craft that has to travel through the air due to refueling needs, I'd say the likelihood of it being an aircraft is virtually nil.

Maybe I should've said consecutively from one location.  Or at least from two nearby locations, in case one can't see it due to clouds.  And I know you say (and many others do too) that it can be seen in the sky.  That's just not enough evidence to me that it is what they say it is.  How do you know it's orbiting and not just flying? Also, why isn't that live view from the ISS showing the Earth?  I would really like to view the Earth as it "orbits" and shows the Earth going from day to night.

I really like seeing you are asking yourself all these questions, it is a good thing
How do I know it is orbiting the earth and not just flying through the sky. The spacestation reflects light from the sun. Down on the ground it is dark, but up there, the ISS is still receiving light from the sun. This could only be true if the ISS is high enough and just to show you that this is true. Here is a video of a plane taking off just after sunset. You can see around 2:50 there is just a faint sunset, with primarly some orange colour sky, but as the aircraft starts to climb higher and higher, the light gets brigther and brigther. You can clearly see the contrast if you skip to 6:55. So if you are high enough, you will still receive sunlight, while down on earth it will be dark.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lufthansa Airbus A340-600 - fantastic take-off in Newark into the Sunset

You will also only be able to see the ISS just after sunset or just before sunrise. With this tool http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php you can see when and at what time you are able to see the ISS will pass by your location (remember to set your location). Now actually seeing the ISS in detail will only be possible from earth if you have a telescope. A very good set of binoculars (at least 20x) will give you some details, but you may need a tripod or something to keep the binoculars steady.

The live stream from the ISS changes from time to time. Here is the description of the live stream: Live from the International Space Station
Live video from the International Space Station includes internal views when the crew is on-duty and Earth views at other times. The video is accompanied by audio of conversations between the crew and Mission Control. This video is only available when the space station is in contact with the ground. During "loss of signal" periods, viewers will see a blue screen. Since the station orbits the Earth once every 90 minutes, it experiences a sunrise or a sunset about every 45 minutes. When the station is in darkness, external camera video may appear black, but can sometimes provide spectacular views of lightning or city lights below.

Just a couple of days ago the astronauts were on a space walk and you had live footage of the earth. If you want to see it for yourself, just keep out an eye on the live stream regularly.

Now consecutively seeing the ISS from one location, as in for hours is impossible. The ISS is moving at almost 28,000 km/h or about 17,500 mp/h, so you will only be able to see it briefly before it moves out sight from your location. Traveling in a plane at about 900 km/h or about 560 mp/h isn't going to help you much either. You could however travel from one location see the ISS, then travel to another location and see the ISS another day. Use the tool I gave you to see when and at what time it will pass a certain location.

Maybe I should've said consecutively from one location.  Or at least from two nearby locations, in case one can't see it due to clouds.  And I know you say (and many others do too) that it can be seen in the sky.  That's just not enough evidence to me that it is what they say it is.  How do you know it's orbiting and not just flying? Also, why isn't that live view from the ISS showing the Earth?  I would really like to view the Earth as it "orbits" and shows the Earth going from day to night.

You can coordinate with a friend who lives far away, when the ISS passes above both of you consecutively, and in both places the viewing conditions are right, you can confirm this.

If you look at the ISS through a telescope, you will see its shape, it matches the way it's supposed to look. Something like that cannot fly. Drag would tear it apart in no time. There's a reason airplanes aren't shaped like bricks. Also, it doesn't leave any trail, so it isn't using any engines for powered flight.

Lol,

I noticed a change in the light but I am not positive it was because of altitude.  I definitely saw it change when the cameraman would move the camera.  Another thing to consider is where the sun was in relation to the airplane.  It was unclear if the plane changed direction after take off which would determine how much light was visible from the plane.

The airfield is Newark, the airliner is Lufthansa. The most logic direction it would go is eastbound (to Germany). Now it does not really matter where the plane is heading. As you can see, as soon as it starts to climb, the sun gets a little brighter. If they were westbound, the sun might get a little more brigther, but the earth is rotating faster, so it will become darker only a bit later. The point remains, as soon as you climb (gain more altitude) you will receive a little more light.

