They've lied to the world about the stars

Your attempt to use Volume-to-Weight Math to explain away visibility

Is a simple test for you, and other lying scum like you.
It is for you to show the validity of the pathetic BS you are spouting.

If you don't like it because you know it will show you are wrong, you are welcome to put something in space and use that instead, as long as you can actually show it is in space.

Even if an object is large enough to be resolved, the Contrast Threshold fails when the light is scattered by 100+ km of air.

So you are saying we can't see anything in space?

their angular size would be mathematically zero to any camera on Earth.

No, it will still be non-zero, just very small.
But no camera has that resolution, so it will be unresolved.
And atmospheric turbulence scatters the light, making it appear larger.

So you are saying we can't see anything in space?

 Jack, your attempt to jump to extremes is a Logical Fallacy designed to ignore the Physics of the Medium. We can see luminous bodies (stars/moon) because they are high-energy sources within the Aetheric field. But you claim we can see a "space station" or a "satellite" made of dull metal, 400km away, through 100km of the densest part of the atmosphere, while it’s reflecting sunlight? Even in your globe model, the Contrast Threshold dictates that an object becomes invisible once its light is scattered by a specific volume of air. You’re not seeing "satellites"; you’re seeing High-Altitude Atmospheric Phenomena or lights on the ceiling of the dome, and calling them your "space toys." Optical Audit: Failed.


 

• The Scattering Problem: Light doesn't just travel forever through air without losing integrity, Jack. Between the observer and your supposed "ISS," there are billions of tons of nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor. Each photon is scattered, refracted, and absorbed. To claim a high-res, undistorted image of a metallic object is possible through that much Atmospheric Soup is a violation of Rayleigh Scattering laws. You are defending a CGI script, not a physical observation. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

Jack, your attempt to jump to extremes is a Logical Fallacy

No, it is just calling out your pathetic BS.

10 km of sea level atmosphere is roughly equivalent to looking up into space through all the atmosphere above.

you claim we can see a "space station" or a "satellite" made of dull metal, 400km away, through 100km of the densest part of the atmosphere

No, I don't.
That is yet again your strawman.
I claim we can see it through the equivalent of 10 km of atmosphere.

To claim a high-res, undistorted image of a metallic object is possible through that much Atmospheric Soup is a violation of Rayleigh Scattering laws.

So what you are saying is that Turbo (and yourself) are worthless lying scum, who knows you can't get undistorted images/videos through that much atmosphere, and that you have no way at all to know if it is the planets/stars moving or just a turbulent atmosphere?

Thank you for confirming FEer dishonesty yet again.

No, it is just calling out your pathetic BS. 10 km of sea level atmosphere is roughly equivalent to looking up into space through all the atmosphere above.

Quote

I claim we can see it through the equivalent of 10 km of atmosphere.

So what you are saying is that Turbo (and yourself) are worthless lying scum... Thank you for confirming FEer dishonesty yet again.

Jack,

Welcome back. I see you’ve spent your time away polishing your insults but clearly neglected your physics textbooks. You’re starting with your usual aggressive deflection because you can’t handle the actual science of optics.

1. The "10 km Equivalence" Myth: Comparing 10 km of horizontal, sea-level atmosphere to looking vertically into "space" is pseudo-science at its finest. You are ignoring the vertical density gradient and the Atmospheric Lens effect. In a horizontal view at sea level, you are looking through the maximum moisture, pollutants, and refractive index changes of the Atmospheric Soup. Rayleigh Scattering isn't just about "distance"; it's about the interaction of light with particles in a pressurized medium. Your "10 km" calculation is a desperate attempt to simplify a complex optical system that proves your "satellite" photos are impossible CGI.

2. The Strawman Defense: You say "No, I don't" claim we see through 400km of the densest part... but then you immediately claim we see it through the "equivalent of 10 km." Jack, whether you call it 400km or a 10km "equivalent," you are still claiming that a dull, non-luminous piece of metal is visible with high-resolution detail through the very medium that scatters blue light and distorts stars. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either the atmosphere is a clear vacuum (it isn't), or it’s a scattering medium that prevents high-res imaging of objects at that distance.

3. The Ad Hominem Retreat: Calling people "scum" and "dishonest" is the universal white flag of a debater who has lost the argument. When you can’t debunk the Rayleigh Scattering laws or the Atmospheric Opacity, you attack the person. It’s pathetic, Jack. We aren't the ones claiming to see "space stations" through a thick lens of gas; you are.

4. Turbulence vs. Reality: We know the planets/stars are within the firmament because their motion is consistent and predictable over thousands of years—unlike your "hardware" that supposedly disappears for decades and then pops up in "high-res" only when NASA needs a budget boost. Turbulence proves there is a medium, Jack. A medium you keep trying to hand-wave away.

Next time you return from your "break," try bringing a better argument than "10km equals space." You’re not cleaning up anything; you’re just making more mess for us to sweep away.

The iPhone camera excuse is the funniest and saddest excuse you’ve ever tried to make yet, didn’t they ever film Saturn at all?

The first person to film Saturn through the worlds greatest telescope in the early 1900’s, and still used today, was never filmed before on cameras, until now a visitor to the site filmed Saturn with their iPhone camera!

When I saw Saturn up close on videos taken by Nikon P900 and P1000, a few years ago, and since then, it looked like Saturn was constantly and endlessly in rapid rotation, spinning almost like it were a top.

It seemed at first to me, hard to define as a rotational motion, and still is hard to define, to see it as motion, because Saturn is very uniform and smooth surfaced, except for a few features on it that are unique to the rest of it.

Its ring and the orbs edges are noticeably in motion, a rapid rotational motion, that’s how I see it.

I’ve not seen any other Flat Earther besides myself that has noted this, or even brought it up at all, other than me, which puzzles me.

