Index Post; https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10156172318511795/ Bruce 2017-04-19 1) The horizon ALWAYS RISES TO EYE LEVEL and PERSPECTIVE: Today I will look at No 1 - The Horizon rises to eye level and Perspective No 1a) In my example, we have a observer in a 6th story Window, looking across town at several buildings. The first on the horizon, the second farther away, the third farther away still. (See Figure 1a) ----------- No 1b) - As he looks out on a flat Earth, he should see the 6th floor of every building in the distance at eye level. - The ground should come up towards eye level - The sky, the top of taller buildings etc, should all come down towards eye level - Eye level should always be at eye level! (See Figure 1b) ----------- No 1c) What we actually see is - that no ground is visible beyond the horizon - The ground does not come up to eye level - Buildings start dropping beyond the horizon - The 6th story windows don't stay at eye level, they start dropping (See Figure 1c) ----------- No 1d) Model of flat Earth. ----------- No 1e) Model of curved Earth. ----------- No 1f) Conclusions: To me, these are indications 1) we are unable to see the ground due to curvature. 2) The ground does not rise to eye level 3) We should be able to see a large section of the flat Earth beyond the horizon from space, as it should "rise to eye level" and be visible beyond the "apparent" horizon (See picture 1f-1 - Ship hidden behind horizon) (See image No 1f) ----------- No 1g) Putting things in context; - No ships are visible after 15 miles - No cities are visible after 60 miles - NOTHING is visible after 350 miles (See picture 1f-2 - Toronto Skyline) (See image No 1g) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154402971121795/ No 2) The Seasons and constellations: - Earth's tilt - 3D view all around No 2a) Polaris, the Pole star, is always in the same place because it is very far away, so doesn't move much and is in the proper alignment with where the Earths northern axis is tilted and points to. (See Figure 2a) ----------- No (2b) The seasons are due to to the tilt of the Earth; - In the Winter, light is at a lower angle and therefore weaker and there are less hours of daylight and more hours of night. - In the summer, light is at a higher angle and therefore stronger and there are more hours of daylight and less hours of night time. (See figure 2b) ----------- No (2c) A particular spot on the Earth can see a certain radius of constellations (180 degrees from horizon to horizon). - These constellations, although present all year round, are not visible in the day time due to the brightness of the sun and the bright blue sky from scattering of light. - So in the summer, when the Earth is at one side of the sun, the stars on the night side of the sky are visible. - In the winter, when the Earth is on the opposite side of the sun, the stars are visible in the night sky and that sky is on the opposite side from the summer. (See figure 2c) No (2d) If you are in the southern hemisphere, you can see a certain amount of the sky in the summer and winter, as well, there is a column of stars, north of the equator that are never visible. (See figure 2d) ---------------------- Is there an explanation on flat Earth, that explains how the Seasons work, the starts orbit etc.? Actual information on the mechanics of how it is done on flat Earth, e.g. the forces, speeds, distances etc. Not just vague descriptions! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154414979521795/ No 3) Curvature is 3D - i) In front of you and ii) left and right - The horizon IS curvatures - every picture is proof of curvature - The fact that a single picture from any high altitude balloon or orbit proves curvature, water curves - The angles and your perspective are almost level with the circle, so it looks flat No 4 - Things fall because of gravity - Not density! "Things fall because of density" and you tell them it doesn't, it is because of gravity and buoyancy, a result of differential pressure due to gravity, they deny gravity exists No 4a) Density in Zero g: - It is proposed that things rise and fall due to density, which on the surface seems plausible, however, this can be disproven because things don't separate in zero g. (See figure 4a-1) - Different density liquids in zero g (See video No 4a-2) https://youtu.be/rpP-7dhm9DI?t=167 (Aklerselter and water in zero g): (See video No 4a-3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgC-ocnTTto (See video No 4a-4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIiZCbyqJu4 -------------------- No 4b) Differential Pressure: - In the same density medium, there should be no separation and therefore no force, however in real life, pressure goes up as you go down, even if density doesn't go up, or hardly goes up at all. - Is there more pressure because things are more dense, or is there more pressure because gravity pulls the material above it and it squeezes down on the material below? (See figure 4b) -------------------- No 4c) How BUOYANCY works: - Because there is a difference in pressure on the bottom of an object vs the top of an object, there is a net force pushing upwards. - This difference in force is due to gravity pulling down on material, therefore the material above exerts a force on the material below. The deeper you go the greater the pressure. (See figure 4c) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154433824746795/ 5) Relative Motion Here is an example of a relative motion calculation. Notice, when we do the calculations, that the INITIAL motion of the Earth, atmosphere and plane (on the ground), cancel out. (See diagram No 5-1) ---------- No 5a-2) The plane and atmosphere stationary, relative to the ground. ---------- No 5a-3) The plane flying away from the airport, with no wind, relative to the airport. ---------- No 5a-4) The plane flying towards the airport, with no wind, relative to the airport. ---------- No 5a-5) The plain flying away from the airport with a wind, also going away from the airport. ---------- No 5a-6) The plane flying towards the airport with a wind going away from the airport, opposed to the plane. ---------- No 5a-7) The plane flying away from the airport, with a wind going towards the airport, opposed to the plane's direction. ---------- No 5a-8) The plane flying towards the airport with a wind, going in the same direction as the plane, towards the airport. ---------- No 5b) Notice, regardless of the wind direction, or direction of the plane, one does not have to account for the velocity of the Earth. That is already taken into account because, relative to the ground, the atmosphere and plane are already going in the same direction and speed. *** The wind and plane direction are additions, relative to the ground. *** -------------------- To take into account the ground's speed, is to be an observer in another frame of reference, e.g. in space, magically hovering above the Earth, exactly countering the rotation of the Earth. This doesn't make sense in real life, because such a position would require an enormous amount of energy and force to keep it still relative to everything else. No 6) Gravity - Center of mass - how the sun and moon stay in orbit No 6) An introduction to gravity: No 6a) Gravity is towards the center of mass ------------- If we were in space and started from scratch. Say we had some water to the right of us and some rock to the left of us. They would attract each other. So the left would be down and the right would be up? Why would below us be down. It's two totally separate objects with nothing below them. Why is below them down? ------------------------ It ISN'T. There is no up or down in space! Down is towards the center of mass! (See diagram No 6a) ----------- No 6b) How gravity pulls you: - Where ever you are, in the Earth, the net mass pulling you is the sphere below you. The shell above you cancels out. (See picture No 6b-1) (See video No 6b-2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s94Gojs3Ags ----------- No 6c) Why if you measure yourself at different places around the world with a spring scale or a balance scale, do you get two different answers? Why does the balance scale always give the same answer and the spring scale varies? GRAVITY! One is comparing masses and the other is measuring the force of gravity! (See diagram No 6c) ----------- The science behind it; - When you are using a balance scale, you are comparing one mass to another. Literally comparing two items with the same amount of "stuff"/mass. - When you are using a spring scale, you are measuring the pull of the Earth on your object. Since this pull varies around the planet, in some places you will be lighter and in others you will be heavier. ----------- No 6d) F=9.81m/s^2*Mass, is a special case. The general formula for the force of gravity is; F=G(m1*m2)/r^2 Most things are constant except for the objects mass, m2. When we put in the values we get; F=9.81*m2 (Mass, in Kg's of the object) That is F=MA. *** The entire mass of the Earth pulls on every Kg with 9.81 newtons of force, at the Earth's surface. *** ----------- Roughly speaking, gravity is a constant on the surface if the Earth. Why? ... the Earth is roughly a sphere, so everywhere on the surface is identical. - Of course when we measure in fine detail, we find it isn't a perfect sphere, but it is close enough for every day use. Note: Kg's is NOT weight, it is a MASS, a measure of how much stuff is in an object. ----------- No 6e-1) Density is a how much mass there is per unit volume. So it is Kg's per volume. Never lb/volume. No 6e-2) lb is weight, Kg's is not: If you want weight in metric, then it is in NEWTONS. e.g. 9.81*m2 = 9.81 newtons/Kg ----------- No 6f) We should probably say towards each other, when talking about gravity, instead of up and down. Up and down are too subjective and can be misinterpreted, e.g. flat Earth. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155798994861795/ 7) Where ever you are is level- not flat 8) "The sun and moon are close" - The apparent size of the sun and moon - the quarter test - moon phases and "How the moon can be out when you don't see the sun" - being in the sky at the same time with apparently out of alignment reflections is proof that they are far away - The Moon Terminator Effect 9) Distances, speeds and perspective 10) Space is a vacuum, no scattering of light 11) How things around the universe work - Questions and Answers 12) Crepuscular Rays (See collage and explanation) Although Crepuscular rays look like they are coming from one point, they are actually parallel, they are just being seen from an angle. This is why we only see crepuscular rays when the sun is at an angle. Although we can see a similar effect when we look directly at the sun, the rays seem to spread out, I wouldn't recommend it. See original pictures used for the collage, pictures No 12a to 12d. 13 a to f) The Horizon is always below eye level - The horizon is always below eye level, it physically has to be. - Since the ground beneath your feet is below eye level and the ground is flat, then the horizon has to be at least as low as your height below eye level. - It has actually been measured with survey equipment and been show to be twice as low as eye level. No 13-2) Joe Haley That's like saying the floor is at eye level for a 6 foot tall person. This was stupid even the first time I saw it, two years ago. No 13-3) Bruce - If you are standing against the wall on one end of the room, and the floor is level, look across to the edge of the floor, on the other side. - That edge HAS TO BE below eye level https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCo6aKkl9F8 14) The horizon should appear much farther on FE (See chart No 14) No 14b) If we plot the downward angle of the horizon with elevation, we see that it starts falling below the flat Earth "level line (See diagram No 14b) 15) - Esthothenes Experiment Repeated 16) - My general overview of FE proof, observation and their meaning 17) - Cognitive Disonance 18) - Horizon 360 degrees around observer 19) - How Rockets work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xvVJQSGHts (See OP "No 19", if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155493954021795/ No 19) Explaining thrust and rocket engines -------------- It's like throwing a heavy medicine ball. If you stand straight and don't try to rest the force (use a mat behind you), through the medicine ball as hard as you can. It will go one way (action) and you will go the other way (reaction). No force is transmitted by or through the air! What happens to the medicine ball after it leave your hand DOESN'T matter! ---------- The same applies to rockets. The expanding gas, in the combustion chamber push on the front of the combustion chamber and the angled sides of the nozzle. The gases go one way (action) and the combustion chamber, nozzle and the rocket they are attached to go the other way (reaction). Again, no force is transmitted through the air. -------------- In fact what FE fails to understand or acknowledge is that you have to have a physical solid object to transit a force! Forces are not transmitted through the hot column of gas, back to the rocket! (Just as forces are not transmitted back through the medicine ball, after it leaves your hand.) -------- *** The gases are leaving at high velocity, how would they ever transmit a force back to the nozzle or rocket? They are leaving at thousands of miles an hour in the other direction! ----------- See through rocket engine; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xvVJQSGHts (See OP "NO 19)" if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155493954021795/ No 19a) As I have said before rockets work by pushing on the front of the combustion chamber. The exhaust gases do NOT push on the air after the rocket. Even if they did, the hot gases are leaving at thousands of miles an hour, away from the rocket. *** How would they transmit force back up to the rocket, if they are going the wrong way? *** (See diagram No 19a) No 19b) Flyboarding proves that exhaust does not push off of air! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Bm3cs9TFo&t=109s -------- Instructions on how to use flyboard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llUtBHPkWNA ------------------ Flyboarding proves that exhaust does not push off of air! The water pushes on the inside of the boot. It obviously doesn't push off the air! - Exhaust gases in rockets, just like in the flyboards DON'T push on air! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Bm3cs9TFo&t=109s (See picture No 19b) No 19c) Mark Johnson - Rocket engine The hot gases from a rocket push on the front of the combustion chamber and the curved sides of the nozzle. This transfers force through the combustion chamber into the frame of the rocket. The rocket goes one way and the hot gases go out the nozzle, the other way. ------------- A few things to note: 1) Force can only be transferred through solid objects (like the nozzle, combustion chamber and frame of the rocket) or through DIRECT contact with the gases. 2) The exhaust gases are leaving the back of the nozzle at thousands of miles an hour, in the other direction, they can NOT transfer any force back to the rocket, while going THE WRONG way! No 19d) Spray a hose, feel it push against your hand. - Now spray it against a wall going at an angle. Does force transmit back up the water and change the direction of your hand? NO! *** FORCE MUST BE TRANSMITTED BY DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE ROCKET, not by an un-contained fluid or gas! *** (See diagram No 19d) No 19e) Marco Alvarez - Closed system rocket engine found in the device that flat Earthers say is fake. (See diagram No 19e) No 19f) Vacuums don't suck. The air pressure from the opposite side pushes on a container. - When you such you the air from inside a container, it is crushed by the air pressure outside (14.4 psi). - In space, when you you have a vacuum outside and such the air inside, what happens? Nothing. No 19g) Rockets in a vacuum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxBRQXxBRic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug No 19h) Water powered rocket sled: (See time index 24:30) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOPM_JpXkKE (See No 968 for full discussion) 20) - The horizon and it's significance 21) - The Bedford Experiment CJ Liebener - It was debunked in 1870 by adjusting Rowbotham's method to avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction, Alfred Russel Wallace found a curvature consistent with a spherical Earth. 22) - It is hard to see curvature along a sight line 23) - Relative Motion and Perspective 24) We can be in darkness during dusk and look up to see bright red and pink clouds, lit by the sun. 25) Geodetic surveyors put our geodetic land marks in triangles 20 or 30 miles apart. The angles they turn when measuring to each other add up to more than 180 degrees, due to this fact that it isn't a flat triangle but curved surface! Jamie Long 2017-04-19 (No 26 to 51) NO 26) 1. Eratosthenes shadows No 27) 2 Aristotle observing constellations lower on the horizons when he traveled from Egypt to Greece in 350BC. No 28) 3. Constellations only visible from southern hemisphere and not the northern and vice versa. No 29) 4. Inverted Moon is upside down relative to how it's seen in the northern hemisphere and vice versa. No 30) 5. Travel 10,000 miles and make three right angle 90 degree turns and you'll end up back at your starting point, something that is impossible on a flat earth and only possible on a round ball. No 31) 6. Coreolis effect on weather, storm rotation reversed, sniper bullets and planes to a lesser degree. No 32) 7. Lie on the ground and watch the sun set, then stand up and notice you see the sun again, impossible on flat earth. No 33) 8. Curved shadow of the earth on the moon first noticed by Anaxagoras. No 34) 9. Circumnavigation of the earth. No 35) 10. Ships and bottom of buildings disappearing bottom first the further away they are from your vantage point, can only happen on a curved Earth. No 36) 11. FM radio signals that disappear when traveling and cause you to constantly have to retune to a New radio station every 40-50 miles depending on the height of the transmission antennae!, not possible in flat earth as you wouldn't lose the stations at all. No 37) 12. Cell phones that don't work out in the middle if the ocean but satellite phones do because of line of sight below the horizon limitation. richsifu No 38) 13. Planes follow curved flight paths on long trips because the shortest distance between two points on a globe is not a straight line but a semi circle. This is why planes that have a maximum range of 8000 miles are able to make non stop flights to places that are 10 or 11 thousand miles away in a straight line. No 39) 14. Several months of day and night at poles.. Impossible on flat earth. No 40) 15. Tides prove gravity and round earth as their opposite on other sides of the earth at the same time which can not happen on flat earth. No41) 16. 24 hour time zones No 42) 17. People at all latitudes see the sun rise in the east and set in the west though at varying levels of elevation, something impossible on a flat earth. No 43) 18. Fuccoults pendulum - while this doesn't prove a round earth directly, it does prove the earth is spinning debunking another ridiculous FE claim. No 44) 19. The Bedford level experiment PROVED curved water, despite Rowbowthams claim to the contrary. - Wallace, a legitimate geographer and surveyor accepted the challenge and Wallace included the crucial step of setting a sight line 13 feet above the water’s surface so as to counter the distorting effects of atmospheric refraction, something mariners had known about and took into account since the 18th century.No 45) 20. Pole star navigation used by mariners for centuries to determine latitude, something impossible on a flat earth. - richsifu No 46) 21. The seasons No 47) 22. Why it's summer in the north (warm) and winter in the south (cold) and vice versa without axial tilt... Explain flattards!; No 48) 23. Gets colder the further you move away from the equator north or south due to Solar irradiance which is the power per unit area received from the Sun. No 49) 24. Days are shorter in the winter than summer. NO 50) 25. Clouds lit from below during sunset. rsifu No 51) 26. Lengthening of shadows as the sun sets, only possible on round rotating earth!! 52) When they fire ballistic misdiles, the air gets very thin on a ballistic trajectory, BUT gravity is relatively constant by comparison! Density can't account for a ballistic trajectory. The effects of density reduce or disappear at high altitudes. (because the air is very, very thin!) No 053) The sun and moon don't get bigger and smaller: --------- Raoul Duke - So ships get bigger and smaller with distance but the sun and moon don't? No 53b) Corey Baratta Tell me how the earth is flat. See how a moonrise works? 54) David Baudoin - Coriolis déviation towards the east. No 54a) Arthur Scott - Also don't forget that artillery units in the military and naval guns must compensate for earths curve and spin in order to hit its intended target No 54b) Corey Baratta - We use the rotation of cyclonic storms being different depending which hemisphere you're in as more proof that earth is a spinning sphere. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/coriolis-effect/ 55) Belinda Greer - There's this too Bruce. The days get longer in summer closer to the pole. Further gets shorter. Same occurs in south pole and therefore there is no edge; no Antartica wall. 56) The planets movements are explained by them orbiting the sun. 57) Mitch Ellyn - In Australia, according to the flat earth, the distance between Melbourne and Perth, the capital cities of the states of Victoria and Western Australia respectively, should be 7300km approx. In reality they are actually only 4100km away from each other. No 58) Mitch Ellyn - Meteors Shower disproved the dome. - Meteor over Russia February 18, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpmXyJrs7iU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDUD3uz0ez8 NO 59) Mitch Ellyn - Lunar Eclipes disproved the flat earth theory. No 60) Mitch Ellyn - Trigonometry No 61) Mitch Ellyn - Tectonic Movement. No 62) Mitch Ellyn - Antarctica have 24-hour daylight from September to February 63) If a rocket is going for 10 minutes straight, it's going at 3 g's, and we see video of it, then it's a quarter of the way around the world (6000 miles) in 10 minutes. It has to be going 17,000 mph under those conditions! 64) Why doesn't it change phases during the course of a day? 65) Why is the moon on a 29 day cycle, when it is suppose to be revolving around opposing the sun? 66) How can the sun light the moon, if it can't light the dark side of the Earth? - The moon is clearly in the dark side of the Earth half the time, and the sun is lighting it. Yet, on flat Earth, it can't light the same side of the Earth that the moon is on. There are clear contradictions in how the sunlight is limited in some instances and not hindered in others. 67) Why don't you see the sun and moon arch across the sky? - Since the sun and moon are going in a circular orbit over the flat Earth, they should appear to be going in an arc across the sky. - When we measure it or use a mount, it is easy to track the sun or moon, as they take a straight path across the sky, as is predicted by or rotation. 68) Why don't the sun and moon get bigger and smaller? - On the heliocentric modem, the sun and moon are far away, so their apparent diameter doesn't change noticeably. - On a flat Earth, where the sun and moon are only 32 miles in diameter and go around the Earth's equator, (from Capricorn to Cancer), the should appear drastically different sizes as they approach and recede. This should be noticeable during the course of a day. 69) Why can amateur astronomers see, and zoom in on planets and celestial objects if they are fake NASA images? 70) Why can we take pictures of the ISS in the night sky and against the moon, if it is fake? 71) Why are all the other planets, moons and asteroids larger than 200 miles across spherical, but the Earth is flat? 72) Proven by pilots, (my friend of 30 years being a captain of a commercial airliner), who use Earths curvature every day in their flights. 73) Tom Simone - How can the horizon "rise to eye level" when, if you walk up to it, it's still under your feet? 74) Engineering structures don't have to take into account curvature. They flex, expand and contract far more than 8" per mile already! 75) Flyboarding proves that exhaust does not push off of air! (There's no way that air is pushing against the water exhaust. The action/reaction is happening in the water chamber, within the boot!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Bm3cs9TFo&t=109s 76) In the plane zero g - people are struggling against zero g. - Going from zero g to 2 g and are constantly trying to right themselves. - micro gravity isn't nearly as perfect as the zero g on the ISS. 77) Amateur astronomy pictures of the ISS and satellites 78) The sun and moon can be seen visibly to rise and set behind the horizon 79) Things came before NASA and other companies do construction, not NASA: Arthur Scott Who has been covering it up and why? Now before you say NASA I want you to understand that I am older than NASA and we have pictures of earth from space which show a nice curve long before NASA was ever a thought and the Germans sent rockets into space before we did. - If you want to say CGI then you must know that 3D CGI wasn't invented until the mid 70s long after the moon landings- the Gemini and mercury programs. - We also have 3rd party evidence for the moon landings as 70 country's have a space program with 16 having launch capabilities and 6 of those having full space capabilities. - The USA is not the only country to land craft on the moon or put them in orbit around it. - You don't know this because you are uneducated but NASA does not build lunar landers- spacesuits- rockets or satellites. Private company's do that. - Grumman built the lunar landers and they also build jets and many other things, ILC Dover builds spacesuits and so on. So I will be waiting for your reply but please try to be somewhat educated as to your response because you people are like dealing with 4 year olds. 80) Andrew Lomas - There has been civilian involvement in space exploration and radio communications since at least 1950s to my knowledge. Flerfs never mention that. 81) Crystal Claytor - NASA means "To deceive" in Hebrew No it doesn't. NASA in hebrew - to lift up or take up or carry http://www.hebrew4christians.com/.../Archived/Nasa/nasa.html ------- Assuming it means to take them, assuming that means to steal is making a mistake in translation then mixing it with a similar English definition! 82) Andrew Lomas - Did everyone forget Sputnik and those British school kids who figured out its orbit? :) Sputnik was followed around the globe by all ham operators as were the rest of the satellites 83) Matthew Hall - Has flying under the RADAR been said, taking advantage of the earths curvature. 84) What about GPS being used by the us tank division in the gulf war where no tower infrastructure existed. 85) Satellite TV dishes on houses on seafronts where the dishes point out to sea (as seen in Swanse, Wales, UK.) 86) Matthew - Hall EM line of site propogation has to account for earths curvature. 87) As for heliocentricity the 'wandering stars' planets were one of the main things to show the helio model 88) Ignoring basic scientific principles is not proof (e.g "Gravity does not exist") 89) Cherry picking a scientific principle out of context is not proof (e.g. choosing density but ignoring gravity) 90) Ignoring all the ramifications of a pronciple (e.g. perspective) is not proof 91) I don't think flat Earther's understand, science doesn't predict and tell us what the world around us is suppose to do. *** Science describes what the world around us IS doing. The math, predictions and observations in science are correct, because we are modelling the real world around us! 92) That being said. Just because an equation is complicated, hard to understand or has to be very precise doesn't mean it is faulty or possibly flawed. It means that is the level of accuracy we have obtained, in a particular scientific subject so far! 93) The surface of the sun isn't fire, it is hot plasma. Hot plasma has it's electrons stripped. Without electrons, there can be NO chemical reactions. Things don't burn in a plasma state! 94) Things can burn without oxygen. Chemical reactions need a fuel (takes electrons from the other atom) and an oxidizer (gives electrons). Many different chemicals will burn together. One is the fuel and the other the oxidizer. - Oxidizer does not necessarily mean oxygen. Oxygen is just one example of an oxidizer. e.g. That explains how rockets fire in a vacuum. Arthur Scott - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlt8ByTmdAw. 95) Planets look like little blobs, not the clear pictures that NASA shows us! ------------- You can't use a camera to take pictures of a planet. You have to use a telescope! Here are some amateur astronomy pictures of planets. Just look up Amateur Astronomy clubs, on Facebook! 96) Joeie Christian Santana - Meme "So the moon is pulling on the Earth..and the Earth is pulling on the moon. Why are they not crashing into each other then!" Answer: The sun and the moon are in a balanced system, where centripetal force from orbiting balances the force of gravity. 97) The question is, why don't the sun and moon just come crashing down? On the flat Earth, there is no centripetal motion, relative to the Earth! -------------------- David Baudoin - There is no such a thing as "flat Earth theory". A. They are people who believe in flat Earth. But when you exchange views with people who believe in flat Earth, you discover it's never a scientific theory in their minds. It’s something else. The hard part of describing it is that it may change from one person to another one. When one asks them why they believe in flat Earth on a social network, these "flat Earthers" often answer that their main reasons for believing in flat Earth are among one or some of the following topics: 98) Hate school/Indocrination: Some hate school [claiming that school is a place for indoctrination for the benefit of some superior forces]. 99) Paranoid: Some are paranoid [invoking conspiracies whenever something happens and contradicts their views]. - Some believe in a giant conspiracy [made by groups of people like satanists or freemasons or illuminati or rich people or evil scientists or others]. - Some claim a lot of people colluded together in order to hide the truth. That means a giant conspiracy in which every astronaut is a liar, every picture of Earth is computer-generated imagery or man-made painting or some older kind of photographic fixing, including Earth looking round because of some optics deformation, fish lens, or whatever. Because of this conspiracy, no satellite was ever launched in space, no man walked on the moon, and all the money invested in aerospace is fraud by design. 100) Religious beliefs: Some are religiously indoctrinated [in a religion which claims that the genuine interpretation of their sacred texts literally "proves" that Earth is flat]. 101) Don't understand science: Some don't understand science, neither in the specific topics behind the shape of our planet [astronomy, mechanics, physics], nor in a more general sense [scientific process, results from other branches of science]. The more you ask them to explain "their" science, the more you collect nonsense in which everything works weirdly [gravity, mechanics, ballistics, optics, pressure, electromagnetism: they all get new fancy laws or principles]. - Some heavily confuse the scientific notions of theory, hypothesis, model, law. They have problems with understanding other notions like proof, epistemology, paradigm, relativity [which they sometimes confuse with relativism]. Usually, they think that a theory is akin to an hypothesis, and therefore a theory is not proven. They don’t know that a theory is facts, which were collected and integrated into models and laws, which are congruent or compatible with every available observation and experiment. They don’t know what research really is, too, thus claiming that scientists never do experiments or do it badly, or that a Google search and Youtube videos are legit research. - Some refuse mathematical demonstrations based on geometry or differential calculus [with various pretexts which boil down to a refusal of mathematics validity]. 102) Some like to look intelligent by refusing what an elite imposed [and thus they pose as intellectual rebels]. - Some of them, on the contrary, claim to have some level of formal education, be it college in physics and mathematics, and even higher diplomas that are in the fields of hard sciences. Those one just claim they have a better understanding of the subject than other flat Earthers but show a low level of understanding science ; they often confuse basic notions or lack some basic knowledge. They might be liars or exceptionally bad ancient students. 103) Some confuse beliefs, opinions and facts [they often claim that science is a set of beliefs, or that faith can prove things]. 104) Some claim to be skeptics (even sometimes claiming to be part of the zetetic movement, the systematic refusal of everything that hasn’t been proven) to promote their views. In fact, they contradict skeptical principles when they refuse whatever contradicts their own views and promote fake experiments that have already been debunked (by real skeptics, notably). 105) Some refuse culture, in the sense that everything that has been proven to be true must be proven again. Refusing what hasn’t been proven is in fact the mark of rigorous scientists. Alas, they will refuse to acknowledge experiments that contradict flat Earth, sometimes by claiming they get different results or more often by boldly claiming the observations are true but the interpretation must be different [Foucault pendulum, Coriolis force deviation, Eratosthenes vertical rods, planets moving in the sky, disappearing of on a boat on the horizon, eclipse of the Earth, variations of the horizon with altitude]. 106) Some begin with a presupposition that Earth must be flat and people who claim otherwise are wrong. Then they proceed from this first idea to try to collect whatever proofs they can ; when they don’t find proofs, they gather clues and interpret them in fancy ways. This explain that even simple symbols can be wrongly interpreted as proofs [UN flag, freemasons symbols, old maps]. 107) Some invent their own laws of physic, particularly when it comes to optics, in which they claim that rays are always deflected in some fancy ways that happen to justify their conclusions, even when they can’t provide quantitative predictions and can’t explain the reason behind the particular behavior of ray lights that they claim to be. Some of them have their own model of flat Earth, but it appears that they don’t have a unique common model. Therefore there are variations in their explanations of very basic questions, like the question of the limits of flat Earth [ice walls], the existence of a black sun [to explain some eclipses], the distance of the sun, the reasons of tides, the reason why (sea) water always seems flat locally, the real movement of stars and planets, the reasons of seasons and timezones, the reason why people living in the south hemisphere can’t see the North Star. Some of them deny the theory of gravity, explaining that density causes the fall of dense or massive objects. 108) Some of them, when they are contradicted by someone who has scientific diplomas, will use these diplomas as proofs of being unfit for the task of having a valid opinion on the matter at hand. In fact, they seem to believe that real scientists never do any experiments, as if they just read books with a lot a mathematical formulas in it and give diplomas to parrots who just happen to repeat the content of books without thinking. In this parallel world, real scientist can’t get diplomas because they refuse to become shills. 109) Some refuse the very notion of science, by principle. By extension, they refuse the notion of scientific theory. 110) Cult or clique: Some often prefer to stay together with other flat Earthers in social networks. They systematically ban everyone who doesn’t agree with them, using every kind of pretexts, like claiming they have been insulted when it’s not the case, for example. [The current text is sometimes described by flat Earthers as insulting and/or being done by shills]. No 111) Tests for the Ether contradict each other: In addition to positive arguments for spherical earth, I propose some counter arguments to some usual flat earth arguments: * the idea that the Michelson-Morley "proves" that earth is flat is totally untrue, because this experiment just proves that the ether, an hypothetical conductor of electromagnetic waves, doesn't exist. - There are several experiments that contradict each other. One proves the ether doesn't move. Another proves the ether is moving. They basically, all together, prove that the ether doesn't exist. *** The only thing that works for every situation is relativity. *** - Michelson's experiment did not see a difference in the speeds of the light beams, therefore showing there was no ether drag. https://debunkingrelativity.com/ether-wind-and-ether-drag/ - Aires failure - Shows the Earth was stationary and the stars and aether are moving. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87M2i61N1cU Note that Michelson says the ether isn't moving or doesn't exist and Aires failure says the either and stars are moving. - Michelson-Gale Experiment - to detect the rotation of the Earth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDYsnrSqvrQ Sagnac effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect No 111b) Discussions and conclusions on the significance of the experiments: ---------- https://debunkingrelativity.com/ether-wind-and-ether-drag/ https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/4o8ub0/on_the_abuse_of_airy_michelson_morley_and_sagnac/ No 112) "Planes flying straight should go out of the atmosphere" - The idea that planes should go out of the atmosphere if they went straight is false, because of air density that is reduced in higher altitudes - the idea that plane pilot should steer the commands down in order to compensate for earth curvature is true but technically it's a very little angle - If a plane is "going straight" on a sphere, eventually it is going up hill. A pilot would realize this and nose down. We never get to that point, because a pilot or autopilot is constantly adjusting to stay level. No 113) Don't understand the difference between flat and level: The idea that the surface of a lake is a plane is false: it's an illusion caused by our lack of precision in perception. - Flat Earther's ignore or don't understand this point, that flat and level are two different things! They don't get that, if you have a flat surface, it is eventually going up hill! (See diagram No 113) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155757827231795/ No 113b) To understand this, we have to look at the forces. Gravity pulls towards the center. As you get away from the center of a flat surface, gravity is pulling at an angle. Hence, it feels like you are going uphill. (See diagram No 113b) No 113c) Fish Bowl Earth! Ironically this flat surface, (IF BIG ENOUGH), acts like a bowl Voila, Fish Bowl Earth! (See diagram No 113c) Of course, in real life, we never see a big enough slice of the Earth to get the perspective of a "flat" surface feeling and going down hill. 114) Thanks to Travis White "Fire can't burn without oxygen. Proving the sun is within Earth's atmosphere. - A lack of understanding or belief in nuclear fusion. - No other type of reaction can last nearly as long or put out nearly as much energy as nuclear fusion 115) Non-existent, non-proveable dome! - Claims are made of a firmament or dome due to one's interpretation of the bible. - There is no proof or evidence for such a structure. - Flat Earthers can not explain what the dome is made of, why we can't see it or how it supports itself over such a vast distance, being billions of times the strength of any known material. 116) Corey Baratta Lmao. Y'all know a sextant doesn't work on a flat earth right? Nor do solar or lunar eclipses - Sextants work at a particular location and latitude on the Earth. - They can be made for anywhere on the Earth, but are based on spherical Earth calculations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant 117) Seeing things through the moon. - Flat Earthers don't understand that the sky is tinted blue by the scattering of light and the moon appears blue due to that. - The moon would have to be within several dozen miles of the Earth to be within Earths atmosphere. - If you look at the craters on the moon, they clearly elongate at the edges as if they were being seen at an angle, as well as their shadows. So the moon is clearly a solid object. Jeff Martin where are the rest of the stars? plus thats a pic of the moon in the day. 118) The moon is flat. - Again craters and shadows show that the moon isn't flat. 119) Claiming everything is a fish eyed lense. - Flat Earthers claim everything is a fish eyed lense, when it is convenient for them. - They even claim it when everything else in the picture is flat! 120) Claims that the sun works on electric principles. - The electric principle doesn't have any testable calculations and isn't supported by observations. - We observe the output of the sun. Make predictions of the output, particles, nutrinos etc that are produced by nuclear fusion. The model and predictions for a nuclear power source are consistent with what we observe. *** So, yes, we do know that the sun uses nuclear fusion. It fuses about 160,000 tons of hydrogen into helium, every second, has been doing so for the last 4.5 billion years and has enough fuel to do so for another 5 billion years. It's modelling, prediction, testing and observation. - Physics calculates the amount of energy released when 4 hydrogen atoms combine to form a helium. As well, there are experimental nuclear fusion reactors that are build in the process of being tested. They have achieved fusion for fractions of a second. So we have done controlled fusion already. Hydrogen bombs prove that fusion works. 121) Flat Earthers don't understand how gyroscopes work. - Gyroscopes process. That is, they automatically tilt and stay level with the curved surface of the Earth. https://www.quora.com/What-the-function-of-gyroscopes-in-airplane 122) Mitch Ellyn - During a total solar eclipse , when the disk of the Sun is covered by that of the Moon, parts of the Sun's surrounding atmosphere can be seen. It is composed of four distinct parts: the chromosphere , the transition region , the corona and the heliosphere. The coolest layer of the Sun is a temperature minimum region extending to about 500 km above the photosphere, and has a temperature of about 4,100 K. Too impossible on flat earth. https://www.greatamericaneclipse.com/ No 123) Definition of horizon: --------- "Luvlesh Sunkur its called horizon because its horizontal, not curved,,," Original of horizon; - Horizon means bounded (circle), limit. - As in a 360 degree boundary around the observer. - It has nothing to do with with a horizontal line. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=horizon --------------- The definition of horizon is the boundary between Earth and sky. - Nothing about being a flat line! http://www.dictionary.com/browse/horizon No 124) The sun (and moon) can't set on a flat Earth. - Even if the sun is 25,000 miles away and 3000 miles up, it would appear to be 6.8 degrees above the horizon. *** The sun can't appear to be near the horizon on a flat Earth! *** No 124b) The horizon is way lower than the sun. No 124c) The sun is 3,000 miles up and the clouds are 3 miles up. How does the sun end up under the clouds? No 124d) The sun would have to be 172,000 miles away to appear within 1 degree of the horizon. (a triangle 172,000 miles long and 3,000 miles up, equals a 1 degree angle.) 125) Arthur Scott https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=emMIM3CKGtQ. Look at that curve. Long before NASA 126) Joe Haley - The horizon is 3 miles away - Flat Earthers claim the sun is 3,000 miles away How does the sun disappear at 3 miles when it can be seen all day long? 127) Arthur Scott The sun goes straight across the sky. The flat Earth sun would have to arch across the sky and we don't see that! No 128) Clouds never change on the NASA CGI pictures .. Oh wait... Here is an analysis of a series of pictures form Africa. On the DSCOVR:EPIC website there is a magnifying glass feature, so we can zoom in on a particular cloud pattern. A few things to note; - A pixel could cover an entire city, so what we consider huge storms, hardly register on these pictures. - Little wispy clouds are entire storm systems. - Because they are so small in scale, compared to the Earth, there is very little detail of a particular storm and they hardly seem to move from frame to frame. - A pixel is 4 to 16 miles across (assuming 1000 to 2000 pixels for the 7,919 mile diameter of the Earth), so cloud movements would hardly register in an hour or two *** we certainly wouldn't see anything moving in a matter of minutes *** 70 mile an hour storms would 15 to 20 minutes to change a single pixel! *** Basically the Earth is very big and we and the storms we think are huge, are very small! *** See my collage for analysis of a cloud changing over 8 hours. (See collage No 128) 129) The horizon is always at eye level ... but if you are on top of a mountain ... hmmm. 130) Curved horizon but straight edges everywhere else... 131) Level vs flat - Don't understand the difference - Ignore gravity 132) Anthony Mark Watson a) Azimuth map when understood PROVES 100% there is no EARTH ENCIRCLING ice wall (Need to understand how the scale works on the Azimuth Earth Map) - Distances from the north pole are correct - Distances along longitudes get stretched as you go farther from the north pole 133) Also flight paths by Quanta’s fly commercial flights daily, along with British Airway’s cover all side OUTSIDE, NOT OVER of the South Pole Antarctica. 134) In 1935 two Russians flew over Antarctica very well documented by a lot of people. 135) THE SUN DOES NOT GET SMALLER by moving further away; but goes down behind something. 136) Watch the sun set Immediately after the sun has gone out of view, IF / IF it is perspective then you must be able to pull full circle back in to view BY LOOKING THROUGH A TELESCOPE SIMPLE UNCOMPLICATED ! : If not flat earth ARE lying ! You can pull a plane back into full view ! Why not the sun ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6klhWuzf02Y 137) A simple experiment any one can do in your own kitchen proves attraction of mass. Take a bowl of water place in it two floating objects say an apple and a rubber ball (Not even static can affect a wet RUBBER ball ) Make sure the water and objects are still and not touching either the side or each other, where will they be in the morning 24 HOURS ON ? ANSWER : - TOUCHING EACH OTHER ! Simple uncomplicated irrefutable and repeatable ! Attraction of mass = Gravity. 138) Slinky tests disproves the Earth rising towards us. It shows that we are falling towards the Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59dANJTLbyo 139) Insisting things are upside down. - Ignoring or not understanding the ramifications of gravity - Everything gets pulled towards the center. Down is towards the center of the Earth, not some arbitrary up direction from an egocentric system 140) Insisting gravity is strong enough to hold down an ocean but weak enough to let birds fly freely in any direction. - Ignoring the fact that gravity acts on everything equally - Ignoring the mechanical and physical energy animals and insects put into fighting gravity 141) Water can't flow on a curved Earth, because it has to go uphill. - Again, ingnoring the ramifications of gravity - Also, not understanding the difference between flat and level 142) From Max Rappaport - Secrets hidden from the foundation of the world. Magnetic north is attracted to a giant mountain at the north pole - Failure to understand that the magnetic north and north polar axis are two different points - Failure to understand that the north magnetic pole moves around 143) The human eye is so sensitive that if the Earth were flat, you could spot an candle flickering at night from up to 30 miles away. - Checking, the farthest a human can see a candle is about 2.76 kilometers or about 1.715 miles. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/539826/how-far-can-the-human-eye-see-a-candle-flame/ 144) There are no provable and reasonable explanation for a lunar eclipse on flat Earth. No 145) My analysis of ISS vs Vomit Comet: 1) The people on ISS and space videos are very casual and floating very easily. 2) Whereas on zero g planes they are very rough, the plane is clearly vibrating and jossling around, even when the people are weightless. 3) There is also 1.8 g's on the plane *** Zero G on the plane and ISS is NOT the same! *** Zero g in ISS; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLmc6CJQwLM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSTp2KOxlOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4 Zero g in plane; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Lpdm5Pp68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drdBKMOZmTc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ieR8hIXUIg 146) The sun, using filters, UV and x-ray observations from satellites; - 1) Amateur astronomy picture of the sun from a few weeks ago. - 2) These picture of solar flares are in other wavelengths. i.e. not visible light but U.V. or ultra violet. - 3) Some of this is blocked out by the ozone layer, so satellites get pictures we can't take from the ground. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/why-nasa-studies-the-ultraviolet-sun ----------- Jairo Amaral This one is mine too. Anyone can buy a H-alpha telescope for about US$ 600. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152296492172719&set=a.10150209108962719.331213.572887718&type=3&theater (See picture 146B) Jairo Amaral I also make images in visible light, but, hey, it isn't as powerfull as a P900 yet, right? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154441831587719&set=a.10152381300302719.1073741827.572887718&type=3&theater 147) Erosthenes experiment, extended; Just use 3 sticks in a line hndreds of miles apart. It won't work for flar Earth. We already have an example of that. Polaris. It isn't in the same spot for any 3 observers! 148) If the earth is flat why do the people from the southern hemisphere see it upside down? 149) There are no photos of the flat Earth - Zero. - Not a single one! 150) Why doesn't a flat Earther go to the NASA site, take all the close up pictures and make a composite of the flat Earth? - It wouldn't work, because it is spherical and all the edges can't line up at once. - Since it is spherical, there is no edge to stop at, all the piece will eventually join together to form a sphere! 151) Alessandro Mercante If you use the density explanation instead of gravity, in a falling plane there would be no reason for people/stuff to float. In your "physical" model, the density of the air is the same. The density of the plane is the same. The density of the people is the same. Why in a falling plane stuff floats? The gravity theory explains that. The density theory doesn't. And "the plane is falling lol" is not an explanation - Let me see an equation please, let me see a proper physical explanation of your model, thank you 152) Why is down towards the floor. Why not, left or right? - Why is that particular direction considered down? 153) Arthur Scott Earth is flat ... except the moon is a globe and there is gravity on it! 154) To people who insist it is just a theory; .."the theory of space"? We still have the theory of electricity. Care to stick a fork in a wall receptacle to test it? The results night be shocking 155) The Cavendish Experiment is not a one off. - It has been done many times. - Just look on Youtube and you'll see examples. They even show that our own body mass has an effect on the experiment when we walk by or sit a few feet away from the experiment! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOZ2wf9Tiok 156) If you go 10,000 Km, make a right turn, go 10,000 Km make a right turn, then go another 10,000 Km, you'll end up where you started, having made a triangle on a spherical surface! 