An airliner is limited to about 10 km, but the ISS is at about 350 km, so it can catch sunlight longer after the sun has set at your location and earlier before sunrise. With the tool I gave you, you can also see when the ISS is in the shadow of the earth (so not visible).

Lol,

I noticed a change in the light but I am not positive it was because of altitude.

Gain altitude at sunset and you will see more light or the sun itself again.

What do you mean it's not visible? It has lights on it.  I've seen a video on YT of the astronauts doing a spacewalk and it showed the ISS in the shadow of the Earth.

I am not sure if those are lights so the astronauts can see something in darkness. Can you share the link?

As to what I meant. I made you a diagram so you can more easily see what I mean. I also found you a video so you can see it from the ISS. If the ISS is flying at point 1 (on the diagram) it will receive sunlight, as it is high above the surface. The sunlight are the yellow lines I drew.

Under the ISS, at point 3 it will still be dark.

 If the ISS is at number 2 it will be in complete darkness, because it does not receive any sunlight. Now my diagram is not to scale, but the same principle applies. That is why you are still able to see it after sunset and before sunrise, because it catches light earlier than down below on earth.




As for the video. At the beginning of the videothe ISS is not receiving any sunlight yet so it is dark. From the ground you will not be able to see the ISS at that time, because the ISS does not reflect any sunlight.  A dark spacestation on a black sky...you won't see it. The ISS is travelling very fast. If you take my diagram the spacestation will be moving towards point 1, towards the sunlight. At a point it will start to catch some of the first sunlight. As it moves on it will catch more light and the spacestation lits up. That is when you are able to see it from the ground again.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Orbital sunrise seen from ISS (HD 1080p)

Do you understand it better now?

What do you mean it's not visible? It has lights on it.  I've seen a video on YT of the astronauts doing a spacewalk and it showed the ISS in the shadow of the Earth.

You're asking why small work lights that are meant to disperse light over a wide area at a short distance aren't visible to our human eyes from 230m away and through our atmosphere?

Lol,

Here's a video of the lights on the ISS at night.  Forward to 6:56
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">First Spacewalk Successful for Drew, Bowen

As far as your diagram, you used a sphere which isn't accurate.   

Cool video. It furthers the point that the lights on the ISS are nothing more than work lights used to disperse light over a large area at a short distance, further reinforcing the conclusion that it would not be seen by the naked eye from the ground while in the earth's shadow.

Lol,

Here's a video of the lights on the ISS at night.  Forward to 6:56
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">First Spacewalk Successful for Drew, Bowen

As far as your diagram, you used a sphere which isn't accurate.   

I see now. The station has some lights to light up the outside when it is in complete darkness (point 2 in my diagram) when the astronauts need to work on something. There is a good reason for that. The ISS travels in 92 minutes around the world and every 24 hours the ISS witnesses about 15 to 16 (15,65) sunrises and sunsets. Space walks can take up to several hours, so you cannot go inside all the time if it gets dark, hence there are lights to lit up the outside only during spacewalks so the astronauts can stay outside and finish their work in one go.

When you see the ISS from earth you only see the sun reflecting.

You mean using a sphere as a starting point isn't accurate?
Or did you mean the sphere as it is presented is not accurate?

Well the scales are off, that much is true, but all of these observations do not work for a flat earth. Do you understand now how you can see the ISS yourself from down on earth and how it all works?

A few things I want to mention...some have said that the ISS videos are filmed in a huge pool.  I have noticed that the astronauts hardly move their legs.  They seem to just go limp and dangle.  I'm thinking this is because they are specifically told to do that to prevent them from accidentally "swimming".

It's not necessary to perform the same stunts as the Zero-G airplane.  It's my opinion, based on observation, logic and reason, that the ISS is simply a high-altitude airplane, with a vacuum created environment on the inside.  It has attachments on the outside that make it appear the way it does from the inside (videos) and from telescopes on Earth (although, I am not certain the claims and photos of it are from honest people with no hidden agenda).