No big deal, just curious what other flat earth folks think and see…

I hope all you die hard flat earth types are glued to your screens in March when NASA’s new space vehicle will be doing laps of the moon?
All the truth you ever wanted to know about space and the earth’s place in the cosmos will no doubt be revealed in HD or 4K clarity.

While there is more than enough evidence out there for even the most skeptical individual to figure out if ‘we have been lied to’ a trip to the local store to buy one’s very own telescope will most likely supply more than enough information for the actual truth to be revealed.

 The Sky-Watcher Heritage 150P is a good choice for those wanting to find out the truth. It allows Sharp images of planets (Jupiter’s bands, Mars) and deep-sky objects (Andromeda Galaxy, nebulae). More than enough for any skeptic to work out the real truth for themselves rather than having to rely on some shaky hand held footage posted by who knows who on YOUTUBE.

That’s genuine progress by NASA, but in reverse!

They started off with ISS projections to the moon, that’s why they’ve decided on a new moon mission, but it only circles around the moon! No landings, of course!  It’s not easy to fake that part!

Only circles around the moon!
You have no idea the purpose of the mission all you have is a bile filled mind that’s closed off and set to believing in nothing but fakery.

Keep going on with all that, it’s your choice to accept endless proof it’s all faked

Keep going on with all that, it’s your choice to accept endless proof it’s all faked

That is your dilemma and perennial stumbling block.
You always have to resort to calling what ever you don’t like or understand FAKE. You never provide solid evidence to support your claim instead you just knee jerk FAKE with no thought behind your claim. I wonder why this is?

Currently a number of countries USA, China, India and Japan have all in the past few years sent missions to the moon.
Are you claiming all these missions were FAKE?

If so where is your evidence that supports your claim? How did you come by this evidence and how have you yourself proven it to be true and beyond doubt?

Simply calling out FAKE to everything presented to you that does not fall in line with your own narrow unsupported belief says much about your own unproven position.

All the shaky footage of Saturn you supply as evidence can easily be disproved by the many thousands of sharp images of Saturn taken by both amateur and professional astronomers. It’s simple for anyone with a  well mounted stable telescope to disprove your claim of a wobbly Saturn.

 The explanation to why all the footage you favor is wobbly is easily explained away. Shooting anything with a P900 you mention or similar with a long focal length at night with an aperture of f16.5  requires very high ISO especially shooting video.  If the camera is either hand held or on a less than stable mount using a very slow shutter speed for stills the resulting image produced will be very fuzzy. Shooting video at night the results will be even worse. If the camera were properly set up with a ridged mount on a timer then the still images would  be much less fuzzy. There is not much that can be done to video shot at night on a P900. Shooting a near black sky with pinpricks of light at f16.5 pushes the camera to use extremely high ISO due to severe lack of light. This is why Astro still photography requires fast lenses f1.4 and not f16.5 along with long exposure times. Astro video is most often created using time lapse. The problem shooting at night is lack of light! This is a fact than anyone who knows about photography and how cameras work would tell you.
Many amateur Astro photographers these day use computational photography for stills to help eliminate noise to produce sharper cleaner noise free images. I imagine this is just another subject that’s way beyond you.
Your belief in those blurry images is laughable and stems from one clear truth  and that is your irrefutable ignorance.

When all our videos of Saturn close up show virtually the same thing of Saturn and it’s features, even though they were taken  in various conditions, instruments, and viewing angles, including the worlds greatest telescope of the 1900’s, that cannot be random chance at all. 


If you looked at the videos, you’d see that Saturn is in rapid rotation, best seen in each frame, where the orbs dark feature quickly changes again and again. We certainly know that there’s no distinct multiple belts on Saturn like they claimed to see all the time.

There’s abundant proof the moon landings were faked. There’s no proof at all they were genuine.

They’re once again going to pull their sham, the rocket will launch up and veer off far too low, planes fly right up at an angle to high altitude, where little air resistance exists.


Anyone with a brain can see that rockets should fly upward from launch to at least these altitudes, exactly like planes always do.  The bs excuse that a rocket has to speed up after veering off is nonsense, it would already have more speed at high altitudes like planes do.

It’s a farce, they veer off at low altitudes to fly out of all sight before they burn all their fuel before the world’s eyes and crash to Earth.

They crash out of sight in the ocean, within NASA’s massive ‘protection zones’, stretching out to ridiculous distances they need so we cannot see the rockets crash down to Earth.

Every viewpoint of it is taken care of. It’s a never ending stupid trick that you have no clue of going on at all.

When all our videos of Saturn close up show virtually the same thing of Saturn and it’s features, even though they were taken  in various conditions, instruments, and viewing angles, including the worlds greatest telescope of the 1900’s, that cannot be random chance at all. 


If you looked at the videos, you’d see that Saturn is in rapid rotation, best seen in each frame, where the orbs dark feature quickly changes again and again. We certainly know that there’s no distinct multiple belts on Saturn like they claimed to see all the time.

There’s abundant proof the moon landings were faked. There’s no proof at all they were genuine.

They’re once again going to pull their sham, the rocket will launch up and veer off far too low, planes fly right up at an angle to high altitude, where little air resistance exists.


Anyone with a brain can see that rockets should fly upward from launch to at least these altitudes, exactly like planes always do.  The bs excuse that a rocket has to speed up after veering off is nonsense, it would already have more speed at high altitudes like planes do.

It’s a farce, they veer off at low altitudes to fly out of all sight before they burn all their fuel before the world’s eyes and crash to Earth.

They crash out of sight in the ocean, within NASA’s massive ‘protection zones’, stretching out to ridiculous distances they need so we cannot see the rockets crash down to Earth.

Every viewpoint of it is taken care of. It’s a never ending stupid trick that you have no clue of going on at all.

Let’s just examine the response from turbonium2 for any actual testable evidence.