157) "If the Earth is spinning west to east at 1040 miles per hour; How did B17's dropping bombs from 7 miles in the sky, hit a target travelling at 1525.333 feet per second underneath of them?" Jairo Amaral - Due to Newton's 1st law, also known as inertia, which you can prove every time you drink a cup of coffee inside a moving airplane. - This explains the Earth and air spinning and why people don't just stop when they jump in the air. 158) Clouds are proof of gravity and the scientific explanation. - In science clouds are tiny droplets with a large surface area to mass ratio. Therefore they are kept aloft by wind currents. - In the FE model, water droplets are far denser than air, so they should just fall out of the sky, but they don't! No 159) - Comets (See No 261 for meteors) How does FE justify the existence of comets? - I wonder, do they think comets are travelling very slowly past the sun? Do they just ignore they existence all together? https://www.google.ca/search?q=comet+pictures&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA710&oq=comet+pictures&aqs=chrome..69i57l2j69i65l3j69i60.1759j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 - Halley's comet isn't set to come back until 2061, on it's 76 years cycle. Howeever we are going through it's debri trail right now! https://www.sciencealert.com/the-halley-s-comet-meteor-shower-is-set-to-peak-this-weekend-here-s-how-to-watch No 160) - speed through a vacuum is irrelavent The thing about the solar system traveling around the galaxy... - They don't get that speed through a vacuum is relative. - They seem to think everything is travelling through air! No 161) One forgets that the FE sun is travelling at 1040 mph well within actual atmosphere and No Tail!!! No 162 The FE sun has to speed up and slow down All is well, as long as the sun stays at the equator, but then the seasons don't work. - Can't have both the seasons work and a 24 hr day at the same time on FE. The sun has to speed up and slow down! - 17,733 miles around the Tropic of Capricorn = 768 mph - 30,266 miles around the Tropic of Cancer = 1,311 mph No 163) The movement l of sun would be noticeable on FE: At 1040mph the Sun covers twice it's apparent diameter in 4 minutes. - It should be visibly moving, but we don't see it! No 164) The seasonal chance in the sun's speed should be noticable: - At the tropic of Cancer the sun should go by twice as fast as at the tropic of Capricorn - So at 1,311 mph it should cover twice its apparent diameter in 2 minutes. - the daylight should be half as long! Yet this variance is never noticed. Anywhere. (e.g. the speed at the Tropic of Cancer is twice as fast as at the Tropic of Capricorn) No 165) Flat Earth Total Failure - The Moon is not "Self Luminous" Nicholas D'Alessandra The moon is NOT self luminous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhQmqGJNw04 Flat Earth cannot exist without a self luminous moon that does not exist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEaiaZjNuPI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoivmZq5tgI No 166) Arthur Scott - On a flat earth orbital mechanics and physics cease to exist! No 167) If one were to go up 30 miles (e.g. commercial airliner), with a sun 3000 miles away, the energy should increase from 150 watts/m^2 to 153 Watts/m^2. We don't see that! *** The sun is not close! James Scott https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQXVzg2PiZw No 168) When we calculate the energy the Earth receives (150 Watts/m^2), and the output of the 32 mile sun to achieve this, we find that the temperature on the surface of the sun is 4750 degrees Celcius, giving off over 28 million watts/m^2. -------- - What could sustain that kind of temperature on a 32 mile diameter sun? *** The explosive force of that would rip such a small body apart! -------- - The sun is not small! - Gravity exists otherwise it couldn't work! No 169) The vast distances between the sun and the Earth is what allows the Earth to be habitable. - The magnetic shield going out 10 times the diameter of the Earth. - Cutting through the solar winds - The ozone layer absorbing UV rays - The distance between the moon and the Earth, reducing the tidal influences so the Earth's surface isn't ripper apart The vastness of space and how weak gravity is, is what makes things work! No 170) Things can't work if they were really close, as in the flat Earth Try balancing things, naturally with magnets. They just flip over and stick north to south pole. Magnets don't work far enough away and are TOO strong! No reason for the sun and moon to be balanced and orbiting around a center point with magnetic forces. They would just attract each other and crash together. .... Never mind the fact that there is no excuse for keeping them HOVERING 3,000 miles up! No 171) Speed vs Acceleration: Understanding the difference between speed and acceleration; - Speed does NOT equal acceleration. - Acceleration is *** CHANGE *** in speed or direction. - Acceleration is what makes things fly off, not the speed! - Here's an example comparing the rotation of the Earth and that of a crankshaft. The crankshaft's speed on the outer surface is 10 mph, compared to Earth's 1,039 mph at the equator. However, the Earth is going 0.000696751 rpm and the crank shaft is going 727.1855588 rpm. *** The crankshaft is going 10,035 TIMES faster! *** No 172) If the FE sun is small and can only illuminate part of the Earth at one time, then what lights the planets and other moons in the solar system? No 173) Where do asteroids come from in FE? - Why do they move so slowly through the revolving sky? - WHY and HOW do they orbit the sun, then go back out again? No 174) Centripetal force around the equator is only 0.35% of Earths gravity. --------- Centripetal force calculations w = 1 revolution per day = 1.1574e-5/second = .000011574 r = 6370.0182kmx1000m/km = 6,370,018.2 meters m = 100 Kg v = 1700 km/h = 472.2222 m/s Centripetal force = 3.5006 newtons = 0.3568399 Kg *** 0.357% of one's mass *** http://calculator.tutorvista.com/physics/533/centripetal-force-calculator.html No 175a) How gravity works - Gravity is the Average force from ALL the mass All Around you No 175b) That picture was an over simplification, in reality the distance to each bit of matter is important too. No 176) - A compass would not work on a flat Earth map ------------------- Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr - East and west aren't right and left, they are in a circle, which doesn't happen in real life! - How is south all around the edge? No 176b) Plotting an East/West course: ------- Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr Globe: Plotting a course on a globe from E to W or W to E you will find yourself drawing a straight line. Flat: Doing the same thing on a flat map, you will be drawing a arc to a circle. No 177) Latitudes are stretched out on a flat Earth map. - Places are way wider than in reality as you go south of the equator No 178) Narrowly focusing on number or detail and ignoring the larger picture or overall context No 179) Jesse Kozlowski - SLR or Satellite Laser Ranging https://www.facebook.com/groups/688564567965044/permalink/774768606011306/ No 179b) Bouncing laser beams off of satellites to calibrate distance measurements. No 179c) A picture of the satellite, (with prism mirrors), that they use to calebrate ranging. No 179d) The Current constellation of satellites that are being used. No 179e) Laser ranging stations. No 180) How to test the curvature of the Earth with a fishing line https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0Prdz4YkNs No 181) Watching the sun set and have a friend lie down while watching the sun set. - Using a stop watch, time the difference between when you two see the sun set. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2dTXB3O3dw No 182) Dunning kruger effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect No 183) Roger Morton - Vanishing point. No horizon. - Vanishing points do not cause horizons. No 184) Zach Musick - "Still don't explain why i can see the same object with high focus lense from far away over the so called horizon." 1) It may not have gone over the horizon yet. (The "hidden curvature" STARTS at the horizon) 2) The boat etc. may not have gone far enough to be hidden by the horizon (e.g. 4 miles away is only 1 miles after the horizon, so it is 8 inches of HIDDEN curvature. 3) Possibly Atmospheric diffraction. (That would have to be looked at on a case by case basis) No 185) "If space is a vacuum then why is the atmosphere not sucked away? And we would be sucked away too. Space would suck like your muma. Your move ballers." ----------- *** Vacuums don't suck. Literally, there is no such thing as suction! Think about it, if you had a sealed jar and sucked out all the air, how strong is the vacuum? 5 psi, 100 psi? Infinite? No the vacuum is 14.7 psi at sea level. How can I know the strength of a vacuum so accurately? Simple, vacuums don't suck, the air pressure on the outside pushes down on the object. ---------- If you have a small suction cup, say 1 inch across, you can pull it apart with about 20 lb of force. A larger suction cup, say 4 inches across, you can't pull apart at all. (It would take about 320 lb of force before it let go!) No 185b) Michael Martinez - Well firstly a vacuum has no ability to apply any force on matter. So it would not suck away the atmosphere as some of the less intelligent seem to think. Gravity however does have influence on matter ALL matter in fact. So it would be like me sitting down and gravity holds me there and you thinking you could move me with your mind zero influence on actually moving me soooooo I will not move. No 186) Proof of space: Look up any amateur astronomy site on FB. They take pictures of nebula a thousand light years away. One has to focus way farther to see these objects clearly. *** Even just focusing onto the planets and sun, we can tell they are way farther than the moon! No 187) Why doesn't the air just keep going up. Why doesn't it escape into the vacuum. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10156420121616795/ ----------- When you break it down, it is just individual air molecules. *** There is no such thing as density, when you look at individual air molecules. *** Each one is affected by gravity, individually! ------------ There are water molecules in the air. Water is denser than air BUT an individual water molecule, is not denser than air! It is a single water molecule that is going fast enough (is hot enough) to be a gas. It's just bouncing around with the air molecules, INDIVIDUALLY! ------------- The ping pong ball analogy; Part 1) Atoms in the atmosphere bouncing around: Think of it like a container full of ping pong balls. Vibrate the table and the ping pong balls will shake and bound everywhere. Some may even fall out. Now make the box very tall, say 10 feet tall. The ping pong balls will all shake around, but none of them can go fast enough to jump out of the box. This is what the molecules in the atmosphere do. This is how gravity keeps them from escaping. Molecules have to go very fast so they don't slow down and fall back to Earth. Very few molecules can achieve such speed. (See diagram No 187a) Part 2) A ping pong ball in the vacuum of space: If you have a ping pong ball, in a vacuum, then, would the vacuum around it SUCK it out into space? No, there is nothing to force it to move into another part of the vacuum. Now, say there are a whole bunch of ping pong balls bouncing off of each other, and there is a vacuum beside it. What will happen is another ping pong ball will bounce off of it, knocking it into the vacuum. That is how things get PUSHED into a vacuum. That is what happens with air. Air pressure, molecules bouncing off each other, PUSH molecules into a vacuum. What I am saying is, a vacuum doesn't suck. Just because there is a vacuum around the Earth, doesn't mean it can apply any force to the Earth, what-so-ever. The air molecules would have to push each other out into space, and this is prevented by gravity slowing them down and making them fall back down, into the atmosphere. That is how gravity keeps air on the Earth, it is a balance between air pressure and gravity, and vacuums have nothing to do with it! No 188) Larry Astral Lucas - "Why haven't constellations changed in thousands of years. - They have! - The pyramids lined up with stars from 2500 BC, not today! http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0102-1-pyramids/page02.htm No 189) David Nikao - Flat Earthers proclaim that you always have to nose down when travelling around the globe Earth, but they ignore the fact that you constantly have to turn Northward when travelling east or west. No 190) Belinda Greer - "Newton's second law of motion can be formally stated as follows: The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object." (How rockets work...) No 191) Belinda Greer That's Newton's third law Robert. "Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object." (How rockets work...) No 192) Info on chemicals that can burn without oxygen; A) Stjepan Babic Not all reactions consume oxygen. We often use hydrazine for small thrusters (attitude control thrusters) and for modest amounts of trajectory control The hydrazine is run through a catalyst bed which causes the hydrazine to decompose into hot gases, which are then routed to the nozzle to create thrust. Others have already mentioned that, when needed, an oxidizer is carried in a separate tank to burn with the fuel. B) Arthur Scott - For Christ's sake you can buy solid oxygen from sears. Stop being stupid on facebook Arthur Scott This idiot claims to be a chemical engineer but doesn't know you can buy solid oxygen for working in zero oxygen environment. I see nothing but a fake account troll C) David Baudoin Comburant (which plays the usual role of oxygen) and combustible (which plays the role of the thing that is burning) are mixed inside the fuel, so that the combustion (I'm delighted the meme used the genuine term here, even though the rest of the text doesn't display the same level) can happen, even in a place where there is no oxygen, like empty space for example. Napalm is known to have the same property, that's why it continues burning even when people are going underwater... D) Arthur Scott White Phosphorus. Better known as Willy Pete. :) Looks great on enemy combatants No 193) Compasses only point north; John Darwin - compasses are wieghted, the ones you get in the northern hemisphire have a weight in the white tip. the ones for the southern hemisphere , have a weight in the red tip. really good quality ones have a wieght placed specifically for certain latitudes, the tips always point down, white in the south , red in the north No 194) How can you see the southern constellations from Australia, South America and South Africa? Images by David Nikao and Nicholas D'Alessandra Jr - There have to be multiple copies of Octans! No 195) Things would weigh less at the equator than at the poles. - Take a spring or force scale and measure something and it weights more at the poles than at the equator. About 0.35% more. - One has to use a spring scale and not a balance scale. (The first measures the force of gravity, the second compares two objects of the same mass. No 196) Flying east or west, one would weigh more or less, due to increased or decreased centripetal force: ----------- - You weigh 1% less, flying east than going west, due to centripetal force! (See diagram No 196a) Wolfie6020 Flat Earth vs Globe - The Eötvös effect observed in aircraft - how does it affect Gravity? (See video No 196b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy0erMiS6xs No 197) Planes fly in great circles (Circles making a circumference around the Earth. - This appears as a curve on a flat map, but it is actually the shortest distance! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsEVdhAss0 No 198) You need a filter to photograph the sun! Glare is not the sun getting bigger or smaller! Kieth Oliver - Sun & "Moon Proofs earth is not a Globe!" https://www.facebook.com/keitholiver.abaddignos/videos/1264028197026491/ -------------- *** You just proved that you need a filter to photograph the sun! *** - Many times when FE says the sun gets bigger they are using GLARE, you just demonstrated it thank you. - What does this have to do with the moon? (See 1:40 for demonstration) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSrqcD-6H5A No 199) Faith is not proof! ---------------- Kieth Oliver - "You have science, I have my bible. You may have proofs while I have my faith." God Bless FE! - Faith is not proof! - It is not testable. - Even god isn't provable, so you are basing your proof on something that is not proven! No 200) Rainbows and light rings are not proof of the firmament! -------------- Akinbileje Fred shared a link. - https://youtu.be/4mKyfxtXubw ------------- - Rainbows are a diffraction of light off of drops of water in the atmosphere. - The effect is similar to a prism. - Light waves of different wavelengths get diffracted at different angles, thus spreading out the white light from the sun into separate colours. (See picture No 200a) Reference; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow No 200b) The light going through the air is white. We can separate it into colours and make rainbows with it. That means it wasn't separated by a invisible dome, but came directly from the sun, as a complete spectrum of light! No 200c) According to this, we need the following conditions to make rainbows. 1) The light source is highly parallel 2) The light is sufficiently "white". https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/tt91b/is_it_possible_to_make_a_rainbow_from_an/ ---------------- Light from the sun is very parallel, because it is so far away. Unfortunately, a light bulb or most light sources are not parallel, so they may make refractory patterns, but not a round rainbow. So, that is why sunlight is best for making rainbows, because the light source is so far away, that the light rays are virtually parallel. That has nothing to do with a dome. A dome, would bend light in all directions. So, what does a dome have to do with rainbows? -------------- Apart from that, there is no proof of a dome. Moreover, no physical structure is strong enough to span 25,000 miles. No 201) Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr - Erasthenese calculations would not have worked if the Earth were flat. No 202) We use satellites to predict weather forecast: -------------- 1) If there were no such things as satellites then how could we predict the weather, on a daily basis, up to two weeks ahead? - Anyone can become a weather forecaster, get satellite data and predict the weather several days in advance. That is a prediction made on the movements and interactions of weather fronts, winds and storm movements! 2) The idea that NASA/HARP is controlling the weather is ludacris! - How much energy would it take to alter the weather all over the world, at the same time? - Why would the USA create floods and tornadoes every year, affecting it's own people? NO 203) 'Kieth Oliver - The fact that the sun and moon's reflections always form a straight path proves the Earth is flat." ------------ Actually you have it reversed. 1) Curved surfaces stretch and elongate things (think fun house mirror) 2) Flat surfaces give perfect reflections (When you look in a cars rear view mirror lights are not elongated, they are the same ratio as real life.) 3) Some of these reflections are due to waves, which reflect in every direction and angle. 4) When it gets down close to the horizon, there is actually a shortened reflection (foreshortening), near the horizon, which can only happen if the water were curving. No 204) The dimensions for the flat Earth aren't consistent and don't make sense! ----------- On a flat earth; - The equator, in the middle is the same as the globe Earth, so it is roughly 24,901 miles (i.e. the same diameter as the globe, but flattened out) - That would make the radius 12,450.5 miles and the distance from the North pole to the equator 6,225.25 miles. - The distance around the equator is 24,901 miles, on a flat Earth, as it is on a globe. When we calculate the circumference we get 2Pi*r = 2x3.141592635x6,225.25 = 39,114.4 miles. *** That's a big discrepancy, 24,901 vs 39,114.4 miles. - The equator has to be 24,901 miles, it's been measured. - The distance from the North pole has to be 6,225 miles. *** The flat Earth can't work! No 204b) The circumference at the equator is 24,901 miles (roughly 25,000 miles). That gives a radius of 3,963.12 miles. However the diameter of the Earth is about 25,000 miles. 25,000/4=6,250 miles. *** Why isn't the equator the wrong distance from the north pole, on a flat Earth? *** (See diagram No 204b) No 205 - Iskandar Agung Zulkarnain - https://www.facebook.com/thegreatofme/videos/1844448702471240/ --------------- If this were the case; - we should see the sun and moon retrograde, (slow down or reverse direction)! - they should arc through the sky, but they don't. However, they don't, they go in a straight line path! No 206) Geodetic world map WGS84; Here is a very accurate world map based on curved surveying; (Geodetic surveying). https://pos-map.appspot.com/en/coordinates60.html - This is the reference system used by GPS satellites and is based on the gravitational center of the Earth. A 3 dimensional map of the world, accurate to within 2 cm! Elevations and depths are known to within 2 cm! *** An actual map that takes into account the shape of the world! *** No 206b) Wolfie6020 talking about the WGS84 map; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_H2PzgwOaU No 207) "We can't go through the Van Allen Radiation Belt" ----------- e.g. Roger Morton shared a link. 27 mins This is the source for the famous "We can't go through the van allen belt" memes. Here is a partial transcript 0:25 orion is NASA's next generation space craft. It can take astronauts deeper into space than we have ever gone before To an asteroid or even on to *mars*. 2:48 we are headed 3600 mile above earth 3:00 as we get further away from earth we will pass through the van allen belts an area of dangerous radiation Radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, onboard computers or other electronics on orion. Naturally we have to pass through this danger zone twice - once up and once back. 3:24 But orion has protection. Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors on board will record radiation levels for scientists to study. 3:35 We must solve these challenges before we send humans through this region of space. It is this sound bite from 3:35 that has all the flatards (flat Earthers sic) wanking themselves. Q. What region of space is he talking about ? A: The region of space on the way to Mars. This is not the region of space we went through to get to the moon. But yes - this is the extent of "NASA's admission" on the van allen belts. So as usual flatards (flat Earthers sic) have to deliberately distort to make their moronic ideas seem half way plausible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2kSeINalHg -------------- Daniel Lugo Flerfers be like https://youtu.be/NDVU3KgNBsc -------------- Exaggeration and extremism, but they don't apply the same criteria to the flat Earth! - They don't acknowledge the context! - Our previous missions were only 2 to 3 days long and we are in low Earth orbit, PROTECTED by the Van Allen Radiation Belt! - New missions to Mars will be months to years in duration, by comparison - Newer computer systems are more sensitive to radiation and cosmic rays No 208) Flat Earthers say we are looking at a hump and not curvature. ------------- This may be the case, in some situations on land, however; - On water, that is "flat" there is no such issue of having humps or looking up, not horizontally - As you go up, you see over the humps *** I always advocate looking out and analyzing large bodies of water or high altitude balloon video/pictures to avoid the issue of land features No 209) Denial of rocket launches and their significance. - We have live streaming videos, 10 minutes long, of rocket launces e.g. SpaceX, any rocket launched in the last few years ------------ - How can you deny that these are launched, with all the people who witness them? - How can you deny that, if FE and amateurs are launching at several mach, 69 miles up with amateur rockets, with 2 minutes of burn time, that a 10 minute burn, has to be going mach 25 and be able to go into orbit? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiJVOFCvHrI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmeZ0lMDkrw No 210) Focal length disproves things being close. -------------- FE claims the moon is close and the stars are close, however, when we focus on these things, we have to focus farther than 3,000 miles to see the moon, we have to focus farther to see the sun, and we have to focus much farther to see the stars and nebula *** Focal length proves things are very, very far away! No 211) Jerry Mungolovich - Hey flerfers, how do volcanoes work - Mount St. Helens, the power of a nuclear bomb, 24 megatons! http://www.livescience.com/27553-mount-st-helens-eruption.html No 212) Gyroscopic Precession: ------- "Gyroscopes prove the Earth is flat" - No they don't! ---------- Gyroscopes turn with the Earth, as the plane flies. It's called GYROSCOPIC PRECESSION. The gyproscope naturally tilts with the Earth, so it is always aligned with gravity. It would take work to turn it so it is facing at a different angle to gravity, it naturally follows LEVEL (not flat LEVEL!). It's conservation of angular momentum! https://www.google.ca/search?q=Gyroscopic+precession&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709 CA710&oq=Gyroscopic+precession&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5491j0j7&sourceid=chro me&ie=UTF-8 ----------- If you are standing still and you try to push a spinning gyroscope it will go back to it's original level. *** Level on a plane changes. - The gyroscope tries to keep level, so it keeps turning as the plane goes around the Earth. No 213) RELATIVE SPEED/RELATIVE MOTION: Aircraft and the wind/atmosphere don't suddenly start going 1039 mph when you leave the ground! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154720291666795/ ----------- - Regardless if you are on a flat Earth or rotating globe, since the atmosphere is moving with the ground, the effect of any rotation is zero! - If we do the speed calculations we find that the net effect, in both cases is the same! (See figures 1 to 8) No 213-1) Explanation for calculations of relative velocities. No 213-2) Plane, airport and wind all stationary relative to each other. No 213-3) Airport and wind stationary relative to each other and plane flying East AWAY from the airport at 500 mph. No 213-4) Airport and wind stationary relative to each other and plane flying WEST TOWARDS the airport at 500 mph. No 213-5) Airport stationary With wind going East at 100 mph and plane going east at 500 mph, relative to the airport. No 213-6) Airport stationary With wind going East at 100 mph and plane going west 500 mph, relative to the airport. No 213-7) Airport stationary With wind going west at 100 mph and plane going east 500 mph, relative to the airport. No 213-8) Airport stationary With wind going west at 100 mph and plane going west 500 mph, relative to the airport. No 213-9) Notice, no matter what speed you are going and the wind is going, relative to the airport and each other, the NET speed is the same in BOTH cases, flat Earth or rotating globe. *** You simply can't tell the difference regardless of FE constantly harking on 1039 mph! No 214) What is on the other side of the flat Earth? ----------- - Flat Earthers have to "see with their own eyes", so they won't accept seismology evidence. - They just say they don't know what is below 9 miles (the deepest well ever drilled) - That's just self imposed ignorance! No 215) If the sun lights up the Earth, why is the sky dark? ------------ - Light is scattered by dust in the atmosphere that makes our sky blue during the day - If it weren't for that, the sky would be clear and black and we could see the stars in the daytime - There is no dust in space, it is a vacuum, so it doesn't scatter light, as it goes through space, past us No 216) Adrian Lowe - If It's night where you are an the earth is flat, how can it be daylight where I am??? ---------- - Light goes in a straight line, so if it can reach across half the flat Earth, what stops it from spilling out over the north pole to the other side of the world? No 217) Has anyone ever seen the sun in the dead of night? No? ... but you can see the moon from the side of the flat Earth! No 218) Chris Boose - Here's a good question about the huge NASA conspiracy to fool everybody about space, the shape of the planet, etc. Why wouldn't the government just save themselves a ton of time, money and effort and just claim space travel is too expensive and dangerous to pursue? Why spend all that money faking moon missions, space shuttle flights, space stations. etc.? ------------ True, they could blow up a few rockets, lose a few astronaut lives, and claim there are too many technical difficulties! No 219) Chris Head - "No fucking way!" Chris Head - "I cannot believe that there are people so paranoid and devoid of reasoning abilities." No 220) Even if they are faking EVERYTHING, GPS, satellite TV, air flights, shipping, weather reports, physics and math, it all works! So, what are you complaining about? No 221) Apple makes about 4 times the profit. Not sales, PROFIT, than NASA's whole budget. That's $60 billion dollars a year, profit! No 222) John Appleseed - At night the stars don't remain stationary in the sky. Over the course of the night time they move. Does this mean that the universe is revolving around the earth? ------- If the universe were revolving around the Earth, then a nebula, like this one (the lagoon Nebula 4,077 light years away), have to go around the Earth in one day. That's a radius of 4,077 light years, so that's 2r*pi = 2595.5 light years. In one night. That is 947,980 times the speed of light! *** It is IMPOSSIBLE for anything, outside our solar system, to be travelling around us, in one night! *** No 223) Setting unreasonable tests or goals does not prove Antarctica does not exist! -------- Gavera Gazmahn Ovia - Read it all you want. No one goes past the so called "South Pole", a barber shop pole with a shining globe on it. And, how often do you hear about anyone going across Antarctica, from one end to the other? Or let alone, travelled around it? ---------- How often does anyone go across Siberia, from one end to another? Or traveled around it? - Setting unrealistic goals does not prove FE and does not disprove Antarctica. -------- - There are manned stations on Antarctica. - Many people, on this site are in Australia and testify to seeing southern constellations and the southern polar axis of rotation - You can take trips to Antarctica including the south pole - People have to fly 1,500 miles inland to reach the south pole! https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4V5PYO9wWw&t=8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nc6nhtaEt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huysYcz-AiQ No 224) Antarctica is inaccessible and we can't prove it exists ----------- The point is, the evidence that Antarctica is a continent, is overwealming! - ACTUAL video evidence, - pictures, - a 330,000 picture aerial photography archive, going back 70 years, of of Antarctica, that is freely accessible https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/Antarctica_Single_Frame_Records - satellite pictures of the Earth - flights that go along side Antarctica from from each of the three southern continents It's undeniable that Antarctica is what science and the authorities say it is! No 225) The stars are fixed in the firmament: ---------- Keenan Bezuidenhout - The stars are fixed to the firmament dome and the dome is turning,thats why we see the stars moving all at once instead of in different direction and speeds (how it should have been if we are hurtling through space at such speeds).Think about the northern star,the star at the north pole that stays constant,never moves at all,now the north pole is at the centre of the earth,now if a star was right in the middle of a dome,then wouldnt it stay constant? How do globe earthers explain the ever constant northern star? ---------- - Why, when amateur astronomers zoom in to stars and nebula do they have to focus way farther than with the moon, the sun or even the planets? - They actually HAVE A DIFFERENT FOCAL LENGTH than anything in our solar system! YOU CAN'T FAKE THAT! - Amateur astronomer, on sites on Facebook, take pictures of the moon, the sun, the planet, stars and nebula and post it every day No 226) Powerful earthquakes can permanently shorten the length of Earth's day, by moving the spin of the Earth's axis. The 2011 Japan earthquake knocked 1.8 microseconds off our days. The 2004 Sumatra quake cost us around 6.8 microseconds. No 227) What is on the other side of the flat Earth? ---------- John Armstrong-Millar - 2017-05-04 - OK Boys and Girls. If,as some would have it, the world is indeed flat, what exactly is on the other side? No 228) How is a year defined on a flat Earth? -------- Michael Shepard - 2017-05-04 - Not sure if this has been addressed yet. If said earth is flat and the sun spins around us what do u call sunrise? How old are you? Globally I've revolved around the sun 36 times. But stationary how do we know a true year? ---------- - If the sun goes around every day, then how do we measure the exact year on flat Earth? No 229) FE says you can't see the sun/moon from opposite sides of the Earth at the same time. ------------- Fonne Ayamba - 2017-05-04 - Watch video on how Santos Bonacci's Flat Earthism is being debunked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Z4zVNL5no&feature=youtu.be No 230 to 234) Issues with "Why does a map define up and down on a globe or flat Earth"? ------------ NO 230) The compass pointing north is part of the arbitrary nature of the map. The compass points south too! It does BOTH at the same time! We could easily flip it upside down and it would still be correct! No 231) Ironically, on an azimuthal map with the north pole at the center, there is no up or down! *** Can someone tell me which way is the correct orientation to hang this map on a wall? No 232) This map, whether facing north or south is NOT a flat Earth map! - It is a globe map spread out. - No one uses an azimuthal map for navigation. ***The McArthur map is a representation of the globe! *** *** So how does using the McArthur map support the idea of a flat Earth? No 233) Pointing north has nothing to do with pointing up! - We generally lay maps flat to look at them. - In that case, you could walk up to it from any direction. There is no up or down on a flat map, only for hanging or reading in a book. - That's a limitation of our senses and need to orient NOT the fault of the map! No 234) Most of us are at a 30 to 60 degree angle on the globe. (People at the equator are at 90 degrees!) - So, why do flat Earthers insist that Australians are upside down when *** northerners are at an angle too! *** *** We are ALL tilted! No one is right side up or upside down! *** No 235) The OP doesn't understand gravity. - That's his point. - He ignores reality! - Sure water goes down through cracks in rocks. It displaces any air that may be there. - However, water gets squeezed back up from rock. How do I know this? 1) Just look at the ocean! That's what happens, otherwise it would have drained away a long time ago. 2) Gravity! Rocks are squeezed together by gravity, forcing the water out. *** Density doesn't cause rock to push down on rock. They are both the same density! No 235b) Andy Haverland - This is NOT the lowest point! (See edited meme) No 235c) Bruce Ing - Why is the water on the bottom? - Rock is denser than water! No 236) Proof of flat Earth CGI! No 237) Gravity! ---------- Anyone that has felt a slight dizziness when an elevator goes down too quickly, has proven gravity. The air is self contained and going down with you. So density should keep you sticking to the floor! Why the momentary weightlessness? Gravity not density! No 238) Confuse "theory" with "scientific theory" ---------- Zach Musick How can you use a term wrong. Have people correct you and still KEEP using that term wrong? As if that is some sort of proof? It just proves you are intentionally being ignorant! *** It's like a broken record being played over and over again! No 238b) "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." https://www.google.ca/search?q=scientific+theory+definition&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA710&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.7220j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 No 238c) Just like the scientific definitions of mass (Kg), weight (Newtons), and density (mass/volume) are different than the laymans versions (where mass and weight are uses synonymously), the scientific definitions for theory and hypothesis are not the same. We would not accept using the wrong terms for mass and weight in science, so why should we accept it for theory and hypothesis? Simply put, layman can not dictate how science should be defined! No 238c-1) "Scientific Theory" - A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. No 238c-2) "Scientific hypothesis" - A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an "educated guess," based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, the definition can be expanded No 238c-3) simply put, there is a big difference between a "theory" and a "scientific theory". - Hypothesis is the correct term for something untested. - If it has been tested and shown to be true, then it is a (scientific) theory. references; https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html https://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory https://thinkingcriticallypodcast.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/theory-scientific-vs-laymans-definition/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155710618176795/ No 239) Ronald Allen Magnetism proves the core No 240) Seeing things hidden behind the curve. Superior and inferior mirages. -------- A good video explaining superior and inferior mirages and measuring a tower hidden behind the curve. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcdBFfoi3uU No 241) - Divot Earth! ---------- A sphere is the ONLY shape where your line of site, tangent to the horizon can appear flat, 360 degrees around! (Unless you are standing in the middle of a donut! I'm pretty sure we are not all living in divots on a golf course!) No 242) Magnetic polarity is locked in lava rocks when they cool. There is a billion year fossil record of the magnetic flips during the Earths history! No 243) Clerc-renaud Frédéric if the crust were resting on magma everywhere, heat radiation would have boiled all water away, a long time ago, just like water would have on a hot stove. ---------- Joe Haley - Nope - Thermal dynamics, a balance between rate of heat conduction and cooling. - The same applies on a flat Earth or globe. *** Things aren't boiling away because they are in a balanced state. *** http://physics.info/planck/problems.shtml No 244) The same criteria that apply for a globe ALSO apply to a flat Earth. - If things don't go disasterously wrong on a flat Earth, that is the very same reason why they don't go disasterously wrong on a globe Earth! No 245a) Sunset in one part of the world as the sun rises in another part. ---------- - The sun set would be looking north west and the sun rise would be looking north east on a flat Earth. - That doesn't happen in real life! No 245b) Andrew Talbot - Sunrise and Sunset on the Earth NO 246) There is no resistance in space. It doesn't matter how fast things are going if there is no air to resist it! The whole reason the system works, IS because it is frictionless! No 247) How does the moon stay in place. - Gravity and orbiting -------------- When you swing a yoyo it wants to fly away, but the string stops it from flying away. Same goes with the moon. The moon is orbiting and so wants to fly away (the yoyo), gravity pulls on it, so it can't fly away (the string.) ------------- Before you say, it must be magically balanced, no, the faster the moon goes, the farther away it goes before it becomes balanced with the force of gravity. It's an automatically balanced system. No 248) Balanced - orbit vs not balanced - on the ground, gravity wins ------- Jaime Jackie "How can it be the same with something that is attached to a string and the other is not??" ------------- It depends on your speed! 1) If you go fast enough and you are in the vacuum of space (no friction), you can orbit. 2) If you CAN'T go fast enough then gravity wins and you get pulled down to the surface. Orbiting is a balance of gravity and centripetal force. Being on the surface is NOT balance. Gravity is stronger, it keeps you on the surface. --------- Before you say it' a) birds and butterflies are putting work and energy into fighting gravity, if they stop flapping they fall down. b) Balloons are less dense and the combination of their weight and force from differential pressure gives a net force upwards. They go up until they pop and the helium escapes. c) Helium is INDIVIDUAL atoms. Being lighter, they are moving faster for a given TEMPERATURE (the energy of motion). The gas molecules bounce around until they find an equilibrium. Helium atoms being the fastest will rise the highest, EVENTUALLY. Other gas molecules are too heavy to have enough energy to bounce so high and so don't make it to the upper atmosphere. d) All gas molecules bounce around and collide with each other but don't stick together, that is why it is a gas. If they bounce up, in the upper atmosphere, they eventually slow down and fall back down, just like you and me jumping. e) Every altitude, every foot and inch of the atmosphere is in balance between, gas molecules, the gas above it being pulled down onto it, gravity and it's motion (heat energy.) No 249) Giant meniscus around oceans! https://pos-map.appspot.com/en/coordinates60.html -------- I was looking at the elevatons on the geodetic map of the world. The level of the water near the short is higher than out at see. It quickly drops off from shore and by the time you get 100 miles out, the water in the middle of the oceans is 2 to 3 km lower in level than near the shore (i.e. closer to the center of the Earth). I can only think that the gravity is higher in the oceans or more likely, the mass of the continents is pulling on the edges of the ocean. *** It's a giant meniscus! *** No 249a) Look at the shore and you will see that water levels are at zero elevation (sea level), as to be expected. No 249b) However, look out to see, in this case between New Beach, Los Angeles and Santa Catalina Island. You will see the water is LOWER than sea level (-424.6 meters). No 249c) As we approach land again, the sea level rises back up to zero. No 249d) Further out to see, we can have drops as much as 4 Km! No 249e) How is this possible? The gravity of the land masses pulls water towards it. So water near the land is higher than in the open oceans. Although OVERALL the Earth is curved, over short distances it is LESS curved. This explains why we can sometimes see further than we would expect to with curvature. However, overall, in the long run, the Earths curve always wins! Q.E.D. I'm going to call it the Bruce Ing Oceanic meniscus Effect! (See image No 249e) Image No 249e-2 - close up No 250) "The moon is transparent"?!?! ----------- Kieth Oliver - How is it Possible GlobeTards? Comment photo below! -------- - No, the sky is blue. You are looking through a blue haze to see the moon. - The moon has a dark shadow. - You are looking through a blue filter, THE SKY! No 251) Cherry Picking! - Science doesn't pick and choose, when and what works - everything is always true - What flat Earthers do is pick one point and ignore all the supporting evidence or phenomena that go along with that one point, then ask "How is this possible?" - Worse they may ask "HOw is this possible, BUT you CAN'T use gravity!" WTF - YOU CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO HAPPEN. Gravity works whether you want it to or not! - Gases will behave like gases, whether you want them to or not. Gas doesn't just abruptly stop! It's not a light switch! It's a gradual reduction in pressure and density! No 251) Cherry Picking! - Science doesn't pick and choose, when and what works - everything is always true - What flat Earthers do is pick one point and ignore all the supporting evidence or phenomena that go along with that one point, then ask "How is this possible?" - Worse they may ask "HOw is this possible, BUT you CAN'T use gravity!" WTF - YOU CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO HAPPEN. Gravity works whether you want it to or not! - Gases will behave like gases, whether you want them to or not. Gas doesn't just abruptly stop! It's not a light switch! It's a gradual reduction in pressure and density! No 252) How light travels around the universe - we are seeing the past not the present. ---------- Dusty Haggard - I agree. We started at one point. End at another. I get that. So that means we traveled away from the beginning. Is what I'm understanding. We are near the end of the universe. The oldest sections. Not the newest. -------------- No, the whole universe is the same age. It's just the light took a very long time to travel here, so when we look very far away, we see things the way they were a very long time ago. ------------ That part of the universe is the same age as us, it's just that the light leaving from the part of the universe (13.78 billion light years away) won't reach us for more than 13.78 billion years. It's like you start out in a car 100 mile away going 100 miles an hour. Your friend starts out at the same time going 120 miles an hour to give you a message from home. He won't meet you for 5 hours, by then you've gone another 500 miles an he's traveled 600. That message is now 5 hours old! ------------ *** Light from one part of the universe is playing a catch up game with every other part of the universe! No 253) No pictures of ice wall or edge - Not even from high altitude balloons or rockets (See picture No 253) No 254) No pictures of the flat Earth - Even with all the satellite pictures from Earth, no one has been able to piece together a complete image of the flat Earth No 255) There is no earth surrounding ice wall. Learn about the origin of YOUR foundation stone “flat earth map” projection and SCALE. ----------- Sandra Dee # The projected map doesn't represent a proper scale of the distances on the Earth # Centre out is constant however the scale at the North pole is massively different to the SCALE at the south pole and can be made accurate using the "Azimuth calculation ! No 256) Celestial Navigation: ---------- Jeff Dugay My stance is that celestial navigation won't work on a flat plane. There are dip calculations that need to be made to get an accurate location, this will only work on a globe. https://youtu.be/ih7aGeFKBPE Jeff Dugay https://youtu.be/cun0DGZ6-sk Jeff Dugay https://youtu.be/XfL1Bxo6RnE Jeff Dugay Sailors have been effectively navigating since they figured out how to measure longitude 400 years ago. Jeff Dugay Sailors have navigated for longer than that but they couldn't measure longitude very well before about 400 years ago and made it possible to sail to further places with better accuracy not to mention it was much safer and the chances of reaching your destination vastly improved. No 257) Momentum and relative motion: If anyone wants to get anywhere really fast, we can shoot you out of a cannon westward at 1,039 mph! *** Voila, that's the way to simulate what every flat Earther thinks happens when you jump in the air! A cannon! *** - Stopping at your destination ... that's your problem. (Don't worry, depending on the trajectory, you'll hit the ground in 20 or 30 seconds anyways. It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end!) - Such analogies ignore momentum. Things don't stop going at 1,039 mph, just because the leave the ground! The ground, air and you are all going at the same speed! ----------- In theory, you could do it with a real cannon ball and try to hit 1,039 mph, but it's not worth the effort. - It's easier just to try a few diagrams and explain it step by step. - I just hope my explanation makes them understand why things don't just fly backwards as soon as they leave the ground! https://www.facebook.com/Trustmeiamamechanicalengineer/videos/951010445040559/ ------------- The Earth, air and you are going at the same speed. Centripetal force is very minor. You would be at the same speed and everything works the same in BOTH frameworks! When we calculate it out. The 1,039 mph CANCELLS OUT because, THE AIR, THE GROUND AND YOU ARE GOING THE SAME SPEED! No 258) The moon's shadow is not from the Earth! No 259) Daniel Lugo - Can SOMEONE answer this? They say the pictures of the globe are fake YET they fully accept the map of the earth (shapes of land mass, position and size of continents) as real. Makes no logical sense - I think they call it cognitive dissonance! No 260) Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr - Different sides of the moon should be visible from different parts of the Earth at the same time on a flat Earth. - It is simple to close to have a very small angular diameter. (Since in real life the moon is much farther away, you see virtually the same side of it, off by only 2-3 degrees.) (see pictures 260a to d) No 261) Meteors originate from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, kicked out by Jupiter's gravity or from the Oort cloud 15 million miles away, in the outer edges of the solar system (See No 159 for comets) - Meteors therefore go against the idea the everything revolves around the Earth. Something 15 billion to a trillion mile out could not possibly revolve around the Earth every day! - Here's the meteor that struck Russia on February 18th, 2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor - They recovered a fragment of the 10,000 ton meteorite from a lake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1TL_jaVijY - Other meteors come from the Oort cloud. http://space-facts.com/oort-cloud/ - Halley's comet isn't set to come back until 2061, on it's 76 years cycle. Howeever we are going through it's debri trail right now! https://www.sciencealert.com/the-halley-s-comet-meteor-shower-is-set-to-peak-this-weekend-here-s-how-to-watch No 262) Meteor showers happen every year, annually! (See No 159 for comets and No 261 for meteors) - They happen when the Earth goes through the debris field of comets. - This makes sense if the Earth is orbiting the sun, but it doesn't make sense if every day the sky is orbiting us! - The Perseid meteor showers is one I try to catch every year (This year Aug 11, 12 and 13th 2017). http://earthsky.org/?p=165416 - There's a meteor shower in December, the Geminid meteor shower http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/everything-you-need-to-know-geminid-meteor-shower - right now the Eta Aquarids meteor showers, from Halley's Comet are on (April to May 2017) https://www.sciencealert.com/the-halley-s-comet-meteor-shower-is-set-to-peak-this-weekend-here-s-how-to-watch http://www.space.com/23363-eta-aquarid-meteor-shower.html No 263) It's been know that Earth was a sphere for 2500 years. -------- Svein Arne Romestrand - It is in fact correct. Pythagoras postulated that the Earth was a 'globe' (more than 2500 years ago) Erastothenes proved it (ca 2200 years ago). Galilei and Copernicus postulated the heliocentric model about 500 years ago, to name only a few. Those people all had the ability to understand that not all you see is exactly what it seems, so they used their minds to make hypotheses to explain the nature of our physical world. The main parts of their hypotheses have been strenghtened to the point where no-one in their right mind would argue them. And then there are flerfers... No 264) Reality check: Richard Gentry - A Very Simple Reality Check for Flat Earthers: 1. Download the Google Earth Application if you have not already done so. 2. In the search box type in the address of any home that you have ever lived in and still remember what it looks like. Then hit go or whatever the command button is and let it do its thing. 