Lastly, I realized today after watching this video:

It occurred to me that the space shuttles could have flown way out over the ocean, away from where most people could see it and landed on an aircraft carrier.  I don't know....just trying to figure it out.

Talking about large pools and the ISS. Before astronauts are sent up they go through rigorous training in a pool to get a sense of weightlessness and what it is like to operate the different tools in your space suit. You do not want to do that for the first time when you are out in space.

Your legs just dangle, because in the vacuum of space there is no platform to walk. You do not have to make movements with your legs to move, because there is no liquid you can push yourself away against like you could do in water. In this video at 2:42 onwards you can see the astronauts move his legs while in space. So to say they need to hold their legs still so they do not appear to be swimming is debunked right there. Furthermore at 16:10 you can see metal objects float through space. This would be impossible in water as these objects will hang down from gravity.

The ISS has been seen and photographed from the ground using telescopes and it does not ressembles an airplane. Also the constant weightlessness as seen in many videos and even on the live stream would be impossible to fake.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[ISS] Astronauts Complete Contingency Spacewalk to Repair Leak

And to your concerns the ISS is fake. Well there are all these things that show you it is real. You can even see it for yourself as I have explained earlier. There is this overwhelming evidence, but you still say you believe that it such and such. Is there anything that makes you believe it, like any videos proof or any other thing than your believe?

As for your space shuttle thing. The space shuttle was witnessed live by many people. The launches were open to the public. There are many videos, even from inside the cockpit of the space shuttle that show you the launch. There is no way the space shuttle could have gone away to land at an aicraft carrier without anyone seeing it. Those boosters you see do land in the water, but that is because NASA wants to re-use them for the next mission, so they do not have to keep spending more money on something they can re-use in this way. The tragic event of the space shuttle Challenger is showing you the true reality of it. The same goes for the re-entry of the space shuttle Columbia which disintegrated when re-entering the earth's atmosphere.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Challenger Disaster Live on CNN

I have never questioned the shuttles being launched.  I know that part is real.   As far as evidence, it's very hard for someone like me to prove this stuff.  I'm just saying that I am not so easily convinced that what they tell us, is the truth.  A perfect example is religion/the bible.  It is not uncommon for MILLIONS of people to believe something because they were told it was the truth by an authority (King James, The Vatican) and yet the "evidence" is questionable.

There is no evidence for the literal truth of the bible, there is heaps of evidence for space travel.

Lol,

Here's a video of the lights on the ISS at night.

Lol, those lights aren't very visible from Earth.

As far as your diagram, you used a sphere which isn't accurate.   

Lol, that is how it works with a sphere (which is accurate).  Perhaps you could draw us a diagram of how you think it works.

It's my opinion, based on observation, logic and reason, that the ISS is simply a high-altitude airplane, with a vacuum created environment on the inside.

LOL

I have never questioned the shuttles being launched.  I know that part is real.   As far as evidence, it's very hard for someone like me to prove this stuff.  I'm just saying that I am not so easily convinced that what they tell us, is the truth.  A perfect example is religion/the bible.  It is not uncommon for MILLIONS of people to believe something because they were told it was the truth by an authority (King James, The Vatican) and yet the "evidence" is questionable.

As I was writing, I notice it got pretty long. I really hope you read it, as it is my effort to help you understand things better in a clear way. I tried to write it more analogical to make it nicer to read



I can see your point now. You will need to rely partially on others for your evidence. Evidence you cannot check yourself. At least not so easily. I gave you some ways to check it yourself and so to see that part being true, well that is something. Because you saw these things yourself, and others don't tell you any different you can determine that what the others say which you cannot check so easily is also true when it comes down to science. This is I am about to tell you about.



Now with religion there is lots of in-direct 'evidence'. If one got hit by lighting the church would go on and say "see...that is the hand of god, punishing him for what he did...now all of you listen to what we say..." and people would believe it was so, because they did not understand what lightning came from and there was no way for them to say that it wasn't god or they did not got the chance to show god did not exist, because the church would punish them for heresy. People did not want to die or be punished so they obbeyed whatever the church told them to do.