On the topic of Saturn let’s remember it’s been observed through telescopes since the first observation by Galileo Galilei back in 1610. Anyone with a mind to can go and observe Saturn and its rings for themselves as Galileo did more than 400 years ago. It’s no secret it’s there for everyone to see and witness for themselves. The fact being any observation you make will be the same as Galileo Galilei along with the many thousands of astronomers who have also  observed Saturn and its rings. Those observations will however  NOT agree with those presented by  turbonium2 who we have to remember has an agenda and axe to grind and no interest in science or truth. When it comes down to it they can’t be empty handed they have to have something even if it made up easily disproved nonsense. They need to try bolster their position as they have nothing else to present it’s either nonsense or nothing. They have no interest in truth or astronomy but only wish to reach conclusions that align with their beliefs. What they imagine as proof is easily disproved by anyone with a telescope.

turbonium2 said:-
“There’s abundant proof the moon landings were faked”

There is no proof that the moon landings were faked. That belief is no more than a conspiracy.
While it’s not possible to see the moon landing sites from the earth one thing that proves beyond doubt that humans were there are the three retroreflector arrays left at Apollo 11, 14, 15 landing sites. 
Many organization regularly use the arrays. Observatories fire short laser pulses at the reflectors and measure the round-trip travel time  which is around 2.5 seconds. This allows distance measurements accurate to millimetres. Lunar laser ranging is conducted by multiple international observatories, including the McDonald Observatory and the Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur
The experiment is cooperative and ongoing. The no moon landing  claim had zero testable proof and is therefore based on no more than conspiracy.

turbonium2 said:-
“They’re once again going to pull their sham, the rocket will launch up and veer off”

turbonium2 then said :-
“Anyone with a brain can see that rockets should fly upward”

Both statements are based on nothing more than pure ignorance.
To orbit Earth you do not need height — you need speed.
Low Earth orbit requires roughly 7.8 km/s sideways velocity.
That horizontal speed is what makes a spacecraft continually “miss” the Earth as it falls around it. The principle was first quantified by Isaac Newton in his cannonball thought experiment: fire a projectile fast enough and as it falls, the Earth curves away beneath it.
So a launch profile looks like this:
1.   Initial vertical ascent
•   Clears dense atmosphere
•   Minimises aerodynamic stress (max-Q region)
2.   Pitch-over (gravity turn)
•   Begins within the first few minutes
•   Vehicle tilts gradually
3.   Predominantly horizontal acceleration
•   Almost all propellant energy goes into building orbital speed
•   By main engine cutoff, the rocket is travelling mostly sideways
That “sideways” segment is essential. Without it, the vehicle would simply arc up and fall back down.
Flat Earth arguments here generally stem from:
•   Confusing altitude with orbit
•   Ignoring conservation of angular momentum
•   Not appreciating that orbit continuous free-fall

The horizontal motion is not evidence against a spherical Earth — it is precisely what a spherical gravitational field requires. It’s one of those cases where a superficially intuitive objection collapses under basic mechanics. All this explanation is easily found if you want to know and understand the facts of the matter.

Such is the case of all, no evidence flat earth beliefs than can be either boiled down to plain ignorance or belief in conspiracy.

Read any post by any flat earth believer and what they say can either be boiled down to :-
Belief in conspiracy
OR
Plain ignorance.

Flat earth believers have no evidence which is illustrated by the heading of this overlong thread than implies they have been lied to about the stars and there is a conspiracy behind everything.

The simple truth can be found by anyone  with a simple telescope along with a dark clear sky and time to observe. It’s so easy to disprove this belief in a conspiracy. Let’s remember observations of Saturn and its rings have been made since the early 1600s. No recorded observation would agree with turbonium2. They are out on a limb on their own believing in observations that can easily be disproved. Such is their desire to believe in the flat earth than no amount of testable evidence will ever convince them.

To orbit Earth you do not need height — you need speed... The principle was first quantified by Isaac Newton in his cannonball thought experiment.

Timeisup, you are basing your entire worldview on a "thought experiment" from the 17th century while ignoring the 21st-century physical laws of thermodynamics. You claim "speed" is the magic ingredient for orbit, but you fail to explain how a pressurized gas system (our atmosphere) can exist adjacent to an infinite vacuum (space) without a physical container. Gravity is not a structural barrier; it is a theory. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law. Without a container, your "speeding rocket" would be trying to achieve orbit in a medium that shouldn't exist according to the very science you claim to defend.

Low Earth orbit requires roughly 7.8 km/s sideways velocity... That “sideways” segment is essential. Without it, the vehicle would simply arc up and fall back down.

You just perfectly described a crash trajectory and called it "physics." The reason rockets veer sideways at low altitudes is not to "gain orbital speed"—it’s to disappear from the observer's line of sight before they inevitably fall into the "protection zones" of the ocean. If a rocket truly needed to clear the dense atmosphere to avoid aerodynamic stress, it would maintain a vertical ascent much longer. Instead, they "pitch over" while the air is still thick, which is the most inefficient way to gain height but the most effective way to hide a failure. You are watching a ship sink behind the horizon and claiming it "decided to swim sideways."

one thing that proves beyond doubt that humans were there are the three retroreflector arrays... measure the round-trip travel time which is around 2.5 seconds.

This is your most desperate "proof." First, you don't need a human to place a reflector; the Soviets did it with unmanned rovers (Lunokhod). Second, and more importantly, the Moon itself is a diffuse reflector. Scientists were bouncing lasers off the Moon long before Apollo 11. The return signal you claim is from a "reflector" is a handful of photons that require massive "data smoothing" to even be detected. Using a laser to prove a human landing is like pointing a flashlight at a mountain and claiming you've proved there's a flag on the summit. It’s an intellectual shortcut for the lazy.