3. After the search is completed and the image has downloaded, with full resolution, look to see if that is the place you once lived (or maybe still do). You probably will even be able to see over the fence into the backyard and find what it looked like at one time. 4. If the image is at the place you thought it should be, and it looks like what you remember it to look like you should consider these two things, a) Maybe some things are real in spite of the fact that somebody else told me they weren't, and that everything I've ever learned might not be a lie. or b) Am I really here? No 265) The Moon Terminator Effect. --------- - If you look at a long straight line from below, it seems to curve up at one end, go across and curve back down at the other end. - This is an optical illusion, due to our perspective. - It shows that the moon and sun are very far away and very high up. - The sun can even be over the horizon and it will seem like the direction of the light against the moon is pointed upwards. ------ Example 1: The easiest way I can illustrate this is to sit in the middle of a large room. - Look up at the edge of the wall. - Look at one corner, then follow the line to the other corner. - It looks like it is curving, but we know it is a straight line. *** It is just our PERSPECTIVE again! (See diagram No 265a) Example 2: Here is an example of the corner of my wall, seen from below. Does it look like the top edge is level? No, it looks like it is coming down at an angle from the top left, even though it is level! (See picture No 265b) Example 3: - If you watch a plane go from one horizon it appears to come up from the horizon, go OVERHEAD and drop back down to the horizon. - It is obviously flying in a straight path, (Even with earth's curvature, it is not a big drop over such a short distance.), BUT it looks like it is flying in an arch! (See video No 265c) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI4b_TAkcoM (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10156945500286795/ No 266) The Earths molten core produces a magnetic field that goes between the north and south poles. - These geomagnetic poles, the north magnetic pole in the northern hemisphere and the south magnetic pole in the southern hemisphere, form one continuous magnetic field around the Earth. - Note that these poles wander and are not necessarily near the north and south polar axis of rotation. - Currently the South magnetic pole is in the ocean, off the coast of Antarctica, south of Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field No 267) The Van Allen Radiation Belt: - The Van Allen Radiation Belt, where the magnetic field created by the Earth meets the solar winds. The Magnetic field conducts these charged particles up and around the Earth, creating a long magnetic tail in the Earths wake. - Some charged particles get conducted to the north and south poles creating the Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis http://www.crystalinks.com/vanallenbelt.html No 268) Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis - As mentioned above, the Aurora Borealis are created when charged particles follow the magnetic field down to the north and south poles. - When these particles hit the atmosphere they cause ionization and emit greenish blue, red and yellow light curtains Hourly Aurora Australis forcast http://www.aurora-service.net/aurora-forecast/ http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/aurora No 269) How far can you see? Exaggerate, misrepresent or do not understand how curvature works: ---------- Jeff Dugay - The claim lighthouses can be seen 40 or 60 miles off shore. A light has to be 200 feet off the water to be seen more than 20 miles. http://www.pajack.com/stories/pitts/viewdistance.html https://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA710&q=How+far+can+you+see+on+a+clear+day%3F&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQxquWwN_TAhVD04MKHY_nA4EQ3rMBCCkoAg&biw=1024&bih=580 No 270) Jeff Dugay - Why don't we see the stars change position? No 271) Jeff Dugay - Latitude on flat earth doesn't match up. No 272) FE constantly mixes up speed and acceleration for the Earth's rotation. ------- 1,039 mph does not tell you how strong the centripetal force is. It is still ONE revolution PER DAY! - The speed of the surface at the equator may be 1,039 mph, but the circumference is almost 25,000 miles, so it is a very low centripetal force. - Speed and acceleration are two different things. You do NOT feel speed, you feel acceleration (change in speed or direction.) - The centripetal force for 1 revolution per day is 0.3% of your weight, so you still weigh 99.7% of your full weight! No 273) Robert Pickard - The sun rotates. Earth has to rotate if the sun does too, the moon is the exception thanks to tidal locking. - It's either, sun orbits earth, (this debunks that) we would see different sides of the sun too!! Or sun rotates, earth orbits and rotates, causing a logical sunset. Earth cannot rotate the sun like the images say. The only flattard explanation is "cgi". No 274) Jeff Dugay - On a flat Earth you would see multiple sides of the sun at the same time AND each person would see a very different sky/constellation behind the sun (if they could see the constellations. (See picture) NO 275) Flat Earthers claim there is another moon causing the shadow, but if we enhance the moon from an eclipse, we see that it is one and the same moon causing the eclipse! (see picture) No 276) Robert Pickard - Limb profile is calculated by using our own moon during solar eclipses, it helps viewers see the details of the corona, and Baily's beads.. If Rahu was real, we wouldn't see the exact same thing in the simulation as the real image wouldn't we? Rahu is a entirely different body than the moon according to FE, this is a debunk. No 277) Robert Pickard - If we were under a dome, pressure equalizes. We wouldn't need any oxygen to climb Everest, and the Soyuz 11 incident would never happen either. The crew died in a vacuum of space. Hint- FE says space can't exist and it is NASA CGI. Double hint- Soyuz 11 was from the USSR in 1971, Russia and NASA had no cooperation whatsoever at that time. No 278) Robert Pickard - Mercury passing through the dome... (See meme) No 279) "The horizon is perfectly flat, except in NASA and other government pictures" -------- - There are plenty of flat Earth videos where the horizon is clearly seen as not being flat. - Many videos with fish eyed lenses can even be stopped with the horizon going through the center point, (a place where the line should always be straight), and it can be shown that the horizon curves. No 280) "If Earth really was a sphere hurtling through space, the water would be wobbling all over the place, instead of staying flat." -------- - Because the Earth is so large and it is travelling through space at a constant speed, there is no reason water would slosh around. - Things slosh around because of acceleration (change in speed or change in direction). - Flat Earthers always get speed and acceleration mixed up. It doesn't matter how fast something is going, if it is a constant speed, then it would be imperceptible No 281) "If Earth really was a globe, rivers such as the Mississipi would have to flow uphill to reach the sea – flowing uphill 11 miles in its 3,000-mile length." ---------- - Ignoring gravity on a globe - Mixing the flat Earth and round Earth model and coming up with a bastardized model - On a globe, a level surface is NOT flat, it is a continuous curved surface - Because of fluctuations in gravity, the place of equal level on the Earth varies, however for that spot, water is level and flat No 282) "If there actually were billions of stars in the night sky (Flat Earthers think there aren’t), the entire sky would be full of light. ---------- - This assumes an infinite universe, however, we can only see a finite part of the universe, out to 13.78 billion light years. - From what we see, there is still plenty of empty, black space between all the stars and galaxies. - It would take an infinite amount of time for the light to reach us from an infinite distance No 283) Robert Pickard - I'll add something that triggers them: in November 2003, a total solar eclipse passed over Antarctica. People flocked out to see the event, at sunset (flat Earth vanishing point) there was no opposition to stop the aircraft and icebreakers from landing at Antarctica, no NASA army, just a ice shelf, and no wall of ice. (See meme) No 283b) Corona form an airplane. Robert Pickard - http://www.zam.fme.vutbr.cz/.../Ecl2003_fd_cor/0-info.htm (See picture) No 13) (Recap) - The horizon is always below eye level. It should rise to eye level on a flat Earth No 284) Joe Haley - Why does the 3000 mile high sun illuminate the underside of 5 mile high clouds? No 1) (Recap) - Perspective and the Horizon No 285) Leap Years are based on how long a Solar day is AND the time it takes the Earth to orbit once around the sun. As you can see, it is nowhere near a perfect number. It is a total random accident of nature! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkt_wmRKYNQ No 286a) The Zooming Effect (My name, I'm going to be famous!) - When you are close to a small object, it can look much bigger than an object far away. - When you are far away from the objects an zoom in on them, they look more proportionate to their actual size. (See Picture No 286a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155578494641795/ No 286b) This has been an issue with flat Earthers, where they claim that pictures are fake. However, this is the explanation for it, also, the objects from far away DO look like the correct proportions to each other. Proving that they are real! (See diagram No 286b) ---------- From close up, a smaller object can look out of proportion to a larger one. E.g. standing on the moon, the Earth looks tiny! *** If we are farther away and zoom in, we see them more proportionate to each other! *** No 286c) A picture of the lunar transit, taken from the DSCOVR:EPIC satellite module at Lagrange Point 1. - The satellite is 909,000 million miles away, between the Earth and the sun. - We see the far side of the moon, that we normally never see, which of itself makes it hard for us to believe this is real. - Also we see how the moon, only reflects 10% of the sun's light, therefore looking a lot darker than the Earth, which reflects 30% of the sun's light. No 286d) If we are standing on the moon, the Earth looks tiny, because we are way closer to the moon than the Earth. We don't get a proper sense of the proportions of the Earth and moon, because we are too close to one of them! (See picture No 286d) -------------------- This is the whole issue with flat Earthers. *** We are standing on the Earth trying to judge how big other things are, but we are TOO close to the Earth. *** *** We don't have a proper perspective to be able to tell how big or small things (planets, the moon, the sun) are relative to each other. No 286e) Here are the proportions and distances for the DSCOVR satellite, Earth and moon. (See diagram No 286e) No 286f) Dave Greg - Wow! Make sure you view this video Full Screen... The moon is about the size of a pea, in an outstretched arm, when viewed from the Earth, BUT zoom in on the moon and people on a cliff and you get this amazing video! (See diagram No 286f-1) (See video No 286f-2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afHfMMC-MJE No 286f-3) Dave Greg - Details about the photographer, camera and massive zoom lens used... The video was taken from about 10 miles away. (See link No 286f-3) https://petapixel.com/2018/06/05/this-is-what-a-moonset-looks-like-with-an-ultra-telephoto-lens/ No 286g) The zooming effect. Things look bigger or smaller compared to a particular object, depending on focal length and field of view. (See gif No 286g) No 286h) Model of Earth and moon seen from DSCOVR satellite: No 286h-1) James Edward Angeles - Did you try it already Feddy? You realize it is about 4 times as far right? (See picture No 286h-1) No 287) PERSPECTIVE - Things "SEEM" to get smaller as they get farther away. NOTE: It is an optical effect! - Things get smaller as they get farther away, regardless of which direction. It can happen in any direction, up, down, left right, in front or behind or any combination of the above. No 288) VANISHING POINT - The point where something becomes to small to see - The one shown the most, in FE, is one where there are two tracks going away from you that seem to converge at a point. *** However, a vanishing point can be in any direction, 360 degrees around you and 360 degrees up or down. No 289) ANGULAR DIAMETER - How big an object appears in one's site. For Example, 40 degrees of one's view for something big or close or 2 degrees of one's view for something small or far away. NOTE: The angular view depends on both, the size AND distance of an object. *** A small object can have the same angular view as a big object, if it is closer and the big object is farther away! - The vanishing point is a special case of the angular diameter. It is an angular diameter that is so small as to be invisible. The bigger the object, the farther away it has to be to reach this angular diameter/vanishing point. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155907877601795/ No 290) FE claims that engineering projects don't take into account the curvature of the Earth. - For example Railway tracks never take into account curvature when laying track. - The thing is, the Earth may curve 8 inches in a miles, but a 50 foot section of track will DROP 3 feet on either end, under it's own weight! - For most cases, there is no need to take into ccount curvature, the materials will flex and bend way more than curvature. Several orders of magnitude more! (See image No 290) No 290b) If the gravel gets washed away, tracks will sag under it's own weight! (Image No 290b) No 291) Feather and hammer drop on moon ---------- Peter Yingling - This also proves that we went to the Moon. The slow speed of the drop is because of the 1/6 gravity on the Moon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk&feature=share No 292) Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr - "So I'm here at work and a workman from New Zealand is here. I told him about flat earth. He just laughed. I asked him about the direct flights to South America. He confirmed that they take them. He also says that they fly over the arctic to accomplish this flight. Flat Earthers are toast." Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr - He works for Air New Zealand No 293) False claims of "crashing into the dome": Zach Musick - This video is brought to you by NASA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NZHjTtsxMs -------- SpaceX launches - April 8, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZXu_rYF51M - April 11, 2016 Test vehicle launches https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AllaFzIPaG4 - April 19, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmJgW-yMAIg - January 14,2017 Launch Launch at 10:25 into video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-iDZA2vdzc&t=105s - February 19, 2017 Launch Launch at 54 seconds into video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJwbybWQZcg - May 1st 2017 Launch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzQpkQ1etdA&t=859s No 294) Hot spots Explained: ------- Keenan Bezuidenhout - How does a million mile away sun create a spotlight above the clouds? - A hot spot is just the sun reflecting off the ocean through a break in the clouds. (See illustrative pictures) No 295) The flat Earth is based on the Azimuthal map projection. - A projection of the flat Earth that is stretched out, from the north pole, right through to the south pole. - Note All of the lines, from east to west are stretched out. ALL OF THEM! - The farther away you get from the north pole, the MORE stretched it is! *** The flat Earth map is based on a lie, right from the beginning! (This should be number 1!!!) No 296) Distances are to far for commercial flights, near the south pole. On a flat Earth, the distances are 3 times greater! -------- Ivan Woods - A flight from AUK to SCL is 11and half hours in a 787-9. On the flat earth model it is 3x the distance than on the globe using the great circle route . Meaning the 787-9 is having to fly at mach 2.2 to make it in the 11 and half hours .Top speed of 787-9 is 954km/h No 297) Jet Streams: ---- How does on account for flights going 3 ties further on a flat earth? - Nicholas Cope - Jet streams ---------- - Commercial aircraft arrive an hour earlier or later, on an 8 hour flight, due to the jet stream. That is consistent with the distances and speeds of the plane and jet stream on a globe. - Average get stream speeds of 110 kph. Maximum 402 Kph. - What you are proposing are speeds never recorded before! "The greater the difference in air temperature, the faster the jet stream, which can reach speeds of up to 250 mph (402 kph) or greater, but average about 110 mph (177 kph). Both the Northern and Southern hemispheres have jet streams, although the jet streams in the north are more forceful." https://www.google.ca/search?q=jet+streams&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA710&oq=jet+streams&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1974j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=jet+stream+speeds No 298) When you reverse an azimuthal map, e.g. south pole centric, you realize how silly it is! *** EVERYTHING IS STRETCHED!!! *** (See illustration) No 299) Martyn Tucker - Look there are two million surveyors,two million sailors,maybe a million pilots not counting all astronomers,astro physicists,geographers before we get too nasa all in on the con that the world isnt flat. Intelligent people part of the conspiracy ....jeez 10 yrs ago mossad told the world they had spread a rumour as an experiment too see how gullible people were omg so many people are .... No 300) Joe Haley - A ship's wake doesn't vanish into a pinpoint, before disappearing, only possible explanation is the earth is not flat. No 301) The vanishing point is at a different distance for different size objects. A person, e.g. 2 feet wide and 6 feet tall, may be hard to see around 3 miles, BUT this ships wake is 200 of not 300 feet wide, so it may be visible 100 times further befor it "vanishes". As well, the height of the observer matters. So maybe it would be visible up to 30 to 60 miles away. The point is, vanishing points depend on a whole lot of factors! Vanishing point, literally has nothing to do with the horizon! No 302) What makes "down" DOWN on a flat Earth? ----------- Justin Joseph - "Ball earthers: If the earth is round and gravity exists, then how is it just floating up in the air?" ----- Jay Tee - Should ask him: what would such a floating Earth fall down to? Why would there be any force pulling the Earth "down"?" Is it the same force pulling water "down" on a flat Earth? What causes that force? Nothing? Then why shouldn't the Earth just "float there"? (Never mind the "in the air" part." That gets too deep for him.) No 303) (See picture from Iskandar Agung Zulkarnain) -------- No 303b) Alessandro Mercante - A quick search would show you that those mountains aren't on the sea side. They are far inland. If the earth was flat, from this shot we should be able to see the numerous beaches and towns that are on the seaside, but nope, we just see THE TOP of mountains that are far into the main land. It's like the boats sinking beyond the horizon. Source: I'm Italian from near Pesaro and I've been in Croatia and I've seen those mountains. It's so funny when you flerfers post stuff that actually debunks flat earth. It really makes my day No 303c) Justin Leroy Brown - The answer is simple, where's the bottom of the mountains? What's the height of these mountains, what's the distance to them, what is the observers height, determine the 3 and you can using a simple formula determine how much of the mountain should be visible and how much should be obscured. No 303d) Laine Harris - Where's the opposite shore? No 304) Neil Bentley "at least e,s got a perspective and making a contribution,which is more than can be said for you." ------------ Bruce Ing Neil Bentley, he is contributing! Ruaridh Graham McNee said "Your perspective is too high". - That literally means the OP is observing from a high point, so the curvature calculations at sea level and 200 miles don't work. *** The observers height must be taken into account too! No 305) The hour hand on a 12 hour clock rotates TWICE as fast as the Earth! (see picture) No 306) Jeff Dugay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy - Modern astronomy is descended from the Babylonians dating back to 1200 BC Bruce Ing - My understanding is that the flood myths also date back to the days of the Babylonians and local flooding around the Red Sea No 307) Jesse Kozlowski Flat Earth - Curvature Confusion Video Description: Memes depicting Lake Pontchartrain and the Suez Canal as evidence there is no curvature and therefore the earth is flat serve as examples in this video detailing the confusion people are having concerning the curvature of the earth. People are mixing up two different formula. - They correctly calculate the drop of the curve using the 8 inches times the miles squared. - Then they fail to establish the required geometry to measure the drop of the curve down from, i.e., the horizontal tangent plane. - Instead they misapply the drop distance to the line of sight tangent to the horizon and then complain they can still see the thing they mistakenly say should be below the horizon. - The people that use the curve calculator website curse the people using 8"xM^2 for coming up with numbers that are hugely different from the numbers generated by the website calculator which actually does compute the correct distance things will be below the horizon. It's a complete mess of miscommunication and misunderstanding. https://youtu.be/moDr0CPZhbs No 308) Jesse Kozlowski Flat Earth - Missing Curvature Found ! (Recorded Live Stream 2/23/17) Video Description: Where is the curve? Watch this recorded live stream presentation about measuring and computing the earth's curvature, focused on the correct curvature chart everyone is using to calculate curvature but then applying the result incorrectly. The curve is right in front of your eyes. https://youtu.be/QaBvc0SaPX8 309) Visible Curvature vs Hidden Curvature: I like to make a distinction between Visible Curvature and Hidden Curvature. - Although the ground does start curving away right at your feet. - It has to get to a certain point before it curves out of sight. (That is before the line of sight is tangent with the horizon.) - Everything BEFORE the horizon is visible (It is curved down and it is below ground level!) *** It is only AFTER the horizon that things are obscured by the horizon and you can start seeing things hidden! No 309b) You have to look at ships, as boats are too small: As a general guideline; - Boats are too small to see very far out. - You have to look at ships 6 to 9 miles out to get a decent hidden curvature. - You have to do it on a day when there aren't mirage or atmospheric effects. No 310) When you look at high altitude balloon pictures, they are of just a fraction of the Earth. Most don't even show an entire state, let alone a good percentage of the globe. Globe or flat earth, a high altitude balloon picture doesn't represent much of either one! How do you look at an area with a radius of about 447 miles (62,718 square miles), when the whole Earth is 3959 miles in radius (about 196,961,283 miles square), and declare it flat? That's looking at 0.31 percent of the Earth and declaring it flat! The thing is, No 310a) you are looking at a very small section of a sphere AND (See picture) No 310b) you are looking at it almost edge on! (Line of sight tangent to the horizon!) (See picture 2) No 311) Boats and land visible from farther than they should be... ------- Peter Maca McLaughlin - That's odd then as there are hundreds of vids on YouTube that do with long lens cameras. How do you explain being able to see land over 50 miles away when the curve/drop should be 1667.15 feet down. That's nearly the height of one world trade tower. That's 1776 feet. And again if you don't believe and think you have proof wouldn't you of started round earth group ----------- Bruce Ing 1) Boats on FE videos are around the horizon, no hidden curvature yet! 2) Videos of land never give their elevation, don't account for optical effect and ignore the fact that the beach and bottom part of the land isn't visible! Bruce Ing - How do you explain the fact that that land isn't visible 60 miles away, 80 miles away? 100 or more? - ULTIMATELY, land and everything else, is hidden behind the curve! No 312) Dave Williamson - Once and for all, let's solve this curvature issue! You can find the following document here: https://po.st/curvatureillustrated --------- At What Height Can The Curvature Of The Earth Be Seen? Understand that I didn't copy this from someone else nor did I read it in a book. I just used the simple methods of observation and deduction that I'm sure millions have used before. Now it's your turn to do it. 1.) Find a 12” globe. 2.) Find where you are. 3.) Find a place that you know is 50 miles from you in a straight line. Use Google Earth, if that helps. 4.) How far is that, about 1/8", right? That's about the thickness of the handle of a plastic spoon or fork. 5.) Take that measurement and turn it up at a right angle from the globe. If that were you at 50 miles above the earth, do you think you could see any curvature from there? 6.) If the highest you'll ever fly in a plane is less than 7 miles and you can't see it from 50 miles up, what makes you think that anyone would be able to see it? Since there will be doubters who will say that it couldn't be that easy to figure out, I will further illustrate the accuracy of this method: On your standard globe of about 12 inches, the United States would be about 4.5 inches across. The mean distance from coast-to-coast in the US is 2900 miles. https://www.reference.com/.../many-miles-coast-coast... 2900÷50 = 58 50 mile pieces 4.5"÷58 = 0.077586206896552 or 5/64ths of an inch. Do you think you would be able to see curvature on a 12 inch globe at 5/64"? Being a union finish carpenter, I visualize that quite easily. That is 25% more than 1/16", about the thickness of six pieces of paper, 38% LESS than my initial guesstimate of 1/8". Mind you, I didn't put those figures together till after I had written what's above. I'd say that is pretty accurate for an off-the-cuff guess. VISUALIZE IT — Look at that 50 mile distance on your 12" globe. Take that distance and point it up to the sky. From that height, 5/64", could you see curvature? Probably not. If you can't see it from 50 miles (264,150'), how do you think anyone would see it from 35,000', (the height of the commercial airliner), over seven times lower than that? ?? 50 miles is twice the distance the highest weather balloon has ever flown, 144,000’ (27 miles). Let's say we went 20 times higher than this to 1000 miles above the Earth. 20×5/64"=1 9/16", slightly more than 1 1/2" above a 12" globe. Would you be able to see curvature from there? Yes you would, quite pronounced. I know what you are thinking??. "Now you want me to believe the pictures provided by NASA are real, right Dave?" Like many of you, I have my doubts about anything our government tells us, including NASA. Many weather balloons have gone beyond 50 miles above the Earth and have recorded video and pictures. Here is an ideal illustration that further supports this: https://youtu.be/j4wyRSy6PO8 No 313) David Michael Allsop - The sheer wilful stupidity of flerfers is beyond me. They must never fly... or think for themselves. Eyes above the wing on every commercial jet flight. Check Horizon below wing on every commercial jet flight. Check. Horizon always rises to eye level debunked. Check. No 313b) Joe Haley - That's like saying the floor is at eye level for a 6 foot tall person. This was stupid even the first time I saw it, two years ago. No 314) Composites are fake. NO THEY ARE NOT! ---------------- Can someone tell me why the photo below is not a legitimate representation of the Earth? ---------- Composites are pictures made up of images using different wave lengths. (e.g. infra red, ultra violet, red, green and blue etc.) These images are given the appropriate colour and combined to make a picture. This is actual data, actual observation of the Earth that is combined into one picture. It's still data gathered from satellites and it's still what is observed by the satellite, so why is it not legitimate? *** If anything sensors are more sensitive and more accurate than our eyes could ever be! *** https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/pdf_archive/How2make.pdf (see picture No 314) Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr - A composite can also be several pictures taken in succession and then matched up to create a larger whole No 315) Joe Haley - Where's the bottom of the boat and the buildings? ---------- No 315b) There's actually a set of Toronto Islands WITH AN AIRPORT, several miles long, a spit (The Leslie St. Spit about 3 Km long), a harbour and a shipping port. *** NONE of that is visible in this picture! *** Why? It' is hidden behind a horizon of water! *** Does anyone see this island on the photo? *** -------- No 315c) There is an ENTIRE THEME PARK on the water, with an IMAX theatre (the round dome). - Can anyone see the theme park? --------- No 315d) Can anyone tell me why we can't see a 150 foot high bright white sphere? -------- No 315e) There's a 200 foot tall smoke stack on the right side, for the sewage plant. - Can anyone see that? ------- Stephen Raj Zooooom it... Bruce Ing - This picture is probably a 5 to 8 mile stretch of the Toronto skyline. - It is probably taken from across the lake, 30 miles away. - How much more zoomed in do you want? No 315f) Peter Maca McLaughlin - Pretty much same distance. Just a different place. Near enough same angle to. Just on clear day, well night so light shows it clearer to. In fact if anything the bottom pic is a lower angle to se level. So the fact the weather is making the 1st image barely visible doesn't help. Which no one has mentioned yet. The dome Bruce ing keeps preaching about is here. The 1st pic it's out of shot. And look the ground....... ------ Bruce Ing Peter Maca McLaughlin Actually, I was talking about the Ontario place dome, which is a lot smaller. I totally forgot about the Skydome [called Rogers center now! : ( ]. It has a 700 feet wide, retractable dome! It's about 300 feet tall at it's apex and yes, it wasn't at all visible on the first picture, from across the lake! No 315g) Peter Maca McLaughlin - Bruce Ing I've said about the weather. And all the things you are saying are showing that if the 2nd images lower it should show less of the buildings. But it's not. That is backing up what I am saying. Watch the vid link I shared it works better than these images Bruce Ing Peter Maca McLaughlin - Is that what you were trying to say? ---------- The second image is obviously taken from closer. Who said it was taken from farther away? The second image is clearly taken from the Islands! It's only a 20 minute ferry ride across the harbour. It's 2 miles away at the most! *** What a load of crap, pawning off a closer picture as farther away! Bruce Ing Peter Maca McLaughlin - Seriously, trying to fool us with a picture of my own town?!?! Take your lies and get out of my face! Peter Maca McLaughlin - Explain the video then Bruce Ing Peter Maca McLaughlin - I didn't pick the the image that started this thread so why blame me. Peter Maca McLaughlin - I said the pics look similar distance. The video is proof Bruce Ing - I already told you, the islands, Ontario place theme park and a whole host of things weren't visible in the first shot, because they were hidden by the horizon. Those things surround the harbour. The second shot is showing the harbour in the middle of the shot. CN Tower and Rogers Center off of John St. Where is the Island, if it was taken from the same distance? Your picture was TAKE FROM THE ISLAND! Peter Maca McLaughlin - Look at the video. I'm out for now anyway. Time for bed. As always Bruce Ing been interesting haha Bruce Ing Peter Maca McLaughlin - The video is from across the lake, it is similar to the OP picture, a lot of hidden buildings etc. Your picture is from close, LESS THAN 2 MILES AWAY! Peter Maca McLaughlin - Fair enough. The pic I found was closer than I thought. But the video can't be argues with. Don't get how buildings infront of the mainland would disappear over the curve but the further back ones wouldn't though. Bruce Ing - I said from the beginning that the OP pick was from 30 miles away and 400 to 500 feet of hidden curvature. I don't know why someone said it was from St. Catherines, 35 miles away. However, now we have it straight. Toronto - 30 miles away, - 450 feet of hidden curvature over the horizon - Rogers center, Islands, airport, Ontario Place, 200 foot smoke stack, Gardiner expressway, NONE of it visible - The second picture from Peter Maca McLaughlin, taken from the islands. Everything straight now? Peter Maca McLaughlin - I've just said picture I choose was wrong without me knowing it. The video is what I'm on about Bruce Ing The video is correct, 30 miles away, 400 to 500 feet of hidden curvature. It proves curvature. No 315g) Rogers center from island No 316) Robert Pickard - Jupiter and Saturn in 1885. In a time when cgi was about -80 years old (80 years before CGI was around), and telephones were in infancy, no flattard can say these are fake without commiting libel to Lowell observatory. No 317a) Robert Pickard - Earth from the moon is the same size as moon from the earth? How,why? Because flatheads simply can't look deeper into these claims. No 317b) Robert Pickard - Moon from earth for comparison NO 318) Robert Pickard - Flatties fail to use cosmic perspective, terribly. Here is two images of comet Lovejoy. The image on the left shows the ISS passing next to the great sungrazer. However we have a problem. The image from the right is taken on the ISS, during that same pass! Of the same object. So now the image on the right is NASA CGI, fake, or shilling? Don't think so lol. No 319) Robert Pickard - how can the fake "wandering star" Mars change size and brightness in a dome? How can it rotate, in a timely manner? How can you see features AND it's poles with a telescope? No 320) Robert Pickard - Celestron C8 vs Hubble CGI, 2003. How the fuck does Hubble take such clear images of the planets? Probably because ol' Hubble is in space, and not inside our atmosphere like our talented earthling on the left. So why say both are CGI? I'd file a complaint to the source and see if they are indoctrinated or they make cgi for a living, dare you flatheads, do it. However, there is a professional named Damien Peach, please read up on him and send your complaints to him as I will awaken you with his wisdom in #321. No 321a) Robert Pickard - The astonishing ability of Damien Peach is out of this world. His images bring out more details in the planets Jupiter and Saturn than the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes did in the early 70s. He even holds astrophography classes so village idiots can do it too. (See picture No 321a) No 321b) Robert Pickard - A sample of his images, Jupiter No 321c) Robert Pickard - Saturn No 321d) Robert Pickard - Uranus No 321e) Robert Pickard - Neptune No 321f) Robert Pickard - Mars No 322_ Robert Pickard - The changing views of Saturn's rings prove Saturn orbits the Sun. No 323a) Water is always flat: - flat Earther's don't understand how gravity works. - Water on a flat surface, if you start out level, will be going uphill in all directions -------- Jonathan Michael Malmis (See meme) ---- Bruce Ing - Water and land both equally form into a ball. - You can't seem to understand equal elevation on a sphere, due to gravity. - A flat surface for land OR water would be going up hill in all directions! *** Do you even understand the concept and reasoning? No 323b) If you understand gravity, you will understand starting from level and going out straight/flat means things will start going uphill in all directions! No 324) CGI wasn't very advanced in 1968 when we had images of Earth on par with today! - As a computer technician, working on computers since 1991, I can tell you the computer technology wasn't nearly advanced or fast enough to do the graphics we do now, 30 or more years ago! No 325) An accurate size and distance for everything is a globe! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3uU8VDlhyU No 326) A globe has 50% more area than a flat surface. - Why? - Because you get more area on a curved surface than you do on a flat surface of the same length and width! As yourself what are the dimensions of the flat Earth? The land area, dimensions and area just don't fit properly on a flat Earth, because it is not flat! - See Geodetic survey for proof. (The world is surveyed in 3D) No 327) Joe Haley - If gravity doesn't exist what causes water pressure to increase with depth? No 328) Taking quote on Van Allen Belt out of context: ---------- This is the source for the famous "We can't go through the van allen belt" memes. Here is a partial transcript 0:25 orion is NASA's next generation space craft. It can take astronauts deeper into space than we have ever gone before To an asteroid or even on to *mars*. 2:48 we are headed 3600 mile above earth 3:00 as we get further away from earth we will pass through the van allen belts an area of dangerous radiation Radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, onboard computers or other electronics on orion. Naturally we have to pass through this danger zone twice - once up and once back. 3:24 But orion has protection. Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors on board will record radiation levels for scientists to study. 3:35 We must solve these challenges before we send humans through this region of space. It is this sound bite from 3:35 that has all the flatards (flat Earthers sic) wanking themselves. Q. What region of space is he talking about ? A: The region of space on the way to Mars. This is not the region of space we went through to get to the moon. But yes - this is the extent of "NASA's admission" on the van allen belts. So as usual flatards (flat Earthers sic) have to deliberately distort to make their moronic ideas seem half way plausible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2kSeINalHg No 329) The true size of Africa No 330) EVERYTHING on a globe Earth is in BALANCE. - That's it. -------- By contrast, NOTHING in FE is in equilibrium! - How does a flat Earth 25,000 miles in diameter and 9 miles thick stay together? that's like a sheet of tissue paper a meter across! - What keeps the sun and moon turning around the north pole? What energy or system moves them back and forth, increasing or decreasing there angular momentum by 2 times! - How does the sun and moon stay in the air? - What keeps the starts spinning around the Earth? - What keeps the firmament solid? (Nothing is a millionths the strength needed to support a dome 25,000 miles in diameter. The Rogers center is 700 feet across and that was an engineering feet!) No 331) Angular diameter of sun or moon does NOT match flat Earth: ------- Nick Dougherty - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7aA0yfQkfqw - In real life, the angular diameter of the sun at the horizon is about 0.5 degrees. Rebuttle: 1) On a flat Earth, the sun overhead has to be 64 TIMES larger than at sun set! 2) *** Neither the size nor the angle match with a 32 mile diameter sun 3,000 miles up! *** 3) The sun doesn't get bigger and smaller, as the flat Earthers claim. 4) The sun at the horizon is way too big to fit with what it should look like on a flat Earth 5) People always mistake or purposely confuse solar glare with the sun getting bigger and smaller. *** USE A FILTER! *** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LMA6c3qH1E e.g. - If the sun is 32 miles in diameter and 3,000 miles away, (A triangle with sides of 32 and 3,000 miles), it's angular diameter would be 0.611 degrees. - If that same sun were 6,000 miles away, it's angular diameter would be 0.306 degrees - If the sun were on the other side of the flat Earth equator, it's angular diameter would be 0.153 degrees. - At 1 degree above the horizon, 187,000 miles away, the angular diameter is 0.0098 degrees (62 times smaller than when it is overhead!) (See diagram) No 332) "Flat non-rotating earth" - There is a big difference between a simulation and real life. - Often for simulations things are simplified - If we look at the equations for velocity, we see that a stationary Earth and an Earth with the air, ground and people going 1,039 mph, are equivalent! No 333) Travis Klein shared Johnny Harris's video. https://www.facebook.com/JohnnyHarrisVox/videos/690625494458389/ - Map makes have to stretch and distort the globe to get it to fit a flat surface. No 334) Blackbird SR-71 has to nose down 5.3 meters every second! ------ Bruce Ing - At the same time that he is nosing down 5.3 meters a second, he is travelling horizontally 1005 meters a second. That's a very small angle of adjustment. ------- - You can't take the vertical correction while ignoring the horizontal distance. *** That's the same as constantly talking about 8" per mile and ignoring that a mile is 63,360 inches long! *** No 335) Sanjeev Swaminathan - I'm new, can anyone explain why we dont fall of the earth if its round xD ---------- Gravity keeps us on the Earth. In order to escape the Earth's gravity one has to be going 11.2 Km/s. No one can jump that fast! When we jump, gravity pulls up down, we slow down, then fall back to Earth. *** Every time one jumps or falls, they prove gravity works! *** No 335b) Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr because "DOWN" is NO "SOUTH" No 336) Assumes if one thing is false all associated things are false: ----------- Joe Stewart - I asked about NASA he went straight to crisis actors. His mind frame assumes if one thing is false all associated things are false. He believes because he needs to and you'll never get through to a zealot. - Note all the links posted were about specific news stories being false. He kept saying they proved NASA was fake, BUT none of the links posted had anything to do with NASA! No 337) FE'ers keeps posting debunked nonsense: ----------- Nick Dougherty - Scottsdale, AZ, United States This is why we can't prove there's an edge https://www.ncscooper.com/27-people-missing-presumed-dead-in-flat-earth-expedition/ - Daniel Lugo - It's a parody website, click "About" - Jonathan Barron - I pointed that out in another thread and he still is posting this around thinking it is real. - Daniel Lugo - Not to mention Argentina isn't Antarctica. The basic geography error alone is a sign its a joke. No 338) Claim we can't go to the moon. ----------- Javier Luis Villafanñe II - Acording to Science, the closest the moon can get to Earth is about 225,623 miles and the farthest it can get is about 252,088 miles. " Planet Mars " is 33.9 million miles away from Earth and NASA claim they can't go back to the moon because they destroyed the technology the used to the supposedly Moon landings. If they can't get back to moon ( Which they never did ), what makes you think they could travel to Mars ? ( They can't, and they won't) https://youtu.be/8GFfbsOaZc0 - China plans to have a moon base by 2020: http://www.businessinsider.com/china-plans-mars-moon-landings-2016-4 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/china-space-mission-moon-mars-2020-1.3913423 NO 339) Ignores evidence proving the world is not flat and jumps to paranoia evidence!: No 340) Calls people paid or shills if we give evidence that the Earth is spherical: No 341) In the northern hemisphere, we see the sun at about 45 degrees, so we are not up, we are actually at an angle: ---------- - At the equator, the sun is straight overhead, however the sun is never overhead in the northern hemisphere. So how could we claim to be up? We can claim to be at an angle, but that's about it! - Both the sun and Polaris show that we are not up! No 342) Disproving: The sun and moon converge and diverge (e.g. perspective): ---------- Nick Dougherty - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NruZ5vzRhQ4 - The sun and moon actualy go across the sky in a straight line, not a curve - This can be demonstrated with an equitorial mount. We can follow the sun,moon and planets with a single axis rotating on out telescopes and cameras. - Here is a video on how to build your own equitorial mount https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H55gMoiPeA - On a flat earth the sun and moon would be expected to go in a curve because they are revolving around the north pole No 343) Single shot image of the Earth - not edited! ----------- This is a SINGLE shot image from the DSCOVR satellite, 909,000 Km away, between the Earth and the sun. It shows; - Water curving - The Earth is a sphere - a solar eclipse - Australia and the southern hemisphere are on the other side of a globe, and not upside down, but everything is towards the centre DUE to GRAVITY - Antarctica is a continent No 344) FE'ers don't disucss proof, analysis or the ramifications of the horizon: ------ NO 344a) Jay Roveda - Accuses globers of not discussing the curve. Bruce Ing - I give him proof No 13 and NO 343 No 344b) - His response is to give me the finger! Bruce Ing Jay Roveda - Sure Jay Roveda, ask for proof, then give me the finger when I give you proof and analysis of the horizon and curvature! - Accuse us of not discussing curvature and spend all your time putting out stupid memes, that DON'T discuss the curve! No 344c - another stupid meme - Bruce Ing Jay Roveda - So, are you going to discuss my analysis of the horizon? No 345) The world isn't a perfect sphere: - This means that some parts, on water or land are lower than sea level and/or BELOW FLAT! ------- *** The world is NOT a perfect SPHERE. There are dips of up to 1 Km over a short distance, EVEN on Water! (Up to about 50 to 60 miles) https://pos-map.appspot.com/en/coordinates60.html -However, over a longer distance 100, 150 or 200 miles, the overall curvature of the Earth wins. *** The Earth is a sphere, just with some flattened spots, (even on water!) *** *** Things are still curved, just flattened curves. *** ---------- ---------- Jay Roveda - Yes, the Channel Islands are visible from San Diego. Your curvature formula is garbage ----- Bruce Ing Jay Roveda - Please give; - the elevation of the observer, - the location where he is observing from, - the distance to the Channel Islands and - let us know if the bottom part of the Channel Islands are hidden ----- Jay Roveda - Yes, laying on my surf board at sea level, looking at Catalina Island 60 miles from Oceanside Municipal Pier. ----- Bruce Ing Jay Roveda - The ocean between The Cantalina Islands and San Diego actually drops 952 meters. *** The world isn't a perfect sphere, don't you understand the ramifications of that? *** https://pos-map.appspot.com/en/coordinates60.html ----- Bruce Ing Jay Roveda - Over a longer distance the curve of the Earth takes precedence. - That's why you can't see ANYTHING more than 200 miles away. (From Mount Everest, maybe 210 miles to the horizon.) - However, from ground level, probably not even a mountain beyond 100-150 miles. (See picture No 345) No 2) (Recap) - The seasons, tilt and constellations No 4) (Recap) - Density, Buoyance and gravity No 12) (Recap) - Crepuscular Rays No 346) Superior mirage: (Chicago Skyline) -------- No 346a) John T Asa - On a globe earth, at 60 miles away, taking into account the curvature of the earth of 8" per mile, the skyline should be approximately 2,400 ft below the horizon if you were to account for the curvature of the Earth. Below debunks it dead on the spot. No curvature. Chicago skyline on a flat earth. No 346b) Bruce Ing John T Asa - Apparently that is a superior mirage. - How many more examples are there at 60 miles where you can't see a city? - How often does this happen on Lake Michigan? On most days is Chicago visible? No! - You also can't see the bottom of the buildings -------- John T Asa It's right there before your eyes. Curvature is debunked. -------- Bruce Ing - If this is a superior mirage, i.e. an exception WITH an EXPLANATION, and the rest of the time when there aren't conditions for a mirage, you CAN'T see Chicago, then that would confirm the curvature. - Besides, one exception doesn't debunk something with so much evidence. There are pictures from space, an actual geodetic survey of the entire Earth in 3D etc. - Things that prove for certain that the Earth is spherical, but you deny their existence. http://chicagoist.com/2017/04/20/photos_the_chicago_skyline_as_seen.php#photo-5 No 346c) Bruce Ing - As well, my research has show that the middle of lakes and large bodies of water actually have depressions in them. So the curve is slightly flattened. e.g. The Chicago waterline is at 571 feet above sea level, and the shoreline at Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville, is at 568 feet above see level, but the in between drops to as low as 363 feet. *** So the curve on the water is slightly flattened in the middle, by about 200 feet. https://pos-map.appspot.com/en/coordinates60.html ------ Bruce Ing John T - Asa "It's right there before your eyes. Curvature is debunked. " - You know there are actual pictures from space debunking flat Earth. - Instead of accepting it, you guys make up crap about ice walls, government conspiracies and NASA controlling and orchestrating everything! *** If you want the ultimate example of the word debunked, that would be flat Earth! *** No 346d) Philip Cowley - "But yet 60 miles away you can see Chicago skyline." - No you can't... at 60 miles you can see a mirage of the Chicago skyline. - I've seen the TV weather report where that image was shown... he also showed another image on a clear day when there was no mirage and you could not see Chicago skyline at all. No 346e) Philip Cowley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbn9BBppR5g No 347) Air and water in zero g: -------- Jeff Dugay - I assume in zero G a bubble would take the path of least resistance? ----- Jeff Dugay - Or more like the lighter mass of water on one side of the bubble coalesces with the heavier mass on the other side? ----- Bruce Ing Jeff Dugay - Actually in zero g, an air bubble stays suspended in water, where it happens to be. - So if you shake up a container of water and introduce little air bubbles in it, the just stay there. - Just like different density liquids don't separate in zero g, and people don't fall through air in zero g, neither does air and water. ----- Bruce Ing This is cool! - They had to spin the bubble and get centripetal motion going to separate the air and water! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn_hdADpFlA No 348a) Foucault pendulum: John Castleford - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum?fbclid=IwAR1vD2iW5mdqHwYahcnn0BXV69zTo4KfahXQySluZdyONDNhlm3VO6adTnU has a useful animation that shows how it works. ---- No 348b) John Castleford - On Dec. 15, 2014, Videh Seksaria, a senior at Lexington High School in Lexington, Massachusetts, held a candle to the string that drew the gleaming brass bob of MIT Lincoln Laboratory's new pendulum back to an endpoint of its potential arc. When the flame burned through the thin fabric, the bob was released, launching the pendulum into its swing over a stonework base on which 60 pegs arranged in a circle awaited their turns to be toppled by the decorative finial on the bob. The Laboratory's pendulum display daily replicates the experiment that French scientist Jean Bernard Léon Foucault performed at the Panthéon during the 1851 Paris Exhibition. Foucault's pendulum, a 62-pound ball suspended from the Panthéon dome on a 220-foot wire, swung over a ring of sand on the floor. His audience watched as the stylus attached to the ball traced a series of lines in the sand, each slightly clockwise to the previous one. Because a pendulum does not change its plane of motion, the explanation for this drawing must be that the floor was moving — that is, Earth was rotating about its axis. As with many modern pendulum exhibits, the Lincoln Laboratory pendulum reenvisions Foucault's sand tracings with the sequential tumbling of the pegs beneath it." Source MIT news. The replica is open to the public and anyone can visit and see for themselves. No 348c) Making your own Foulcault Pendulum: From The Gentleman Physicist (See video No 348c) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8rrWUUlZ_U No 349) John Castleford - May I ask how Flat Earthers explain Foucault's pendulum and time zones? -------- Bruce Ing - I've seen some people try to make up their own time zones for flat earth, based on a spiral pattern. *** As if one can just imagine a new solution and the rest of the world has to conform to it! *** ----- Bruce Ing - Here's an animation. The time zones follow the sun! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxOxCg5XDuk No 350) Flat Earth and Epistemological Scepticism: --------- Onslow Williams - Hahahahaha simply brilliant. One word was all it took. There's actually a term used in the philosophical world to describe the phenomenon at work with so called " flat earthers " That term is Epistemological Scepticism " Which basically states that nothing can be proven. Not even the nature of what it predicates can be verified. It truly is the dichotomy of all time Dick Tucker - A epistemological skeptical hypothesis is a hypothetical situation which can be used in an argument for skepticism about a particular claim or class of claims. Usually the hypothesis posits the existence of a deceptive power that deceives our senses and undermines the justification of knowledge otherwise accepted as justified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism https://www.google.ca/search?q=epistemological+skeptical&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA710&oq=epistemological+skeptical&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.690j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=epistemological+skepticism No 351) Leon Loco Suarez - If you see any anomaly describe it ;) And I do not want anyone insulting me For sharing a photo :) I believed in Nasa for 25 years but I'm an adult now ;) haha Leon Loco Suarez - Driver Broken Beach chair,driver floor duct tape it ,paper fender,no tracks,rust rim, ;) ----- Kieran Colfer - I'm going to go with "no tire tracks", which can either mean that a) It's all a fake. All of it. Ever b) They took the photo just after unpacking the rover from the LEM and before they actually went anywhere in it Blaine Burgin Jr. - I always found the fact that they ever elected to take the Rover on a moon mission to be an anomaly of common Sense. - With the payload being managed down to the gram, and the centimeter to ensure no unnecessary weight or volume was packed why bring the Rover? - Why not carry extra water, food,air? - Sure, the Rover was great PR, it looked cool, roving about on the surface, but was it really necessary? Alex Dieter - Well, with the rover they could collect samples from distances farther away from the landing place. But still, not sure if this was really needed. I also think its more PR than scientific. And it still was the cold war ... Bruce Ing - If they only have air for a few hours in their space suits and don't want to exhaust the astronauts then a rover comes in very handy. - Have you ever tried carrying 30 or 40 pounds for several hours? - If their suits are, 180 lb, then they are already straining their bodies. Do they want to carry moon rocks and supplies all by hand? Bruce Ing There's a video of them unfolding the rover. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ShauSWcTC4 No 352) When you look at clouds in the distance you can see that they go over the horizon - They disappear over the horizon while they are still quite large and visible. - Unlike a person or a house, they are wide enough and big enough that they don't disappear due to perspective or vanishing point. (Look at the picture, the clouds are clearly going down BEHIND the horizon! No 352a) No 353) FE cherry picks and ignores context! - I've been doing a lot of explaining - How and why gravity works, observations of the horizon and my analysis on geometry and distances and how FE doesn't work. At the end of it, it just gets dismissed as not good enough proof. - YET, FE can't explain a single thing! - We have mapped the entire planet in 3D, yet, that is not proof! https://pos-map.appspot.com/en/coordinates60.html No 354) Hypocrisy: Claim that everything was CGI, however computers weren't capable of generating graphics in the 60's and 70's. Joe Haley - but yet you morons claim all pictures are CGI. (See picture of Nintendo vs Apollo) No 355) Joe Haley - who projected the hologram moon before holograms were possible? (Here's a picture of the moon with a satellite crossing it.) No 356) Distance to moon: *** If we never went to the moon, how did we get the prism mirrors on the moon? *** - Larry Robb - A test a lot of people could do for them self is bounce a laser off the moon and see how long it takes to reflect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npLmDTmKHB4 - Here is how mirror prisms work; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsRsap2_RAc No 357) Testing gravity for yourself: Mury Sigua - Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. F1 = F2 = G(m1 x m2 / r^2) Here is the cavendish experiment you can do yourself to find the universal gravitational constant which shows the above statement to be true: https://youtu.be/Ym6nlwvQZnE No 358) Jim Anderson - https://youtu.be/JMQdQEdpteI - How does forcing someone to recognize the validity and sanctity of a religious article, (e.g. bible), have any relation to telling the truth? *** It is forcing one to acknowledge religion and using that as an (false) denial of the moon landings! *** No 359) Why doesn't water fall of the edge of the flat Earth? - Again we are back to the question of why is down down? - If water falls off the edge of the flat Earth, then what is it falling onto? No 360) Incredulity is not proof: Marcus Maximus - I should be able to fly my Iphone to the moon & back by now shouldn't I, LMAO. - This is how dumb they take you for & it seems to of worked a charm! ------- Joe Haley - It's called the evolution of technology. Nintendo and the moon flight where many many years apart you thick fuck. (See picture o 360a) No 360b Travis Klein - Technology doubles every 9 months - Moore's Law. (See picture 360b) No 360c) Darren Biby - Early CGI (See picture 360c) No 361) The horizon proves Earth flat - "zooming explains everything": -------- No 361a) Mike Hoson - A flat Earther doesn't have to prove a thing. The Earth will show you if your mind can see (meme) No 361b) Magnus Østergaard Heinesen Zoomed in, now what? No 361c) Bruce Ing - It looks like a horizon and you can't see the water beyond it, no matter how much you zoom! - Bruce Ing - Mike Hoson, can you zoom in and show me the ships on their way across the ocean? No 361d) Bruce Ing - When you zoom in, where's the rest of the ocean? - Shouldn't that appear along with the boat/ship? No 362) If one is on another ship, then the decks of both ships are above any wave. Yet, ships still disappear over the horizon, from each other! No 263) Flat Earthers make themselves the authority on what evidence is acceptable: ----- Siraaj Baradien - My earlier post was too difficult for the average man. Now, I ask all the degree students who claim gravity holds water to the ball to bring forth an experiment which proves their easily used quote. Gravity the all mighty hero of the scientific world. Come forth with thy proof ----- Siraaj Baradien - You all come here saying you are majors in this science and that science but have created nothing out of the ordinary. So what makes you all champions? Your degree? I wont ever claim to be the champion of a field but have nothing to show for it. Money can be stolen,so that cannot measure a mans success. Wheres the answers to Why pyramids were built? Wheres answers to Nikola Teslas free energy towers? wheres answers to important things that may allow for slavery to be abolished,I speak of the slavery taking place today, 9-5 jobs. Wheres the answers to world peace? you all are so smart remembering what Newton said and Copernicus but you have no clue what you hold. You are unique and beautiful because of that. No,you would like everyone to be Copernicus or Newton coz they were cool No 263b) Bruce Ing - Siraaj Baradien - Your dismissal of everyone's evidence just shows your bias. - Who are you to judge and decide what is or isn't valid evidence? *** An all too common tactic of FE. *** No 364) Dunning Kruger Philip Cowley - Nothing here but another moron indulging in Dunning Kruger... Nothing to see here... Move along! o 365) The gravitational Earth map and it's significance: Christian Johnson - Not a flerfer but I do have a question against the validity of a sphere earth I'm hoping someone intelligent can answer. Ok so pictures of earth from the moon show it as a perfect sphere so why then does this gif exist of the "actual shape" not depicting a sphere (see picture) Bruce Ing - I hope you realize this gif is an exaggerated elevation map? - The elevations are exaggerated thousands of times, otherwise they wouldn't be visible. Jason Coletti - This is a map showing gravitational field of the earth in different places. Bruce Ing - The oceans are slightly flattened though. Sea level on shore is ACTUALLY higher than out in the middle of the ocean! - Thanks to variations in gravity and gravity from the continents pulling on the oceans! Jairo Amaral - Christian, images like these have the variations of height heavily exaggerated, precisely because they're too small to be seen on a 6959 mi radius globe. Look at the scale on the right: they vary only a few tens of meters. Silas Frisenette - Look on the scale ... Only measuring 160 meters between highest and lowest ... Raymond Borges - What it actually depicts is the Earth’s geoid: a way of describing Earth’s gravitational field. Christian Johnson, Jairo Amaral, Bruce Ing No 365b) John Stevens - http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/22/earth_without_water_nope.html No 365c) Raymond Borges - What the Earth would actually look like without water. (see picture) No 366) Flying to China is closer than the moon. ------ Kieran Purvis - I "did my research" and the flat Earth moon is said to be 3,000 miles high. Now Im in England and its just shy of 5,000 miles to China. - Are flat Earthers really trying to tell me that - even though I can spend just a couple of hundred quid to get to China and back on a plane - NASA cant get to the Moon on billions of dollars and one of these? (see picture) No 367) Why do people say I have an open mind but it is only open to things NOT science related? --------- Reference material from Adam Redwine - "Go learn physics." http://www.learnoutloud.com/Catalog/Science/Physics No 368) Robert Pickard This crater on the moon is wider than 32 miles! (See picture) No 369) Distance to the stars: ----- Andrew Lomas - Sounds technical but theres a great TED video in the link explaining measuring distances to stars. https://futurism.com/new-research-may-reconcile-general-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics/ No 370) Constantly bringing up things that have already been debunked: -------- Marcus Maximus - The crew of Challenger STS-51, supposedly died in a shuttle explosion in 1986. Turns out. Six out of seven are still alive - Jeff Dugay - This has been debunked over and over, they are all still LIVING relatives. Stop shit posting. -------- No 370b) Marcus Maximus - (2nd meme) ---------- - Peter Yingling Marcus Maximus - This is so wrong. I found the article that this meme was based on and it has basic information wrong. The article claims Grissom hung a lemon on the NASA logo to show his distrust in the Apollo program 5 days before the fire in which the entire crew of Apollo 1 was killed. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS EVER HAPPENING. This is just another bullshit claim by Moon landing hoaxers. No 371) Day Night world map: ------ Besson Laurent Jason Ramsden - So I am living in french and at 22h00 i'll try to take photo of a very far sun ! When ttps://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html... - And you are going to see if you see the same sun at 16h00...... - That will proov that sun doesn't be visibla in all place at any time..... *** And so it's not above us at 3000 miles from ground ! *** No 372) Philip Cowley That was taken by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himawari_8 No 373) Yo-Yo De-spin: ------ Dan Mark Aguilos - https://www.facebook.com/danmark.aguilos.5/videos/304479609993318/ ---- No 373a) I'm pretty sure I mentioned this before, but rockets throw out weights on strings to reduce angular momentum. - It's called a Yo-yo De-spinner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zJXRjG7DK0&t=103s - The sound effects of "it hitting something" was the yo-yo de-spinner deploying! No 373b) Yo-yo de-spinner explained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zJXRjG7DK0&t=103s No 373c) Yo-yo de-spinner demonstration; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCtNqD-jlPE No 373d) Rocket hitting the flat earth dome... Explained! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4eY_N9IS3w No 373e) Bill Nye quote: "One thing I really want your generation to embrace is ... the Earth is a close system. We can not leave the Earth" Context for his quote: A video asking, "Hey Bill Nye, should we throw our trash into space?" !!! See time 3:33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjWGVrmuz74 No 373e-2) Complete quote: Note he says "So, just let go of the idea of throwing stuff off the Earth, IT'S JUST TOO EASY A SOLUTION." ------------ "Why we don't through trash into space, because it's too expensive. Lifting a ton of material into space takes an extraordinary amount of rocket fuel. And by the way, when people want to send this much plutonium, (shows a fist sizes piece, with his hands), which is not even the weapons grade plutonium, a baseball size, a grapefruit size, people freak out! ... because the rockets sometimes blow up. Now, one thing I really want your generation to embrace, is that the Earth is a closed system, we can not leave the Earth, there's no place to go, there's no place to throw your trash and I wouldn't be surprised, if maybe not you, but your kids, developed ways to mine our landfills. We throw away so much valuable stuff, especially raw materials, I may be wrong, always could be wrong, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if that turns out to be economically reasonable. All this plastic, that's really hard to create and hard to get it to break down, it has value. Like I have some clothing made out of old water bottles, right. So, just let go of the idea of throwing stuff off the Earth, IT'S JUST TOO EASY A SOLUTION. What we need to do, is not throw stuff away, but you've heard it, you've heard it a hundred times, reduce what we need to throw away, recycle the stuff that we create, and reuse it. Reduce, reuse, recycle those are the things we want to do and I did a video a couple of years ago, there's a 4th one, RE-THINK. Yes, re-think big think, reduce, reuse, recycle. It's all good. The key to the future, Rachel is not to do less, that's not what we are talking about, my engineering colleges and me, and I, we are talking about doing more with less, more efficient transportation, more efficient use of fuel, more efficient use of farm land, more efficient everything and that way we will have to throw away less and we can, dare I say it, change the world. Great questions Rachel!" No 373f) Philip Cowley; https://www.facebook.com/groups/759240844223523/permalink/817240088423598/ No 374) Video showing satellite image matched to Earth: "Incontrovertible proof that earth is a sphere." https://youtu.be/DWbecjjxJ6E No 375) Neil Degrasse Typson said the world was "pear shaped": ----- Liam Francomb According to Neil De grasse Tyson The Earth is this shape No 375b) Belinda Greer - Have you seen the unedited version of that clip? https://youtu.be/1OeWTrEA5fE No 375c) Bruce Ing Liam Francomb, I am going to tell you, and I don't want you to waste any globers time with this silly quote again. - Pear shaped means south of the Equator, the ground is about 20 or 30 mile higher than north of the Equator. - This is on a globe that averages 7918 miles in diamter. - It is 0.379% bigger south of the equator than north of the equator. - Does that make sense now? It is still spherical. Not perfectly, but actually rounder than a marble or basketball! Here is a map of the Earth. It is calibrated to the center of the Earth and it is accurate to 2 cm. Look at it and compare north to south. You will see how things south are a little higher than in the northern hemisphere. https://pos-map.appspot.com/en/coordinates60.html No 376) Do your own research, when we ask flat Earthers for facts or proof: ---------- "Liam Francomb - Open your eyes or do some research.I am not here to educate you" No 377) Daniel Retter - Apparently the reason that we can't see the sun at night is because it's too far away. If there really is a dome and the stars are just points of lights ON said dome, then that completely debunks flat earth! How can I see a star on the horizon at night (therefore pretty much on the other side of the disc) but I can't see the sun (which is oh so much brighter). For that matter, how come the stars directly above me (supposedly 7000 miles away) look just as bright as the stars near the horizon, approximately 25000 miles away?!? What a load of bollocks! No 377b) James William Kaler - If the sun and moon rotate above a disk, how come we can't use a telescope and find the sun at night? No 377c) Curt Thurston - Or even simpler, we can see the dim moon in the bright daytime sky, so why can't we see the bright sun in the dark night sky? No 378) The horizon is visible 360 degrees: - That can only happen, everywhere around the world, if your line of site is tangent to a sphere. No 379) Bradley Elliott - No one will reply to that! At least not with a logical answer. I am a pilot and keep asking why all airlines of the world use F.A.A ( international standard) WAC charts (maps) based on round earth satellite tech. No one will reply. I have challenged them to buy one online as well. They are available to anyone! https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/productcatalog/vfrcharts/world/ No 380) Education level and Flat Earth belief correlation: ------ Derrick Schnarr - After a couple days here, I've noticed the majority. (and mind you, there are very few of you flat earth people, very few,,,,but I've noticed most of you are from countries where education isn't a priority,,,now that's something to think about,,. No 381) Jairo Amaral - I recorded a video of the ISS passing over my city some years ago: http://www.astrobin.com/110590/?image_list_page=3&nc=&nce= No 382) Hundreds of amateur astronomy pictures: ------- Jairo Amaral Whatever shape you think the world is, sky watching is a great hobby. I like to take some photos myself: https://www.facebook.com/jairo.amaral.5/media_set... No 383) Mohammad Rashid Mokhtar - Picture taken by Hubble Space Telescope. Can Globertard produce a picture of Hubble Space Telescope hanging at lower earth orbit ? You can shown your fancy picture of the moon zoom by your fancy telescope, you can't even zoom the satellites which supposed orbiting the earth ! Really. https://images.google.com.my/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2F97%2F56%2Fbd%2F9756bd9f2a4a05f58377ea64bf5ea5d3.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F482025966347718320%2F&docid=mxuWfpQO3fdFnM&tbnid=aF-GhYhylkLx6M%3A&vet=1&w=236&h=191&hl=en-my&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim (See picture) --------- No 383a) Hubble Space Telescope - picture from repair mission; http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a24509/a-view-of-earth/ (See picture) No 383b and c) Additional pictures of the hubble telescope No 384) Flat board-curved board and ocean Meme: ------ If anyone wants to know. 1) He's using a flashlight that is; - Pointed downward on the curved board - Pointed outward at an angle on the flat board ALSO; 2) The ocean has waves so light is reflected in all directions 3) In real life; - a flat surface reflects a perfect image (e.g. a mirror) - A curved surface distorts and elongates an image (e.g. a fun house mirror) 4) In real life there is foreshortening near the horizon, showing that the water is curving. No 384b) Real flat surfaces don't make streaks. The sun would appear like IN A MIRROR! (See image No 859) No 384c) Picture analyzed (See image No 384c) No 385) Foreshortening: ------ Foreshortening is an effect where the sun's reflection, near the edge of the horizon, appears shorter than the sun itself. - This is entirely due to the water curving. - It's like a funhouse mirror, if the mirror is curved, you seem squashed. (See picture No 385) Reference: http://orfe.princeton.edu/~rvdb/tex/sunset/sunset.pdf No 386) Ed Rocha - Notice the droplets shooting up! https://www.facebook.com/DailyMail/videos/2063463830380021/ No 387) Rockets going into space vs amateur rockets: ------- Peter Yingling - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1SmCnElDa0&feature=share - If flat Earthers claim rocket launches are fake, then why is the rocket going for 10 minutes straight? - The amateur rocket going for 2 minutes hit mach 3. That means the space shuttle burning for 10 minutes is going to hit mach 15 or better (rockets go faster as they get lighter). No 388) It's all about personal perspective: -------- Michael Shepard - 3 and E it's all about perspective. First off. If NASA is using technology to make us perceive the night sky as an open window to the infinite. The ability to see stars. Well NASA wasn't here in 1000 a.d. And sailors used the stars to navigate the seas. They probably thought the earth was flat but we as a human race evolved and discovered the earth was actually round(spherical). So flerfers quit blaming NASA. Blame yourselves for being arrogant, you don't want to be insignificant compared to the universe and you claim to be absolutely sure of the flat earth I get the "question reality" approach. Some people are sheep that accept everything without question. No 389) Seeing the same constellation looking south on flat Earth: ------- Caleb Hubbell - and of course, multiple people in different locations looking south in the southern hemisphere will see the same sky, the same celestial pole above the horizon with an angle equal to their latitude, and a rotational difference equal to the difference in longitude between each location. This really doesn't work on a flat earth. No 389b) Caleb Hubbell - Then you also have the problem of the same identical sky appearing in three different locations at the same time, with only rotational differences corresponding to the difference in observer's longitude. The angle of the celestial pole above the horizon corresponds directly with the observer's latitude. No 390) The equinox: Caleb Hubbell (See meme) No 391) Caleb Hubbell - At noon on the equinox, the sun's angle above the horizon will have a direct relationship with the observers latitude. If you attempt to triangulate where the sun is provided this information, you find that the sun will appear in a potentially infinite number of places at the same time. (See pictures 391a to d) NO 391e) Philip Cowley - A quick rework of my earlier post... (See diagram No 391e) No 392) The moon is a hologram: - We know that the sun radiates about 28 million watts per meter squared. (See No 168) The moon radiates about 1 millionth this light intensity, or about 28 watts/m^2. For a 32 mile diameter moon that comes out to about 58,315,876,309.083 watts output of light on the moon. If the moon is a hologram, according to FE, then how is that much power pumped into a holographic moon? No 393) Gravity - Just as valid as well used and as understood/mysterious as any other force in nature: ---------- - What causes gravity? We can imagine gravity as an indentation in space, caused by mass (Einstein's analogy), however, it is theorized that gravity is transferred by theoretical particles called gravitons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton - Just like electriciy, we really haven't yet found the fundamental particles that cause gravity or electromagnetism. https://qedinsight.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/mysteries-of-magnetism / *** However, just like electricity, we can measure and use the effect (EVERY DAY!), regardless of the fact that we don't know exactly how it works. *** - Even if we do find the graviton or magnetic monopole, we would just be left with the question of how they work! *** Our understanding of how things work and the description of gravity or electromagnetism don't stop being valid, just because someone says we don't understand what causes them! No 394) See through rocket https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xvVJQSGHts No 394b) As I have said before rockets work by pushing on the front of the combustion chamber. The exhaust gases do NOT push on the air after the rocket. Even if they did, the hot gases are leaving at thousands of miles an hour, away from the rocket. *** How would they transmit force back up to the rocket, if they are going the wrong way? *** No 395) Flight from Chile to Australia can't work on FE: --------- Travis Klein - Would this happen to be the flight you're talking about? I have been barking up this tree ever since I found out these people really believe it's flat No 396) Jason Cambell - http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/math/what-are-euclidean-and-non-euclidean-geometry ------ Bruce Ing - If we go out onto a football field and turn the angle on 3 points we get a total of 180 degrees. - It we go out and turn the angle on 3 geodetic markers, we get more than 180 degrees. - We didn't do anything differently. No 396b) We can measure a straight line accurately using surveying. Surveying can measure and produce flat surfaces! No 397) Alexander Daniel - A lesson on the burden of proof. - It has come to my attention that a lot of you don't have this down, so let me explain it. The one who makes a positive claim and challenges what is generally accepted as fact has the burden of proof and must provide evidence. - For example, back in the day the majority of people thought the earth was flat, and people who believed the earth was a globe had to provide a lot of evidence to prove they were right. They did provide a lot of infallible evidence, and people changed their beliefs. - Now, if you want to convince people that the earth is flat, you have to do what the scientists of old did and supply evidence. If you're right, this shouldn't be too hard. But simply saying "Not my burden of proof" doesn't cut it. - If it wasn't for this system, people could claim anything and never have to prove it, and I would be god. The Earth is naturally curved! No 397b) John Castleford - Useful. But so many FE believe in their viewpoint, and a belief is just a feeling of certainty. It's an emotional thing that is often stronger than logic and reason. No 397c) Bruce Ing - Here's the proper explanation. Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0pvdKPJWd0 No 398) Michael Porto Sr. - Hey, flat earthers. Explain the international dateline. ------ Bruce Ing - Michael Porto Sr., I'm not sure how the International date line proves or disproves anything. Isn't it just a man made arbitrary line at Greenwich? ------ Michael Porto Sr. - You can literally fly in a plane and watch the sun rise and set multiple times because the earth is round. The international date line is an imaginary line between places on earth that aren't on the same day. -------- John Castleford - It is indeed an artificial concept. But on the other side of the world from Greenwich. No 399) He thought this would prove the earth was flat once and for all: -------- Sandy Kennedy - http://www.unilad.co.uk/science/guy-takes-spirit-level-on-plane-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat/ Rebuttle: NO 399a) Jimmi Brewer - its irrefutable proof that the guy suffers from a condition called perception confirmation bias. It means he sees the world like a three year old. Most flat Earthers have this. Coupled with Dunning Kruger effect and deep trust issues. No 399b) Bruce Ing - He doesn't understand that autopilot and pilots STEER the plane! No one would let a plane go off course in any direction, whether up, down left or right! The instruments show that planes fly level, but that level is above the horizon, because the horizon is below eye level! No 400) Dr Zakir Naik, plants disprove gravity: -------- Kieran Purvis (see his meme) Bruce Ing - That's totally dumb. (Zakir) - Plants grow up, to reach the sunlight. - How do the do that? Natural selection chooses plants that grow towards the light and are strong enough to support themselves against gravity! *** Plants are a perfect example of evolution and gravity! *** No 401) Porl Wainy Wain - I've had them say "hemiplane" to me Joseph K. Weydemann - yes because they realize with SPHERE in the word kind of screws them up No 402) Why is it warm at the equator and cold at the poles?: -------------------- Jacob De Veaux - Hey flearthers , how do you explain the heat at the equator and cold at the poles? ------------- Bruce Ing - The north pole is at the center, so heat should always be coming in from the equator. There's no reason for it to cool down as fast as the edges of FE. - If the sun being farther away has such a drastic effect, shouldn't the ice be 1000 miles closer in when the sun is farther away? That means in the winter most of Canada and Europe should be under ice and in the summer half of of South America, Africa and Australia should be under ice, but that doesn't happen - On a globe there is even heat distribution, and the north and south poles are smaller areas so need less heat to keep them from going crazy with freezing, BUT on FE the "south", outer regions are HUGE, so the same heat is spread out over something 10 times larger than at the north pole! No 403) We don't have the technology to go back to the moon: ----------- Leon Loco Suarez - We do not have the technology any more?? You have to be a very submissive sheep to believe it And even if themselves say it the globalists do not get it And I do not answer any questions ;) Especially if it hurts and you start insulting me for share this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPjxXJ04XkU Rebuttle: No 403a) Kail Weathers - Leon Loco Suarez Ask someone to build this computer for you. When they tell we don't have that technology anymore, start a new conspiracy website to prove modern computers are fake :) No 403b) Jim Parker - NASA's current rockets and space shuttles aren't capable of surpassing low-Earth orbit to reach the moon with the amount of gear required for a manned expedition. "The amount of rocket energy it takes to accelerate those kinds of payloads away from Earth doesn't exist anymore," said Jeff Hanley, NASA's Constellation program manager. "It exited in the Apollo era with the Saturn V. Since that time this nation has retired that capability." No 403bc Corey Baratta - You're a moron. They don't have the original technology they used originally is what he's saying. Oh and here's an article debunking what was supposedly said. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-astronaut-don-pettit-next-logical-step-go-back-moon-then-mars-beyond-1582401 No 403d) Bruce Ing - We may not have the old technology, but we have better technology now. Also, don't confuse the lack of will to go back to the moon with the lack of technology or ability! China is planning to have a permanent colony on the moon by 2020! http://www.businessinsider.com/china-plans-mars-moon-landings-2016-4 This is another example of cherry picking when quoting NASA! No 404) Space is very hot or space is very cold: --------- Luke Sowa - outer space is so thin, that the atoms that are in the vaccum are unable to impact objects' temperatures very much. If someone is in the vaccum of space and the sun is shining on them, they can be hit with all the energy from the sun. If they don't have UV shielding, they're likely to get a sunburn! If someone is in the vaccum of space and they're hidden from the sun in shade of some kind, they don't have any insulation to keep their temperature normal, they'll dissipate all their heat very rapidly. read more at Space.com's SpaceKids article. http://www.space.com/14719-spacekids-temperature-outer-space.html Bruce Ing - Space suits, spacecraft and space stations moderate this heat/cold mix... The average temperature in our orbital area of space is 10.17 degrees Celcius! http://sciencing.com/temperatures-outer-space-around-earth-20254.html How do we know this intuitively? The Earth is the average temperature of space around us! It gains heat during the day and looses heat at night. It's average temperature allows for liquid water to exist. The very reason there is life on Earth! No 405) Why can't we see satellites in pictures of the Earth?: -------------- - The satellites shown in most FE pictures are way out of scale. They are hundreds of feet if not tens to a hundred miles across! - Satellites are too small to see against the brighter background of the Earth No 405b) Looking for a satellite (16 feet across) against the Earth (7919 miles or 41,812,320 feet across) is like asking to see a virus 7.653e-7 meters long (0.0000007653 meters = 0.7 micrometers!) on someone in a profile picture 2 meters tall! (See Picture 405b) No 405c) Satellite passing in front of the moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT1wSm_iK6o&feature=youtu.be No 405d) Satellites traversing the sun and the moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ2NEiwAqD4&feature=youtu.be No 405e) Altas Centaur 2 satellite transits the Moon Nov 21 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rugMHAlOpU4 No 405f) Bruce Ing - Roderick Jones - A satellite is the size of a virus compared to the Earth. (2017-08-02) Person 6 feet=1.85 m, Virus 400 nm=400x10-9 meters Ratio = 1:4,625,000 Earth 12,742 km=12,742,000 m, satellite 3 m Ratio: 1:12,741,997 *** A satellite is 3 TIMES SMALLER than a virus compared to a person. *** No 405g) Another thing. Can you see a car from 100 miles away? 1,000 miles away? 10,000 miles away? No! Then WTF do you ask for something so unreasonable as seeing a satellite from anything more than a few miles away? NO 406) Why can't we see satellites or planes from the ISS: -------- - Satellites are very small, compared to the Earth - The Earth would be far brighter than a satellite - Most satellites are as far or farther away from the ISS than from the ground https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-ISS-photos-show-any-of-the-thousands-of-satellites-orbiting-Earth No 407) Marcus Engdahl - Here's the open-source Python-code for calculating the position of celestial bodies in the sky with great accuracy. Note that all calculations are based on Heliocentric GE - model (HGE). Why is it that HGE works so amazingly well, but FE cannot calculate or predict anything - any ideas (besides HGE being correct)? http://rhodesmill.org/pyephem/ No 408) Real photos from space: ---------- 1) Marcus Engdahl - Here's one example of many...almost real time http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/.../FULLRESOLUTION/index.htm 2) DSCOVR:EPIC in stationary orbit at lagrange 1; (It takes pictures every 2 hours) https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ 3) Japan's satellite: (In geosynchronous orbit) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/10/science/An-Image-of-Earth-Every-Ten-Minutes.html 4) GOES-16 satellite https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/new-weather-satellite-sends-first-images-of-earth No 409) Jonny Needham - https://youtu.be/95NDkABAsSk No 410) Kieran Colfer https://qz.com/.../the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth.../ No 411) The scale of the universe: John Castleford - Interesting... https://m.facebook.com/story.php… No 412) Pilots know the flat earth map is wrong!: -------------- Bradley Elliott - Kieran Purvis - My father flew B52's in Nam and was a airline pilot for many years (retired now). I was lucky enough to have grown up around small single and twin engine aircraft as he has owned a few over the years. Until the last few years- I have been flying since my late teens. What is interesting to me is that it is almost impossible to get some of these people to research airline flight paths, commercial airline speeds and flight miles ( point A to B). For just one example-many flights from the U.S west coast fly through Hawaii ( change planes or refuel) going to Asian country's. With the flat earth map Hawaii is a little more than 90% in the wrong direction. That is not counting the fact that they show it about 300 miles north of where it actually is. You can go on Swiss airlines website( just one example) and with a flight # can follow a flight in progress traveling to it's destination. It shows a continuing line with changing in flight times as headwinds or tailwinds may affect arrival time. If you look at the flat earth map, Asia is several thousand miles in the wrong place. Why would aircraft fly to a destination that is not there? Flat earth map shows all west of Hawaii as open ocean. I have tried to get many to research this and get back to me. Other than something smart-ass to say, no one has accepted my challenge. If someone where flying from Denver for example to China, South Korea, Philippines. Why would the airline fly to the west coast and then across the pacific-past Hawaii. If the earth were flat and they were correct why wouldn't the flight fly north over Canada ( over land the whole way) to the orient? One more thing All charts (flight maps). sectionals and wac's (the two international standard charts) are made from round earth satellite photography. That's a fact! Sorry to be so long winded, but thought you might find a pilot"s perspective interesting. Besides I was bored! LOL No 413) Great circle distance for flight path: ------ Bradley Elliott - The orthodromic distance ( also called the great circle distance) is the distance between two points ( usually calculated between two city's). This is the path G.P.S autopilot systems take aircraft from point A to Point B. The Rhumb line- or Rhumb distance, is a shorter distance to the same point ( path through the interior of a sphere). Check out- www.distancefromto.net - It is interesting to see the curved path a aircraft fly's over the curvature of the earth- i.e- Portland to Chicago shows the ( curved flight path) shortest distance between the two city's. It is very interesting as you can enter any two city's just as a pilot would. Except we actually enter Lat/Long positions from a book called flight guide. This site has a program that does that for you to show you air miles and actual flight path. The old saying the shortest distance between two points is a straight line-isn't necessarily true-unless you can take the rhumb line through the earth-lol- maybe this can be # 413. It is factual and a hard point to argue. No 414) Dustin Cupples - You think the entirety of world governments have joined together to create this lie and you figured it out using the internet. That in itself is moronic. No 415) The problem with magnets as an explanation for attraction: ---------- Jairo Amaral - Travis, magnetic fields have two poles. Gravity is only attractive. Bruce Ing - If you ever play with magnets, you always find, they''ll quickly flip around then snap together. Magnets just aren't a sable way to make anything orbit! No 416) JR Rivas - If the earth is flat then whats on the underside of it? No 417) How to tell the distance to the sun: -------- Karol Masztalerz - and what is the point of travelling there? To deduce sun is extremaly far away you'd have to just travel a 1000 miles or so :) to deduce the exact value you need two observers at two sides of earth during a transit of venus No 417b) Other methods to deduce the distance to the planets and sun. https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-solar-system/planet-distances.html No 417c) A third way to measure. Radar: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/87-how-do-you-measure-the-distance-between-earth-and-the-sun-intermediate No 417d) http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun No 417e) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkYHL8GVsOk No 418) How to tell the sun is farther away than the moon: or Measuring the distance of the sun: ---------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkYHL8GVsOk - By this last method, the estimated that the sun is 19 times the distance of the Earth to the moon, 2700 years ago! - That means 700 years ago, they knew the sun was much farther away than the moon. - With more accurate measurements we know the sun is actually 400 times the distance of the moon to Earth. Since we can measure the distance to the moon with lasers. We can accurately calculate the distance to the sun. No 419) How can north be up on a flat Earth? ----------- Kimi Steinbaugh Hagans - to me..north is up.. towards the north pole. Bruce Ing - How can north be up, if the world is flat? - North would be towards the center on a flat Earth, Still nothing to do with up or down! - Which way do you turn a flat Earth map so it is "up"? (What this is really illustrating is how FE'ers mix up flat and globe Earth models.) No 420) Poe's Law: - Sometimes with extremes it is hard to tell the parody from the real thing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law No 421) Polar projection map of Jupiter: ----------- Nick Kindred - I just printed this image and it is totally FLAT. Jairo Amaral - Then you'll love this image made from stitched photos projected on a polar projection. Even "flatter"? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154983275447719&set=a.10152381300302719.1073741827.572887718&type=3&theater No 422) Jupiter has natural satellites: ------ King Peter - Why does Jupiter have satellites? How did they put satellites in orbit around Jupiter? It's too far Jairo Amaral - I mean natural satellites. It's massive enough for that. It can keep the matter that was around when the primordial cloud collapsed, and it can capture bodies that pass nearby with low enough speed. - But incidentally, Jupiter has the occasional artificial satellite, like the probe Galileo in the past, and now the probe Juno. They're sent there by rockets and gravitational assists. No 423) Michio Kaku has actually seen moon rocks in person: ------ - Michio Kaku states that he had a chance to see moon rocks and they have microscopic meteorite impacts. Impacts within impacts, some as small as the size of a cell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk No 424) What to avoid, as unclear proof, for FE: ----------- Generally, I've stated in the past that we should look at large open bodies of water or high altitude balloon pictures/videos for proof of curvature, as they are the least ambiguous. In terms of what not to take as proof, here is my list; - Anything before and up to the horizon. Since land and water is always visible up to the horizon, claiming it is flat and there is no curvature, by eye is meaningless. There isn't expected to be anything lost from sight, due to curvature yet! - Shots close to the horizon, on water, (within a mile or two after the horizon, the drop is only a foot or two). - Look out 6 to 9 miles PAST the horizon - Low altitude land shots, showing the horizon. Within a few hundred feet of the surface or looking over hilly terrain it is impossible to know if you are looking at a flat or curved horizon or just land formations - The horizon just by eye. - Eyeballing it doesn't tell you if the land or water is curving downward away from you, especially with such a gentle curve as 6 feet over 3 miles (15,840 feet). - One needs instruments, levels and long stretches of land or water to find significant observable drops, because the planet is so large and the curve so gentle. - Anything less than 100 miles up and/or without a wide angle lense. So many FE pictures and video are up to about 24 miles up, however, looking at a narrow field of view can show a flat area, even if the view with a wider angle shows curvature. - The fact that we are out with a line of sight tangent to the horizon, means that it looks flat, even if from higher up, one could tell you you are looking at part of a circle! The only solution is going a lot higher OR looking at a wider field of view (60 degrees or more.) - Being able to see up to twice what curvature may predict. Due to optical effect, especially on cold water, one may be able to see up to twice as far as one would expect. (Notice that all very far sightings are over water!) Some suggestions: - Look up the Geodetic map, to check if there are any local depressions. (Even on water, there could be a local depression 1 km deep across a 60 mile stretch of water!) https://pos-map.appspot.com/en/coordinates60.html No 425) FE Modus Operandi (MO); 1) restrict evidence to things one can see directly with one's senses 2) use the absense of evidence as evidence (e.g. can't feel ground moving) 3) Make up hypothesisto support conclusion 4) ignore any facts that don't support one's conclusions 5) ignore facts that refute one's hypothesis 6) deny the existence of obvious evidence that proves FE wrong (e.g. pictures from space, photographs through telescopes, eye witness accounts, expert witnesses in the appropriate field) 7) use non-related facts as a supporting argument (e.g. conspiracy theories) No 426) How science works - the scientific method: 1) make observations and gather facts 2) make conclusions based on those facts 3) come up with test to prove/disprove those conclusions 4) check observations to see if the tests confirm or refute one's conclusions http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml No 427) Basic questions; - What causes the Earth to form into a disk? (Why is the Earth flat? Why a disk?) - Why is down, "down", in this particular direction? - Why is the Earth stationary, yet everything else is in motion? - What caused the sun, moon and stars to rotate around the Earth? - How does density make things move? No 428) Free classes online: ----------- Alan Misa - You can take dozens of AP classes online for free I fucking love science post - Get a leg up on college! Sign up here: http://bit.ly/2rx9ys5 https://www.edx.org/high-school?utm_source=fb-ifl-science&utm_medium=paid-social&utm_campaign=ifl-science-high-school-ap-may2017 No 429) How can a world wide conspiracy be thwarted by the Internet?: ----------- Dustin Cupples - This turned out to not be as fun as I thought. Flat Earthers are arrogantly, confidently ignorant. I'm out. But I just wanted to leave you with this thought. Flat Earthers are just scientifically illiterate people. Every. Single. Argument for flat earth has an explanation, and a scientifically factual one at that. If there has been a conspiracy for centuries you wouldn't be able to solve it with the internet. Grow up. Bruce Ing - He has a point. They are hiding everything, yet we can find everything on the Internet, including how to build a plane or a rocket to disprove globe Earth! 430) The Sears Tower is below horizontal and partly behind the horizon: --------------------- Here is a demonstration showing that the horizon is below eye level. It is measuring to an accuracy of 5 arch seconds (5/3600 of a degree.) - In fact the horizon is where it should be if the ground is curving. *** The top of the Willis tower is actually below eye level! *** (Diagram No 430) My first part of my illustration is what we should see; 1) If the Earth were flat 2) What we actually see 3) What some FE'ers misinterpret as the truth to explain the phenomena (from Ballz Out Physics) (They assume the tower drops to eye level, BUT, ignore the fact that what is at eye level STAYS at eye level, so that rules out such a phenomena) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10156483641566795/ No 430a) Following are measurements of the Sears tower and horizon angle from the horizontal. Note that even the very top of the Sears tower is BELOW eye level! Sears tower - top of tower; 7 seconds below horizontal (0.00194 degrees below horizontal) (See screen shot No 430a-1) Time index 5:03 to 5:08 This point in the video: See video No 430a-2 https://youtu.be/YCo6aKkl9F8?t=303 No 430a-3) When we calculate the drop of the Willis tower, we see that; - The top of the mast, 7 seconds below eye level, is about 9.32 feet below eye level. - Then we add to that the Willis Tower, 1,729 feet. - The height the Willis Tower is above the Chicago shoreline, 14 feet, *** We see that Chicago is 1,752.32 BELOW the observer! *** (See diagram No 430a-3) Time index 5:03 to 5:08 No 430a-4) Calculated drop for 52 miles. (See screen shot No 430a-4) No 430b) Bottom of antenna; 3 minutes 47 seconds below horizontal (0.063056 degrees below horizontal) (See screen shot No 430b-1) Time index 5:11 to 5:15 This point in the video: see video No 430b-2 https://youtu.be/YCo6aKkl9F8?t=311 No 430c) Top lower segment; 7 minutes 31 seconds below horizontal (0.125278 degrees below horizontal) (See screen shot No 430c-1) Time index 5:18 to 5:23 This point in the video: See video No 430c-2 https://youtu.be/YCo6aKkl9F8?t=319 No 430d-1) Horizon; 13 minutes 42 seconds below horizontal (0.22833 degrees below horizontal) (See screen shot No 430d-1) Time index 5:27 to 5:32 This point in the video: See video No 430d-2 https://youtu.be/YCo6aKkl9F8?t=327 No 430d-2) If we plot the survey measurements for the horizon, we start with, an observer 197 feet above shore level. He measures down 13 minutes, 42 seconds below eye level. The horizon is about 17 miles out. Therefore the horizon drop is about 358 feet below eye level. *** This makes the horizon 161 feet BELOW shore level! *** (See diagram No 430d-2) No 430e) Conclusions: - This shows that the horizon sears tower is below eye level. - The horizon is well below eye level - The bottom of the sears tower is NOT visible because it is below the horizon. (*** That is to say, water and land curves and the water and land behind the curve is NOT visible.) (See diagram No 430e) No 430f) Here is the expected view, if the Earth was flat. (See diagram No 430f) No 430g) Source video; (See video No 430g) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCo6aKkl9F8 No 431) Maximum visible object on Earth: ---------- Bruce Ing - Mountain top to mountain top, for two 3 mile high mountains is about 300 miles (482.78 Km). - None of these distances are impossible on a globe. - So, it's safe to say, nothing is visible over 300 miles. Why? Curvature! No 431b) Philip Cowley - If we use Metabunks calculator we can see that even more of Hindu Tagh would be visible due to atmospheric refraction the other calculator doesn't take into account. No 431c) Philip Cowley - Bruce Ing I saw in an old surveying manual that you should allow for 12% less drop because of atmospheric refraction. No 432) Why the continents look bigger and smaller: ---------- Distance, horizon and perspective! - When you look at a globe from above, you always see a circular patch of earth, and as with all horizons, no Earth beyond the horizon. - This may fool one into thinking they are looking at the whole Earth, when they are just looking at a circular section of Earth. - Because of this, we may see a smaller section of Earth, assume it is the whole Earth and that the continents have gotten bigger! Note that it is just an optical illusion, because it is hard to judge shape and distance from space. No 432b) Demonstration of the globe closer up and farther away: Alex M Duffield - did this with my dslr, spent more time correcting the wobble in blender but it demonstrates it very simply, large america = close with fisheye, small america = far with telephoto. No 433) What we expect to see, according to FE isn't there: ----------- Bruce Ing *** What we expect to see according to FE, isn't there! - distances to horizon's aren't far enough - flat Earth rising to eye level is never there! - No pictures of the entire flat Earth We always see a small circular patch of Earth as one would expect on a sphere No 434) Why doesn't everything just fade into the rainbow colours during sunset? -------- Why doesn't the entire sky turn orange, then red and slowly fade to black? No 435) Matt Crunk - Because the firmament is too hard. LOL! By the way, you fluffers know that firmament is just another name for atmosphere, right? Centuries ago when the word was first translated, they wrongfully assumed the atmosphere had to be solid, hince the word FIRM-ament. The word in no way confirms or denies flat-earth or global earth. Just means there is an atmosphere. No 436) Mixing up definitions: ---------- Cleric-renaud Frederic - there are all kinds of vacuum. vacuum, and vacuum and then another vacuum. They all have the same name, but they are different. So globers say. ------- Jairo Amaral - This really sums up flat earthers' modus operandi: make up what others said, so you have something to complain about. No 437) The significance of a flat horizon around the observer: ----------- The horizon looks flat BUT it is a tangent to the line of sight, 360 degrees around the observer! - The only shape where that is always the case is a sphere. - Also, a horizon based on a tangent line of sight LOOKS flat 360 degrees around. THINK ABOUT IT ... a line can't be flat AND 360 degrees around. *** IT'S A GIANT CIRCLE! *** No 438) Flat Earth debunked 2017 Matt Garrett - https://youtu.be/CWLC-6vd3hQ (not available anymore) No 438b) Surveying, 1 Mile across a pond: The below experiment is done, surveying across 1 mile lake: The two ends are NOT level with each other! (See video No 438b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A90FfiLqEOo No 438c) Here is an illustration. The level lines don't meet, but cross over the targets. (See diagram No 438c) It shows that a level line at one end of the lake is NOT parallel to one at the other end of the lake. Instead, the lines cross each other. Where ever you are, things drop off away from you! No 439) Couldn't flat Earthers just Google and get the answers to all these questions they keep asking? Some questions, such as asking for pictures, they can and should literally do themselves! What is the point in claiming the Earth is flat, if you won't actually put any effort into proving it or researching both sides? No 440) Emergency stop in Alaska: ----------- Giany Valdes - Bruce Ing https://youtu.be/tHimQOPeYJc ("Emergency Air Plane Stop Proves Flat Earth") NO 440b) Bruce Ing - The flat Earth map is wrong. On a globe, airplanes follow the shortest distance which are straight lines across a globe, called "Great Circles". - When you stretch out a map, the routes look like curves, but they are actually the shortest distance, because the world is spherical! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSXEtnISmlA No 440c) Great circle on a globe, is the shortest distance: ----------- When you understand that a "Great Circle" is a line going around the entire globe, e.g. a circumference, AND that this is the SHORTEST distance between two points, then you understand why it makes sense on a globe and none of the flat maps! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSXEtnISmlA No 441) Thinks NASA footage of Jupiter is fake: -------- Nick Dougherty https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sKOAzUN0BZg Bruce Ing - The complaint is that Jupiter is too flat and the clouds don't move. - The complaint is that Jupiter is too flat and the clouds don't move. No 441b) Bruce Ing - Looking at a video of Jupiter - If you look closely, the Great Red Spot is slowly changing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3afEX8a2jPg No 441c) Karol Masztalerz - Bruce Ing sad to inform you, you are not seeing any changes in GRS here. The timelapse is just 10 hours long and comes from one-day long observing session, you see GRS for approx 4.5 hours, too short time period for clouds to significantly change. What you are seeing is the change of perspective and lightning angle :) Karol Masztalerz But you can see GRS morphing in this wonderful amateur timelapse :) https://petapixel.com/2014/06/16/amateur-astronomers-recreate-voyager-1-time-lapse-jupiter-using-ground-based-telescopes/ NO 442) If the world is a sphere, flat Earth wouldn't exist argument: ----------- Bien Figueroa - See meme No 442b) Jairo Amaral - That's a suicidal argument, Bien, because then we can say that if the world were flat and so easy to prove, the globe model wouldn't exist -- nor be the mainstream model for the last two millennia. And then you're roasted by your own rules. Let's face it: some people can believe anything, because some people aren't rational. The real question here is, if the world is flat, then why are we getting astronomical and navigational predictions with more accuracy than any flat earther could ever dream to achieve with the flat model? That's a gigantic hole in your story you need to explain. No 443) Boast and exaggerate about the accuracy of the past: ---------- Siraaj Baradien - wrong. Astronomical predictions are more accurate from a flat earth perspective. Referring to the pyramids build.by flat earthers of the more advanced communities of Egypt and the Mayans. do some research you will get a better view and stop accepting gravity as the answer to all the flaws of a Globe model No 443b) Jairo Amaral - Siraaj, how many times have you used your flat model for astronomical predictions? Jairo Amaral - I knew it: none. You merely fantasize it works, and that's the whole problem here. - And if someday you do your research, you'll discover the Mayan and Egyptian models are different from yours, and even they can't match the accuracy we have today. No 444) Terry Rawlinson - I've heard it said that the globe earth lie was created to suppress religion, and disprove the existence of god or a higher power. I've also read that 84% or the worlds population is religious. As lies go, it's not very effective is it? No 445) Gravity and density Explained: ---------- Gravity - the force of attraction between two objects. How it works: The force attracting two objects is given by give by the formula; F = G*((m sub 1*m sub 2)/r^2) Where; F - force in newtons G - 6.67x10^-11 N (m/kg)^2 M sub 1 and m sub 2 - the massess of the two objects in Kg ---------- Density - mass per unit volume How it works: NFC! (No FUCKING CLUE!) Denser things fall, duh! No 445b) Not willing to understand the ramifications of gravity: ------------- Jason Bowes - "Yup i win i just don't care about what you think. If you want to believe people walk right side up on the bottom of the globe and water sticks to a spinning ball and gravity holds trillions of tons of water to a ball but not a fucking lady bug that's your choice" Bruce Ing - If that lady bug were dead would you expect it to fly? 1) Why would you ignore the fact that it is alive and flapping it's wings? 2) Even with the explanation of density, you would have to ask the same question. How does a lady bug fly but density holds down trillions of tons of water? 3) I'm sure you understand your argument is a selective and meaningless question? ------- - A drop isn't attracted with a trillion tons of force, it is attracted with the weight of a drop! - You are just being intentionally blind to such a simple concept! - The world needs a force that attracts evenly over very large distances, including through the vacuum of space. *** Gravity is real, not because we want it to be, but because that is what we observe! *** No 445c) Any argument against gravity should be applied to density as well: ---------- Bruce Ing - Jason Bowes whatever argument you use against gravity applies equally to density and buoyancy. - If you aren't going to apply those silly and meaningless arguments to density then you are being a hypocrite. - Gravity is what science labels the force we SEE acting on everything. - Density is what we label the amount of stuff per unit volume. One explains how we see things move about the other does not. - You are arguing against reality because science is just a system that tries to describe reality! The system that tries to control what you think and believe ... that would be religion! No 446) Flat Earth uses science?: ---------- Angelo Monfredo - We stick to observable repeatable science. Dont be mad at us because you fall for pseudoscience fairytale theories you cant prove or verify like water conforming to the outside of a ball. ----------- Bruce Ing - Angelo Monfredo, do you analyse and test what you see? Do you see what you are doing is cherry picking. You take exceptions and claim they are facts. When we tell you, actually what you see is an optical illusion explained by xxx. Do you analyse and throw out your wrong evidence? OR Do you keep your wrong evidence and ignore all the evidence that everyone else gives you? No 447) Looking at Polaris: ---------- On a globe: - If we look at Polaris from any latitude the angle from the vertical matches with the latitude, up to the equator *** It is always in the same place in the sky. *** - We don't see Polaris in the southern hemisphere because it is behind the curve. On a flat Earth: - The angle to Polaris is different for each latitude *** That means Polaris is at a different altitude for each latitude! *** (We'll call this The Polaris Effect) - South of the Equator, suddenly, Polaris is underground?!?! (See diagram) No 447b) Whatever latitude you are at corresponds to the angle down from the vertical, Polaris is at. If you plot that, you'll find that it DOESN'T work for a flat Earth. I call it the POLARIS EFFECT. (No 447 on our list.) It also doesn't work for the sun, when you plot the angle of the sun, going outward from high noon. ---------------- - at the north pole, Polaris is straight up (90 degrees) - At 45 degrees latitude, Polaris is at 45 degrees from the horizon - At the Equator, Polaris is AT the horizon (0 degrees). Try plotting those on a flat Earth and getting Polaris in the same spot! No 448) The Polaris Effect for the sun: As seen in No 447, the Polaris Effect is one where for each latitude Polaris is at a different angle and therefore elevation on a flat Earth. - This same effect must be true for the sun - If you spread out in circles away from high noon, each circle sees the sun at a different altitude! (The Polaris Effect Proof) (See OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155040224376795/ No 449) We always see a circular patch of Earth: ---------- When we look at the horizon; - View from sphere - You always see a 360 degree circle of Earth - View from flat Earth - sometimes you should see an edge cut off Explanation: 1) The reason one sees a flat horizon from low Earth orbit, standing on the ground, a mountain or building, is that one is so close to the Earth, that on only sees a very small part of it. Also, the angle of the circle one sees is so shallow that you are looking at a circle almost edge on. Therefore, you see a "level" horizon, all the same distance around you, 360 degrees around. 2) Nowhere do you see only part of the Earth and a flat earth edge! No 450) Jairo Amaral - And how do we tell what is a satellite and what is a star? Satellites orbit Saturn and follow it, while stars just stay in the background, of course. https://youtu.be/4i-t261MjLU No 451) JPEG artifacts: ----------- Bien Figueroa (See image) Jairo Amaral - You'll notice you can find the same square pattern in your own JPEG images in Facebook. - Those are JPEG artifacts, as if the image were a JPEG. And in Facebook, it is. No 451b) Bien Figueroa - I dont know why stars have outer square edges like they were just copy pasted (See picture) Jairo Amaral - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact - The JPEG compression algorithm divides the entire image in 8x8 squares. Those are the square shapes you see. Then again, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG No 452) Sun Rising Videos; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoNE_7iHZnI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpHU3dK9Xg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qED3ow9M98Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8 No 452b) Sun Set Videos; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOdn1lJ8v08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwus2nqU0SY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmgrtfXGQmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWbwmmOYnaw (4 hours!) No 453) Surveying videos: -------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCo6aKkl9F8 (Chicago skyline) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A90FfiLqEOo (1 mile) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKFKWVZbpyM (Ramped Perspective) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zugpfih9uRc&feature=youtu.be (Land Ho: Analysis of FE long distance observations) No 454) Gravity and vacuum experiments: -------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Zb3xAgIoY (Feather and nut in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV-qyDnZx0A&t=9s (feather and coin in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuULvNItSIw (apple racing a feather in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVktTyEtcBQ (coin and feather in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RKAb5accC0 (feather and "hammer" in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDmb-AVTM6k (Falling box with water) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs&t=18s (bowling ball and feather) No 455) Photo archive: 330,000 areal pictures of Antarctica: ------- http://www.pgc.umn.edu/imagery/aerial/antarctica No 456) Gyroscope self alignment (procession): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6jjEVCm494 NO 457) My analysis of ISS vs Vomit Comet: 1) On the ISS they are keeping themselves still very effortlessly; - No hint of acceleration, deceleration or attempts to fight against the movement of the aircraft as it goes back and forth! - This video shows the Astronaut floating for minutes at a time. No stuggling at all against the movement of an airplane is apparent! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLmc6CJQwLM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSTp2KOxlOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4 2) In the plane zero g - people are struggling against zero g. - Going from zero g to 2 g and are constantly trying to right themselves. - micro gravity isn't nearly as perfect as the zero g on the ISS. (Things drop to the floor on the vomit comet, even in zero g) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Lpdm5Pp68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drdBKMOZmTc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ieR8hIXUIg No 458) Solar Eclipse viewed from an airplane: ---------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBoa81xEvNA&feature=youtu.be No 459) The Aerodynamics of flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ltjFEei3AI No 460) If we can zoom in and see a ship, why can't we see the water that is hidden by the horizon? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw No 461) Midnight sun disproves flat Earth: ---------- Joakim Nguyen Kryger Sørensen - If the Earth if flat, how does Antarctica have midnight sun in December? No 462) Plenty of people visit Antarctica: --------- Joakim Nguyen Kryger Sørensen - Bruce Ing Oh. Well in that case add that that 26.000 people visit Antarctica every year, almost all of them in the summer*, which means that there are plenty of witnesses, that can't be explained by "It's a conspiracy" *http://wikitravel.org/en/Antarctica No 463) Visiting Antarctica: -------- George Taylor Not everybody there works for nasa or any other agency. https://us.ponant.com/destinations/antarctica?utm_source=SEM&utm_medium=Google&utm_content=Lien_texte&utm_campaign=Generic-Destination-Antarctica&ectrans=1 No 463b) George Taylor Go see for yourself https://www.expedia.com/Destinations-In-Antarctica.d11700.Hotel-Destinations No 464) Analema: ------ Michael McGarry Analema - Analema is explained by the tilt of the Earth and orbital excentricity. - If flat Earth tries to explain this, it has to do some crazy arobatics with the sun! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma No 465) Proving flat Earth: --------- Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr - It really is simple. To prove flat earth exists all you have to do is prove that the sun moves faster and slower depending what latitude it is throughout the year from the tropic of cancer to the equator to the tropic of Capricorn and back again. No 466) 14 Ways the flat Earth is wrong: --------- Timothy Doane - https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-flat-earth-theory-14-ways-the-flat-earth-theory-is-false.t7148/ No 467) Relative Speed: - The closer you are to an object, the faster it (or you) seems to go by. - The farther away an object, the slower it or you seems to go by. Since stars are very far away, even though it sounds like we are going every fast, 66,000 mph in orbit, etc. Our RELATIVE SPEED, compared to the distance star is extremely slow. Imperceptible, taking thousands of years before it is noticeable! NO 468) Geosynchronous Satellites: ------- Raymond Borges - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_satellite No 469) Reverse thrust disproves pushing on air: -------- - When you apply reverse thrust, you have to redirect air from the engine. This air pushes on the reverse thrust flaps. *** Notice you always have to push on a part that is physically connected to the plane to transfer thrust! *** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfFZ2-Am-Zk No 470) GPS won't work without satellites: ------- GPS works, even when you don't have a cell signal! - Why? Because they work by receiving signals from satellites https://www.maptoaster.com/maptoaster-topo-nz/articles/how-gps-works/how-gps-works.html (How GPS Works) http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/travel/gps1.htm (How GPS Receivers Work) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU_pY2sTwTA (How Does GPS Work?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRQiNFzT0k (New generation 5 satellites for GPS - How GPS Works) FE's explanation of weather balloons is rediculous. - The Weather balloons location can't be accurately know. - Weather balloons only stay up for a day or two. - Weather balloons don't stay in one place. No 471) Phases of the moon: The moon phases are easily explained on a globe. - The moon has a 29 day cycle On FE, there is no easily tested or proven solution that can predict the phases of the moon No 471b) If we choose a location for the moon, the sun and you on Earth, you can explain any combination of the sun and moon with they globe model. NO 472) How can we know something is spherical if we can't see it with our own eyes? --------- If we look at the horizon it is always; - a horizon a given distance away, that we can calculate with our elevation and curvature calculations https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial - The horizon is tangent to our line of sight - The horizon is 360 degrees around us - We are always looking at a circular patch of Earth, no matter where we are on Earth No 472b) In space,every object we see; - looks like a circle from any angle - NEVER looks like a flat disk - revolves around an axis - has moons (natural satellites) revolving around it - orbits the sun with a light side facing the sun and dark side facing away from the sun (phases) No 472c) We actually see picture of the Earth from space! Every angle and distance looks like a circular horizon, 360 degrees around you! No 473) Glass hemisphere covering the Earth would light the center: -------- Wright Sean - Also, your understanding of refraction is.. well not so good. Here's a study of light refraction in spheres. showing, that if there was a a glass hemisphere covering the earth then the center would light up, when the sun is hovering the south: http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.s.optics.201401.01.html No 474) If gravity is because of density, why do all objects fall at the same rate?: -------- Geoff Henig - So gravity is not believed in by flat earthers. If gravity was only buoyancy and density, how come a heavier more dense object falls at the same rate as a lighter less dense object? Assuming both objects are the same shape and size accounting for aerodynamics. shouldn't a heavier more dense object fall quicker then the lighter one if there wasn't some X factor? Can someone explain this to me. No 475) Fight distances globe vs FE: ---------- Brian Niven (see meme) - The flight distances in the northern and southern hemisphere are the same length. - However, on a flat Earth the distances are 3 times longer! No 475b) Brien Muñóz Consider its a Gleason map, a rendering of a GLOBE map from the north pole. - So, in essence, the very map that the flattards (flat Earthers sic) base their entire "model" on is actually based on amap that's just a rendering of a globe in the first place! Don't you see the idiocy here? It's all confirmation bias all of it! No 476) Waypoints showing flights inside Antarctic Circle: --------- Ivan Woods - QFA28 waypoints showing flying inside antarctic circle 71°S Bruce Ing What are waypoints? Ivan Woods every point where direction changes and going off the pic there are quite a few course changes for flight QF27. NO 477) Live Flight Tracking: Ivan Woods - https://www.flightradar24.com/QFA27/d83d1b7 No 478) Qantas 747 flight past Antarctica (QF63 SYD-JNB): Ivan Woods - great circle route going to johansberg from oz https://youtu.be/UaIiw0uKE-s No 479) ALL of FE is just trying to take globe info and convert it to suite FE!: ---------- Levi Castillo The Gleason map is a flat presentation of a globe. Case close! Now if you are truly looking for the truth you can't be bias to any data or info that are being presented. And as I've said before, filter thing from within. Bruce Ing - Where are the original measurements, data and evidence from FE? No 480) The thermosphere is NOT hot!: ---------- *** Although the temperature of the molecules may be very high, there are very few of them! *** ----- The science behind it; Although the temperature of a molecule of air can be 4,500 degrees fahrenheit, and it sounds hot, it isn't because it is a vacuum (there are very few air molecules). What that means is that the temperature of single molecules may be very hot, (meaning molecules are hot and bouncing around very fast, with a lot of energy), BUT there are very few of them. So if the temperature of a molecule is 4,500 degrees, but there is only one or two molecule per cubic cm instead of 2.5x10^14 molecules, like there is on the ground. The average amount of heat in that cubic cm is very little! The mass of the thermosphere above about 85 km is only 0.002% of the total mass of the atmosphere, even though it goes up to 1000 km up! No 480b) Bruce Ing - I can't find it, but there was a Youtube video of an ion engine. It runs at 100,000 degrees, but the molecules are so few that you can put your face in it! This is cool, about ion engines. "You would probably want to wear glove since they only work in vacuum but your gloved hand would probably be fine as long as you don't leave it in front of the thruster for more than HALF AN HOUR." https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5491xz/is_the_exhaust_from_an_ion_thruster_hot_reactive/ No 480c) Jairo Amaral - The temperature is high, but the heat is low. No 480d) Caleb Hubbell - Would you rather stick your hand in 100 degree Celsius water, or 100 degree Celsius air? No 481) Shann Marce - I don't even know why flat earthers try to argue the earth is flat. They can substitute forces, make up excuses to explain other shit. But ask them where on flat earth the southern Cross is located, and they choke. Proof they lead a life of misinformation No 482) Darren Nesbit - in case you don't understand: (see meme) No 482a) The globe on your meme is exaggerated! No 482b) Here is a cross section of the Earth that is a more appropriate scale and arc. No 482c) One has to take into account that we look DOWN at an angle and our line of sight is TANGENT to the horizon. - This is why the horizon looks flat! No 483) Curvature visible across hydro towers in the water: --------- Philip Cowley - No Darren Nesbit... Not desperate at all... as this IS a real photograph... Go back through the thread and go watch some of the videos of the guy actually taking these photos... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF08tVsG9IU Philip Cowley - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpuT_NsiQdI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpuT_NsiQdI Darren Nesbit - riight philip, but if the earth is curving away from us like that after less than a mile, where is the corresponding curve across our field of view, ie - on the horizon. or are you saying you live on acylinder and the curve is only in one direction? No 483b) Bruce Ing - I'm sure you realize that seeing the curve, in front of you (along the z axis is far more prominent than seeing it along the y axis. 1) The horizon is at least 3 miles away, so it is NOT less than a mile! 2) Curvature starts right at our feet, BUT hidden curvature is only apparent after the horizon 3) in this case the poles sticking so far out of the water let us see the curve beyond the horizon that us usually hidden from view! - It could be a good 6 miles out to the farther section of transmission towers. 4) Left to right might be 6 miles, but that is only 6 feet of drop from the centerline, each way. That's feet of drop on either end, across 31,680 feet of horizon. Please stop pretending, that you don't understand the ratios and significance of curvature over such short distances! No 483c) Lake Pontchartrain - hydro wires ----------- Analysis of hydro wires http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/11060 No 484) Curvature is more visible on the z axis than the X axis: ---------- If anyone ever looked down a length of 2 x 4 to see if it was straight, one will realize that it is far easier to spot curvature along a line than looking at it from the side! *** The drops are very small compared to the lengths involved. *** 1) Therefore, it is far easier to see curvature along the line of sight and over the horizon, because one can sight up to and past the horizon, just like looking along the length of a 2 x 4. 2) Going the other way, looking along the side, one is faces with huge lengths with very small drops. e.g if the length of horizon one is looking at is; a) 6 miles long, then one is looking at 31,680 feet of horizon with a 6 foot drop on either end b) 12 miles long, then one is looking at 24 feet of drop on either end across 63,360 feet of horizon! No 484b) Darren Nesbit - so you're saying that while we can visually perceive the curve going away from us in very short distances, the same corresponding curve going across our field of view is imperceptible? you are a liar, deluded or irrelevant in some other way, i have no interest in anything else you have to say until you reconcile this. 'we're on a ball, but you can only tell in one direction.' the world is completely full of fools. No 484c) Philip Cowley - Yes Darren Nesbit... that is exactly what I am saying... Here's an analogy for you... Take a 6ft long plank of wood and bend it by a 1/8in... now look sideways on to it. Can you see that curve? No? Now look end on to the curve... can you see it? YES! No 485) The southern constellations are proof the Earth is spherical: --------- Nicholas Hunter Pitts - The southern cross is not a part of earth therefore cannot be used in an attempt to define the earth's shape. No 485b) Bruce Ing Nicholas - Hunter Pitts Of course it can. Just like the north star can be seen from anywhere in the northern hemisphere, the southern cross can be seen from anywhere in the southern hemisphere! Denying evidence that proves the Earth isn't flat doesn't make it go away. There's a whole hemisphere full of people that have direct evidence that the world isn't flat! Just like you can't see Polaris from the southern hemisphere, you can't see the southern cross from the northern hemisphere! No 486) How does the sun shine up into the clouds from below on FE?: ------------ Jonathan Barron - Here ya go dude. Shadow from Mount Rainier shining up onto the clouds. (See picture) Checkmate flat Earth No 486b) - If the sun is 3,000 miles up, then it is always above the clouds, no matter how far away it is. - So it should be impossible for the sun to shine up into the clouds during sun set or sun rise. No 486c) Jonathan Barron - Mount hood in Oregon does the same thing. Impossible on flat Earth No 487) Bradley Elliott - In 1970 135 country's were given moon rocks from the Apollo 11 mission. The scientific community's of all accepted them as legitimate. If the mission was a fake, that asserts that the scientific community's of all 135 country's are in on this conspiracy. Does anyone really believe that is possible? Wouldn't that mean that all the scientists of these country's are immoral liars? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk No 488) The moons transit is way to fast on a FE: ----------- The size and scale of the shadow from a solar eclipse, seen from an airplane, shows how far away the sun and moon are. They aren't 3,000 miles apart, going at 1,039 mph. They are much farther. The moon is actually travelling faster (about 2,157.589 mph), BUT it is much farther out. That is why its' transit takes about 8 minutes! If the Sun and moon were close, and the sun is travelling at 1,039 mph, then the moon, going in a 29 day cycle is travelling about 35.92 mph slower than the sun. It would take 32/35.92 - 0.89 hrs or 53 minutes 27 seconds to transit the sun! We don't see that, the transit takes 8 minutes and the sun and moon hardly appear to move! Why? Because they are very, very far away! ---------- Response to Guy Williams OP; Guy Williams shared The Bilderberg Group's video. - We call our genre "MOOSE"... it's smooth and silky and pack one hell of a kick to the head! If a silly song like We Are the World can bring light to a purposefully HIDDEN agenda, maybe this can too.. #musicforsmartpeople #moose #trademarked #rememberwhereyouhearditfirst https://m.facebook.com/story.php… Under the Dome (not the movie) No 489) Solar eclipse not visible from everywhere at once: ---------- We can't see; 1) the solar eclipse from such a large area AND 2) different phases of the moon simultaneously during a solar eclipse, - which is what would happen on a flat Earth. This is again another indication that the sun and moon are much farther away and not within the radius of the Earth's dome. No 490) King Peter - a brief and, by no means exhaustive, list of all those who must be directly involved with the Globe Earth conspiracy and cover-up of the flat earth truth......... The Jews,Illuminati,Freemasons,NASA,various governments and militaries, the Bildeberg group, the Build-a-bear group, the media, Big Pharma, Rand McNally, the CIA, the aliens, the penguin army , the post office, people on here who don't "like" or "laughing face" my posts (Richard Paul Hall) All the telephone and cable companies, all commercial aviation companies (and associated industries) water companies, all farmers, Monsanto, ICI, climate scientists, the Museum Industrial Complex, all zoos & zoologists, Siri, the UN, Nestle, McDonalds, the Vatican, Joe Haley, the arms industry, the "nation" of "Australia", Hollywood, Bollywood, Nollywood, Dollywood, Sam Becket, Al and Ziggy, all shipping and cruise companies, the gays, Tesla, SpaceX, James Bond, Virgin Space, Bruce Ing, Elon Musk, Big Cartography, ALL world governments (including Iran & North Korea) TOGETHER, all scientists, in all fields throughout history, people who haven't gone back and "liked" or "laughing faced" my posts from earlier (you know who you are), all historians & economists, Islam, Atheists, Crocodile Dundee, all energy companies, Van Halen's belt, Einstein, Dr, Hawking, Dr. Dawkins, Dr. Who, Dr. Hook (not a fully qualified doctor), Captain Hook, Peter Hook, Nye, Degrasse-Tyson, Galileo, Newton, Ordinance survey, Google, the ancient Greeks, Raquel Welsh, the people who made Stonehenge, toy makers, Richard Paul Hall, No 491) Dan Renner - it takes only one objective evidence against ANY proposal to disprove the proposal. In the process of peer-review, if it can be shown that a hypothesis is inconsistent with ANY shred of objective evidence, then the hypothesis fails, and cannot be elevated to "theory". The evidence AGAINST flat-Earth includes, but is not limited to; - Flat-Earth doesn't comply with sunrise and sunset, as they are seen and demonstrated by the global Earth model, as well as reality. - Flat-Earth doesn't comply with the illumination of the moon. - Flat-Earth doesn't allow for lunar eclipses. - Flat-Earth doesn't account for the fact that travel times and distances are demonstrated to be consistent with global-Earth maps, and completely inconsistent with the distances on flat-Earth maps. - Flat-Earth doesn't account for time-zones as they are actually experienced (half day/half night). - Flat-Earth doesn't work with the satellites that we can see for ourselves, and as photographed and identified by hobbyist astronomers. - Flat-Earth claims don't fit with the timeline of computer technology. NO ONE, could come anywhere close to producing photo-quality CGI in 1946, when NASA released the first extraterrestrial photos of the global Earth. (Computer output was via punch cards!) - Flat-Earth doesn't work with the trigonometry which shows Earth is a globe. - Flat-Earth isn't consistent with tectonic movement. - Flat-Earth isn't consistent with the curvature of water, as we watch ships disappear over the horizon. (And no, telescopes don't bring them fully back into view. Optics don't/can't work that way.) - Flat-Earth doesn't work with gravity, and gravity is easily demonstrated by actions as simple as rolling a pencil off of a desk and noting that it changes direction and accelerates - and neither of those actions can happen without an applied force. - Flat-Earth isn't consistent with the fact that the moon - photographed from different hemispheres at the same time - will appear inverted when the photos are compared. - Flat Earth isn't consistent with the phases of the moon. - Flat Earth isn't consistent with the shape of the moon, revealed through shadows and the perceived shape of its craters. - Flat Earth isn't consistent with the singular view of the moon. Under the flat-Earth model, the Earth would see multiple faces of the moon, or, at times, would see the edge of the moon (assuming wrongfully, that it's a flat disk). - Flat Earth doesn't allow stars to rotate Counter-Clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, and Clockwise in the South… which they DO! - Flat Earth doesn't allow for Antarctica to have 24-hour daylight from September to February… which it does. - Flat Earth is not consistent with observed evidence of parallax in the solar transits of inferior planets. - Flat Earth is not consistent with anything in positional astronomy. - Flat Earth is not consistent with observations of stellar proper motion. - Compass directions don't work on a flat-Earth. As soon as you cross the center-point (North Pole), East and West would flip. No 492) If someone doesn't believe science, or testing and observation, it isn't science or testing and observation that is wrong. It is the person in doubt! Unless they have more scientific testing to disprove or adjust the scientific theory, they are simply saying that all the hard work from thousands of scientists in a given field is wrong because they are right! A ridiculous and impossible situation! That is why we are always asking for proof and testing... No 493) Plate Tectonics is impossible on a flat Earth: ---------- Brien Muñóz - Tectonics are impossible on a flat earth. Brien Muñóz - The main features of plate tectonics are: The Earth's surface is covered by a series of crustal plates. The ocean floors are continually moving, spreading from the center, sinking at the edges, and being regenerated. Convection currents beneath the plates move the crustal plates in different directions. The source of heat driving the convection currents is radioactivity deep in the Earths mantle - Directly from here; http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tecmech.html No 493b) Brien Muñóz - There's pressure underneath the crust causing the plates to move and shift on top and underneath each other, the main cause of earthquakes. There's absolutely no explanation for plate tectonics on a flat plane or how it could possibly exist. No 493c) Arthur Hillegass - We have only dug down 8 miles which makes the rest speculation at best. Brien Muñóz - Not really speculation. Seismic waves determine what is really down there. It's like a signature as they travel different speeds as they go through different material. Tested repeatedly and observable. - Read up, buddy. http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/waves_and_interior.html Brien Muñóz - I know you think these people are stupid and they just "make shit up" to deceive us for whatever reason. But the evidence is pretty solid. - Again, whether you choose to look at it is irrelevant. No 493d) Bruce Ing - Due to the fact that everything is stretched out on a flatenned Earth, the plates can't rise and fall, (Subduction and and divergent zones), as they do on a globe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tectonic_plate_interactions If plates are moving and they are miles deep, then how is the flat Earth stable? It's "know" depth is only 9 miles and it's 25,000 miles in diameter. Now it's suppose to be separated into plate? It doesn't make sense on FE! No 493e) Jeff Dugay - https://www.sciencenews.org/article/deep-heat-may-have-spawned-one-worlds-deadliest-tsunamis No 494) Seismology and it's significance: ----------- Gabriel Ceornea - They won't (admit to being able to detect Earthquakes around the world) because it will mean the following: >Earth has sesmic activity >Which means it has geo-activity going on >This means that the earth has a hot core within >This means that the earth is a sphere No 495) Direct measurement of the Earth's rotation with gyroscopes: ------------- Thomas Hardy - Very wrong. This was the worlds most sensitive gyroscope built in the 90's for detecting the Chandler wobble. The normal rotation of earth is child's play. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub.../2011-12/tum-fed122211.php (The Earth wobbles annually with a radius of up to 6 meters.) No 494b) Thomas Hardy - This is an experiment you can do yourself. The test is latitude sensitive and the data can be used to tell you your latitude on earth even if you don't know it. FE lied to you about the gyroscope thing. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/playstation-move-hack No 496) Abhijit Juvekar - Comparison of outputs - Saturn: Left image: single frame from input video. Middle image: output after stacking 1000 frames Right image: output after stacking 5000 frames Short guide for Planetary imaging using video frames Stacking method. Why Stack? For Planetary Imaging you need to capture & stack multiple frames to enhance S/N ratio for getting better details. So even the poor quality frames after stacking & enhancing gives descent looking final output revealing lots of details. 1] Capture multiple (3-4) short duration (10-15 sec) videos at higher FPS or at-least 1000-2000 frames. 2] Use Planetary image Pre-processor (PIPP) to make stabilized AVI from your videos. https://sites.google.com/site/astropipp/ 3] Use Stabilized AVI video as Input for stacking program like Autostakkert3 http://www.autostakkert.com/ 4] Sharpen the output image from Autostakkert2 using Wavelets adjustment in Registax http://www.astronomie.be/registax/ 5] Enhance further using Photoshop Process is bit lengthy but surely it gives good results once you practice it often & improve your skills. Hope this short guide will be helpful for new people looking forward to start basic Astrophotography using any telescope/camera setup they have. :) *Feel free to Share. No 497) Why it was impossible to fake the moon landings in 1969: https://www.geek.com/geek-pick/why-it-was-impossible-to-fake-the-1969-moon-landing-1537386/ No 498) Gravity is acceleration on FE: --------- Besson Laurent - Stationary? Not it's accelerating up with 9.81 m/s^2 - You don't know that? - Wake up bro flat earth is little more complicated than round earth! - It's not for idiots. Bruce Ing - Besson Laurent If the Earth was accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2, it would approach the speed of light in under a year (353 days)! The stars and everything would be blurring with relatavisitic effects, e.g. tunnel vision in front, blurry or blackness to the sides etc. See No 138, Slinky tests disproves the Earth rising towards us. It shows that we are falling towards the Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59dANJTLbyo No 499) Jairo Amaral - Has any flat earther here ever tried to use the flat model for any astronomical or navigational predictions? No 500) If the Earth were flat, superior mirages would hit the ground and inferior mirages would shoot into the sky. In either case, one would not see something over the horizon from farther away, if one were looking across a flat surface! (I'm cheating, because I want this one to be 500, but I'll add the other ones in and put them in the right order by next weekend. There are about 15 or so points to add over the next few days from other OP's!) No 501) Zachary Bradford - are other planets flat ?: ---------- Besson Laurent - We always see just a face ! Banisteriopsis Caapi - except when you watch them spin, might wanna look into jupiters great red spot and watch it disappear from view for hours until it comes back into view, thats what you call spinning lol No 502) How can the sun be a spotlight?: ----------- Flat Earthers always say the sun is like a spotlight. However, we can see it from dawn to dusk, so it clearly isn't shining like a spotlight. *** It is a 360 degree glowing ball of light! *** No 504) How to focus your Nikon P900 camera: (See video No 504) Courtesy of Jeff Dugay - https://youtu.be/dICIKYn5w4w No 505) Sun rays can't point up into the clouds, on a flat Earth: ---------- Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr meme No 505b) Philip Cowley - If the sun is not below the clouds, and the Earth is flat... please explain this picture https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/87d693dbb8.jpg No 506) Tall ship sinking behind the horizon: Joe Haley (See meme) No 507) Nicholas Hunter Pitts - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga_-FvaUT10 boom ----------- No 507a) If there is no air in space, why do you call the shots from the ISS CGI? - It shouldn't fade, BECAUSE THERE IS NO AIR! No 507b) Buoyancy can't happen WITHOUT gravity! No 207c) If the layer of air is 20 miles high, then it CAN'T cut off anything. The sun is TOO high up on a flat Earth! - The fact that you can see clouds lit from below, also debunks this! - Notice it says NOT TO SCALE!!! - I've given a picture to scale No 507d) Not being able to see southern constellations from the south or northern constellations from the north is NOT because of air. At the same time that you can't see a constellation in the north, it is high up in the sky in the south! No 508) Analysis of visibility of constellations: ----------- - If we look at a constellation in the southern hemisphere, the southern cross for example. It may be high overhead in Australia, yet it is NOT visible at all in the northern hemisphere! No 509) The star of Bethlehem is always in the East: ------ Conner Couf - I have a question. For the flat Earth people. Explain the Bethlehem Star. (See his OP) - How is a star always in the East on a flat Earth? No 510) Talking to the people who launched the GoFast 2014 Rocket: --------- Philip Cowley - The following video has been repeatedly used by Flat Earther's to claim that the rocket hit the dome of the firmament. I have just got off the phone to Ky Michaelson, the lead engineer of the team that built and flew this rocket. He was extremely helpful and explained several important points about this launch. 1) The licence that they got from the US Federal authorities for this flight meant that they were not allowed to put a guidance system onboard as that would have classified it as a missile (i.e. a weapon). This meant that they had to use spin stabilisation to keep the rocket stable during the boost phase. 2) On earlier flights, the spinning rocket had meant that little of the video footage was useable, so they had to stop the rocket spinning after the boost phase... but without using any active guidance system! 3) The device they used is called a Yoyo despin. invented at CalTech in 1962, it is basically two weights on the end of cables released by the spinning rocket that fly outwards taking the angular momentum with them. It is the same principle as a spinning skater drawing her arms in to increase the rate of spin, just in reverse. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-yo_de-spin ) It is the sound of this despin device releasing that can be heard at 57s and 3m46s in this video... In fact at 3m46 you can actually see the cable being unspooled in a couple of frames. THAT is why the rocket stops spinning so quickly, NOT because it hit something. Mr Michaelson also told me that he has full telemetry from the rocket, including velocity and acceleration every 100th second from the moment of liftoff until it landed. At no time did the payload decelerate suddenly and at the time of separation (about 10s after despin) it was still doing just under 1000mph! At no time did the payload slow to less than 500mph even at apogee until the parachutes deployed much later in the flight. Mr Michaelson was quite annoyed about Flat Earthers misusing his, and his team's, work especially the way they are misrepresenting it for their own ends. He was especially annoyed because he and his team invested their own money and time in this project and he hates the way people are making money off his work and not even crediting him. He categorically denies that the rocket hit anything but the ground at the end of the flight. The nose cone of the rocket was undamaged and showed no signs of any impacts. This is just another example of Flat-Earthers lying to try to substantiate their baseless claims. I have a full recording of the phone call and intend to write up a full transcript. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=001IXnp0ogc No 510b) GoFast rocket - seeing the moon Explained 8:03 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77f93UxZHPU No 511) Diagnosis and discussion on the Apollo computer: ------ Caleb Hubbell https://www.facebook.com/caleb.hubbell/posts/472433406441514 No 512) Thickness of the flat Earth and known depths: ---------- Bob Gumkowski - So... if the earth is flat... is it just like a giant tuna can floating in space? I mean the Mariana Trench is around 37k feet deep. Which is deeper than Mt Everest is tall. So how does one account for how deep the earth has to be to accommodate for all that? Couldn't we then drill a hole down to the bottom and trough, essentially draining the oceans like pulling the stopper out of a tub? No 513) If the thermosphere is so hot...: -------- Damien Frazier - If you're going to insist the molecules are spread to thin to transfer heat, also explain how the sun is warming you now No 513a) Zev-Velvel Griner - OMG. There are 3 ways that heat is distributed: Convection, conduction, radiation. - Convection only works in a liquid or gas under some kind of acceleration, which includes gravity. Heated liquid or gas becomes less dense as the substance expands because the molecules become more energetic. The cooler denser substance sinks to take its place. This does not apply to space as there are few particles in space. - Conduction works in solids and liquids to transfer heat like in a bucket brigade. Again, space doesn't have enough particles for this. - Radiation is the direct transmission of heat through infrared waves from one body to another. This is how space works. That's why satellites and such have heat shields. Items in space will also radiate their own heat away. Temperature is only one part of the heat concept. For example, fire walkers rely on the fact that although the coals are hot enough to burn their skin (i.e. high temperature), they contain very little heat. Walking quickly through the coals with sweaty feet does not heat the sole enough to cause a burn. So satellites are not affected by the supposed temperatures of the sparse air particles because they contain very little heat to conduct. No 513b) Bruce Ing - The sun beams from 75 to 150 Watts per meter squared. - That heat is stored and moderated by Earth, water and winds. - Voila, comfortable planet with liquid water and life! ------ Also heat transfer from a very thinly spread has has nothing to do with solar radiation. - In fact a thinly spread gas would allow radiation (light, heat etc.) through! No 513c) Bruce Ing - The AMOUNT of heat per unit volume in the thermosphere is very little, the average temperature is around 15 degrees. Colder at night and warmer in the day. - The thermosphere atmosphere transfers a negligible amount of heat. - One has to shield satellites against extremes of heat and cold. - Not very hard. we can make a thermometer work and survive from 200 to minus 200 Celcius, I'm sure people can figure out how to use INSULATION to moderate temperatures! No 513d) Dan Renner - The sun is warming us through radiant heat. So I have a little video for you, Sparky (that's a pun in this case). Knowing that you can estimate the temperature of heated steel by the color of the light it emits, it's easy to see that these sparks are mostly in the 2,500 - 5,600° range. Explain why they aren't melting through the aluminum foil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozZtq_l9pF8 No 514) Direct TV Satellites Exist: ----------- Jonathan Barron - Direct TV = satellites exist Marcus Engdahl - Using freely available dish pointing info it's possible to figure out theu distance to the geostationary orbit + that Earth must me round. Jonathan Barron - Yes, they are about 24,000 miles from the equator. Gavera Gazmahn Ovia Let me try understand this, satellite dishes point in the direction of the satellite they pick up signals from, right? You say they are 24000 miles from the equator. That sounds fine. But, please clarify sometime, when the earth rotates, is the satellite travelling on its own to maintain position or is it attached to that position through gravitational attraction? Or is there something else? Marcus Engdahl - Gavera Gazmahn Ovia satellites on geostationary orbit are stationary in the sky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit No 514b) Satellite dish pointed straight up. No 515) This is the basis of FE argments. 1) EXAGGERATION and 2) IGNORE FACTS and TECNICAL DETAILS! No 516) How do planes fly, if there is no gravity?: ------ Kieran Purvis - If gravity doesnt exist, how do planes fly? Gavera Gazmahn - Ovia How does gravity not pull the plane down after take off? A plane can fly horizontal, so to say, for long distances. How does the pilot manage to keep this metal beast weighing tonnes flying if gravity is pulling it downwards? Jonathan Woods - It's all a carefully calculated balancing act between all the forces acting on the aircraft. It involves the following major forces : Gravity, air density, lift created by the disparity between the airflow speed under the wings and over the wings, the total weight , and the speed . Oh and of course the power needed to maintain sufficient speed to balance all those forces. Really quite simple, ask any bird , they'll tell you or rather show you. Kieran Purvis - If the "metal beast" switched off its engines - the things generating the thrust which the shape of the plane helps to convert into lift - then gravity will surely be the greater force and will win and the plane will be "pulled down" Jonathan Woods - Thanks Kieran. Exactly and this is even more evident with a glider that has no power source and has to balance even more carefully the combination of forces in order to stay in the air. I actually used to have fun designing and building small aircraft and gliders so have extensive experience in air foil profiles , wing loading , payload capability and such like. And everything was calculated using known and accepted math and physics formulas based around the globe Earth and the universe as we know it ! No 517) Abhijit Juvekar - Crescent Moon with Earthshine. The Bright area is direct sunlight falling on the moon while the faint area is called 'Earthshine' which is the sunlight reflected off from the earth's atmosphere, falling onto the moon surface & returning back to the earth. Moon is always 'Full' :) Crescent phase disc illumination 10% 28 May 2017 No 518) Criteria for testing ships going over the horizon: ----------- As I've said many times before. 1) Hidden curvature STARTS at 3 miles. It starts AT the horizon. If you are high up om a ship? them the horizon is 20 miles away and hidden curvature STARTS at 20 miles. 2) Boats are too small to see at that distance, so you have to look at SHIPS. 3) We want a decent amount of ship hidden, at least 24 to 54 feet, so you have to look 6 to 9 miles AFTER the HORIZON! 4) There can't be a cold water layer on the way (superior mirages and blurring). ----- Follow those guidelines and what do you see? SHIPS AND CITIES partially below the horizon. ------ if you are worried about swells, them look at a ship FROM another ship. Their 100 foot decks are higher than any swell, on a calm day! ------ One final thing, look at large bodies of water or very high up, e.g. high altitude balloons and you avoid the ambiguity of mirages, depressions, not knowing the viewers or objects height etc. No 519) Raymond Borges - Done and this should probably be the only response here. Let's move along. Damien Frazier No 519a) Bruce Ing - The curve is one's line of sight tangent to the horizon. In this case it should represent a circular section of Earth, 1443 miles in radius. *** Meaning that edge is 1443 miles away! *** ----- When you go up, you are ALWAYS looking at a circular section of Earth. The trouble with FE'ers is they always compare things to their point of view! *** Ignoring PERSPECTIVE, and DISTANCE from an object! You are LITERALLY thinking 2D instead of 3D! ------ Look, the moon is only 300 feet across! No 520) Shawn Decampo - Flat earth debunked Philip Cowley - Gotta love noctilucent clouds. - Noctilucent clouds are VERY high level ice crystal clouds that, because they are so high, are illuminated by the sun long after sunset. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud Jeff Dugay No 521) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crates_of_Mallus Credit to Floyd Marston No 522) Wright Sean - Illustration of curvature calculations: No 523) Wright Sean - The horizon gets further away the higher you go in elevation. This is why for centuries boats have had these crows nests (See picture No 523) No 524) Amy Plott - Earths wobble No 525) Amy Plott - Before CGI was anything! No 526) Ade Rumbold - If Nasa is fake etc etc how Did Gordon Cooper manage to plot the location of so many ship wrecks? No 527) Joe Haley - When I was in the navy, coming into a new land, I would see the distant mountains first, then the hills which were closer, then the town at the base of the hills, then finally the shore. If the earth was flat and we're using the flerfer magic word of perspective, my experience would have been the exact opposite where I would see the shore first (the closest land) then finally the mountains which were farthest away. Flerfers can't reconcile the perspective magic word with reality. The earth is not flat. #checkmateflerfers #moveonwithyourlife No 528) Wright Sean - How is the Dead Sea the lowest point on earth? If it flat that area would be flooded with water from every ocean. There wouldn't be water in places like the Great Lakes https://pos-map.appspot.com/en/coordinates60.html No 528b) Bruce Ing - It looks like it is land locked. - It is 415 meters below sea level, but the ground around it is 115 meters above sea level. https://pos-map.appspot.com/en/coordinates60.html It is a good example though, of how level, means with the gravitational center of the globe, not level with a flat surface! No 529) Joe Haley - The moon doesn't fade into view from a pinpoint and get larger. It comes from over the curve. Another thing flerfers magic word of perspective fails to explain. And really don't give me that vanishing point crap. No 530) Kenneth A Fights - Quick question: If the earth was flat, how come we never reach the horizon? No 531) If we never new about science, we would eventually discovery the same things over again: ---------- Saqi Mutula - If you were born to a time where a specific belief system was not foisted in your mind by a System (i.e. no one ever told you that Earth was a ball), what would you think the Earth was? A Spinning ball hurling thru the cosmos dodging asteroids like a Star trek ship... ? No 531a) Bruce Ing - Sure, ask about "a specific belief system was not foisted in your mind by a System (i.e. no one ever told you that Earth was a ball)", then interject your own bias into the question! No 531b) Bruce Ing - Science would discover the same things as it has now. Gravity, orbits, stars, supernova and the expansion of the universe AND that the Earth was spherical! Why, because that same evidence will be used as we already have now to prove all that! No 531c) Philip Cowley - This sounds like a classic argument against religion... If both religion and science were wiped out... we'd get a totally different religion, but we'd rediscover the same science... the names might be different, but the concepts would be the same. No 531d) Jimmi Brewer - Newton and Copernicus were both religious and devout believers in God. No 532) GC Young - What keeps the clouds from going past the edge of the flat earth: --------- Bruce Ing - Gravity. Every atom and molecule of air is pulled down by gravity. Air molecules are loose, and fly around, bouncing off each other. The hotter they are the more energy they have, the more the bounce of each other and the farther apart they are (that is why hot air is more spread out, less dense). So, each molecule can bounce around and go up in the air. However, gravity will pull on it and it will come back down. (It's the same as you jumping up, you get slowed down, stopped and fall back down again.) *** The higher you go the thinner the air, very high up, there just aren't very many molecules. *** So the short answer is, very high up, there just isn't enough water to form drops to make clouds! *** No 533) Having to see everything for oneself: ---- Maxwell Allen Grigsby - To all you Glober's, have you personally ever been "around the world" or seen the world from so called "space" for yourselves? No? That's what I thought. No 533a) Marcy McMccannfayce - Have you ever personally seen the firmament or been to the edge of the world? No? thought not. What I have done though is flown on an aeroplane and witnessed for myself the (albeit slight at that altitude) curvature of the Earth whilst flying over the Atlantic. No 533b) Andrew Lomas - Seen curvature from a ship leaving Dublin. Poolbeg power station appears to disappear underwater (It doesnt). Go try it. Holyhead ferry. No 533c) Anthony Mark Watson - Have YOU seen the joining between the dome and the earth encircling ice wall ? NO any pictures ? NO Do ya know that's what I thought. No 533d) Rodney Lockyerr - Yes I've seen it from space. Just stream the iss streams. They can't fake that much footage in real time. The problem Here is you dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit your view not that said evidence is fake. Let me ask you a question have you ever seen the edge or ice wall Or seen the longitude and latitude actually line up to reality. Nope because they all don't exist. Ps I have done numerous tests including laser test and all. Show curvature. Stop being sucked in by your tube lies. No 534) Anthony Mark Watson - Maxwell Allen Grigsby The foundation stone of 'flat earth" is the flat earth map RIGHT. No 534b) Anthony Mark Watson - FLAT EARTH MAP = GLEESON MAP = AZIMUTH EARTH MAP No 534c) Anthony Mark Watson - They are all the same and all pretty much accurate BUT need to understand distance in terms of degrees and minutes. THIS IS HOW THE FLAT EARTH MAP WAS ARRIVED AT. No 535) Gravity works BECAUSE it is SO WEAK: ---------- Imagine if gravity were strong enough to feel. Say 2 balls with a mass of 1 Kg each attracted each other with 1 microgram of force. The Earth has a mass of 5.972 × 10^24 kg. It would attract you with 5.972x10^18 kg of force! Literally each kg (of mass) in your body would feel like 5,972,000,000,000,000,000 Kg (of weight/force)! *** Gravity is very, very weak, that is why things work! No 536) If the sun were close, how could we send satellites to it: ------------ https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-set-announce-first-ever-103555526.html If the sun were close, wouldn't anything we sent up just drop back down out of the sky? No 537) John Morris - If the Hubble telescope was turned toward earth couldn't it give us a great picture of earth....flat or round ? ------- No 537a) Bruce Ing - The Hubble telescope was made to take pictures of the stars, e.g. very far away. 1) If it were turned around it probably couldn't focus that close AND it would only see a small patch of Earth, just like many of our satellites do today! It's like having a telescope on the front porch taking pictures of the neighbors and someone insisting you turn it around as proof. So, you turn it around and take a blurry picture of ... ONE BRICK! 2) We already have satellites AND the ISS in orbit at the distances of the Hubble telescope! Flat Earthers don't believe any pictures from them, so what difference would the Hubble make? No 537b) Larry Robb Why dont flerfs understand they go to space to take pictures of space not earth No 538) ISS and Cosmos satellites passing in front of the moon: ------------ Roger Duhaime - And in all the years you have been looking up, have you ever seen a satellite pass in front of the moon? Kenneth A Fights - With my naked eye, no https://youtu.be/uOIomqupiEU No 539) Getting proof for flat Earth: ---------- Jay Tee (See his OP) - People who claim that the earth is not an oblate spheroid ***EDIT***(This means you think the earth is FLAT), you are the ones challenging millenia of actual research and evidence to the contrary. Getting the proof is up to you, as extraordinary claims (yours) require extraordinary evidence. It's easy! Here is all you have to do. 1) go to the edge. Any edge will do. 2) bring back actual photos and video of said edge. 3) Please post photos and video of the vortex, or water, etc going over the edge... 4) allow others to objectively analyse your material for inconsistencies, CGI, etc. or 5) stop whining about it and get a real life. Wait! Wait Really cool idea for you! Have someone in another boat linked on the internet to Facebook live while they watch your boat go over the edge! Have them stream your demise live here as "Another First for Facebook!" Then we will believe you! BTW, for your hopeful edification and enlightenment, I posted a site which has lovely images of the full Earth drawn from multiple satellites every few minutes. Enjoy you! Peace you! Love you! Globe you! http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154794284096795/ No 540) Eric Dubay - How Jupiter looks: ----------- Caleb Hubbell - Eric Dubay also in that video presented a video of "how Jupiter actually looks", but its actually just an over exposed and out of focus image. https://www.facebook.com/caleb.hubbell/videos/vb.100010245768100/442212356130286/?type=3&theater No 541) Real world observations of the horizon: ---------- Caleb Hubbell Here are some real world observations of the horizon BELOW the horizontal. https://www.facebook.com/caleb.hubbell/media_set?set=a.385888718429317.1073741853.100010245768100&type=3&hc_location=ufi No 542) Caleb Hubbell - In every instance, the observer elevation is perfectly consistent with the distance to the object being observed, the distance to the horizon, and the depression angles provided. No 543) Caleb Hubbell - You actually don't even need a theodolite to measure the depression angle. You could easily use a sunset. If camera is 9.8 meters (32 feet) above sea level, it should record just under a quarter of the diameter of the disk of the sun above the horizon at sunrise or sunset, while at the same exact time, the sun should NOT be visible at all for a camera at sea level (on the ground). This should prove that with 9.8 meters (32 feet) of height, the horizon should drop by 1/10th of a degree or about 6 minutes of arc. No 544) East and west aren't in a circle in real life: ------------- Ian Charles - Crump BSc You trolling several groups hidden profile Anthony? Just responded to this to you but here it is again. Magnetic north is where the compass points. All other cardinal 'points' are directions from this reading. East 90, South 180, West 270. No 544b) Dan Renner - Ian Charles Crump BSc, what you don't appear to be noticing is that on a flat-Earth map all directions are relative to your present location. But as we see from centuries of navigating by compass, these directions are NOT relative to your current position. For example; if you're in Australia and want to go to Africa, the flat-Earth map shows that you should go West. But if you're in South America, and want to know what direction Africa is from Australia, the flat-Earth map says it would be South. Compasses don't work that way, because Earth isn't flat. No 544c) Bruce Ing - Ian Charles Crump BSc Planes don't use magnetic compasses for bearings! No 545) Flat Earth sun orbit: ---------- Ian Charles Crump BSc (see meme) Bruce Ing - What makes this cycle happen? - What makes the sun loose twice as much kinetic energy closer to the north pole (it has to spin slower) and gain it back when it is farther away? - Where does this energy come from and go? No 546) Ian Charles Crump BSc - Its tough Joe but you'll get there once you drop the ego. I believe in you... No 546a) Dan Renner - And HERE is why you can see so much farther than 7.98" per mile squared, Ian Charles Crump BSc. That formula isn't intended to show line-of-sight. And here is the difference in diagram form. The purple line indicates line of sight (how far you can see). The RED line is 7.98" x D^2. See the difference? (NOTE: I'm not asking if you WANT to see the difference.) You fell for a fraud, because you didn't do your research. No 546b) Bruce Ing - Your meme is proving the Earth is spherical! 1) You see 3 miles on flat or globe, because that's about where your eye sight at 6 feet converges, BUT, further up, the horizon goes out farther, at way slower a rate than it would on a flat Earth (linearly on FE) 2) That 3 mile horizon is 360 degrees around and you don't see any water beyond it. It's not perspective, or vanishing point, because if you go up, you can instantly see more water. *** The only thing that fits this scenario is your line of sight being tangent to the horizon, 360 degrees around, on a spherical Earth. *** 3) The tangent to the horizon, looking slightly down, also explains why it looks flat, continuously, 360 degrees around! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuIclPeRf2I No 547) Jesse Kozlowski Horizontal - Plane Made Using Theodolite https://youtu.be/IgeOl1sgm4I No 548) Darren Cooper - Game over flatliners. - Viking rocket 1950 - curved Earth pictures - Fish eyed lense not until 1960 - CGI - 1968 No 549) The sun goes straight across the sky, it doesn't arc, as it should on a flat Earth going around the north pole! No 550) Analemma - Due to the tilt of the Earth and the eccentricity of our orbit. ------------- Damien Frazier The solar analemma, one of the easiest proofs of a flat disc shaped plane. The northern side of the suns journey through a year creates an arc 3 or more times smaller than the Southern side. On a symmetrical ball of a planet this makes no sense. On a disc getting bigger towards the South however...it makes perfect sense. Bruce Ing - One side is larger than the other, because the Earth is closer in the winter and farther away in the summer. i.e. The orbit is not a perfect circle but elliptical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihelion_and_aphelion Bruce Ing You're sun revolving in it's convoluted way, makes NO sense. It has to shed half it's energy to slow down when it is nearer the north pole, then gain that energy back and speed up, when it is farther away. Where does that kinetic energy come and go? No 551) Chris Boose - David Archer The Bedford Level experiment was debunked by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1870. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment No 552) Chris Boose - If satellites aren't real... Then why aren't there any upstream cables connected to home satellite dishes? And why do they point toward the sky? Nicholas Hunter Pitts - The signal bounces off of the stratosphere, or the dome, or the helium whatever you want to call it No 552a) Jonathan Barron - Satellite dishes in the us No 552b) Jonathan Barron - Satellite dishes at the equator No 553) Measuring curvature with a level: ----------- Jonathan Barron - Have you taken that level outside yet Nicholas to see that the horizon isn't always eye level? Nicholas Hunter Pitts - Actually me and thousands of people in the last few days have been talking about how the horizon is always Eye level.. it's crazy no matter how Highup you go to horizon always keeps raising to your eye level, you should totally check it out. Go up in a hot air balloon and it's amazing how you can just look forward you don't have to look down to see the horizon, same thing at cruising altitude in a jet utterly amazing ?? No 553a) Jonathan Barron - I went on a hill just yesterday with a cheap $3 level No 553b) Jonathan Barron - I moved the level around on top of my car until it was level. No 553c) Jonathan Barron - I then lined the camera with the top plane of the level No 554) Satellite transmissions vs are FM radio: ----------- Travis White - The cable box is wireless fed from a central location. Like FM radio. No 554a) Chris Boose - The set top boxes have standard IEEE 802.11 wifi modules. The range is far too short for what you're describing. Some of them are installed in a board header, like the first pic, and some are embedded, or soldered to the board, like the second pic. No 554b) Chris Boose No 554c) Chris Boose - Oh, and FM operates in MHz, and WiFi operates in GHz frequency. No 555) Simple test of the flat Earth: -------- Joe Haley - Simple experiment for the flerfers. All that is required is a frisbee or other similar flat and round disc, a light source and a camera. Step 1. Turn on light source. Step 2. Shine it on disc. Step 3. Illuminate only half of the disc. Step 4. Take a picture of a 1/2 illuminated disc. Step 5. Upload picture to Facebook and this group. No 556) Missing mountain: ----------- https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.ca/2016/09/flat-earth-follies-incredible-shrinking.html No 557) Anand Patel - I KNEW IT!!!! THEY LIED!!!! (See meme) No 557a) Alex M Duffield - Or maybe just notice how online compression causes artefacys http://blog.topazlabs.com/jpeg-artifacts-vs-image-noise/ No 557b) Ben J. Bierce - They're called jpeg artifacts, these guys don't even know how to download an image without somehow compressing it into total shit! lolol Gotta love it when they actually inadvertently CAUSE the discrepancy in their own "test image" thanks to ineptitude and idiocy!! No 557c) Chris Brown - Who lied about it? LikeShow more reactions Anand Patel - NASA Chris Brown - Anand, it was discovered 28 years before NASA started No 557d) Myles Tauchert - Planet or planetoid? The elliptical orbit flies in the face of this "solar system" idea. Pure bollocks Bruce Ing - How can someone who denies gravity claim to know anything about "the solar system idea? - That's the trouble with FE'ers, they claim to be experts on everything and to be some sort of authority on debunking science! - Yet they are the most ignorant on any scientific topics. - How does that make any sense? No 557e) Wouter Russchen - so if it's fake, why didn't they simply make it on a black background to begin with? No 558) Mohamed AlQuwedi - Taken by me. No comment. I swear (The Earth is flat). No 558a) Derrick Schnarr - You have to go a whole lot higher than That. Do you realize how big the earth is? Its way bigger than a flat earther thinks,,,that's why their math never adds up No 558b) Chris Boose - Also, you didn't take pictures of the Earth's surface, you took pics of cloud cover. No 558c) Jonathan Barron - Nice picture of the top of the clouds. It would be a whole lot better if it was actually the earths ground horizon. The curve that would be shown at the top of the clouds would even be more slight than the curve of the earth. It is further from the center. So it is a bigger radius. That is also why an air mile is longer than a land mile. The further away from the center, the longer the arc length to go from one degree of latitude/longitude from each other, like the graph below. The inner radius is much shorter than the outer one, but both travel the same degree. No 559) How can everything else be round but the Earth is flat?: --------- Jamie Lozo - How is the earth flat the moons round the suns round comets are round but the earths flat come on now people cant fix stupid No 560) The need of FE for personal experience as proof: ----------- Saqi Mutula - Wow, you been on the moon, sun, and comments? Humans must be evolving to super eagle serpent hybrids now.... oh, wait a minute. You were 'EDUCATED' about what these objects look like. Thats right, I almost forgot. For a minute, I thought you were challenging the Flat Earth with specialized knowledge. Just regurgitated. As you were. Jamie Lozo - I see a round moon in the sky all the time 561) Why is the Earth flat and everything else round: ----------- Jamie Lozo - How is the earth flat the moons round the suns round comets are round but the earths flat come on now people cant fix stupid No 562) Real time images from space: http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/.../FULLRESOLUTION/index.htm http://himawari8.nict.go.jp/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himawari_8 No 563) Joe Stewart - Yet another nail in the coffin of Flat Earth. No 564) Why does a boat float, according to FE?: -------- Zev-Velvel Griner - Why do steel boats float? Isn't steel "denser" than water? Zev-Velvel Griner - Here's a simple experiment regarding density and buoyancy. Get a 12" x 12" sheet of aluminum foil and place it on the surface of tub full of water. It floats, doesn't it? Fold it in half once. Does it still float?? Fold it again. Is it still floating? Keep folding it, for a total of 7 times. Make it nice and flat. Remember to squeeze out that nasty water. Does it still float, or does it sink to bottom of the tub? Explain how it possible if density and buoyancy is fixed? FE answer: George Jefferson Quindao - law of bouyance Zev-Velvel Griner - OK, so how does the law of buoyancy work? Linux Lambatan - Just feel it. Chris Head - Displaces more water than weight Zev-Velvel Griner - How? Globe Answer: Bruce Ing - The water pressure on the bottom of the boat is higher than at the top. The lower down you go in the water, the higher the force pushing you back up! It is a net difference in pressure, due to gravity. This results in a net upward force. No 565) Why Polaris doesn't seem to move: ----------- 1) Polaris is so far away that regardless of how fast we are orbiting the sun, it appears to be in the same place. The distance we travel is just so insignificant compared to the distance to Polaris. 2) Since we are all moving around the galaxy together our relative position to Polaris stays the same! 3) Earth actually has a wobble, so in 2,000 years Polaris will be out of alignment and 26,000 years from now, Earth will be back in alignment with Polaris. No 566) Floyd Marston https://roundearthsense.blogspot.ca/2016/03/55-if-sun-circles-over-and-around-earth.html No 567) No one can explain or describe the shape, size, distances, etc. of the flat Earth: ----------- John Paul - globetard are small minded thinking the ''flat earth'' is a frisbee flying thru space - they always had this idiot concept in their mind and judging quickly without even know the truth. Bruce Ing - What is "the truth". Please explain to me what the FE model is? - What are the dimensions of FE? - How far away are the sun, moon and stars? - What makes everything stay in place? No 568) Ether experiments: ---------- Alvin Bryan - Research before you post (see meme) Bruce Ing - Airys' failure, Michelson-Morley, Sagnac and Michelson -Gayle prove the ether is moving or not moving. Contradictory results! The ultimate analysis shows that the only explanation that fits all the results is relativity! --------------- The Bedford Level experiment was debunked, by later work, by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1870. No 569) Floyd Marston - CURVE of Earth right here. No 570) The Four Forces: -------- Chris Boose - One of the pillars of the flat Earth hypothesis is that Newtonian / Einsteinian gravity is a lie. It is explained as density / buoyancy, electromagnetism, sometimes even frequency. Let's set aside the fact that Newton was a devout believer who invoked his god when he was unable to provide a stable mathematical model of the solar system. Instead we'll talk about the four fundamental interactions of the universe. They are gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force. Gravity is the only one of these that works exclusively on a large scale. Electromagnetism operates on a smaller scale, but electromagnetic radiation can travel indefinitely in the form of various wavelengths of light. The strong and weak forces work (so far as we know) exclusively on the small scale. The weak force works between individual atoms, and the strong force works within individual atoms. All of the flat Earth explanations refer to known properties of matter that do not affect gravity, for instance density, or another of the four fundamental forces- electromagnetism, or are based on the known states of matter - solid, liquid, gas. None of them are correct, and are in fact easily disproven. I challenge anyone who believes in the flat Earth to try this simple, three-part experiment. Take any two small objects of roughly equal shape BUT made out of different materials and drop them from the same time at the same height. Notice they fall at the same rate. This disproves the idea that gravity is related to density. Take another two small objects of roughly equal shape, but this time make sure one of them is composed wholly or partially of iron and is therefore magnetic. Repeat the experiment by dropping the objects from the same height at the same time. Notice these two objects also fall at the same rate. this discounts the possibility that electromagnetism causes objects to fall. Finally, fill a balloon with water, and using any of the objects from the previous two steps, drop that object and the balloon at the same time. Notice that again, the two objects fall at the same rate. This eliminates the possibility that the frequency at which the atoms in the two objects are vibrating (liquid vs. solid) affects the rate at which they fall. Having performed this experiment, realize that gravity is real and proceed from there. No 572) Five different directions...: --------- Malmin Lee - I'd bet my life it's not an oblate pear shaped spheroid spinning in five different directions lmfao Philip Cowley - Your "explanation" of the 5 different motions is also less than accurate... your number 2 isn't a rotation at all but is the axis for the rotation number 1. Your number 1... the axial rotation of the Earth is proven by the general movement of the sky. Either the Earth is turning, or the entire rest of the universe is rotating around us... Is your ego so large that you demand that the entire universe revolves around you? If we lump your number 2 and 3 together, we explain both the apparent position of the sun and thus the seasons. The awful video purporting to show the solar system spiralling through space is wrong. The solar system is actually moving in a direction near to the plane of the planets orbits, not perpendicular to them. So your number 4 is based on a factually wrong youtube video. But yes the solar system as a whole is orbiting the center of our galaxy. Your number 5 is utterly wrong too... we are not "transiting away" from the big bang... EVERY cluster of galaxies is moving away from every other cluster as the universe itself is expanding. We are not at the center as there is no center. It looks the same from every point in the universe. I'd love to see you prove your assertion that "The whole universe also moving"... "Disprove what I've said instead of speaking out your arse ffs !" Been here... done that! Perhaps if you got out from in front of Youtube university and actually did some real research rather than credulously gobbling up what you are fed by ignorant layman with opinions you'd get a bit closer to reality. No 573) Gravity history: ------ Alex M Duffield - GRAVITY for the flatly inclined... actually we know a hell of alot more than that, the HYPOTHESIS as it was postulated by newton was that masses attracted, the theory was confirmed when henry cavendish managed to mesure the gravitational constant of to masses attracting, newtonian physics however does not offer an explainationas to why and his laws of motion have sygnificant failings ovr 10% of the speed of light, that is where einstein steps in, based on the michaleson moorely experiment that in its failure proved that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference it lead to einsteins theory of special reletivity that linked the movement in space to the contraction of time, this has been proven by the muon lifetime and detection rate on the eatths surface (muons being formed through high energy bombardment of the upper atmosphere whiuch results in a known precipitatio of muons with a known halflife that can be detected ont he earths surface, they move at close to the speed of light and thus the time they spend moving throgh the earths atmosphere is sygnificatntly lower and so therfor is the distance (from the moving objects point of view) this results in a substantially higher rate of muon detection than predicted when not accounting for reletiistic effects, several years later einstein postulated his second theory of reletivity (general) this was substantially more complex as it took into accound gravitation, and explained it as the distortion of spacetime due to the preasance of large amounts of mass ( insert rubbersheet 2 dimentional analogie here) the fact is we cant visualise this since we cant see things in 4 dimentions, anyways this theory has also been proven by several methods, since mass is deforming space time there are several know effects 1) distances should change for a known speed inside and outside a gravity well, 2) time should change (move slower) the further from a gravity well you get, both of these effects have been desmostrated, the deformation of space by broadcasting a signal from a satelite the othewr side of the sun at a known time and analysing the time it took to arive (since the speed of light is absoolute it must therfore take a longer route when close to the suns ravity well than we observe so we would observ it taking longer to arrive than it should and 2) by the flight of atomic clocks in orbit and on aircraft that can mesure the microscoptic differences in time when flown at different altitudes (infact reletivity is so necessary that they have to factor it into the atmoc clocks aboard gps satelites to provided accurate positioning data, and finaly black holes, points where the space time is so distorted light cannot escape, einstein also theorised that two black holes interacting would produce rippes in space time that could be detected, again by using light but in this case the light inframoeter called LIGO (incidentally its 4 mile long arms actually have to be higher above the ground at the end to account for the curve of the earth since the light is straight so thats flat earth out the window) which detects change in space time by pouncing the same light pirpendicular to eachother anc causing it to interfere via a diffractiongrating (very similar to the michaleson morely set up on a large scale) so far LIGO has detected gravitational waves from ineracting black holes 3 times and their data has been confirmed by independant infraometers accross the world and by every scientist int he field, so no gravity isnt some made up baloney it is a well under stood natual force we can obsere mesure and have to take account of in every day life but i also know there is a fat change of you, as a flat earther having an attention span long enough to read this but oh well No 574) Water on the oceans actually form a munisucs. The water near the shore is higher than in the middle of the oceans, because the continents attract the water upwards. Water 30 miles out could be 1 km lower, water in the middle of the ocean could be 4.5 Km lower, than at the shore! This effect, and atmospheric lensing, explains a lot of FE issues with being able to see farther across water. All due to gravity! https://pos-map.appspot.com/en/coordinates60.html No 575) Karol Masztalerz - Meanwhile the false globe is capable of predicting a double eclipse on fucking Jupiter, as photographed here by me using a 20cm f/6 remote telescope of mine (Clerc-renaud Frédéric that's the image from video I sent you yesterday :) ) No 576) Paul Murray IV - How do all of your smart phones, GPS, DirecTV, and internet all work in a flat model despite ALL satellites and transmitters and receivers are calibrated to the round model? They were all designed and engineered based on a spherical planet. No 577) Michael Martinez - So it appears i have been blocked by the cowards that asked for testable and repeatable experiments to prove gravity. I would like to address this topic in hopes you other flattys can relay the information. We use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which lets us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc. Can density, buoyancy or electro magnetism allow you to make those calculations flattys? Also I'm not sure if you flatardians knew this about Newton, but he was able to predict the presence of the 8th planet Neptune based on calculations related to gravitational perturbations upon the orbit of Uranus unrelated to those observed by the 6 inner planets. Now this was all before the planet Neptune was even discovered. So again ask yourselves to what extent must gravities calculations be used and verified before you will accept it's presence? No 578) Laine Harris - On ALL high alt videos the horizon is ALWAYS the same distance away regardless of which direction the camera is pointing. If the earth was flat the horizon would be shorter in the direction of the wall and a lot further away in any other direction. (Not to mention that you'd actually see the ice wall in balloon footage from Australia, South America and South Africa) No 579) Chris Brown - Why are some parts of the flat Earth farther away receiving sun, while some parts closer, over the poles are in night time? No 580) Day/night terminator line crescent shaped on flat Earth: ----- Bruce Ing - Why is there a day/night terminator line, that is equal to a globe being tilted at 23.5 degrees, on a flat Earth? No 581) India just launched it's heaviest ever rocket: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC5RwKEB2qg No 582) How gravity changes with location: ------- Floyd Marston - Gravity.. Bitches :v https://www.metabunk.org/codys-lab-how-weight-changes-with-location.t8783/#post-206982 No 583) Proofs of gravity: --------- No 583a) Water is attracted to shore by the continental mass. No 583a-1) The water is higher at the shore No 583a-2) Than it is out to see. No 583b) Flying east or west, one would weigh more or less, due to increased or decreased centripetal force: (See No No 196) ----------- - You weigh 1% less, going east than going west, due to centripetal force! (See video No 583b - Cody's lab) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkG1iFanoNo Flying west 499 grams versus 495 grams flying east No 583c) Slinky drop test: (See No 138) -------- Slinky tests disproves the Earth rising towards us. It shows that we are falling towards the Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59dANJTLbyo No 583d) Things don't fall because of density in zero g: (See No 4) ---- Density in Zero g: - It is proposed that things rise and fall due to density, which on the surface seems plausible, however, this can be disproven because things don't separate in zero g. - Different density liquids in zero g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI (Aklerselter and water in zero g): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgC-ocnTTto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIiZCbyqJu4 (See figure 583d) No 583e) Gravity and vacuum experiments: (See No 454) -------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Zb3xAgIoY (Feather and nut in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV-qyDnZx0A&t=9s (feather and coin in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuULvNItSIw (apple racing a feather in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVktTyEtcBQ (coin and feather in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RKAb5accC0 (feather and "hammer" in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDmb-AVTM6k (Falling box with water) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs&t=18s (bowling ball and feather) No 583f) Propose experiment": Take a spring scale and a balance scale and measure two identical objects in different locations. - The balance scale will always say the two masses are the same. - The spring scale will have different reading depending on where one is, due to fluctuations in gravity! No 584) The sun would have to be the same radius away to stay the same size on flat Earth: ---------- Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr (See illustration) Bruce Ing - So the flat Earth sun must be going in an arch over one heads to stay the same size. That means it pops up through the ground 3,000 miles away, to the east of us, and sets back into the ground/ocean 3,000 miles west of us. Totally impossible! Inconsistent with reality! Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr - Inconsistent with flat earth reality in every case No 584b) Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr (See illustration) Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr - But the horizon is always at 0° level with the earth. That is you are looking straight ahead, not up when the sun disappears No 584c) Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr - Assuming the equator is 25,000 miles around with a diameter of 8000 miles and the sun doesn't even lose any angular size until after 3000 miles away from you, I think that this is an awkward state of affairs for the flat earth model. No 585) Zev-Velvel Griner - So, what is the FE excuse for shooting stars? Is it a piece of the moon that came off or just fairy dust? No 586) Kushal Pandey - How do flerfers explain the Halley's comet? ------------ Malmin Lee Exactly ! How the fuck does it return if we are spinning Axially at 1040 mph ,round the solar system at 66,600, the solar system at half a million ,and the Milky Way in millions lmfao The constellations are as fixed as the comets and meteor showers Wake up or get a new job! No 586a) Philip Cowley - The Earth's axial rotation is irrelevant to comets' motions as comets are orbiting the sun, not the Earth. The Earth's revolution around the sun is also irrelevant to comets' motions as they orbit the sun not the Earth. The movement of the solar system through the Milky Way is also irrelevant to comets' motions as they are moving with the rest of the solar system. The constellations are not fixed, they just change too slowly for the unaided eye to see over a single lifetime. However all astronomers know that all stars have a "proper motion" across the sky which is why star charts have to be redrawn every 50 years. Comets are not fixed at all, they move under the effects of gravity just like everything else. No 586b) Bruce Ing - Malmin Lee, comet Haley returns. It's a fact. - The fact that you don't understand or believe it, just shows that you don't understand relative motion! - The solar system is a unit. The Earth goes around the sun and Haley's comet goes around the sun. That is how it is explained, simply and consistently. - How can flat Earth explain something with a 76 year cycle? No 586c) Malmin Lee - I could say that to yourself as you were the person quoting forces that can't be proven in any way Or I could just ask for a practical example of gravity? Or even give me a practical example of Water adhering to the exterior of a shape that's still not moving in 5 relative motions (just to give you a chance!) Bruce Ing - Malmin Lee, predicting the return of Haley's comet IS a practical example of gravity! No 587) Some points on gravity: -------- Krisztian Erdodi - You can do a practical for gravity, take two large lead balls, place them in a controlled environment at minimal friction by suspension and watch them attract, look it up on YouTube. Krisztian Erdodi - Imagine a universe with no bodies, just gas. Now theoretically, if there isn't enough gas to fill the space properly, it will still be relatively evenly distributed. Now stick a massive object somewhere in this universe which attracts the gas. What do you think would happen? Krisztian Erdodi - Some experiments like that of pressure can't be replicated at small scale because of the limitation of equal atom size Krisztian Erdodi - Water does not adhere to earth, that's just retarded. It's attracted to it and there's nothing to make it move away from the earth so why wouldn't it stay? Krisztian Erdodi - And relative motion is irrelevant because it's relative so doesn't represent forces on the object No 588) Strong force and electromagnetism in atoms: ----------- Malmin Lee - Atoms supposedly have gravity hence why the protons nuetrons and electrons orbit the nucleas So again your talking out your arse As well as gas and a vacuum can't exist side by side Doh! Bruce Ing - You have that wrong. - Protons and neutrons are held together by the strong nuclear force. - Electrons are attracted by electromagnetic charge. -------------- The strongest forces work over the shortest distances and the weakest forces work over the longest distances. Hence why gravity is so effective and universal! No 589) Paul Opoka - How do globboids explain this https://youtu.be/qd8vwIKQMfo ------------ No 589a) Philip Cowley - Your video is awful, Paul Opoka... You make fallacious point after fallacious point... then make unsupported claims like "there is factual data and evidence" for a flat Earth (3:57), and "they've engineered it that way" (4:12) Philip Cowley - From about 4:00 onwards in your video you just spew out a whole list of lies. All of these things HAVE been observed and measured... Your ignorance of that fact doesn't prove a flat Earth. Philip Cowley - All the flat earth ideas account for one or two variables, but ignore dozens more. Not one flat earth "theory" can account for ALL the phenomena we observe in just the sun's apparent motion. The Heliocentric globe Earth model accounts for EVERY observation. Philip Cowley - I have been an astronomer for three decades. I have observed from the arctic circle to the tropics. Philip Cowley - BTW... if you claim that all NASA "evidence" is manufactured... then YOU have to PROVE that it ALL is manufactured. No 589b) Kushal Pandey - alrigth Paul Opoka call your momma tell her you gon be late coz your ass is about be schooled. firstly you are dumb. second : water does not stick to fountain sphere because earth is pulling it down. Simple law of gravity Heavier pulls more. I don't need to tell you which is heavier the earth or fountain sphere. Kushal Pandey - If there was any huge body with more mass than earth and close enough to earth. Earth's water would be attracted to it. If there was a body lighter than earth and at some distance not very far away it can attract earth's water towards it self and cause it to rise. oh wait there is the moon .. it causes tides. Kushal Pandey - Paul because you're too dumb a to understand basic laws of nature and too poor to afford good education .. doesn't mean you can call hardworking dedicated intelligent people losers and idiots. While "Globoids" were busy doing real science you were busy in what I assume was a drug deal.. cause you have to real high to dicredit years of scientific development with a 14 minute video if a illiterate guy faking an accent. I'm this mad because my dad works for Indian Space research organisation. I've seen the dedication they put into making our lives better. http://www.firstpost.com/.../gslv-mark-iii-maiden-launch... No 589c) Krisztian Erdodi Btw, as to your water attraction argument, the water is orbiting the sun too. There is no reason for it to be attracted off. The only situation where it would be attracted off is where the earth would be closer to the sun while maintaining the same relative speed and in that case, it would crash into the sun as it wouldn't be able to stay in orbit No 590) Balanced and unbalanced gravitational situations: ------------ Bruce Ing - Paul Opoka, Krisztian Erdodi is correct. The thing to note is that everything in orbit is in BALANCE. If there were something below us with enough gravity to pull all the water off the planet, then that means that object and the Earth aren't in equilibrium. The ENTIRE Earth would be pulled down too, at the SAME acceleration! So, the situation of the Earth being still and having it's water pulled off of it could never happen. Either; 1) BALANCED GRAVITY: Another object and the Earth are in orbit of each other and everything is BALANCED (e.g. satellites, moon, Earth's orbit around the sun). OR 2) NOT BALANCED GRAVITY: Things aren't balanced and the entire Earth, water, rocks and all would be attracted down. (E.g. water, birds, air and us on the Earth are not balanced, we are pulled as close as possible to the center of the Earth) No 591) Sun setting with solar filter: -------------- Charly Rabbitt - Can a flerfer please explain what's happening here? Daniel Aliyev This photo was taken with a solar filter, so excess light doesn't spread over the water Dave Green The moon can do it too! Also planets and stars! SCIENCE!!! Brien Muñóz It looks like the sun is setting below the curve of the horizon. - Just like it does EVERY SINGLE DAY No 592) Most open water is wavy and not mirror smooth, so it shows the sun as a long streak: -------------- Joao Matias - but just look this No 592a) Bruce Ing - Joao Matias, those are not flat surfaces, they are wavy! So the light reflects in all directions. - When you look in a mirror, you get a perfect image, not a long image of your face! - Only on small lakes and ponds will you get a mirror like finish. Like this picture. No 593) Semi-circular perspective: ----------- Nick Murphy (Nick is joking but this is an actual flat Earth reason.) - This is semicircular perspective. Different to one, two and three point perspective, it causes objects not to shrink to a single "point", but to a single semi circle. The reason it appears to touch the horizon is just coincidental, because the horizon is also affected by semicircular perspective but it is much larger. Bruce Ing - If you zoom in, you find that semi-circular perspective doesn't work! Semi-circular perspective is just perspective. If a circular object is too far away, you can't resolve enough detail to see that it is the small details on the bottom . However, as I said, zoom in, and you can see the bottom of the sun is actually cut off by the horizon! No 594) Travelling east west around the world - done millions of times. - Travelling north/south - don Zero times! ------------- Benjamin Hansi's claim. (See meme) Justin Leroy Brown - It's been done hundreds of times actually, but these guys were the first https://mobile.nytimes.com/2002/07/17/world/charles-burton-59-a-pole-to-pole-explorer.html?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F Kieran Colfer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46C8DFcBsPs Kieran Colfer https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxnoGhkPFweUNOg25rCRRI3sXnHjjb8f8 Kira Kirstyn Simpkins - 1. You're admitting to east/West CIRCUMnavigating. 2. You're flat out lying about North/ South. Jairo Amaral - Why do I know this, and Benjamin Hansi doesn't? Because flat earthers only hear what their echo chamber spoonfeeds them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transglobe_Expedition Bruce Ing - Even if it weren't done many times. Why would someone schedule flights across vast stretches of ocean and over freezing lands, without picking up a single passenger along the way? - No one lives there! Get it? ------- What you are doing is called moving the goal post. - You ask for proof then make an excuse and it is never good enough. - Well tough, there is plenty of proof for the globe! - You guys deny sun rise and sun set, for goodness sakes! Kira Kirstyn Simpkins - Exactly Bruce Ing why can't I book a flight from Capetown to to Boise Idaho they will cry with zero understanding of supply and demand or flight laws and taxes. No 595) Shouldn't density work sideways to? -------- Zev-Velvel Griner - !! PROOF THAT GRAVITY EXISTS !! Just go to your neighbor's car and LIFT IT. What happens? You CAN'T lift it. Why? Because, according to FEs, it's "density" is so great that you can't lift it. Now, ask your neighbor to disengage the parking break and put the car in gear. NOW, PUSH IT. What happens? You CAN push it. Why? Even though the car has the same "density"?? Shouldn't it be just as impossible to push it?? Doesn't this "density" work vertically and horizontally?? GRAVITY is the force that pulls everything to everything. Since the earth is the biggest thing around us, it pulls everything to it. DOWN is the pull toward the center of the earth. UP is 180deg away from the center of the earth. That's why you CAN'T LIFT the car. Earth's GRAVITY is pulling it down. There is too much car to lift. BUT, you CAN PUSH the car sideways because the force you create by pushing the car is enough to move it. No 595b) Zev-Velvel Griner - Here is the real proof about gravity. Put the car in a sling and lift it by a crane so it is simply hanging in mid-air, not attached to the ground. Get UNDER it and try to push UP on it. You won't be able to make it move. Get SIDEWAYS on it and push, You will be able to make it swing. No 596) Sun, Moon, and Stars Prove the Flat Earth flat Earth video: --------- Geoff Henig (See video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5LzJrVKmBk&feature=youtu.be ---------- Bruce Ing - What you don't seem to get is relative motion and how the distances involved are the reason why things work! You video shows basic things that have been explained over and over again. 1) Crepuscular rays - an optical illusion, just like train tracks going off to a point, but in reverse - If the sun were really that close, it would only be a mile or two above the clouds! 2) "Hot spots" reflect off of waves, because waves are at every angle. - A flat mirror doesn't curve light or make it straight it shows a point. A curved mirror stretches a light. However, in this case it is neither, it is waves that are reflecting in every direction 3) How NASA gets detailed pictures of objects from space: NASA uses picture stacking, just like some of the amateur astronomers on our site do - besides these objects are massive. Stellar nebula can be 11,000 light years across. 4) Midnight sun: A 24 hour sun makes perfect sense for the north pole in the summer (June/July) and the south pole in December - It is visible above the Arctic Circle or below the Antarctic circle (that is why they have those designations!) 5) The Earths tilt explains the seasons very well. We get 4 times more solar energy (twice the strength and twice the duration) in the summer as in the winter - Antarctica is a solid land mass, so it doesn't have the moderating effects of water in the interior, it therefore gets and stays colder than the north pole - Noon doesn't change to midnight sun because our clocks are adjusted to take into account this 0.9857 degree (360/365.24) change every day. 6) Phases of the moon - The phases work correctly. The moon goes on a 29 day cycle, INDEPENDENT of the Earths rotation or the orbit around the sun. So the phases are just the phases, a complete set every 29 days. Not that a full moon can be on any day of the month, it's literally it's own cycle. - We can see the sun and moon during the day because we can be anywhere in our own revolution when this happens. Just pick a spot on the Earth that matches a certain time of day and place the moon around the Earth in the rigth position to see that particular phase. - The moon is far enough away that it can be a full moon over a wide range of times. The sun can be to the East and the moon to the west, or visa versa and the moon can be full. 7) Seeing stars - Stars are very, very far away. So are visual angul of them is very small. So, yes, we can see the same visual angle of any start or constellation from different places at the same time. - The angular diameter of these constellations is so small compared to the distance that they would hardly seem to move over thousands of years. 8) Polaris out of alignement? - Although We travel 93x2=186 million miles from one side of the sun to the other, Polaris is 433 light years away. A light years is 5.879 trillion miles, so it is 186,000,000 million miles travelled vs 2,541,516,403,968,000 miles. Polaris is 13.664066 Million TIMES farther than the orbit of Earth. The parallax from such a distance is negligible. *** Also, Polaris and the sun are moving in the same relative direction - The Earth's axis of rotation also wobbles around in a circle every 26,000 years, so in 2,000 years Polaris won't be the north star, but another star will. That also means, in 13,000 years, what are summer constellations now, will be winter and visa versa. *** The seasons will switch. 9) We are rotating: The north and south rotate around different fixed points - As previously said, we are rotating in the same direction with polaris and the constellations in our own galaxy. So the positions don't change very quickly (thousands of years). - The Angles and latitudes to the north star correspond. On a flat Earth, polaris has to be at different distances! 10) Filming both pole stars, (with a fish eyed lense, to see more than 180 degrees) can only be done on a spherical Earth. - Why? because this effect happens all around the equator, AT THE SAME TIME! *** On a flat Earth, there isn't even a southern pole star anyways! 