I've wondered this. If we could land on the moon in the early 70's and given the SUBSTANTIAL rate at which technology advances, and the fact that we can allegedly see images from millions of light years away, why haven't we landed on Mars yet? It's been over 40 years and we haven't been to Mars, haven't been to Venus, have shown little interest in going back to the moon to build stations capable of providing earth like conditions (farms, systems capable of producing water, etc.).
Because the moon is relatively close, and will take a fairly short time to get there. (it is roughly 400 000 km away).
On the other hand, mars is much further away. At closest approach it is roughly 78 million km away.
A journey to the moon takes a relatively short amount of time to get to the moon, only a few days.
A journey to mars takes far longer, roughly 9 months, or even more.
When they get to the moon, they can then leave and come back to Earth, with the entire mission taking no more than 2 weeks. The entire Apollo 11 mission took 8 days, just over a week.
In contrast a mission to mars and back would take much longer.
There is a more complex relationship between the positions of Earth and Mars as there is between the moon and Earth.
The moon just orbits Earth, so you can come and go as you please, with no "windows" for launch.
Mars and Earth both orbit the sun. This means there will be times where they are close, and times where they are much further apart. This creates launch windows. If you miss these windows the travel between these planets will be insanely long and would likely need to be powered.
The bigger issue is the windows don't align nicely.
You can't fly to mars, stay for a few days and fly back.
If you could, then the entire mission would take roughly 18 months, or 1.5 years.
In reality, after flying to mars, you would need to wait for over a year (almost 2 I think) to have a window open for you to fly back.
That means the total mission time would be something more like 3.5 years.
This means they need to carry provisions (or everything required to make the provisions) for 3.5 years or roughly 1250 days. A 24 hour ration pack weighs around 1 kg, and that is for 1 person.
So the food alone would be an enourmous weight.
You will also need shielding to protect from the radiation from the sun, as well as all the fuel for your trip there and back.
And there are issues with isolation as communication between mars and Earth takes several minutes.
This creates massive issues with a trip to Mars.
All the images of the planets look fake imo.
And in my opinion, they don't. There is no reason for me to think they are CGI, with the exception of the model of the globe which is stitched together and pictures produced from that model.
What does NASA have to gain by lying? Money and money equals power.
And that is just a load of crap.
The money NASA gets is spent on various things like shuttles, satellites etc. Even if you claim they are fake, they are still launching things and spending a lot of money, so there wouldn't be much (if any) money left.
All the people claiming for certain that the earth is round, yet not one has been to space, they are all relying on fake, CGI looking images from NASA.
No. They aren't.
You don't need to go to space to know Earth is round.
The Ancient Greeks figured it out long before space flight.
Even on Earth you can observe the effects of the curvature.
For example, the mere existence of the horizon proves Earth is round.
If Earth is flat, the horizon would either be the edge of Earth, such that you would be able to see everything (at least with a good enough telescope), or it would be a blur as the atmosphere scatters/absorbs light to the point where you can no longer make out shapes.
But instead, we see a relatively close horizon as a clear line.
That alone is proof Earth is round.
Not only that, we see other effects of curvature, like things disappearing from the bottom up as the distance between you and them grow.
That only happens because Earth starts to get in the way and blocks the view to the bottom of the object.
Then we have the stars (including the sun), and the moon.
Their apparent position and size only makes sense on a round Earth.
For example, you have 2 celestial poles, one due north, one due south, always 180 degrees apart. All the stars in the north appear to circle the north celestial pole, in a circle, not an ellipse as you would expect on a flat Earth for anywhere except one location.
All the stars in the south appear to circle the south celestial pole. These are 2 points. Always located 180 degrees apart (although in some cases such as very far north or very far south you cannot see the effect from the opposite one clearly, and away from the equator you can't actually see both points, but can still see the stars moving in at least part of a circle).
This is physically impossible on any flat surface. This is because it requires you to draw 2 straight lines that are not co-linear (so they are centred at different positions on Earth) with 2 points of intersection (one due north, one due south, 180 degrees apart).
But this is physically impossible.
On a flat surface any 2 lines will either not intersect at all for any finite distance(or intersect at infinite distance, which we know is impossible as we can get to the north and south pole) in which case they are parallel; they will intersect infinitely many times in which case they are co-linear/the same line, or they will intersect once.