The horizontal motion is not evidence against a spherical Earth — it is precisely what a spherical gravitational field requires.

This is textbook Circular Reasoning. You assume a spherical gravitational field to explain the horizontal motion, and then use the horizontal motion to prove the spherical field. You have no independent way to verify either. In the real world, when things fly sideways and downward at the same time, we call it "falling." You call it "orbiting" because the alternative—that your multi-billion dollar space agencies are running a high-altitude magic show—is too terrifying for you to contemplate.

What they imagine as proof is easily disproved by anyone with a telescope... No recorded observation would agree with turbonium2.

You keep hiding behind Galileo, but Galileo himself saw "ears" on Saturn, not rings. Amateur observations today, using high-frame-rate P1000 cameras and telescopes, show Saturn as a sonoluminescent, fluctuating light source, not the solid, "belted" ball NASA sells you. You dismiss independent observers because they don't have the "official priesthood" credentials, yet you ignore the fact that NASA’s own visualizers admit their images are "composites" and "Photoshop." Who is really "out on a limb" here? The man trusting his own eyes, or the man trusting a government-funded coloring book?

Quote from: Timeisup

To orbit Earth you do not need height — you need speed... The principle was first quantified by Isaac Newton in his cannonball thought experiment.

Timeisup, you are basing your entire worldview on a "thought experiment" from the 17th century while ignoring the 21st-century physical laws of thermodynamics. You claim "speed" is the magic ingredient for orbit, but you fail to explain how a pressurized gas system (our atmosphere) can exist adjacent to an infinite vacuum (space) without a physical container. Gravity is not a structural barrier; it is a theory. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law. Without a container, your "speeding rocket" would be trying to achieve orbit in a medium that shouldn't exist according to the very science you claim to defend.

Quote

Low Earth orbit requires roughly 7.8 km/s sideways velocity... That “sideways” segment is essential. Without it, the vehicle would simply arc up and fall back down.

You just perfectly described a crash trajectory and called it "physics." The reason rockets veer sideways at low altitudes is not to "gain orbital speed"—it’s to disappear from the observer's line of sight before they inevitably fall into the "protection zones" of the ocean. If a rocket truly needed to clear the dense atmosphere to avoid aerodynamic stress, it would maintain a vertical ascent much longer. Instead, they "pitch over" while the air is still thick, which is the most inefficient way to gain height but the most effective way to hide a failure. You are watching a ship sink behind the horizon and claiming it "decided to swim sideways."

Quote

one thing that proves beyond doubt that humans were there are the three retroreflector arrays... measure the round-trip travel time which is around 2.5 seconds.

This is your most desperate "proof." First, you don't need a human to place a reflector; the Soviets did it with unmanned rovers (Lunokhod). Second, and more importantly, the Moon itself is a diffuse reflector. Scientists were bouncing lasers off the Moon long before Apollo 11. The return signal you claim is from a "reflector" is a handful of photons that require massive "data smoothing" to even be detected. Using a laser to prove a human landing is like pointing a flashlight at a mountain and claiming you've proved there's a flag on the summit. It’s an intellectual shortcut for the lazy.

Quote

The horizontal motion is not evidence against a spherical Earth — it is precisely what a spherical gravitational field requires.

This is textbook Circular Reasoning. You assume a spherical gravitational field to explain the horizontal motion, and then use the horizontal motion to prove the spherical field. You have no independent way to verify either. In the real world, when things fly sideways and downward at the same time, we call it "falling." You call it "orbiting" because the alternative—that your multi-billion dollar space agencies are running a high-altitude magic show—is too terrifying for you to contemplate.

Quote

What they imagine as proof is easily disproved by anyone with a telescope... No recorded observation would agree with turbonium2.

You keep hiding behind Galileo, but Galileo himself saw "ears" on Saturn, not rings. Amateur observations today, using high-frame-rate P1000 cameras and telescopes, show Saturn as a sonoluminescent, fluctuating light source, not the solid, "belted" ball NASA sells you. You dismiss independent observers because they don't have the "official priesthood" credentials, yet you ignore the fact that NASA’s own visualizers admit their images are "composites" and "Photoshop." Who is really "out on a limb" here? The man trusting his own eyes, or the man trusting a government-funded coloring book?

Once more you start by presenting a smokescreen of pseudoscience misrepresentation of the actual facts and the actual physics that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

The fact is it works. Space craft achieve orbit and move beyond into space for missions beyond the immediate vicinity of the earth.
The other fact is all you have is various conspiracies to cast flat earth biased doubt. The fact is you have no evidence of your own despite what you say and at the final analysis all you ever have and all you can ever to is resort to the well worn and tired position of calling it all fake based on nothing but a silly conspiracy.

Using a lot of meaningless mumbo jumbo does nothing for your case.
How about for once you present something you consider proof that can stand up to scrutiny. For someone who once thought airline blight times held some flat earth proof only demonstrates the level on which you operate.

To see how how far from reality you operate you said this:-

“You have no independent way to verify either. In the real world, when things fly sideways and downward at the same time, we call it "falling." You call it "orbiting" ”

Try looking up at the night sky where thousands of satellites orbit many of which can be seen by the naked eye. Several of which beam back images of the earth 24/7.

Your only recourse is to cry fake and fall back on conspiracy.

You then say:-
“Amateur observations today, using high-frame-rate P1000 cameras”

High frame rate! P1000!
High frame rate means nothing while the Nikon P1000 is old 2018 technology which due to its optical abilities is pretty average for astronomy. Being f2.8 at 24mm and f8 when fully zoomed out to 3000 mm equivalent. While ok for taking shots of the moon due to the moon being pretty bright for taking shots at f8 at 3000mm one had to be extremely careful otherwise you end up with the type of blurry images you appear in your ignorance to think are some kind of proof for you beliefs. The reason why those blurry images you love so much are blurry and in motion is all down to the stupidity of the person behind the camera.
The very fact you don’t understand that says much about your understanding of astrophotography. In addition what you think ‘high frame rate’ had to do with achieving a good Astro shot is beyond me! Once more it just demonstrates your own basic ignorance.
The P1000 like  older models will shoot video at 25p, 30p and 60p at only HD. No high frame rate there!