11) Sun, moon and universe are exact: No, everything is in equilibrium due to gravity. Gravity is balanced with centripetal motion. This happens automatically. Things going faster spiral out until they reach equilibrium and things going slower spiral in until they are at a fast enough (speed/centripetal motion to equal gravity.) No 597) The days are getting longer: ------- Bruce Ing - We know that the tides give energy to the moon and it gets farther away. - At the same time, the Earth spins a little slower. How is this explained on a flat Earth? No 598) Flat Earthers don't understand the significance of the horizon and the difference between curvature and hidden curvature: ------------- No 598a) Bruce Ing - Hidden curvature starts AFTER the horizon. The Earth does start curving at your feet, but you can see all of the ground right up to the horizon! *** Curvature is NO the same as HIDDEN CURVATURE! *** No 598b) Hidden Curvature starts AFTER the horizon. That is the point where water stars curving down below our line of sight. (See diagram No 598b) No 598c) Bruce Ing - The horizon is twice the distance below eye level! The horizon is a given distance. Our line of sight from eye level to ground level, has curved down the same amount as the ground has curved to the horizon. Thus there are two equal curves to the horizon. So, for close distances, the horizon is about twice our eye level from the ground! (See digram No 598c) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10156888255651795/ No 599) Eric Dubay 200 proofs debunk: -------- Courtesy Floyd Marston; (See link No 599) https://200proofsearthisnotflat.blogspot.ca/2016/02/debunking-dubay-1-7200.html (Link no longer available - Jan 17,2020) No 599b) Floyd Marston Check Reds Rhetoric channel and how he rips Jeranism into little pieces every single time. -------------- (Removed, link doesn't work) Gheorghe Nistor For the first moronic step is this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg&feature=youtu.be (Video no longer available) No 599c) Debunk Eric Dubay's 200 Proofs: (See video No 599c) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZORin57WyM No 599d) Debunk Eric Dubay 200 Proofs: Here are a series of videos debunking the 200 proofs. (See link No 599d) https://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/961-eric-dubay-his-200-proofs-earth-is-not-a-spinning-ball-debunked Video list; No 599d-01 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 1 and 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzeXFGgCMFI No 599d-02 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 3-5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh_NIqQmA1g No 599d-03 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 6-12: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5GDMRnO2p4&t=30s No 599d-04 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 13-15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9hApegPaeQ&t=3s No 599d-05 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 16-19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6GuBnDK9SQ No 599d-06 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 20-31: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TslqS9ATeLY&t=200s No 599d-07 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 32-38: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Aq4JlubbQA&t=248s No 599d-08 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 39-42: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69xf-GgcmIQ&t=386s No 599d-09 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 43-59: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWlrF28GGVQ&t=363s No 599d-10 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 60-66: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkq7ZCHdvoI No 599d-11 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 67-97: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOVYDeT0IdI No 599d-12 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 98-105: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcE8Xb0ZZAs No 599d-13 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 106-109: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUWfmdx_YJ8 No 599d-14 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth Addendum to "Proof" 108: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJsIEgFUotU No 599d-15 - DEbunking 200 "Proofs: for a flat Earth 109-118: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3awvORBJ8 Videos 1 to 11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzeXFGgCMFI&list=PLGSTO75_3Rv_gvv4rPK8VUfBypyBhgWn0 search for; https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Debunking+200+%22Proofs%22+for+a+flat+Earth%3A+Rhetoric%26Discourse No 599e) Refutation: 200 Flat Earth Proofs by Eric Dubay (See link No 599e) https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/11/refutation-200-flat-earth-proofs-by.html No 600) Jamie Fisher - How about this you can see the sun light stretching up ? Jonathan Barron - Do you think that is because the sun is right there in that cloud? No 601) Ivan Woods - More than 38,000 tourists visited Antarctica and surrounding waters in the 2015-2016 season, a 29 percent increase from a decade earlier, according to the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators. China accounts for a growing proportion of the visitors. No 602) Ivan Woods - nearly 5 days of sunlight 24/7 . . . . https://vimeo.com/208466944 No 603 - Can somebody pls explain, if the moon is lite by the sun reflecting on it, where is the light on the clouds coming from? --------- Bruce Ing - The clouds are being lit up by moon light. Philip Cowley - Light from the sun illuminates the moon's surface (or at least that part of the surface that faces the sun). A small fraction of that light (about 12%) is scattered back into space, and some of that comes our way, lighting up clouds and allowing you to see the moon. No 604) Kenneth A. Fights - Quick question: If the earth was flat, how come we never reach the horizon? No 605) Umbra and Penumbra: -------------- Because the sun is so very big, even though it is very far away. The moon can't block the sunout 100% across the entire Earth. For most of the shadow, light from one part of the sun or another can still shine on the shadow. This causes a lighter shadow ring (the Penumbra) and a small darker shadow where there is no light (the Umbra). This is further proof that the sun is very far away and very big. No 606) Lunar Eclipse: ---------- A lunar eclipse happens when the shadow of the Earth goes in front of the moon. (See collage No 606a) No 606b) This produces a reddish shadow, because light from the sun goes through the atmosphere around the edges of the Earth. (See picture No 606b) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10156180826796795/ No 607) Up and down are not relative to the south pole BUT to relative to the center of the Earth: -------- Flat Earthers keep saying Australians are upside down, however, everyone is tilted relative to the south pole. It doesn't matter, because up and down aren't relative to the south pole, but towards the center of the globe Earth! No 608) Jonathan Barron These are actual pictures from space http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/satellite/news/himawari89/20141218_himawari8_first_images.html No 609) Floyd Marston - The flat Earth MYTH states the Sun shrinks over the course of a day and vanishes to nothing at night. But, a magic flat Earth camera can zoom it back. Here we see how the angular size of the Sun stays the same all through the day. This is only possible on our Rotating Spheroid Planet. No 609b) Michael Martinez No 609c) Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr No 609d) Besson Laurent (51 pictures): https://www.facebook.com/besson.laurent/media_set?set=a.10154960461546718.1073741894.632631717&type=3&hc_location=ufi The size never change...... The sun at 9h36 (morning) would have about 6 size less than at zenith at 12h30.... https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154960632821718&set=a.10154960461546718.1073741894.632631717&type=3&theater No 609e)Besson Laurent https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154960632821718&set=a.10154960461546718.1073741894.632631717&type=3&hc_location=ufi No 610) Besson Laurent - And there's a part of science that sudy the sun corona.... https://www.google.fr/search?q=coronographie%20soleil&client=firefox-b-ab&nfpr=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiY-Y69gLPUAhUQahoKHR4WA00Q_AUICSgE&biw=1680&bih=893#tbm=isch&q=coronography+sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronagraphhttps://www.google.fr/search?q=coronagraph%20sun&hl=fr&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiruc3mgLPUAhXMWhoKHfKeA9cQ_AUIBigB&biw=1680&bih=893 No 610b) Besson Laurent - This technique is like simulating a solar eclipse...... So the size is important and doesn't depend on the hour! No 611) Flat Earth dishonesty - Zooming in on the horizon: ----------- James William Kaler - Don't be under any illusions flat Brainers. I am not here to debate you, I am here to expose you. I have no respect for anything you have to say. I can't find the words to describe the utter contempt I have for the entire flat Earth movement, and I find the people involved are the most revoltingly dishonest people I have ever encountered. They are pathetic excuses for human beings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8m1u2ORXmE No 612) China preparing for manned lunar landing: http://www.iflscience.com/space/china-says-it-is-preparing-for-a-manned-lunar-landing/ No 613) Gravity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation No 614) The Mars Rover vehicle: https://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience/videos/1773337072687296/ No 615) Why can't we see all of flat Earth: ----------- Chris Boose - Disregarding the shape of the horizon in the pic below, can anyone explain to me why, if Earth is flat, we can't see ALL the known land masses laid out below us in high-altitude pics? No 615b) Chris Boose - Here's what Earth looks like from 917,265 miles away. So much for a flat horizon "no matter how high above the ground".... No 616) Chris Boose - You folks are fun with your little FE hypothesis. Here's the footage from the Globebusters launch. You'll notice you're looking down on the western part coast of North America, as it appears on a globe. Super weird how even FE groups capture footage of only the sphere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv4Hwk17F8Y How a rocket works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0AMQ6kRNMA No 617) Flat Earther reverting back: ----------- Eric Lewis - Chris how come no 'flat earthers' ever revert back and start believing in the globe again? Chris Boose - This guy used to be a flat Earther, then he changed his mind, now he makes quite a few vids debunking the flat Earth hypothesis. https://www.youtube.com/user/reversecourse No 618) Kasper Poulsen - Around 100km up. No 619) Clerc-renaud Frédéric yes it does, since it cannot be falsified. HGE-model works perfectly. If you disagree find a location on the globe where the HGE-computed sunrise and sunset times are not valid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation No 620) John Gerald Bordeos Mazo No 621) How does the flat Earth sun work during the equinox? ------------ FE MYTH Destroyed yet again. It's only a few morons that still cling onto the flat Earth fantasy. They are just Victims of their own LOW IQ. (See meme No 621) No 622) Proof vs evidence: ----------- Dan Renner - "Science DOES NOT subscribe to the concept of "proof" and I have repeated this to people DOZENS of times here. But you're all allergic to learning a single damned thing, so you're not bothered by a video claiming "scientific proof". There is NO SUCH FUCKING THING, Moron! The word "proof" is properly applied to maths and alcohol... THAT'S ALL! The context you idiots keep applying is an absolute FALLACY. That's why I asked for evidence. And what you have provided, is "EVIDENCE" that the person (or people), behind this video, are absolute idiots!" No 622b) Evidence is not absolute. It is support for a hypothesis. - However, if there is enough evidence, along with testing and confirmation, it can become overwhelming support for a hypothesis. We call these scientific theories! No 623) CGI - photo editing; ------------- Dan Renner - Pascal Xavier, and the first proclaimed "proof" that the images are "fake", is the fact that they have been Photoshopped. So fucking what? Photoshop DOES NOT MEAN "fake"! Let me give you an example EVEN YOU might understand. Is this fake? Does this person not actually exist? Is the photo "CGI"? No 623b) Dan Renner - Here's a comparison of the original, next to the Photoshopped image. The Photoshopped image is on the bottom. So tell me, smart-guy, which one looks most like the actual object when it was photographed? Is it the unedited one on the top, or the Photoshopped one on the bottom? No 623c) Dan Renner - OBVIOUSLY, Pascal Xavier, the one on the bottom is the most realistic. I applied a process called "Frequency Separation", which allows me to essentially "peel" the textures off of a photo, and then apply various processes to the tones (essentially "colors/hues"), of a photograph, separately from the defining textures of the photo. So I was able to reduce the artificial texture in the original photo. What you flat-Earth retards fail to understand, and don't accept even when I SHOW you, is that photo editing - more often than not - is used to restore realism to photos, when it has been lost through the processes of photography. You don't understand that even the photographs you take on your cell phone HAVE BEEN PROCESSED. I'll give an example of what a partially processed photo looks like. This crop from a photo, HAS BEEN PROCESSED, the way your digital camera processes photos. But not all of the necessary steps have been applied. Your camera can only capture one color value per pixel. The other two values are calculated. By altering variables in the chroma-calculations, you can alter the hue, intensity, and saturation of the colors. This image has undergone a gamma curve adjustment. Without that, it would look horribly washed out and faded. NO digital photo, is unprocessed. Before it looks at all natural to you, it MUST undergo rather extreme processing. So when NASA receives the raw data from a satellite camera, OF COURSE they have to process it! In fact, even most amateur photographers (such as myself), shoot our photos in RAW format, rather than JPG format. That's because when a camera converts the raw data it captures, first to a bit-map photo, and then to a JPG, it has to make decisions about what data to utilize, and what data to discard. By the time your photo is a JPG that you can view, 15/16ths of the captured data has been discarded. By shooting in RAW formate, we receive a much larger file. But if I sent one of my NEF format files to you, you probably couldn't even look at it. You don't have an applicable viewer. But I get ALL of the information captured by my camera, and can then use software such as LightRoom, or Photoshop, to make my own decisions about what information is used for the final JPG. ALL DIGITAL IMAGES ARE PROCESSED, whether this happens in the camera, or external to the camera. So noting that NASA processes its RAW data, DOES NOT suggest that the photos are fake. It shows that NASA doesn't strap $100 point&shoot cameras to satellites, and that they actually care to produce the best quality images possible. No 623d) Dan Rennerr - In EVERY instance where flat-Earthers offer what they see as anomalies or specious practices in NASA photos, it turns out to be their own devout ignorance to the actual process of digital photography. Take a digital photo isn't like taking a film photo, and even film photography requires processing. That's why you send your film off to be developed. That's why they have computerized machines to analyze the negative, and make adjustments to the processing variables, even as the print is being produced. If you'd actually LEARN something about these topics, then you wouldn't shoot your mouth off like an idiot, you wouldn't be so easily fooled by the stupidity of people producing these silly videos, and you WOULD NOT be a flat-Earther. No 623e) Dan Renner - It's nothing of the sort. And ONCE AGAIN... THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING THING AS "PROOF" (aside from maths and alcohol). But this isn't even evidence that the photos have been faked. It is evidence of what anyone with a brain already knows - NASA doesn't strap cheap fucking cameras to satellites, and then beam back JPGs. The file extension "JPG" stands for "Joint Pictures Expert Group", and that's the organization who developed the compression standard. But JPG compression LOSES information. It keeps file sizes small, by tossing out information which is less critical to the content of the photo. If you save an image as a JPG, then load the new image in again, save it, load the new image, save it... repeatedly, you can see the slow degradation of the photo. And if you do this enough, you'll start to see multi-colored jagged anomalies in the photo known as "JPG Artifacts". And most flat-Earthers have seen these, and have posted them as supposed "proof" that the photo is fake. If you were NASA and spent BILLIONS of dollars to obtain photographs, would you subject them to lossy compression algorithms before you had a chance to see them? Or would you want every bit of data the camera captured? Having all of that data means that you HAVE to utilize photo processing software in order to produce an image the average person can see. No 624) Nicholas D'Alessandro Jr - Why is it that, in the morning, when the sun is to the east of the moon only the east side is lit up and in the evening, when the sun is to the west of the moon only the west side of the moon is lit up? https://youtu.be/ZW3lSURWHUs No 625) Pascal Xavier - Even the Greeks and the Romans knew that the earth is not flat: http://www.newsweek.com/even-middle-ages-people-didnt-think-earth-was-flat-420775 No 626) Floyd Marston - Of course they knew we lived on a globe. Here we have 2500 year old globe earth model. No 627) Steve Halsted - Where I live theres a 4000 km snowmobile race every 4 years. There's no infrastructure for underground cables or properly placed towers to grant the racers and support teams access to GPS and satellite phones. The race follows a different path each time, yet apparently, theres no such thing as satellites and somehow the people involved in these events can still communicate and follow a path accurate to within a few feet. I've yet to have this point addressed by a flat earth theory. No 628) Kail Weathers - If only flat earthers understood relative motion. the sad part is they don't even know enough to understand why this matters. ;( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnadWopcpDc No 629) Nick McNeely - You know that airplane navigational gyros explicitly compensate for both rotation and curvature, right? //Because the Earth rotates (?, 15° per hour, apparent drift), and because of small accumulated errors caused by imperfect balancing of the gyro, the heading indicator will drift over time (real drift), and must be reset using a magnetic compass periodically. The apparent drift is predicted by ? sin Latitude and will thus be greatest over the poles. To counter for the effect of Earth rate drift a latitude nut can be set (on the ground only) which induces a (hopefully equal and opposite) real wander in the gyroscope. Otherwise it would be necessary to manually realign the direction indicator once each ten to fifteen minutes during routine in-flight checks. Failure to do this is a common source of navigation errors among new pilots.// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heading_indicator?wprov=sfla1 No 630) The moon's size varies slightly during it's orbit. ----------- Robert Pickard (See illustrations) No 630b) Robert Pickard Apogee, and perigee. Flat Earthers ignore that. No 631) Matt Garrett - https://youtu.be/yVVFx7q0v-k No 632) If the world were magnetic: - metal would stick to everything - people couldn't lift magnetic or metal objects - the level of magnetic strength needed to hold flesh and non-magnetic objects down would be physically dangerous (metal objects flying around and ripped out of the body. e.g MRI machines) and could even kill or cause severe mental trauma! No 633) Putting Earths rotation in perspective: ---------------- I think the point flat Earther's don't get is THINGS DON'T JUST HOVER! 1) Sure if you were hovering 20 feet off the ground, motionless and the Earth were going by, 1039 mph is REALLY FAST! 2) However, say you were looking at a 50 foot diameter merry-go-round from 1 foot 7 inches away and it was turning once every 24 hours (6.5 feet per hour). Say you slowly walked around that same merry-go-round, going 1 foot 8 inches a minute. Does it look like it is going very fast? No! --------- The first example is totally unrealistic, but that's what flat Earthers keep pointing to! The second example is equivalent to the ISS. ------------ It's all about relative speed and distance. We're not wrong and reality isn't wrong, you're just cherry picking facts, exaggerating, not taking physics into account and not understanding things in context! No 634) The Nikon P900 proves that stars and planets aren't what NASA is showing us: ---------- Joseph Green - Give the P900 some credit please! You say "use a real telescope" but a "real" telescope is computer controlled; you enter in which planet / star / nebula you want to see and it is displayed on a screen. With a p900 you have to locate the planet yourself, and zoom and focus yourself. P900 is what you call independent research! Asking a computer with a zoom on it to show you a composite is not independent research!! STOP DEFENDING YOUR OWN PRISON! No 634a) Karol Masztalerz - Profesional telescope designer. Tell me more about what you know on subject of telescope making...... No 634b) Karol Masztalerz - Telescope MOUNTS are motorized, and they auto point at objects, because finding something like PGC catallogue galaxy is hard.... no wonder there are no high quality DSO images with P900 No 634c) Karol Masztalerz - Here's shot of Jupiter I took with our production 20cm f/6 reflector No 634d) Christian Johnson - wow it's amazing when I put my telescope together to look at Mars and Venus there were no electronic components must be a pretty awesome computer they put in it considering No 634e) Frederick Hashbury - Was that sarcasm? I thought you were stupid enough to use a PHOTO CAMERA for OBSERVING SPACE, Telescope have a very different component for zooming object.. No 634f) Julie van den Broeck - They really need to see it if they want to avoid this No 634g) Besson Laurent - The first step is to put the camera into manual mode No 634h) Mikey MacKinven - Wow Joseph Green, you have no idea do you? Anyone can capture photos of he stars if they wanted to, here's som I shot with a Sony a6000. No computer involved with capturing this. Most people I know with a telescope don't even use computer guidance either. No 634i) George Taylor - There is no computer on a basic reflector or refractor scope however there is a computer in that p900 George Taylor - I have both reflector and refractor scopes, there's no computer, just glass or mirrors. The p900 has a processor which is a computer No 634j) Jairo Amaral - The P900 is just out of focus. Stars and planets need manual focus mode. When the focus is correct, people take normal images of Jupiter with the P900. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JiO4jZr9CE No 634k) Caleb Hubbell - Here's an in focus picture of Jupiter taken in daylight. No 634l) Laine Harris - bullshit. - Skywatcher 254mm Skywatcher Dob. Prostar LC Guide camera. 150msec exposure. Lol at the P900... No 634m) Ivan Woods p900 photo of ISS . . . oh wait . oops No 634n) Bruce Ing - Joseph Green, follow Jairo Amaral's link and you get some amazing pictures taken with the Nikon P900! - Saturn, Nikon P900 - 1,2 billion kilometers away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=troqVst56eg No 634o) Bruce Ing - Orion Nebula 1.344 light years away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0YT3qIK7Qo No 634p) Tim Snizek - to be fair the p900 does have a 2000mm equivalent lens but that that length it does require a tripod for any kind of photo. the limit of 16mp photo quality is the bigger problem. No 634q) Philip Cowley - The Nikon CoolPix P900 has a 14mm-357mm lens. It's sensor is only a 1/2.3in subframe CMOS sensor, only 6.17mm by 4.55mm, which is little bigger than the chips used in webcams! This gives the camera the same field of view as a 2000mm lens on a full 35mm frame sensor (36mm by 24mm). In all other ways, this lens is not equivalent to a 2000mm lens. https://img.newatlas.com/camera-sensor-size-12.jpg... No 634r) Karol Masztalerz - Photo of M27 I took with Canon DSLR and my telescope. On the right to M27 you can see the same image, but resized to show the differnce in resolution of P900. That is, if everything was equal, the actual resolution of P900 is almost 5x smaller........ No 634s) Karol Masztalerz - What's even worse, not only P900 has 5x shittie resolution. The marked rectangle shows the field of view of P900 compared to my Canon. While P900 will fit only tiny portion of nebula, My EOS will fit much much more No 634t) Dave Greg - And here is Jupiter filmed CORRECTLY through my P900 with the focus and exposure set properly - unlike in the meme at the top of this thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSqPbMoASM4 No 634u) Karol Masztalerz - Here's a shot of M27 and some stars around it I took yesterday. Come back when your P900 can photograph a nebula like this. No 635) Philip Cowley - And 16MP in a 1/2.3in chip means that you have ridiculously small pixels... which makes them horribly insensitive to the very faint light from these objects. - And a 60mm objective lens is going to be no match for even my 150mm RC. - It also doesn't seem to support any lossless image formats, only JPG! No 635b) Karol Masztalerz - A properly used 60mm refractor can be better tool than a 15cm RC, if used properly. Flerf can't use it properly No 635c) Philip Cowley - My point was that a 60mm camera lens can't collect as much light as a 150mm telescope. There are so many problems with this... but as you point out, the main one is the operator! No 635d) Tim Snizek - yes only jpeg .. no RAW format No 635e) Karol Masztalerz - Philip Ware untrue. In photography of objects that aren't extremaly faint (eg. IFN) and aren't spread out too much (eg. milky way) what matters the most is not aperture, but focal ratio (f/) A 80mm f/5 catches as good DSO as a 150mm f/5, unless we're talking EFO (extremaly faint object) imaging. Ofcourse the chance of a photon hitting a 150mm lens is bigger than 80mm, but a 60mm can sometimes work the same as 15cm scope (except FoV which will be larger) No 635f) Philip Cowley - Oh. I agree that f-ratio is more important, but that P900 lens is not going to be very fast when fully zoomed in is it? No 635g) Karol Masztalerz - 60/357= some f/6? No 635h) Karol Masztalerz - It's faster than your f/9 (or so?) RC No 635i) Karol Masztalerz - f/2.8 and I took that in just 5mins ;) 1x300s, UNMODDED DSLR No 635j) Karol Masztalerz - Astrophotography takes time to learn, and what I've found, if you learn on crap equipment you'll get really good at taking images, especially when you get better equipment. I started with 70mm f/10 refractor on manual mount. Lots of struggles, but after a year I'm taking photos that already start to satisfy me ;) No 636) How to make your own telescope: ---------- Jude Jackson - Ppht if you want a real telescope, make it yourself! https://youtu.be/snz7JJlSZvw No 637) Jairo Amaral - By the way, those are all pictures of mine, taken with my own equipment. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155315474837719&set=a.10152381300302719.1073741827.572887718&type=3&theater No 638) "Education teaches you how to think, not what to think" -------- Max Rahul - In this world all the people are programmed from childhood by showing ball earth .......... And day night by rotating and sessions by revolving that's how we have been programmed like "A" for apple and "B" for ball. So any one whom you ask what is the shape of earth they will say glob same as if you ask "A" for they will say Apple and "B" for ball coz we had been taught like this . But the truth is our earth is motionless infinite flat. If our earth is rotating 1000km per hours revolving 67,000 miles per hour and all solar system moving 490,000 miles per hour but don't fill any thing and our planet didn't get hit by any astroid and why? we always see same stars. And there are lots of question that glob earther cant give the answer. No 638a) Philip Cowley - WOW... The wilful ignorance and factual errors in this post is really quite impressive. No 638b) Philip Cowley - But Max seems to think that education is "programming". What he doesn't seem to realise is that education teaches you HOW to think... not WHAT to think. No 639) Ryan Doucette - Long exposure photography taken over the entire spectrum. For photos of nebulae, the wavelength of each pixel is then shifted proportionally to the visible spectrum. This shifting of the wavelengths of the light captured by our telescopes allows astronomers to have a visual representation of all the elements and their abundance. It also makes for a really pretty picture, like this one of the Crab Nebula. No 640) NASA cover up is nothing compared to what is required by the entire world: ----------------- Joe Haley The flerf coverup involves quite a few more than "a small team of animators". Hundreds of thousands even millions would have to be actively covering up the flerf. No 640b) Bruce Ing - Every pilot, ship's captain, shipping company, anyone fueling planes, tech companies (Apple, Samsung, GPS systems etc), Google would have to be in on it. Many people, somewhere would have to be intentionally changing the co-ordinate systems of ALL the navigation systems, all around the world! No 640c) Bruce Ing - Most people feel guilt. Most hard working people are honest, proud and care about other people. The one's who don't feel guilt, who would con everyone else, are also the MOST lazy and selfish people. They wouldn't do the work! What you are talking about goes against the very nature of people! No 641) Bruce Ing - Every engineer, scientist and physicist would have to be in on it OR be to stupid to realize the truth (including me!) These are some of the MOST honest people in the world. Their job relies on it! No 642) Andrew Lomas - Whats really funny is that civilian ham radio operators have been involved in space exploration all the time. From all over the globe No 643) Floyd Marston - FE MYTH BUSTED ! No 643b) Floyd Marston - NO fish eye lens used. FE BUSTED. https://plus.google.com/109985929684244763336/posts/Ei5J3fDeD3d No 644) Mig29 high altitude flight --------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcgLH8CFEZM&app=desktop No 645) The milky Way proves flat Earth is fake: (Image from Karol Masztalerz) ------------- How can the our tilt to the plain of the galaxy be explained by flat earth? Why is there a line of stars going diagonally across the sky on flat Earth? (See image No 645) No 645b) Image of the entire visible milky way. No 646) ARISS - Amateur Radio talks to the ISS: ------ Andrew Lomas - Google ARISS Geoff Henig and deal with it. Not NASA. Not ESA. Everybody. http://www.ariss.org No 647) There are Amateur Astronomy Association groups everywhere: ----------- Besson Laurent - Imagine even in NY there's an AAA! http://www.aaa.org/ So flers no excuse to not going there or anywhere else to meet AAA ! No 648) ISS against the sun: Joe Haley (see image) No 649) Flat Earthers judging with their eyes: (Argument from incredulity) -------------- Nicholas Hunter Pitts - Does that sun look 93,000,000 miles away to you? Joseph Prince - I can't tell with just my eyes. Karol Masztalerz - Nicholas Hunter Pitts How do you judge distance by "does that look like"? Nicholas Hunter Pitts - Karol Masztalerz well 93,000,000 miles is a really really long way. I can't imagine we would be able to discern the definition and shading near the edge from an object so far away.. Karol Masztalerz - So that's your standard of evidence? well, okay. I'm just an astronomer who spent his whole life resarching this stuff. Anyway, which one is more precise in your opinion: "Doesn't look far" or "using 3 different methods: spectroscopy, photometry and apperarent parallax I measured the sun to be 149597800km away, and each method yelded the same result" No 650) Denying or excluding evidence: ------------ Nicholas Hunter Pitts - Karol Masztalerz tell me in your words Karol how does a spectroscope and photoscope prove the sun is 93,000,000 miles away? We can throw out parallax because that's just math and relativity you can't argue that one it's too simple. I just am interested to see what you're going to say about the other two. Karol Masztalerz Nicholas - if you did understand those methods you wouldnt claim They keep giving same results no matter of distance. Try photometric flux output: a smaller and nearer source of energy has to have smaller output of energy to remain same brightness. Parallax doesn't include relativity, it is pure geometry, and throwing out a scientific way of proving something is just ignorance. No 651) Ways to measure the sun: PHOTOMETRY ---------- Karol Masztalerz So that's your standard of evidence? well, okay. I'm just an astronomer who spent his whole life resarching this stuff. Anyway, which one is more precise in your opinion: "Doesn't look far" or "using 3 different methods: spectroscopy, photometry and apperarent parallax I measured the sun to be 149597800km away, and each method yelded the same result" - Spectroscopy - Photometry - Apparent parallax Karol Masztalerz Yeah...I'm a bit busy now, collimating my "photoscope" (or actually, a photometric fitted CCD camera attached to a 15cm @f/5 astrograph telescope) ----------- PHOTOMETRY: -------- Karol Masztalerz - But anyway, I'm going to briefly tell you how does flux output photometry allow to estimate distance to a body: first, we need to find temperature of body. We can do that using Wien's equation of black body radiation, and compare the measured spectra of sun to one predicted by the fore mentioned equation (and if you think the equation is fake or something, you can test it on a candle, or hot piece of melted metal) Okay, so we have the temperature of object, and it's measured brightness (from "photoscope") Now, we need the appearent size of object. We can measure that using a precise sextant with a solar filter, or just a CCD camera fitted with a telescope WITH SOLAR FILTER. NEVER EVER LOOK DIRECTLY INTO SUN OR EXPOSE YOUR CAMERA TO IT!!! We end up with appearent brightness, temperature, and angular diameter. Plug that into a bunch of handy equations which I'm too lazy to even revise ( but again you can test them on a candle etc), and you have the surface area of sun visible from earth (the part that shines on us). Knowing the half of surface area of a sphere, we can double that and get whole area. Area of a sphere is 4/3*pi*radius^3 ( i might have gotten this wrong, please correct me if I am wrong). So we can use that to calculate radius of sun, then it's diameter. If we know real diameter and angular diameter we can calculate distance using either trigonometry, or a more handy way: the correlation of angular diameter equation. You have the method, now do it yourself and test your result. Meanwhile I'm off to work on equipment. No 652) Ways to measure the sun: SPECTROMETRY ---------- Karol Masztalerz - The spectrometer method should be a bit simpler, I think. We need to measure the redshift of sun's edge and sun's CoD as they rotate. When we find out those two velocities, we need to do the same for polar regions (remeber to measure the latidute you used, eg equator and 45N) Plug that into another handy equation I'm too lazy to revise (actually, you can use two equations here, standard derivation of curvilinear motion, or fluid dynamics motion equations) and you can get the diameter of the sun. Knowing this we're back to using angular diameter equations. And voila. No 653) Photoscope ---------- Nicholas Hunter Pitts - Photoscope works too FYI Karol Masztalerz - Nicholas Hunter Pitts wtf is even a photoscope? I'll tell you: it's a name common in amateur astronomy for a astrophotography suited telescope setup. Of course,a modern photoscope probably is capable of basic photometry, but due to sun's excessive brightness there are no other objects to compare it's brightness to, so one needs a really precise camera, not something that amateurs use) Nicholas Hunter Pitts - What equipment do you use to take photometry measurements? Your eyes through your telescope? Or something better? Nicholas Hunter Pitts - If you would have had a real answer my next point would have been partially what you are saying. Everything is relative to the sun as far as brightness goes so to make any claims about it pertaining to size and distance is pretty absurd considering you have nothing else to compare it to. Karol Masztalerz - Wait, a minute ago you said you know everything about photometry, and now you're asking me what is used to take photometry? Of course not eyes, a high end photon detector that can count the amount of photons that hit sensor in given time. My personal cameras of choice are ZWO ASI 1600MMC mk3, QHY9c, SBIG XM2000. They're attached at prime and secondary focus points of BSP observatories, usually on large reflector astrographs. As you said, sun is too bright to be compared to any other star, BUT artificial comparison can be made by measuring amount of photons we get in X amount of time. Let's say that in 1second, we get N photons from sun, and we also get n/100000 from say Sirurius. We know that appearent magnitude of sun is 100000 that of Sirius. If it is absurd, then why does this method work every time, both on sun, candles, melted iron and literally anything else we measure? I described whole method, so which exact point of this method is a mistake? What do I wrong so that my result is false? Karol Masztalerz - Ps you said that brightness of everything is relative to sun. Not at all, in photometry we use given flux constant as relation point to all other measurements, but in old days when none of this was aviable we used vega as a mag -0 reference point. No 654) Three or more points of measurement disproves flat Earth: (The Polaris Effect) ---------- Nicholas Hunter Pitts //"Laine Harris as I previously mentioned I was not speaking of the theory of relativity. Maybe I should have rephrased and a better word would have been "relatively" so as to not to confuse you. you can't use parallax to confirm our relative size or location or orientation in space because we are not sure how our view from earth could be skewed by many factors. To put it simply the earth is not anything in the sky. Therefore your view or interpretation there of cannot provide empirical data as to the shape of the earth."// -------------- *** Actually that's not true! *** If you use 3 points, it can ONLY work on a sphere! Flat doesn't work. I call it the "Polaris effect". *** -------- When we look at Polaris, it may match to a certain elevation with two points, but once you try 3 points or more, it doesn't work on a flat plain! It only works on a spherical Earth. -------- The same applies to looking at the sun. From anywhere, any number of points on Earth, they get a consistent answer (and confirmation of the diameter of the Earth). However, 3 points on a flat plain, looking at the sun, proves the flat Earth is false! No 655) Overview of analysis of the horizon: -------- Bruce Ing - Every horizon is; - 360 degrees around the observer - appears flat - has a horizon a set distance, calculable by curvature - does NOT match flat Earth linear progression of distance to horizion - Is ALWAYS a circular patch of Earth This can only happen one way. Our line of sight is tangent to the horizon on a spherical Earth! No 656) Bruce Ing - "The proof that the world is very big and we are very small, is the very thing that makes it hard for people to believe!" 2017-06-17 1:18 PM EST Karol Masztalerz - I disagree with idea of epistemological skepticism. I think things can be proven beyond any doubt level. Or at least beyond human doubt level. All of us know that fire is hot, it's been proven. Claiming that " i think fire is not hot, because I'm skeptic" would be simply insane. as would be getting burnt a 1000 times and expecting not to burn at 1001 attempt. No 657) Flights across the bottom of the world: ----------------- Brice Suter - Heres more proof for anyone actually wanting to learn and not troll. The burden of proof is not on flat earthers its on the liars at NASA firstly, we have been asking them to pan the camera 180 degrees in space but nope they cant prove it because its impossible! Obama stated we dont have time for a meeting with the flat earth society ?? Well why not ? Oh is it because you want to make us feel foolish so we stop, tin foil hats n all ?. Thats a very poor last ditch attempt from a bunch of frightened NWO slime. Trump said plainly that the earth is Flat (Look it up), along with the artist B.O.B and many many others. Bill nye the so called science guy said on video the earth is an enclosed system. Nasa has said we cannot land on the moon. Now take a few minutes and just book a flight to antartica. You may book but you will never go. Trolls will say you can and they have been blah blah blah but just get a ticket for yourself and actually try to go. The routes dont exist people. They are hiding what we believe to be the garden of Eden in Antartica, why is no one is allowed to own the land, look at google earth north pole images it looks segmented and photo shopped.Despite what you "Want" to hear the truth is Jesus and he lead me to this Information. You dont have to like that fact. Just because you dont like the way I share my truth does not mean it isnt effective for God. In my view the more "You" get upset the better we are doing. God bless the Flat earth movement!!!!!! And check out both pics and look at the plane routes from South America to Austrailia ??? Its supposedly a straight shot on the old globe LIE. Whats up with the redonkulous flight patterns bouncing around so crazily. Hmmmm its because in light of the truth which is we live on a flat plane, that particular flight is the longest distance between two points. Impossible to cover up this mistake :) I suppose we waste thousands in gas a year for no reason whatsoever other than to let you see random places free ?? Evidence is everywhere. Dont let them conceal your divinity. Peace and Love to all of you !! No 657b) (See meme No 657b) No 657c) Ivan Woods - https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2015/09/09/the-santiago-sydney-antarctic-smile-qf28/ No 657d) Philip Cowley - There ARE direct flights from Australia to South Africa... No 657e) Jordan Cooper - Speaking of flight paths, Brice https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-theory-debunked-by-short-flights-qf27-qf28-from-australia-to-south-america.t6483/ No 658) We don't have to go back to the moon to go forward: ------------ Maurizio Streccioni - When the staff or the director of a motoring company retires, does production take 40 years to go back to the 1970 model? This argument is the worst ever. The nasa does not return to the moon (even if it never stopped going on Mars, or in the solar system // understand the paradox here) because it never went there. YOU CAN'T UNLEARN OR DIS-INVENT .Case closed. No 658b) Maurizio Streccioni -No 658 is Just a nice expression.. The fact is: NASA can't "return" on moon, because they CAN'T.. That is the NASA explaination. Like they are incapable to take a pic of the lunar modul up there with hubble or another tech.. (please don't tell me chinese mission already do.. The black square pixel shoot of chinise is ridiculous and doesn't prove anything.. quite the contrary) No 659) On a flat plane, going up should not make the bottom of objects reappear! ----------------- Daniel Aliyev - Zach Cummins Anu Enki Adam Bagley https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bco_p4V7-QU you're not the first flat earthers to be proven wrong, watch this. 3 flat earthers finally get off their asses and try to prove flat water over 3-4 miles, look at their faces when they realize they've been wrong this whole time No 660) The 3 stick test: ----------- Following from the Polaris Effect and it's implications for the sun (Proofs No 447 and 448), if we put 3 sticks in the ground at different radii from high noon, we would get a consistent result for the globe, but the flat Earth calculation for the distance to the sun would NOT work! Therefore, I propose putting 3 sticks in the ground, separated by several hundred miles and take shadow measurements at the same time. e.g. an extension of Eratosthenes experiment. This will confirm the globe model and disprove flat Earth! (See diagram No 660) No 661: Snipers have to take into account the globe Earth when shooting: -------- Mason Dickson - This wouldn't be possible on a globe. Checkmate globies No 661a) Bruce Ing 1) The horizon, standing 6 feet tall is 3 miles away. From a hill, like this, line of sight is 20 miles or more. *** So, no issues with curvature obscuring the target 2) A sniper has to take into account the coriolis effect and 3) the drop due to gravity! No 661b) Videos on coriolis effect: Sniper and coriolis effect; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiRaP8qxqa4 https://thearmsguide.com/5329/external-ballistics-the-coriolis-eff ect-6-theory-section/ Funny flat Earther coriolis effect and denial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95jPqnnfwoA No 662) How did the Apollo astronauts survive the Van Allen Radiation belt. - Info on types of radiation - ways of shielding etc. https://www.google.ca/search?biw=360&bih=265&tbm=vid&ei=UfpKWbeyCajVjwTUmavoAg&q=how+did+apollo+deal+with+the+van+allen+radiation+belts&oq=How+did+apollo+deal+with+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.0.0l3.1031119.1041347.0.1042101.34.32.1.1.1.0.1502.8604.0j10j11j1j0j2j0j1j1.26.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..9.25.5381.3..41.Fcmw-YXDIW0 No 663) Meteorites and comets disprove things revolving around the Earth: ---------- How do you have a comet with a 76 year orbit, or annual meteor showers, if everything is going around the Earth daily? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet No 664) Erik Landman - Qantas has flights over Antartica. No 664a) Part of Antarctica is still hundreds of miles inland! 1) Proof it is not a wall or a dome 2) Proof it is the southern part of a globe, (as it would be much farther on a flat disk.) *** A single flight proves the world is a globe! *** No 665) Gordon Gibson - see meme No 665a) CGI ... literally. Computer Generated Graphics. e.g. Made from scratch in a computer! ----------- If pictures from space aren't made from scratch but data sent from satellites, how can they be CGI? No 666) Atgeir Estrabon Palomaria - see meme No 666a) There is no edge on a sphere! No 667) Bradley Elliott - Sandy Kennedy- I am a licensed pilot (36 yrs). Flight charts of the flat earth are not sold anywhere in the world-period! The Nome Alaska sectional proves Russia is west of Alaska. Not possible on flat earth. www.pilotshop.com only 7.95$ free shipping. Not to mention the Bering straight is not that wide. You can see Russia from the U.S. Don't even have to be at high altitude. The Bering sea has a large crabbing and fishing fleet that fish the northern sea close to Russia. You can also take a short charter flight out of Nome to see Russia to the west. I have flown the northern Ak. coast myself in 88' Russia has not moved. Just take a small compass of your own with you. That way no way to dispute it. http://www.pilotshop.com/ No 668) Floyd Marston - OP Your photo is only possible on a Sphere Earth. The Sun is rising or setting at the horizon and shining upwards from the curve. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbVmM9ymjxA No 669) Nicolas Marin (see his OP) No 670) Uldis Romanovs - There are several types of horizons. No 671) Martino Mihelcich - The real sun and not star from a plane. And absolutely NOT 93 MILLION. how laughable - We win No 671a) Jairo Amaral Because the surface is curved. No 671b) Anthony Natale I made one yesterday for these idiots. Yours is better. No 671c) Jami Sipponen No 671d) Steve Halsted I - l leave this here This is my photo by the way. No 671e) Magnus Østergaard Heinesen - Yesterday at Grand Canyon No 671f) Boštjan Boik Radovan No 672) Bruce Livingston - So proof... Right? That's what everyone screams? Here is a simulation of this I just did, a work light behind a sheet of cardboard, and a hole covered in paper representing the sun. The old negatives represent clouds, and the antenna represents power lines, etc. #1 the "sun" off. #2 with the "sun" on. The exact same exposure is used in both shots. #3 The "clouds" (partially transparent film strips) look like they go behind the sun. #4 Zoomed in, the cloud still goes "behind" the sun. The antenna also seems to go behind (although less so, almost looking like it's piercing the sun. #5 Then with thicker clouds, they are now in front of the sun. The antenna will appear in front of the sun if it's in focus. This is because, unlike the clouds, it is totally opaque - light cannot go through it, only "around" it, which happens when it's out of focus. Can we put this to bed please!? No 673) Roger Morton - 1989-90 International Trans-Antarctica Expedition - path of the expedition No 674) Jonathan Barron Just takes money You can fly there yourself https://www.polar-quest.com/.../fly-to-the-south-pole-2017 No 675) Roger Morton http://www.gps.gov/multimedia/poster/poster-preview.jpg No 676) Floyd Marston - Seriously now folks. The flatEarth MYTH is now well and truly busted. Only the intelligent and honest among you will see this and move on and find a new hobby , only the uneducated, thick, retarded trolls will remain and cling to FE like a dingleberry hanging from their ass! Which one are YOU? Intelligent and honest or thick and retarded shit clinger? Make your choice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKYpMl0gJGE No 677) Julie van den Broeck Yep, Sun is sooooooooooo close... https://m.facebook.com/100009298418361/albums/1847202378933025/?ref=bookmarks No 678) Bradley Elliott http://vfrmap.com/ No 679) Nicolas Marin - Timothy Griggins, this flight does exist No 680) Michael Lott - You should be able to detect curvature from an aeroplane at a cruising height of around 10,600 metres (35,000 feet), but you need a fairly wide field of view (ie 60 degrees) and a virtually cloud-free horizon. *** The reality is that clouds, hills and mountains mean we rarely get to see the kind of perfectly flat horizon where the curve would be most obvious. Not standing on a beach looking out at 6' high. No 681) The Tangent effect: -------- Take the curved shape. Lay it so the curve is away from you, then look at it from a 3 degree angle! *** When your line of sight is tangent to the horizon at a very shallow angle, the horizon looks flat! *** I call this the tangent effect! No 682) Mark Rost - Salt flats are curved, and surveyors account for it: http://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html https://surveying2012.blogspot.ca/2014/06/error-due-to-refraction-and-curvature.html No 683) Peter Yingling - Someone please explain to me, if gravity is because of density, how a gallon of water ice can weigh the same as a gallon of room temperature water when ice is less dense than water and both will fall at the same speed? Density is not weight. No 683b) Bruce Ing - If you took; - a gallon of water (8.34 lb), - the same amount of water frozen into ice 1.04 gallons of ice (8.34 lb), or - a gallon of ice (8.019 lb), ... why do the ALL fall at the same rate? No 683c) Bruce Ing - They are either different weights or different densities. So relative to air, there should be a difference in downward force on one or another, BUT, that doesn't happen. They all fall with the same acceleration. *** FORCE IS INDEPENDENT OF DENSITY. *** FORCE IS THE SAME ON ALL MASS! No 684) Caleb Hubbell - Let's try that again. Here's a picture of Venus, but in focus. No 684b) Caleb Hubbell - Lunar occultation of Saturn. No 684c) Caleb Hubbell - Lunar occultation of mars No 684d) Caleb Hubbell - Lunar occultation of Jupiter. No 685) Floyd Marston - Model rocket engine in a vacuum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxBRQXxBRic No 686) Joe Haley NO 686b) Damien Frazier 17 thousand mph and you got a clear shot, seems realistic. Bruce Ing - Disbelief is not proof or evidence of anything. - It shows that one doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand how things work. Joe Haley - Hatred of science is not proof of the flerf. No 686c) Philip Cowley 17,000 mph and 250 miles away 17,000mph is 4.7miles/sec... at a distance of 250 miles that is about 1°/sec... Or about 1/6 of the speed of a second hand! NO 686d) Philip Cowley - And that is assuming the worst case scenario, ie. that the ISS was directly overhead and at its closest. In reality it could have easily been twice that far away or more. No 686e) Bruce Ing - If the moon is about half a degree, the ISS is going 1 degree per second and there are about 25 images of the ISS across the moon ... 