With science, there are no set rules by anyone. No one is going to punish you either. The only rules that apply to science is that whatever you do, you do systematically. Also that whenever you apply one set of rules, it will apply to something else as well if you were going to repeat the same conditions.



So for example 1+1 = 2. Now we can add some information to the numbers by saying one apple + another apple makes two apples. The rules that one (of something) + one (other thing of something) makes two (of something) applies always. I can take one apple, one orange. Now we changed what type of "something" is by having an orange, but still we add one thing to another thing which makes two.



With physics it is basically the same, although much more sophisticated. They use the same rules to explain what we see and experience around us. That is how Newton came with the idea of gravity. Everytime you drop something it goes down. I know on this website it is explained as the UA, but scientists have measured the gravitional pull on our earth. It is different at different places. Now before you say they made a mistake. That is why they write these long, boring reports about how they measure (in every detail)  and people can have a look at it. But basically they use a tool to determine something. It is the same tool and if they use the tool in the same way, and you still get different results the results truly tell you something is different. Perhaps I need to explain this with a more easily understandable example.



Take a ruler. You have a fixed set of numbers on it which tell you how big something is. You have the same measuring tool to determine something and if you go and use it to measure your desk for example, you see it is much larger than your pen for example. It does not tell you your ruler is faulty. Obviously your ruler is the same, but you are measuring different things which have different lengths.



That is what scientists do too. They just apply the same rules to everything. Your ruler (what is in the name? ) sets the rules for measurement. 1 inch is 1 inch, no matter if you are measuring your desk, your pen or even your house. The same is true for the more sophisticated things to understand like what is causing gravity. They sometimes use abstract ways to explain things, which may be hard to check. And the explanation they sometimes use do not make sense, because you are not there to see it for real.



For example with gravity they have been explaining it as space being a cloth. "A real cloth, can we see it when we look out in the night?  " No we cannot, but we can see the same principles apply. For this you have to span a cloth across something and you just put a marble on the cloth. The weight of the marble pushes down on the cloth causing it to dent, making a slope. Then if you put another marble onto the cloth, you see they move towards each other, because it rolls down on the slope. Obviously space is not a real cloth, but the same principle applies. A lighter marble will move towards the much heavier marble on your cloth. We witness something similar in space. The earth is a tiny marble compared to the sun, which is a very large marble, so that is why we move around the sun. Well, and how comes we orbit the sun and not fall to it I will leave that open for another time.



Scientists have not yet found what the space is made of, so that is still a mystery, but science never quits learning about new things, keeping in mind the simple rules I gave you. Always apply the same rules and you should get the same results in similar conditions.

And actually the same applies in believing and disbelieving others. Apply the same rules. If you want to look into something, set the rules and apply it. Be evenly critical about the things you see about the flat earth, but be even critical about the things you see about a spherical earth. Does the FET hold any evidence? Does the RET hold any evidence? To give you some idea about how I see it. To me, these a clear answers. I go on debating about the subject. I want to see if there is thruth in it, because like a real scientist, if there are new things to learn that changes my view on certain things, that is the way to go forward.
The only thing is that the new rules would have to be applicable to all situations, also previously encounterd. For example I know things fall to the ground as I drop them. Now I can have a theory about a giant vacuum cleaner in the sky, pulling things upwards. The theory seems plausible and it is a total new view I did not think of before. Could I accept the new theory?

I want you to think about my example for a moment. Do you accept the new theory of a giant vacuum cleaner in the sky? Take the time you want to think about it.

I will not accept the theory, because even though in theory there could be a giant vacuum cleaner I still witness things fall to the ground as I drop them. It contracits my observations and I have never seen one in the sky before, so I disregard it as false.

Well I hope you get my point. Keep asking questions, that is a good thing. I am sorry it took you a while to read through all of this, but I hope it helped you understand things better at how scientists work. And by being here I hope I can try and explain things and give ways to experiment and see things for yourself to see it is true.

29,

The "Lol" is in reference to Lolflatdisc.  And my point to Lolflatdisc was that the ISS uses those lights when doing spacewalks so they can see when it gets in Earth's nighttime area.  It had nothing to do with being visible from Earth.  And if I drew a diagram trying to explain how the ISS could orbit the Earth, it wouldn't be a working model due to Earth being flat.  Therefore, I suspect that the ISS/disguised airplane or some other military (Reagan Star Wars) craft flies OVER the Earth.