Think again and next time get your facts right!

This I had to do separately!
Here is a guy who is arguing against space flight and then says this:-

“This is your most desperate "proof." First, you don't need a human to place a reflector; the Soviets did it with unmanned rovers (Lunokhod). Second, and more importantly, the Moon itself is a diffuse reflector.”

This is of course true the Russians did place a reflector on the moon remotely which of course involved them like the USA, China, India and Japan launching rockets into space by the method I described.

So what are you actually trying to prove? That space flight is real? If so I agree with you. Well done admitting that space flight is real which pretty well debunks your whole notion of a flat earth!

What about all the moon shrimp that you flat earth types think inhabit the moon!
I thought all you flat earth types thought the moon gave off its own light!

Make up your mind!

You can’t aim a laser at the moon regolith and hope for it to bounce back to your receiver! That’s why they placed the reflector there. The clue is in the name clot!

Well done admitting that space flight is real which pretty well debunks your whole notion of a flat earth!

Your reading comprehension is as flawed as your globe model. My mention of the "Lunokhod" was a demonstration of the BS internal inconsistency of your own narrative, not an admission of reality. Let me be crystal clear for your "magically" confused brain:

The Moon is a luminary, a self-luminescent cold light source. It has no physical "landing surface" for a human or a robotic rover. Whether it's NASA's actors or the Soviet's "unmanned" claims, the story of placing reflectors on a light source is a physical impossibility. You claim a reflector proves the landing; I'm telling you that even within your own propaganda, the reflector is a redundant and fake proof.

This of course true the Russians did place a reflector on the moon remotely

No, they didn't. They sold you a story, and you swallowed it whole because you lack the critical thinking to realize you can't land on a light. Bouncing a laser off a luminary and getting a return signal is diffuse reflection from the atmospheric layers or the Moon's own energy field—not from a piece of glass magically placed by a rocket that can't function in a vacuum.

The reason why those blurry images you love so much are blurry and in motion is all down to the stupidity of the person behind the camera.

Calling people "stupid" won't make the Moon a solid rock, Timeisup. Those "blurry" images are the most honest data we have; they show the Moon as it is—fluctuating and non-solid. You prefer the NASA "high-definition" paintings because you've been trained to prefer BS cartoons over physical reality.

Once more it just demonstrates your own basic ignorance.

Ignorance is believing you can achieve "7.8 km/s sideways velocity" in a vacuum next to a pressurized gas system. That's not physics; that's a fairy tale for adults who are terrified of the firmament.

Your only recourse is to cry fake and fall back on conspiracy.

My recourse is the Scientific Method.

[]Observation: Water is flat.
[]Observation: The horizon doesn't drop.

• Observation: Gas requires a container.

Your recourse is to ignore these laws and cry "conspiracy" because your $20 billion-a-year religion is being exposed as a fraud.

Space craft achieve orbit and move beyond into space

If "orbit" were real, you'd have a 24/7 unedited live feed of the entire rotating globe. Instead, you have "composites," "data visualizations," and "Blue Marbles" with cloned clouds. Your "space flight" is a high-altitude magic show performed in the "protection zones" of the ocean.

all you can ever to is resort to the well worn and tired position of calling it all fake

When a man shows me a "photo" of a ball and I show him the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which makes that ball impossible, the "photo" is, by definition, fake. It's not a position; it's a logical necessity.

To see how how far from reality you operate you said this...

I operate in the world of measurable, repeatable physics. You operate in a 17th-century "thought experiment" that has never been verified in a lab. You are the one drifting in a vacuum of your own making.

This I had to do separately!

You had to do it separately because your cognitive dissonance is hitting a peak, Markdof. You're desperately trying to find a "gotcha" moment to save your failing globe logic.

So what are you actually trying to prove? That space flight is real? If so I agree with you.

Nice try, Datajo, but your reading comprehension is as flat as the horizon. My mention of the "Lunokhod" was a demonstration of the internal inconsistency in your narrative, not an admission of reality. Whether it's NASA's actors or the Soviet's unmanned claims, both are part of the same BS space-race theater. Neither is real, but even in your own fairy tale, your "human reflector" proof is redundant.

Well done admitting that space flight is real which pretty well debunks your whole notion of a flat earth!

Is that the best you can do, Spambot? I never admitted space flight is real. I admitted that your side lies in contradictory ways. You're trying to build a victory out of a misunderstanding. It's pathetic.

What about all the moon shrimp that you flat earth types think inhabit the moon!

"Moon shrimp"? This is the kind of BS you resort to when you can't answer the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You invent strawman jokes because you have zero physical evidence to counter the fact that a vacuum cannot exist next to air without a container.

I thought all you flat earth types thought the moon gave off its own light!

We don't "think" it, Markdof; we observe it. The Moon's light is cold, self-luminescent, and has a completely different spectrum than reflected sunlight. It is a luminary, not a rock. You can't land on a light, which is why your "space flight" stories are magically curated fantasies for the gullible.

Make up your mind!

My mind is made up on the laws of physics. Your mind is made up on whatever BS script NASA hands you this morning.

You can't aim a laser at the moon regolith and hope for it to bounce back to your receiver!

Actually, Datajo, you can. It's called diffuse reflection. Scientists were bouncing signals off the Moon's plasma/energy field long before your CGI rockets were "launched." The "reflector" is just a magically convenient prop used to sell the landing to people who don't understand optics.

The clue is in the name clot!