In no case do you get 2 lines intersecting exactly twice at some finite distance.
This also applies to the sun.
In the FE model it circles above Earth between the tropics. But that would mean for a place south of the tropics (in the southern hemisphere) the sun would always appear to the north. In reality however during their summer the sun rises south east and sets south west as it circles the south celestial pole.
There are other issues as well. The sun does not apparently change size during the day (when glare is removed), nor based upon where you are on Earth. This means it remains roughly the same distance away at all times (and thus should always be at roughly the same angle). Again, this is impossible with a flat Earth, where it allegedly sets while it is directly overhead somewhere else.
Let the distance between the sun and Earth be h.
When the sun is directly overhead it is a distance of h.
When it is directly overhead some point a distance d away from you along the surface of Earth, it would be a total distance of sqrt(h^2+d^2).
The only way for that to work is if d is tiny compared to h.
But we can also calculate the angle to the sun, it is given by tan(theta)=h/d.
If d is tiny compared to h, this will always be roughly infinite and thus theta will always be roughly 90 degrees.
But that isn't the case. Instead the sun sets below the horizon.
You can try calculating the height of the sun on Earth by constructing triangles.
If you do this during the equinox with the sun directly overhead a point on the equator and a point 45 degrees north or south, due north or south of the point on the equator, you get a height of roughly 5000 km, and the sun should be significantly different in size.
If you try it with the equator and the north pole (or south pole), you get a height of 0 km.
You can likewise do it with 45 degrees north and the north pole and get roughly 0 km above a location very close to 45 degrees north.
It is completely inconsistent, further showing a flat Earth is impossible.
You can also do the inverse and look at where it should set/be.
Sticking to the equinox, and the equator, when the sun is half way around the world, at mid night, at its furthest away position and thus lowest apparent position, it is 20 000 km away along Earth and still 5000 km high. This means it should be at an angle of roughly 14 degrees. Instead it went below the horizon 6 hours earlier when it was much closer.
Then there is the issue of direction of sunrise and sunset.
On the equinox, the sun rises due east for everyone and sets due west. Again, this is impossible with the FE model.
For the FE model it should be rising NE on the equator, only approaching due east at the pole, and as you go south it goes further and further north.
There is the issue of the path of the sun during the equinox.
It is always somewhere directly over the equator. For any point along the equator, the sun traces an arc, rising due east, going directly overhead, and setting due west.
Also, the apparent speed (or angular speed) remains constant and that is constant for all points on the equator. This indicates that it is not a straight line by an arc or circular section.
When you combine these from numerous points on the equator, you end up with the sun circling the equator, in the same plane as the equator.
This shows the equator is a circle, with the curve of the circle being up down, not north-south or east west.
So again, this shows Earth is round, at best a cylinder.
You have the phases of the moon and eclipses. These only make sense in a RE model with a very distant sun with the spherical moon reflecting the light of the sun.
You then have other things like laser ring gyroscopes or Foucault's pendulum which show Earth is a spinning sphere.
So no, there is plenty of proof/evidence without going to space.
Yet you get called a loony tune for questioning the idea with no proof.....while those who believe otherwise only have proof offered by others as "their irrefutable evidence".
That is somewhat true. You get called a loony for questioning an idea and providing another without providing any proof or evidence of your alternative, and without showing why Earth isn't round.
All the evidence either indicates Earth is round, or doesn't side either way.
There is not a single shred of evidence which indicates Earth is flat rather than round.
If you think there is evidence for Earth being flat, provide it.
If you think all the above isn't evidence for Earth being round, explain why.
Although I recommend starting a new thread for that rather than doing it here.
Otherwise, if you are just calling all the evidence as lies and CGI and providing either absolutely nothing or just childish crap to back up your claims, you will be thought of as a loony.
What happened to Branson's trips to the moon? Why couldn't his rocket make it up there, I mean we've been able to go up there for over 40 years (allegedly) yet it's not a common place tourist money generator in this day and age when money making schemes are a dime a dozen?
When did Branson try to go to the moon? There would be very few tourists willing to spend the money to go to the moon.
And when they already have so many money making schemes, why start this insanely expensive one?