I have been writing a long story about it. I really appreciate if you read it, but it can all be summarized in asking you the following question.

Why would you perceive the ISS as a disguised airplane or some other military craft that flies over the earth as more credible than an ISS in space?

What I have been writing before is the essence of science and how it works, but applying the same set of rules I have been talking about is summarized in that question.

Lol,

Thank you for being considerate in our discussion.  It's so uncommon online.  Anyhow, about your theory, it actually got me thinking...  what if that vacuum in space is actually pulling everything upward?  How much do we know about Aether? Might it have the properties of attraction?

We know the most important thing about aether, the fact that it does not exist.

Lol,

Thank you for being considerate in our discussion.  It's so uncommon online.  Anyhow, about your theory, it actually got me thinking...  what if that vacuum in space is actually pulling everything upward?  How much do we know about Aether? Might it have the properties of attraction?

You're welcome. Well to understand how the atomsphere stays on earth you could have a look at Mars. Mars has a very weak magnetic field, so the solar wind could just blow away Mars' atmoshpere into space. Earth has a very strong magnetic field and our magnetic field acts like a shield, pushing the solar wind particles away. The solar particles reach earth and are visible as the polar lights, but this is an unharmful event. Sometimes there are solar flares, which you may have heard of. These are powerful outbursts of the sun which could disrupt all electronic devices, even power plants. The earth itself is not in danger though.

How come the air is sticking to the planet has to do with gravity. It just 'holds on' to the earth, but we cannot physically see it. Only by applying the same rules, we know that the air..which is a very small marble would just roll towards the larger earth marble.

Jupiter also collected a lot of gasses, in fact so much gasses that it is the biggest planet of our solar system. I do not know much about the aether theory, because Junker would not explain it to me and in fact there is little find about it. I know it is from ancient Greek and they considered the earth to consist out of 4 basic elements. Water, fire, earth, air and aether was something to keep the lifeless material ordered. We now know that there are no 4 basic elements but we have no identified 94 elements which occur naturally on earth and a total of 120 if you include the synthethic ones. Who knows how many more there are out there in space we do not yet know of. So this whole idea of aether seems outdated to me.

Because I think the gvt./military has more interest in warfare and money than experiments in physical and life science and Earth observation.

But what if I tell you there is actually a great warfare advantage if you are into space? Why do you think Iran, North-Korea are so eager to get into space? China and India, two emerging super powers have started their own space programs. Why? Because space gives them advantages which they do not have otherwise. Think of spy satellites for example. Without going into space you would not have them. Even the ordinary GPS satellites we use in our cars can be used in military to guide missile very precisely into caves for examples. (Missiles not only rely on GPS, but also on INS and Radar). Using them in combination with GPS and you can deliver your nuclear warhead with a lot of precision into your enemy...and just for the record GPS has been invented by the military.

Knowledge is the power. The more knowledge you have the better you can do things. A welfare state we know today is primarily build on knowledge. Scientific research allows you to stay ahead of things. It is actually power. The moon is said to hold great quantities of Helium 3, which is very rare on earth. Mars may have treasures of its own. I do not advocate to plunder it or to start wars for it, but there is even a very great deal in space. It brings a lot of advantages you would otherwise not have, so the government and military don't do it for fun, there are actually great benefits for them to be in space. There is no point in lying about it. Civil scientific research is conducting genuine research and is looking for answers. There is also military scientific research, which work in secret and the most advanced technologies you do not know it could exist.
The internet you are using right now was actually invented by the US military for example.

Staying ahead and promoting research is actually very beneficial and it are the very things they actually do want to do. 

Yes, the Ethernet.  Ironic.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Duckdodgers,

Here's a video where Einstein admits there is ether:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

That first video has nothing to do with aether from what i can tell.   I haven't had the chance to watch the 2nd just yet.   But aether was disproven in experiments like the Michelson-Morley experiment.