The clue is in your desperation, Markdof. You're jumping between accounts and threads, but your logic is still as broken as ever. No surface, no landing, no globe.

Quote from: Timeisup

Well done admitting that space flight is real which pretty well debunks your whole notion of a flat earth!

Your reading comprehension is as flawed as your globe model. My mention of the "Lunokhod" was a demonstration of the BS internal inconsistency of your own narrative, not an admission of reality. Let me be crystal clear for your "magically" confused brain:

The Moon is a luminary, a self-luminescent cold light source. It has no physical "landing surface" for a human or a robotic rover. Whether it's NASA's actors or the Soviet's "unmanned" claims, the story of placing reflectors on a light source is a physical impossibility. You claim a reflector proves the landing; I'm telling you that even within your own propaganda, the reflector is a redundant and fake proof.

Quote

This of course true the Russians did place a reflector on the moon remotely

No, they didn't. They sold you a story, and you swallowed it whole because you lack the critical thinking to realize you can't land on a light. Bouncing a laser off a luminary and getting a return signal is diffuse reflection from the atmospheric layers or the Moon's own energy field—not from a piece of glass magically placed by a rocket that can't function in a vacuum.

Quote

The reason why those blurry images you love so much are blurry and in motion is all down to the stupidity of the person behind the camera.

Calling people "stupid" won't make the Moon a solid rock, Timeisup. Those "blurry" images are the most honest data we have; they show the Moon as it is—fluctuating and non-solid. You prefer the NASA "high-definition" paintings because you've been trained to prefer BS cartoons over physical reality.

Quote

Once more it just demonstrates your own basic ignorance.

Ignorance is believing you can achieve "7.8 km/s sideways velocity" in a vacuum next to a pressurized gas system. That's not physics; that's a fairy tale for adults who are terrified of the firmament.

Quote

Your only recourse is to cry fake and fall back on conspiracy.

My recourse is the Scientific Method.

[]Observation: Water is flat.
[]Observation: The horizon doesn't drop.

• Observation: Gas requires a container.

Your recourse is to ignore these laws and cry "conspiracy" because your $20 billion-a-year religion is being exposed as a fraud.

Quote

Space craft achieve orbit and move beyond into space

If "orbit" were real, you'd have a 24/7 unedited live feed of the entire rotating globe. Instead, you have "composites," "data visualizations," and "Blue Marbles" with cloned clouds. Your "space flight" is a high-altitude magic show performed in the "protection zones" of the ocean.

Quote

all you can ever to is resort to the well worn and tired position of calling it all fake

When a man shows me a "photo" of a ball and I show him the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which makes that ball impossible, the "photo" is, by definition, fake. It's not a position; it's a logical necessity.

Quote

To see how how far from reality you operate you said this...

I operate in the world of measurable, repeatable physics. You operate in a 17th-century "thought experiment" that has never been verified in a lab. You are the one drifting in a vacuum of your own making.

This just gets better and better with him now saying this:-

“My mention of the "Lunokhod" was a demonstration of the BS internal inconsistency of your own narrative, not an admission of reality.”

So there you have it he is unable to admit to reality! Can you believe this clown!

But it keeps getting better when he says this:-

“When a man shows me a "photo" of a ball and I show him the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which makes that ball impossible, the "photo" is, by definition, fake. It's not a position; it's a logical necessity.”
?????

Just to remind you the 2nd law in simple language says:-
Energy spontaneously spreads out. Systems naturally evolve from ordered, energy-concentrated states toward more disordered, energy-dispersed states.
OR
Energy becomes less available for doing useful work over time in an isolated system.

Now pardon me but what the 2nd law has to do with calling a photograph of the planet earth fake somewhat escapes me!

He is unable to grasp the reason why those photos/videos he loved so much are blurry! The very fact that countless amateur astronomers publish photos of Saturn snc its rings on a regular basis in astronomy magazines is somehow beyond his understanding!

The reason why I called those photographers who produced those blurry images stupid is because anyone who shoots an image or video of  Saturn and imagines the blurriness and movement is down to the planet moving and  not their total photographic incompetence is completely stupid as are all the fools like you who agree with them.

By your own admission you are a fool many times over.

So there you have it he is unable to admit to reality! Can you believe this clown!

You’re talking to yourself again, DataOverFlow. Admitting to your "reality" would require me to ignore physical laws, and unlike you, I don't subcontract my thinking to NASA’s PR department.

Now pardon me but what the 2nd law has to do with calling a photograph of the planet earth fake somewhat escapes me!

It escapes you because your "engineering" brain is operating on a purely superficial level, Markjo. Let me break it down for you: The second law of thermodynamics dictates that gas pressure (our atmosphere) cannot exist adjacent to a vacuum (space) without a physical barrier. Since you claim the Earth is a ball spinning in an infinite vacuum with no container, your model violates a fundamental law of physics. Therefore, any "photo" showing that ball in space is, by definition, a CGI fabrication of a physical impossibility. Does that help, Datajo? Or is the logic too "dispersed" for your disordered mind?

He is unable to grasp the reason why those photos/videos he loved so much are blurry!

I grasp it perfectly, Markdof. You’re the one who can’t distinguish between atmospheric scintillation of a local light source and "photographic incompetence." You need it to be "blurry" because if it were clear, you’d have to explain why Saturn looks like a sonoluminescent frequency pattern rather than a solid rock with hula hoops.

The very fact that countless amateur astronomers publish photos of Saturn... is somehow beyond his understanding!

Magazines publish what fits the status quo, DataofTime. You trust a glossy print in a curated magazine over raw, unedited footage from high-gain sensors. That’s not science; that’s just being a good consumer of BS propaganda.

anyone who shoots an image or video of Saturn and imagines the blurriness... is completely stupid

Calling the data "stupid" doesn't change the observation, TimeisMark. When you see a light source rapidly fluctuating and changing geometry, a real scientist investigates the source. A Spambot like you just screams "incompetence" because the truth threatens your religious belief in the globe.

By your own admission you are a fool many times over.

Coming from a guy who thinks gas can magically cling to a ball next to an infinite vacuum without a container, I'll take "fool" as a compliment, Markdof. Your "gravity" fairy dust doesn't override thermodynamics. Keep switching accounts, keep trying to deflect, but the 30 points of your failure are still standing. Which one are you going to ignore next, DataOverFlow?

Quote from: Timeisup

This I had to do separately!

You had to do it separately because your cognitive dissonance is hitting a peak, Markdof. You're desperately trying to find a "gotcha" moment to save your failing globe logic.

Quote

So what are you actually trying to prove? That space flight is real? If so I agree with you.

Nice try, Datajo, but your reading comprehension is as flat as the horizon. My mention of the "Lunokhod" was a demonstration of the internal inconsistency in your narrative, not an admission of reality. Whether it's NASA's actors or the Soviet's unmanned claims, both are part of the same BS space-race theater. Neither is real, but even in your own fairy tale, your "human reflector" proof is redundant.

Quote

Well done admitting that space flight is real which pretty well debunks your whole notion of a flat earth!

Is that the best you can do, Spambot? I never admitted space flight is real. I admitted that your side lies in contradictory ways. You're trying to build a victory out of a misunderstanding. It's pathetic.

Quote

What about all the moon shrimp that you flat earth types think inhabit the moon!

"Moon shrimp"? This is the kind of BS you resort to when you can't answer the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You invent strawman jokes because you have zero physical evidence to counter the fact that a vacuum cannot exist next to air without a container.

Quote

I thought all you flat earth types thought the moon gave off its own light!

We don't "think" it, Markdof; we observe it. The Moon's light is cold, self-luminescent, and has a completely different spectrum than reflected sunlight. It is a luminary, not a rock. You can't land on a light, which is why your "space flight" stories are magically curated fantasies for the gullible.

Quote

Make up your mind!

My mind is made up on the laws of physics. Your mind is made up on whatever BS script NASA hands you this morning.

Quote

You can't aim a laser at the moon regolith and hope for it to bounce back to your receiver!

Actually, Datajo, you can. It's called diffuse reflection. Scientists were bouncing signals off the Moon's plasma/energy field long before your CGI rockets were "launched." The "reflector" is just a magically convenient prop used to sell the landing to people who don't understand optics.

Quote

The clue is in the name clot!

The clue is in your desperation, Markdof. You're jumping between accounts and threads, but your logic is still as broken as ever. No surface, no landing, no globe.

Oh dear! Going by all that raving I think I have upset him!

Him admitting space flight is real and not having a clue about the 2nd law must really have got him going.

I think he should go and lie down.

But as I said earlier Flat earth types have no evidence. All they can do is fall back on conspiracy. just look at the number of things he has to resort to calling fake, and then makes up spurious pseudoscientific bullshit where he  throws in as few concepts, like his reference to the 2nd law of thermodynamics that  he thinks lends some credibility to his ravings!

After all that he still maintains that out of focus blurry images are proof….  Well I suppose they are proof, proof of stupidity!

He then throws this in out of desperation:-

“You're jumping between accounts”

He’s jumping between realities and insanity! I have only one account clot.

I have only one account clot.

You can keep telling your "single account" fairy tales all you want, Pittsburgh man. At least you aren’t using this one for your usual low-effort spamming yet—that’s progress. But we see through the mask, Markdof. The pattern is identical, the arrogance is the same, and the logic is just as broken.

Him admitting space flight is real and not having a clue about the 2nd law must really have got him going.

The only thing "getting me going" is the hilarity of your projection, Datajo. I never admitted space flight is real; I pointed out that even your own propaganda is internally inconsistent. As for the 2nd Law, you’re the one who thinks gas can magically stay pressurized next to an infinite vacuum without a container. That’s not science, Engineer WilfulMan, that’s a direct violation of entropy. If you were a real engineer, you’d be fired for suggesting such a physical impossibility.

All they can do is fall back on conspiracy. just look at the number of things he has to resort to calling fake

When the "proof" you provide is copy-pasted clouds, fish-eye lenses, and 50-year-old grainy photos, "fake" is the only word in the English language that fits. You call it a "conspiracy" because you can't defend the actual data, Timejo. You hide behind labels because the physics—like the horizontal horizon at 120,000 feet—destroys your ball.

After all that he still maintains that out of focus blurry images are proof…. Well I suppose they are proof, proof of stupidity!

The "proof" is in the raw observation. You want the images to be "solid" because you need the Moon to be a rock so you can "land" on it. When reality shows a fluctuating, sonoluminescent light source, you magically scream "stupidity" to protect your fragile worldview. Your "high-definition" NASA paintings are for children; raw footage is for adults who can handle the truth, Markdof.

He’s jumping between realities and insanity!

The only insanity here is believing a spinning ball is flying through a vacuum at millions of miles per hour while water stays perfectly flat and the air stays attached. You’re running out of excuses and running out of accounts to hide behind, Datajo.

Whatever name you post under—Markdof, Datajo, or this "Timeisup" persona—the BS remains the same. The laws of thermodynamics don't care about your Pittsburgh "minimalism" or your "single account" lies.

Now he really is getting confused!

The person ironically called wise says this:-

“Let me break it down for you: The second law of thermodynamics dictates that gas pressure (our atmosphere) cannot exist adjacent to a vacuum (space) without a physical barrier.”

This must be a different 2nd law of thermodynamics as the one the whole of science states:-

“the total entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases or remains constant over time, never decreasing. It dictates that heat spontaneously flows from hot to cold, and that it is impossible to convert 100% of heat into work.”

So what wise is raving about with all this talk of containers is just one more manifestation of his madness.

There you have it. Read his rant that has degenerated into foaming at the mouth bullshit.

The fact is as I keep saying flat earthers have no proof so all they can do is cry fake fake fake and then make stuff up.

When that fails they go pure loco and just rave as you can clearly see from the last post put up by Wise.

The topic was originally the claim that we are all being lied to about the stars when the reality is anyone can go out on a clear night and see the truth for themselves. That is an indisputable fact. The blurry photos and videos they present as evidence are just that, blurry images produced through ignorance of how to use a camera. Anyone who swallows that nonsense is a fool. To disprove this nonsense is easy. Just take a telescope that countless thousands have done over 400 years and point it at Saturn and in an instant you will prove the evidence put forward by Wise is pure rubbish.
Never in the past 400 years have anyone but flat earth idiots claimed the planet Saturn is in motion.
I wonder why?
Could it be all flat earth types are crazy?

As for space flight, all you have to do is look up in a dark night and see for yourself. Thousands of satellites are constantly orbiting our planet many of which can be seen easily with the naked eye or better still a pair of binoculars.

So what wise is raving about with all this talk of containers is just one more manifestation of his madness.

The only "madness" here is your refusal to accept the physical consequences of the very definition you just copy-pasted, Markdof. You think science is just repeating words without understanding the mechanics. Let me educate you, Datajo.

When you say "entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases," that includes the distribution of gas molecules. A high-pressure gas system (our atmosphere) adjacent to a zero-pressure vacuum (your space) is a state of high order. Without a physical barrier, entropy dictates that those molecules will spontaneously and immediately spread out to fill the available volume of the vacuum to reach a state of maximum disorder. That is the Second Law in action, TimeisData.

This must be a different 2nd law of thermodynamics as the one the whole of science states

No, it's the same law; you just lack the intellectual capacity to apply it to fluid statics, DataisUp. You can't have a pressure gradient leading into an infinite vacuum without a container. If you have 14.7 psi here and 0 psi there with no wall between them, you have a physical impossibility. Your "gravity" fairy dust doesn't act as a pressure-tight seal.

It dictates that heat spontaneously flows from hot to cold

And guess what, Markstimeup? Pressure also flows from high to low until equilibrium is reached. It’s called a Free Expansion in thermodynamics. Look it up if your Pittsburgh "engineering" degree covers more than just burying your head in the sand.

By claiming the atmosphere stays attached to a ball in an infinite vacuum without a container, you are the one "raving" against the very science you claim to represent. You are desperately trying to win a semantic argument because you’ve already lost the physical one.

Keep hiding behind your dictionary definitions and your rotating accounts, Markdof, but the BS stops here. You have no container, therefore you have no pressurized atmosphere, therefore you have no globe.

Markstimeup, and the truth is out. 

The blurry photos and videos they present as evidence are just that, blurry images produced through ignorance of how to use a camera.

Calling raw observations "ignorance" is the only shield you have left for your CGI-based religion, Markdof. You’re so desperate to protect your NASA-sanitized worldview that you’ve become blind to the physical reality of optics. Those "blurry" images aren't bad focus; they are the true nature of sonoluminescent luminaries in our sky. But of course, a Spammark like you prefers the "magically" crisp, airbrushed paintings provided by the priesthood.

Just take a telescope... and in an instant you will prove the evidence put forward by Wise is pure rubbish.

I have used telescopes, Datajo, and they confirm exactly what the P1000 shows: a shimmering, non-solid light source that behaves more like a frequency in water than a rock in a vacuum. You claim 400 years of "truth," but you're actually citing 400 years of indoctrination where people are told what to see before they even look. That's not science, TimeisData, that's a psychological operation.

As for space flight, all you have to do is look up in a dark night and see for yourself. Thousands of satellites are constantly orbiting

Seeing a moving light in the sky and assuming it's a multi-ton metal box in a vacuum is the height of gullibility, DataisUp. You are looking at high-altitude balloons and drones—NASA is, after all, the world's largest consumer of helium—and calling them "satellites" to sustain your globe fantasy. It’s a pathetic leap of faith, Markstimeup.

Could it be all flat earth types are crazy?

The only "crazy" ones are those who ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics to keep their spinning ball alive, Spammark. You still haven't explained how gas pressure exists next to a vacuum without a container. You just scream "loco" because you have no physical answer.

The topic was originally the claim that we are all being lied to about the stars

We are being lied to, and you are the enthusiastic mouthpiece for that lie, Datajo. You hide behind your "one account" and your Pittsburgh arrogance, but your logic is as broken as your "orbit" theory. The floor isn't moving, the stars are circles around a fixed point, and your "satellites" are just lights in the firmament.

Face it, Markdof: your BS has been exposed, and no amount of "looking through binoculars" will magically make the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disappear. Markstimeup, and you know it.

Now he really is getting confused!

The person ironically called wise says this:-

“Let me break it down for you: The second law of thermodynamics dictates that gas pressure (our atmosphere) cannot exist adjacent to a vacuum (space) without a physical barrier.”

He literally has no idea what any of the stuff he copy pastes into here means.  He's just prompting a chatbot and yeeting the results into the comment box.  If it hallucinates he has no idea.

"Let me break it down for you" - is a chatGPT tell, one of it's stock phrases.

The fun thing is, to make these flat earth arguments for him he has to keep going "Pretend the earth is flat" before every prompt, otherwise the AI will just keep telling him the world isn't flat.

This "gas pressure" bullshit seems to have been lifted from some retarded reddit thread by the LLM.

John Davis, this is one of the most foolish slanders I've ever seen. Almost every view I hold is based on my own original work. I shared this topic at least 5 years ago, several times.

You don't read, John, you don't read. You only read globalist lies and that senile Jura. Don't you know that Timeisup is dataoverflow, you ignorant person?