1 degree/0.5 degrees per moon = 2 widths/degree 25 imagesx2 moon widths=50 images 50 images per degree... That's about 50 frames a second for half a second. No 687_ Nate Kaczynski - Other than Earth, what else is an enclosed system within a vacuum that doesn't require a barrier to separate the two? No 687b) Evan Bell - All the gas planets, stars, terrestrial planets with atmosphere. No 687c) Jamie Dunn - Water and oil in a barrel, no vacuum needed. No 687d) Pászka Csanád Let's take a look at Jupiter. No 687e) Tom Simone - The vacuum of space is not a vacuum cleaner. Bruce Ing - A vacuum cleaner needs air around it to push in where the vacuum is created. *** Vacuums DON'T suck, outside air pushes in! No 688) Bruce Ing - Does everyone understand that we can ALL see water curve? That is literally what the horizon is! ------------- If you lie on a beach and look out over the water, almost everything is hidden, even people. The slowly get up, and the horizon goes farther out, you see more and more of people. That is curved water! That is the horizon receding! No 688d) When you crouch down and stand up, at the shore the horizon goes out. Notice you don't see the boats from 4 inches above the water, and they appear at 4 to 6 feet. (See images No 688d) No 689) Badroel Salim - No curved. Flat Earth Proof. https://www.facebook.com/Badroelsalym/videos/2026098044343084/ No 689b) Bruce Ing You seem to ignore the fact that you are standing 6 feet tall and when you zoom onto the water, you are looking down at the water at a very shallow angle. The point at which looking down, you can't see beyond the edge of the water is the horizon. That PROVES, you are looking at a curved surface! The horizon IS curvature! No 689c) Bruce Ing Notice you are looking BEFORE the horizon. Right up to the horizon, you can see everything. So for the first 3 miles, there is NO hidden curvature! No 689d) Jaime Jackie - Shouldn't the buoy be at the peak of the "curvature"? I thought we are on a spinning BALL!? On a "BALL" the horizon is at the highest point from your respective position. Meaning if I'm looking straight down a ball eye level, I should see something on the very tip. Right where the line of the HORIZON (research meaning) meets the sky should be the point where everything else is hidden. Looks like there is plenty of ocean behind this buoy don't ya think? No 689e) Anthony Natale - No. That depends on your height relative to the height of the object you're looking at. No 689f) Bruce Ing - Jaime Jackie That buoy is BEFORE the horizon. That's the trouble, flat Earth videos are always filming things before the horizon then ask where's the curvature. It shows a misunderstanding of curvature and horizon! No 689g) Bruce Ing - Jaime Jackie, the horizon is NOT the highest point! It is the last thing you see before the curve goes down out of sight! It is a circle. When you draw a line from your eyes touching the circle, that is what the horizon is! Plenty of water before and after it. *** Certainly NOT the highest point, just a point where you line of sight is tangent to the water, as it curves down and away from you! No 689h) Badroel Salim - no curvature Michael Lott - That's not a 60 degree view and plenty of cloud cover too so you wouldnt see the natural beautiful curve of mother earth. No 689i) Bruce Ing - That means you are only seeing the horizon a few miles out. Looking at the horizon, from an airplane with cloud cover is pointless. You could be standing in a skyscraper and see THE SAME degree of horizon! No 689j) Steve Bergeron - And do you know what altitude you're at? Also...your point of view is simply a few thousand feet off the top of the clouds. Not high enough. Tell that to an SR-71 or U-2 pilot and prepare to be laughed at. No 690) Clouds reduce your effective elevation and height, when you are in a plane: The Cloud Horizon Effect! ---------- Michael Lott - You should be able to detect curvature from an aeroplane at a cruising height of around 10,600 metres (35,000 feet), but you need a fairly wide field of view (ie 60 degrees) and a virtually cloud-free horizon. The reality is that clouds, hills and mountains mean we rarely get to see the kind of perfectly flat horizon where the curve would be most obvious. Not standing on a beach looking out at 6' high. *** Looking out a window from an airplane, on a cloudy day is effectively like looking from a lower altitude! *** No 690b) Bruce Ing - Michael Lott That's curvature in one axis, however, we can see curvature looking ACROSS the horizon. It's like looking at a 2x4. You can 1) Look along it (looking out at the horizon and seeing things hidden behind the horizon) or 2) Look at it from the side to see if it is bent (looking from high up and seeing a curve left to right) No 690c) Bruce Ing - Michael Lott If it's okay, I'm going to use that point about the clouds and obstructions. : ) -------------- Most pictures from commercial flights, they are showing clouds! So it's not 7 miles up, it's a few hundred feet above the clouds! : P No 691) Joe Haley - A man took a video on a shoreline from two angles, one while he was standing on a hill and one while he was down by the water, zoomed in to this island and observed a white building on the right edge of the island, when he was down on the shore, he couldn't see it. Globe Earth proof. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bco_p4V7-QU&feature=youtu.be (See OP) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=972991219411113&set=pcb.10153147707891795&type=3 No 692) Line of sight on a round and flat earth: No 692a) Kevin Morgan - Round Earth No 692b) Kevin Morgan - Flat Earth No 693) Joe Gallo (See meme) No 693b) Bruce Ing - Joe Gallo, that is an interesting explanation, however, it does't work. 1) Stars go in a straight line, when they go over hour heads. Why? Because we are turning relative to the stars and that plots a straight line. 2) The stars don't come together and split apart. How could they do that night after night and still remain together? That is just an optical illusion from the fish eyed lense used to capture two points 180 degrees apart in the sky! That means the stars above are going straight over our heads, not curving around the north pole! You are mixing what we see, with what we put together with special lense effects. 3) The north and south polar axis of rotation are truly 180 degrees apart. They don't move, neither one of them. An impossibility on a flat disk! (The north polar axis should be stationary and the south polar axis has to be rotating with the sky, on a flat Earth.) 4) This is further proven by the fact that anywhere on the equator, we can see star trails, from the north and south polar axis of rotation. AT THE SAME TIME. There would have to be multiple axis of rotations! In fact an infinite number of them! No 693c) Bruce Ing - When we look at the sky from the equator, we see two polar axis of rotation 180 degrees apart, ALL ALONG THE Equator, AT THE SAME TIME! (Physically impossible on a flat Earth!) ----------- The way we film this is to use a WIDE ANGLE LENSE. In reality, the stars above go overhead, from east to west , the start to the north turn clockwise and the start to the south turn counter clock wise. *** Nothing actually separates and comes back together. That is just an effect used to be able to film both poles at the same time. No 694) Bradley Elliott - Shows Russia at 263 degrees west from Nome City Alaska. Proves the flat earth model wrong and the round earth model correct. No 695) Philip Cowley - Darren Sharpe..."Why can you not see any curve on the horizontal horizon" Because the horizon is a circle centered on you that is all curved down by the same amount. If it is all curved down by the same amount you wont see a side to side curve. No 696) The horizon has nothing to do with the vanishing point. Things vanish because of their size. If they are too small to see from that distance then they will vanish at that distance. However, many things could still be visible from a particular horizon, it just depends on how big they are. No 697) China planning to collect samples from the moon this year (Article April 26, 2017), and a joint venture with Europe, to put a base on the moon. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/moon-base-outpost-china-europe-chinese-space-agency-collaboration-together-a7702936.html No 698) Brett Bainbridge - If gravity doesnt exist. What deternines what direction an object falls? No 699) Hidden curvature does not start right away. Everything up to the horizon is visible. You are looking down at the water from eye level, after all. It isn't until your line of sight hits the horizon, that things start dipping behind the horizon. No 700) Curvature Calculations: ---------- Darren Sharpe (See meme) No 700a) Philip Cowley - I've done it myself Darren... No 700b) Philip Cowley - Just I included the calculations No 700c) Philip Cowley No 700d) Philip Cowley - As I said earlier, this curve is fairly easily measured although it is too small to be seen easily with the naked eye. This is a picture I took a month or so ago... both torches are the same height above the canal water as is the telescope the photo was taken through... the torch on the left is 1mile away, the one on the right is slightly over 2 miles away... If all three (two torches and the telescope) are all the same height above the water, why is the middle torch out of line with the two ends? No 700e) Philip Cowley - Here is why! Because the surface of the water is curved! No 701) Why do people insist there is no curvature, but won't measure the angle? ---------- What curvature calculations fail to take into account is the fact that you are looking down and your line of sight is TANGENT to the horizon! Doing so makes the horizon, even a curved one, look flat! Where are your calculations to show the effect of downward angle, on a curved surface, looking left and right? *** You are looking at calculations dealing with the z axis, looking straight ahead, then asking about the x axis, looking right and left! You are mixing apples and oranges! ------ *** If we are calculating the distance to the horizon and the drop from vertical, then why are you not measuring the distance to the horizon and the angle below horizontal to see if they match the chart? *** No 702) Philip Cowley - BTW Perspective ONLY dictates how BIG something appears, it cannot and does not dictate that things get hidden behind things, like the sun passing below the horizon. No 703) Using being able to see farther as proof of a flat Earth, debunks the argument for limitations of our vision causing the horizon: ----------- Bruce Ing - If you think being able to see farther than one would expect, is proof the Earth is flat, from personal experience. *** Shouldn't it be obvious that being able to see so far, means that optics and limitations of our vision DON'T cause the horizon? -------------- For example if you can see something 17 miles away, that you don't think you should, then why isn't seeing the water horizon at 3 miles, proof, that it is curved? Furthermore, being able to crouch down and make things disappear behind the horizon, should be absolute, undeniable proof that water is curving! (It certainly ISN'T a limitation in our vision, you just saw 17 miles away!) Does this not make sense to everyone? No 704) Chris Boose (See his OP) The Flat Earth Delusion Part One: Know your fallacies! 1. Burden of proof - The burden of proof is always on the person or group making the claim. An example of how this is misused by the flerf would be: "The sun is only 30 miles wide; prove it's not!" This doesn't follow accepted rules of logic, and that's not surprising. 2. Personal incredulity - Simply put, the person making the argument thinks because they don't understand something, it can't be true. Example: "There's no way Earth is spinning. If it were, we would feel it." 3. Special pleading - A perennial flerfer favorite, this fallacy involves "moving the goalpost" or introducing exceptions to a rule as proof the rule doesn't exist, for instance "Gravity - strong enough to hold the oceans down but too weak to keep a balloon from rising." 4. Ambiguity - Another go-to tactic for flerfers, this involves using double meanings or ambiguities in language to mislead or misrepresent a position. "Evolution is just a theory." 5. Cherry-picking, sometimes called the Texas Sharpshooter - Including some but not all data in a set in order to support a position, or connecting isolated facts which aren't actually connected. "NASA says we don't have the technology to go to the moon." 6. Ad hominem - This is actually something both sides do, and it arises as a result of frustration with the opposing viewpoint. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it. For instance: RE: "Space travel proves the round Earth." FE: "Only an indoctrinated moron would say that." If you think of other logical fallacies committed by flerfers, please add them in the comments section. https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154927297901795/ No 704b) Jason Terry - Well the biggest one they think the earth is flat. No 704c) Dave Burke - Flerfer Bingo! No 704d) Rod Saunders - Thinking that a weird name, like elon musk, aaron towers, or yodi halt, adds weight to their argument. No 704e) Bruce Ing - Let's add, "Over inflated sense of importance" No 705) As we go higher, it becomes more apparent that the horizon's distance is calculated by curvature. It becomes more and more apparent that the flat Earth we should be able to see IS MISSING! Why isn't this an obvious fact to everyone? No 705b) Where is the flat Earth? From high altitude balloon we should be able to see ALL of the Earth, so where is it? Why is it a 360 degree horizon, as it should be on a spherical Earth? No 706) Corey Baratta - Field of view - There is never any indication on flat Earth images as to how wide the Field of View is (FOV) However, often we can tell from the closeness of the clouds that their pictures have been cropped! No 707) Bruce Ing - July 12 at 12:54pm ---------- If you have a liter of water, it weighs 1 KG. How is that possible with density? ------------------ *** In the middle of that container of water, everything is the same density, doesn't that mean it shouldn't be going down? It shouldn't be "heavy" in the middle of the container, because it is the same density! However, that's not the case. Every molecule of water in the contain feels heavy! Even though it is surrounded by the same density! https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154937472681795/ No 707b) Bruce Ing - If something is the same density, then there is no reason for it to want to move! There is no force downward on something within a solid or liquid. Certainly NOT due to density, because they are the SAME density! No 707c) Bruce Ing - How many Newtons of force, does a Kg of mass have, on the surface of the Earth? No 707d) Bruce Ing Kg is MASS not WEIGHT. It is convenient to say 1 Kg of force on Earth, because it's pretty uniform, but it's actually using the wrong units to measure a force! No 707e) Bruce Ing - Why on the moon, does 1 Kg of mass, not weigh the same as on Earth? On Earth the force, on 1 Kg of mass, is 9.81 Newtons. On the moon, the force on 1 Kg of mass, is 1.62 Newtons. *** 16.5% of the weigh it has on the Earth! Mass and weight are not the same. We say Kg, but KG is MASS not WEIGHT! No 708) Tafari Holsey - Why do flat earth make believers possibly think that you could see the shape of the planet earth from an airplane, mountaintops or tall buildings? No 709) Dave Burke - National Aeronautics and Space Administration's photo. July 3 at 5:12am This is going to be amazing. :) https://www.facebook.com/NASA/photos/a.67899501771.69169.54971236771/10155352880056772 (See his OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154905987531795/ NO 709b) https://www.space.com/37438-juno-flying-over-jupiter-great-red-spot.html No 710) Incredulity at being able to operate in zero g: --------- Islam Minshawy - Ask any doctor about how do these fake scientists swallow liquids and how its retained in the stomach also how the whole metabolic activities undergo if there is no force to drive these liquids through the blood stream .. I Can't explain how water behaved like this but I assure you no human being is able to deal with this grave change in force distribution. No 710a) Philip Cowley - Food and liquids do not "fall" through the digestive system, they are pushed by muscles. Ever hear of a little thing called muscular contractions? Ever had stomach ache... that is those very same muscles cramping up. No 710b) Islam Minshawy - So the diffusion of gases and liquids to the blood is caused by muscular contractions also ? Can't the saliva flow out of their mouths due to muscular contractions also ? I CAN ARGUE WITH YOU TH WHOLE DAY about this and you won't be able to prove me wrong . Philip Cowley - "So the diffusion of gases and liquids to the blood is caused by muscular contractions also?" No. I never said that... The diffusion of chemicals into (and out of) the blood is caused by chemical effects such as osmosis. "Can't the saliva flow out of their mouths due to muscular contractions also?" Haven't you ever heard of "swallowing"... That is the muscular contraction that pushes food and saliva down the throat. http://www.bbc.co.uk/.../the_need_for_food/revision/5/ No 710c) Dan Renner - Islam Minshawy, lay down and see if you can still swallow. (You can.) Now try doing a head-stand and swallow. (You can.) What the FUCK makes you think gravity has anything at all to do with gases or nutrients being carried in the blood stream? It doesn't! Oxygen is attracted to hemoglobin, which is the iron-based compound in red blood cells which allows them to retain oxygen molecules. It follows the same chemistry as rust, which is a mixing of oxygen and iron. You and your "ask any doctor", BULLSHIT simply nails you to the wall on this crap! Am I a doctor? No. Am I a former EMT? Yes! Have I worked on an ambulance crew and in a hospital emergency room treating patients? Yes! Do I need to be a doctor to understand simple blood chemistry, the act of swallowing, or how the heart pumps blood through the body? No! Do you have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about? You absolutely DO NOT! You've made up a bunch of bullshit, claimed that doctors would support you, which they ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOT, and then run around claiming that no one can "prove" you wrong. You are a classic example of a flat-Earther. What you don't know, you simply make up. And you don't know enough to be qualified to argue points with the average five year old. Physics shows that you are wrong. Biology shows that you are wrong. Chemistry shows that you are wrong. Physiology shows that you are wrong. And what's most important here is that YOU should already know that you're wrong because you're just making this shit up as you go, and you damned well KNOW IT! No 710d) Bruce Ing - Islam Minshawy 1) You're basically claiming to know more about space and the effects of micro gravity than than astronauts! 2) We can test, measure and simulate zero g on Earth. Zero g drop test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDmb-AVTM6k We know how gravity works. It's NOT density! -------------- 3) Density and buoyancy don't work in zero g! Bruce Ing - You flat Earthers are a bunch of armchair critics. You make up your ideas based on speculation. No real world test, experiments or confirmation. You don't want something to be true, so you find "evidence" to support your ideas! What a load of crap! No 710e) Bruce Ing - People chug beer upside down! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Ze0t6ui10 No 710f) Bruce Ing Islam Minshawy "I Can't explain how water behaved like this but I assure you no human being is able to deal with this grave change in force distribution." 1) Gravity, zero g, surface tension, all explains how things behave as it they do in space! 2) Surface tension is very weak, it will hold a bug up, a paper clip just barely, BUT we can poke our fingers through the surface with ease. 3) Also, things IN the body, in the water, DON'T have surface tension. That is why it is called SURFACE tension! No 711) Azimuth tables for anywhere on Earth: ---------- Looking up azimuthal tables, anywhere on Earth, shows that it must be spherical. The sun and moon, can only appear in the right place, at the right time and at the right angle if the Earth is spherical. The numbers, an almost infinite number of them, producable for anywhere on the planet, show the Earth must be spherical, or else they wouldn't work! http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php No 711b) "The beauty of Eratosthenes’ experiment is that you can do it anywhere on earth, on any day of the year, and arrive at the same circumference. This is where the flat earth model runs into problems." https://takethisskepticalblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/how-to-disprove-the-flat-earth/ No 712) Vsauce video. Time, the solar day and year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJhgZBn-LHg No 713) Chris Boose - In an enclosed space, gases naturally expand and reach equilibrium so the pressure of the gas remains the same throughout the enclosed space. If Earth is flat and surmounted by a dome, can any flat Earth proponents explain why air pressure diminishes with altitude requiring breathing apparatus for pilots and even adventurers who ascend high mountains? https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154964478201795/ No 714) Bruce Ing - This is the Rogers Center, (Soon, I hope to be renamed the Sky Dome, as it was first Christened.). It is a fully retractable dome for our football/baseball stadium in Toronto! It cost half a million dollars to build! The roof is about 175 meters wide and weighs 11,000 tons! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTG4zYadYMg The is a real roof and is an engineering feat. ---------- Now, tell me what the dome over the Earth is made of? No 715) Evidence for the globe: ----------- Dan Renner - Evidence for the GLOBE: Oh let's see...sunrise, sunset, phases of the moon, star trails, the fact that a compass doesn't keep changing directions, lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, travel times that are consistent with global Earth distances and totally inconsistent with flat-Earth distances, thousands of actual photographs of the globe Earth, streamed video from the ISS, ships sailing over the horizon, gravity, the tidal-locked face of the moon... No 715b) - Analysis of the horizon and perspective on a round and flat Earth - Measurement of the drop of the horizon using survey equipment - Geometry showing that the sun and moon CAN'T set on a flat Earth - Ships, cities and mountains disappearing over the horizon and eventually EVERYTHING disappearing over the horizon! (Why do sailors see ships, cities and mountains come into view? Why weren't any of these EVER visible from farther away, on the "flat" ocean?) - Terminator moon at right angles used to measure the angle and distance of the sun (showing the sun is much farther away than the moon) - Our ability to measure gravitational acceleration - The fact that things fall at the same rate in a vacuum - Buoyancy and density not being able to make this rise or fall in zero g - The ability to do zero g tests, just by throwing boxes with go pros' in them off of a roof! - Penumbra and umbra shadow during eclipse No 715c) Bradley Elliott - Known and proven physical geography is the most verifiable proof. Hundreds of thousands of people prove the earth round every day. No 716) The fact that we can actually see and photograph the Milky Way. Instant visual proof that we are within a galaxy! No 717) The Half Moon Proof: ----------- One way we measure the distance to the sun, is to wait until the moon is directly overhead, *** on a north south line ***, and therefore the sun is at 90 degrees, then measure the angle to the sun. This gives us the ratio of the sun and moons distance. NOTE: This is impossible on a flat Earth! The sun is never at 90 degrees to the sun, while it is overhead, because they are both moving in a circle. *** The moon can't have a shadow in line with the north south direction AND come up with a reasonable angle for the flat earth, at the same time! *** No 717b) Measuring the distance to the sun: Notice, that we can wait for the half moon, and it will line up with the north/south direction, while it is directly overhead, then we can measure the angle to the sun, from the vertical. *** This is an impossible situation on a flat Earth! *** If we measure this angle, we find it's about 3 degrees from the horizon. (See diagram No 717b) No 717c) How we see a half moon on a globe. (See image No 717c) No 718) For those of you who claim there is no vacuum in space, look at how blue our sky looks. Now look at how black the vacuum of space looks! *** There is no air or dust to scatter light in space, so it travels straight away from the sun without reflecting off of anything! *** No 719) Get two people, a few hundred miles apart, to measure the angle to the sun and moon, when they are both in the sky. Guess what? They won't both be 3,000 miles up! No 720) If people claim to be that salt flats and 100 mile frozen lakes are proof the Earth is flat, why don't we ever see them zooming in on the horizon? Mountains still disappear over the horizon and there are stretches of horizon where everything has disappeared over the curve! (In this picture of Lake Baikal there is nothing visible behind the horizon on the left side!) No 721) Bruce's Laws of Rocketry: 1) Forces are transmitted by physical contact ONLY 2) Force can not be transmitted by an uncontained column of gas or liquid 3) Any diversion of exhaust gases can ONLY put force back on the rocket by; a) physical contact with the rocket or b) transmission through a physical link back to the rocket (E.g. a rudder in the exhaust stream connected to the back of the rocket) No 722) Bruce's Law of Vacuums: 1) Vacuums do NOT exert force on objects 2) Gases, liquids or solids pushing into the evacuated space put pressure on objects 3) Forces can only be transmitted by physical contact (see rule 1 of Bruce's Laws of rocketry) 4) Forces when dealing with vacuums are always pushing, never pulling, unless forces are putting physical stress on an object that can transmit tension No 723) Refraction happens well after the horizon, not before it: ---------- Ben Harkin https://youtu.be/2Cn_f4Pg7oo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cn_f4Pg7oo&feature=youtu.be No 724) Why are there no stars: Joe Haley http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae323.cfm NO 725) Kiki Solis (See OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154972213971795/ No 726) Boats going over the horizon: ------------ Paul Abel (See posted video) https://youtu.be/NPrTMz7a4X8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPrTMz7a4X8&feature=youtu.be No 727) Light house and ship visible and partially behind the horizon, video: Zev-Velvel Griner (See posted video) https://youtu.be/RX2m_NfrJD4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX2m_NfrJD4&feature=youtu.be No 728) Steve Bergeron (See OP) Final thought for the evening: You wanna know what makes me laugh? Too bad, gonna tell you anyways. Flerfers that keep using the terms troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere, and exosphere. Yet, not a single one notices what those words have in common. https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154977142696795/ No 729) How to spot satellites: Brien Muñóz - And you can search for satellites as well! There's a ton of amateurs that do it. If you're so curious, maybe you can try it yourself!. https://www.space.com/6870-spot-satellites.html No 729b) Bradley Elliott - The next few days I will have a very good view of the I.S.S over west palm. https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/view.cfm?country=United_States®ion=Florida&city=West_Palm_Beach#.WWmp3YjyvIU No 730_ Brien Muñóz - Well, I don't see why the Japanese Space Agency would lie about something that is used consistently worldwide by numerous people all the time. Also, it's in geostationary orbit so it spins with the planet. Here's a quick wiki link if you'd like information. It even states where it's placed in geostationary orbit. Seems like a lot of work and headache to maintain such an extraordinary and extravagant lie. Lmao.. Remember.... Occam's Razor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himawari_8 No 731) Jeff Turner (See OP) How would a compass work on FE model? And would using one on a plane prove or disprove FE? https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154953746456795/ No 732) Jake Hickman (See meme) No 732b) Bruce Ing - Atmospheric Lensing - may cause things over the horizon to be visible farther than they should BUT it doesn't bend objects or lines of objects, it bends light well over the horizon so that it is visible on the horizon. - magnification - may make things bigger, but doesn't bend things - Distortions - distortion would show up on the towers, however the towers look straight - Dense weather - This goes along with atmospheric lensing (refraction). Again things would not appear curved, just be visible farther than normal. - temperature variations - This also goes with atmospheric lensing and would not cause a long line of things to appear curved> - vanishing point and convergence - Vanishing point, means things are too small and far away to see. These towers are clearly visible and binoculars, a camera zoom or telescope makes vanishing points meaningless if we can actually SEE the object! - pyramidal perspective - Pyramidal perspective has nothing to do with these towers. We aren't standing at the base of a tower looking up. We are seeing towers very far away and seeing the whole tower at relatively correct proportions. No 733) Jake Hickman (See link and OP) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrKyyFMAs7o&feature=share No 733a) Stefan Ivanov - Most of the stuff in the video promotes scientific illiteracy, and in fact has been debunked, like that 'satellite' crash, which was actually a Google balloon. And please stop using Tesla, there hasn't been a single instance here where a flat brain would try using Tesla, and not get debunked. https://anengineersaspect.blogspot.ca/2013/09/nikola-tesla-writes-about-moon-rotation.html No 733b) Joe Stewart - Jake these are sketches done by Tesla and it's obviously not of a flat earth. (See Image No 733b) No 733c) Joe Stewart - Jake Google Schumann resonance. Tesla was obsessed with it and this is where he believed the "free energy" would come from and it can only exist on a globe. (See Image No 733c) No 733d) Jeff Heisenberg - While this video might be interesting, it's poorly done. The guy who put this together either A. Didn't understand the concepts being discussed. B. Intentionally cherry picked original source fragments to fit his narrative. C. Lifted it from someone else who exercised A. & B., and modified it. D. All the above. His opening lame assertion is that there's a make believe "astronaut" that reveals that some "whole thing" (some "thing", and not just a thing, but the "WHOLE" thing) is a lie. And then he seems to assert the astronaut is too dumb to realize that he's accidentally disproved elliptical orbits, and hence gravity. What's not revealed is the entire recording that demonstrates astronaut and chemist Dr. Don Pettit the clearly undesrtood the distinction between between electrostatic forces and that of gravity. He uses the analogy of charged droplets water droplets having angular momentum being held in 'orbit' around a oppositely charged polyester knitting needle...to that of gravitational forces that govern planetary motion. Ironically, the Flat Earth Short 'producer' fails to point out this sort of experiment could only be performed in a zero (or near zero) G environment like on the ISS...ironically proving the case for a spherical earth. (See Image No 733d) No 733e) Jeff Heisenberg - The "WHOLE" clip demonstrating that the FE producer is a intentional deceiver (LIAR), or a moron. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHrBhgwq__Q No 733f) Jeff Heisenberg - The real story. https://www.universetoday.com/96261/don-pettit-astronaut-mr-science-space-gardner-and-astrophotographer-extraordinaire/ No 733g) Jeff Heisenberg - Google is your friend...but not for FE charlatans. http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/sots/ No 733h) Jeff Heisenberg - From a s spinning earth perspective yes they should. FE fail. (See Image No 733h) No 733i) Bruce Ing - I've said time and time again. Electrical, magnetic and static forces are; 1) TOO strong and 2) work over TOO short a range We've all played with magnets, get them too close together and they'll flip and snap together. A) *** There is no ability to balance, because they are so strong and work over such a close distance! B) If you were to scale up any of these experiments, to something that would explain the phenomena on the Earth, sun, moon and stars, the electrical charges built up or the magnetic fields induced would create currents that would fry every one on the spot! No 733j) Bruce Ing - "The strength of a magnetic field drops off roughly EXPONENTIALLY over distance. " https://www.google.ca/search?q=Magnetic+strength+over+distance&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA710&oq=Magnetic+strength+over+distance&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.5900j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 ------------ http://www.magnetsales.com/design/faqs_frames/faqs_2.htm What strength does an electric charge have to be to pull me with my own weight? How about an magnetic field? The strengths needed for an electric charge or magnetic field to pull one up with their own weight, especially since we are for the most part, non-charged and not magnetic, would be enormous. *** Imagine the strength of a magnet needed to pull the trace amounts of free iron in our system with a force equal to our own weight! No 733k) Bruce Ing - Also, most of the planet is non-conductive, or covered with salt water, which would short out any electrical charge! No 734) How does Earth's non-vacuum meet the vacuum of space? ---------- Jonathan Michael Malmis (See meme) No 734a) Gravity pulls air molecules downward. The air molecules on top push on the air molecules below them, there by creating higher pressures as you go down. Ultimately leading to 14.7 psi at Earth's surface. As you go higher the air gets thinner and thinner, meaning there are less and less molecules and the pressure gets less and less. In the zone, (it' isn't a physical barrier or a particular elevation), where the atmosphere meets the vacuum of space, the air just gets thinner. - The air, for the most part, doesn't escape, because, like someone jumping up, they eventually are slowed and stopped by gravity and fall back down into the atmosphere. *** So the transition is just going from less and less atoms, as you go up, until finally there are virtually none. *** No 735) Bruce Ing (See my OP) How many flat Earthers here are experts in any of the following fields; - Physics ? - Astronomy? - Surveying ? - Mathematics ? - Digital photography ? - Structural Engineering ? or any field that would make them an expert in the topics that we discuss here on a daily basis? Since there are these experts here, bringing up evidence, showing the Earth is spherical, what makes you more qualified or what you present more valid than the experts here? https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154980717821795/ No 735b) Koos van Wyk - I haven't seen ANY globeturd anywhere (or anywhere else on Facebook) that I would regard as an expert on anything. So, the OP's question is null & void. Trolling cannot be regarded as a valid field of expert for the purpose, but the globeturd trolls on Facebook are general of a low quality anyhow. Bruce Ing - Koos van Wyk, In the process of learning about flat Earth, (I think I've learned all there is to know about the physical world according to FE). I've named several effects/tests; - The Zooming Effect (No 286a) - The Polaris Effect (No 448) - The Half Moon Terminator Proof (717) - The Tangent Effect (No 681) - The Cloud Horizon Effect! (No 690) - The 3 sticks test (No 660) - The Solar Radiation Effect/Proof (No 736) - The looming effect (No 909) - The flat Earth rocket thrust conundrum (No 914) (Bruce Ing 2017-08-20) - The Umbra Conundrum (No 915) (Bruce Ing, 2017-08-20) - The forshortening Effect (No 1768) And made up 2 laws; Bruce's Laws of Rocketry (No 721) Bruce's Law of Vacuums (No 722) ------------------ As well as found out about some effects I never knew (or knew much) about before; - The Coriolis Effect (No 31) - Foreshortening Effect (No 385) - The Moon Terminator Effect (No 265) - Refraction and temperature inversion layers - Geodetic Surveying - The southern polar axis and southern constellations - The proper definitions of scientific terms; density, buoyancy, mass, weight etc. (... and much more I have learned about over the last 8 months!) I have a bachelors in Civil Engineering and use that to understand relative motion, surveying, geometry, the math involved in curvature, thermodynamics, the effects of gravity. I also do my best to discuss, explain and teach everything I know and have come across. So, the OP's question, may not be a requirement for the understanding and testing of flat Earth, BUT it shows who is more likely to have a proper analysis and objective conclusions of the flat Earth! No 736) The Solar Radiation Effect/Proof (My own proof) The sun right overhead is about 3,000 mile up. Let's call that 100% sunlight. The strength of the light and heat decrease with the square of the distance, so, the farthest spot away gets from 50% down to 5.16% of the sun light as the hottest spot. In the same day! No 736a) Peter Mirtitsch - If the Sun was only a few thousand miles away, due to the inverse square law, either the area immediately below would be comfortable, and the Earth would be much colder the further we get from it, or if the rest of the Earth was comfortable, the area just below would be incinerated. No 736b) Peter Mirtitsch - Consider trying to get warm by a small fire, from close up, against staying warm some distance from a bonfire, putting out much more heat. No 737) How can someone to the east of you see the sun set and to the west of you see the sun set, when for you it is 3,000 miles overhead? ---------- The sun is rising somewhere to the wast and setting somewhere to the east. - So that means the sun, in the middle is very low to the horizon OR - the people to the east and west are seeing the sun set high in the sky. No problem on a flat Earth ... Oh, wait! No 738) Stars DON'T travel in a curve around the sky as you would expect on a flat Earth. They travel in a straight arc, as can be demonstrated by an equatorial mount. You only need on degree of freedom to track a star. It goes straight across the sky! Why? because we are turning, NOT the stars! *** Why do the stars, sun and moon on the flat Earth move across the sky as if the Earth is turning and the sky is stationary. (i.e. Things DON'T curve across the sky, they go in a straight arc. A straight arc is NOT a curve!!!) No 739) Due to the Solar Radiation Effect (See no 736), I realize that; *** there is NOT enough solar radiation on a 3,000 mile high 32 mile diameter sun to keep the flat Earth warm! *** No 740) Philip Cowley - If you think there is another model that fits the observed facts, please feel free to present it. Here's some facts for you to try to fit your model around. On the equinoxes the sun is directly above the equator. At 10:40am (GMT) on the equinox (either will do), the sun passes directly south/north of these places. These are the angles between the sun and the zenith that you would measure at this time... Tromso... 69.75° (S) Kaliningrad... 54.75° (S) Krakow... 50° (S) Tirana... 41.25° (S) Benghazi... 32° (S) Kouango (Central African Republic)... 5° ( S) Bensenge (Democratic Republic of the Congo)... 0.9° (N) Luena (Angola)... 11.75° (N) Shambyu (Namibia)... 20° (N) Suiderstrand (South Africa)... 34.85° (N) (Image courtesy of Uldis Romanovs) No 740b) Uldis Romanovs - data for diagram for flat Earth model No 740c) Uldis Romanovs - Diagram for Earth model. No 741) The next time someone goes on a high hill, or better a high mountain on an island, could they bring up a straight 2x4. Level it and look one way to the horizon then the other way to the horizon and tell us if the horizon is below eye level? (See diagram No 741) No 742) 5,000 years ago, Polaris was NOT the pole star! Why? ... because Earth rotates and the axis of rotation processes! 5,000 years ago, Thurban was the pole star! So, Polaris won't be the pole star in a few thousand years! http://earthsky.org/brightest-stars/thuban-past-north-star (See image No 742) No 743) Matthew Hall (See his OP) Bruce Ing can you point me in the direction of the explaination to why things remain at eye level please. https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154992401121795/ No 743a) Bruce Ing - Matthew Hall 1) Things are suppose to stay at eye level, because, even though you are looking down on things in front of you, as you look farther, you look a little higher. In theory, at infinity, things on a flat plain should meet eye level. ------------ 2) Note that nothing is actually rising. It's just that the angle between you, the ground at your feet and the horizon, becomes smaller and smaller as you look further out. So, for very far distances, the difference between your eye level and the ground becomes insignificant. ------------- 3) In reality, the horizon gets farther away as you go up. so both the distance to the horizon AND your height are rising at the same time. This means that, even though the horizon is getting farther away, it isn't rising to eye level, because your eye level is rising faster (proportionally) than the distance is going out. No 743b) Bruce Ing 1) In reality, we AREN'T looking out far enough for things to rise to eye level. 2) The curved Earth drops off faster than a flat plain "rises". 3) In reality, the horizon is TWICE as low as your eye level! For example, if your eye level is 6 feet high, the horizon is 12 feet below your eye level, 12 feet 24 feet below eye level etc. 4) My proof was actually explaining why things are below eye level, but Floyd has done a good job of that. No 743c) Floyd Marston https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD6bH03DJBI No 743d) Floyd Marston - The horizon does NOT rise to eye level, this has been measured and observed. No 743e)Floyd Marston - Horizon does NOT rise to eye level. https://www.facebook.com/100013801926343/videos/324230854713643/ No 743f) Floyd Marston https://www.facebook.com/100013801926343/videos/324231014713627/ No 744) Philip Cowley (see OP) The moon is not 3000 miles up above the flat Earth... Two simple measurements and a little accurate plotting shows that it cannot be... https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154988998631795/ No 745) Shane Welsh (See OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154987828926795/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/ No 746) Ruaridh Graham McNee (See OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154991873436795/ http://blog.daimonie.com/2015/11/200-reasons-why-flat-earthers-are.html No 747) Bruce Ing - Jason Empty "I like this! But come to think of it. If the the sun the moon and and then earth travels, how come the ancients and us in this generation seeing the same stars in the sky? Y? Coz NASA lies. Hahaha" Because EVERYTHING Travels TOGETHER. RELATIVE MOTION! The thing you flat Earthers TOTALLY DON'T GET! No 748) Bruce Ing - Jason Empty "I like this! But come to think of it. If the the sun the moon and and then earth travels, how come the ancients and us in this generation seeing the same stars in the sky? Y? Coz NASA lies. Hahaha" Because EVERYTHING Travels TOGETHER. RELATIVE MOTION! The thing you flat Earthers TOTALLY DON'T GET! No 749) The Earth wobbles: --------- So the axis of rotation actually makes a slow rotation over a little less than 26,000 years. In 2,000 years Polaris will be out of alignment with the axiis of rotation and in 26,000 years it will be the north star again. No 749a) Bruce Ing Jason Empty First, thanks! -------- The north star, won't be pointing due north! It's actually a form of procession. Like when you have a gyroscope tilted and it stays tilted but slowly rotates around the axis. http://www.astro.cornell.edu/.../astro201/earth_precess.htm Note: This can only happen if the Earth is spinning, and that can only work if it is spherical. No 749b) Bruce Ing - Basically the Earth is doing this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxV7QddpoxI No 749c) 1) There does seem to be a small wobble, of up to 37 feet (See the small red lines.) - The axis is actually moving, in that direction. *** This would not be noticable to most photographers. *** 2) However, there is a much larger "wobble", called procession, (yellow circle), which takes almost 26,000 years to complete one rotation. (See diagram No 749c) No 750) Adam Carew - No Philip Cowley you didn't challenge me you wrote on a post and I explained it in the novel I wrote....you have the facts and you are denying it and you can't challenge it it is a law the gyroscope stays fixed according to earths angle and plane and there is no curvature degree angle that you obey thats more dogmatic b.s. (See his OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154980805646795/ No 750a) Bruce Ing - Adam Carew, although you think the gyroscope on your plane is staying true and level, the very thing that keeps it from moving is what keeps it level with the spherical Earth. You know that when you try to move a spinning gyroscopes, it resists your force and stays in the same place. Well, one force that is always acting on a gyroscope is the force making it go down, towards the ground, i.e. gravity. So as you fly along, the plane tilts with the curve of the Earth. The gyroscope wants to stay in the same potential energy point, so it stays true to the gravitational center. If the gyroscope were to tilt with respect to the gravitational field, that is, if it were no longer pointed down, that would actually take work done to the gyroscope! The position where everything is status quo is when the gyroscope is always oriented the same way with respect to up and. Therefore, the gyroscope naturally turns with the Earths curvature. *** It remains gravitationally centered! No 750b) Bruce Ing - Adam Carew "Earth gyro has freedom of movement in all three planes but is held in one plane by Earths gravity. You will find this gyro in an Attitude Indicator." https://www.experimentalaircraft.info/articles/aircraft-gyroscopic-principles.php No 751) How far is the nearest star? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCSIXLIzhzk No 752) I've already given 4 methods for finding the distance to the sun, the last video in No 751 mentioned parallax with Venus and the sun. (See time 2:52) That is our 5th method of calculating the distance to the sun. No 753) Steve Bergerin (See his OP) What do we have here? https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154989846306795/ https://gizmodo.com/how-to-prove-to-yourself-or-shaq-the-earth-is-round-1793441692 No 754) Jake Hickman (See his OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154979819726795/ No 754a) Alex Duffield - You mean that thing that requires layers of curving air over a surface that is parallel to that. No 754b) Alex Duffield - Sea is a consistent surface, hills are not No 754c) Aaron Hughes - The second picture has the road on a upward curve. Also, if you look at the horizon. Below the mountain range you also see a curve No 755) Joe Haley (See meme) No 755a) Shane Welsh - Right. It's an imperfect sphere because of it's rotation it's not symmetrical 100%. Obviously, the flatties gotta go find anything on the interwebs and exaggerate said statement. No 756) What holds all the stars, the sun, moon and planets in place, if they are all spinning? If it's the firmament, what is the firmament made of? (as even the strongest material isn't a millionth of the strength needed to hold itself up, let alone stars and planets.) No 757) Barry Green Jr. (See his OP) If earth is flat and within a dome and space doesn't exist, what's beneath the earth or beyond the dome? https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154994920706795/ No 758) If north is always towards the north pole and there is no such thing as a south pole, according to flat Earthers. What happens when the poles reverse, as they have done in the past? How can there be no such thing as a south magnetic pole, if there has been one, at the north pole, in the past and will be one again in the future? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXTEWQdu3aE No 759) How do we know what is in the interior of the Earth? ------------ We can figure out what is in the interior of the Earth by mapping seismic waves. When events such as Earth Quakes, volcanic eruptions, even nuclear tests happen, people can trace the seismic waves as at different points around the world. They can figure out what and when it is bouncing off of things in the interior. https://phys.org/news/2015-03-seismic-aims-earth-interior-d.html https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170328135508.htm No 760) We also know that the Earth gets hotter as you go farther down. There isn't magma at 9 miles down, it's MUCH DEEPER! Proof that the Earth is much deeper than what flat Earthers are willing to admit! No 761) The amount of energy released during an Earth quake can be enough power to tear apart rock and Earth 30 or 40 down. We measure epicentres and they can be 100 miles down or more. More evidence that the Earth is far deeper than flat Earther's are willing to admin. No 762) Miles of rock, even mountains are buried, 10 miles deep or more, only to be eroded, after millions of years. Whole oceans have been found to be buried and resurface after half a billion years. How is this explained on a flat Earth? No 762a) Jessie Guajardo - You fucked up, after half a billion years. Bruce Ing - Nope, look at the Grand Canyon, they had an ocean on the bottom, metamophic rock, meaning several miles of mountains on top, all eroded away and back down to exposing the fossilized marine life and metamorphic rock after 400 million years! It's happened in numerous places and some times several times in a row in one place. Ocean, dry land, ocean dry land, in the same place! No 763) People in ancient times noticed procession around the north polar axis. *** Stars slowly shifted from true north! *** People would use stars for navigation and they would notice that the ones closest to the north polar axis would slowly shift. Even though it is only 50 arc seconds a year (3600/50=1 degree every 72 years, this is still noticeable in our lifetime!) No 763a) "Axial precession shows up as both procession of the equinoxes and the changes in the star closest to True North. People must have found such stars useful for navigating. But it would be noted that there were slow shifts:" https://www.quora.com/How-did-ancient-astronomers-discover-the-Precession-of-the-equinoxes No 763b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession No 764) Barry Green Jr. (See OP) If earth is a flat plate with no gravity and a dome over it, what happens if the plate falls to one side or the other? Do we all fall onto the dome? https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154996241631795/ No 764a) True, what keeps it stable in space? No 764b) Bruce Ing If the flat Earth is maybe 25,000 miles in diameter and only 9 miles deep "that we know of". How does something so thin stay together? (let alone wobble in space!) No 765) The Atlantic ocean has been separating for 40 million years. Over 3,000 miles of basaltic rock, pushed up from underground. In the Pacific, 6,000 miles of basaltic rock, slowly subducting under the continents. Where does all this material come from? Where does it all go, on a flat Earth? No 766) Trillions of tons of salt, over 4 km down. A layer of salt, 1.5 Km thick, buried 4 Km beneath the Gulf of Mexico! How is that possible on a flat Earth? No 767) Below the layer of salt, in the Gulf of Mexico, a layer of sandstone full of oil, 5 Km down. Oil, under a layer of salt 1.5 Km thick, under Km's of rock, under an ocean? All of it had to have been part of an ocean over 100 million years before we found it! How is that explained on a flat Earth? --------------- All the Earths processes, the layers of rock, the reasons for their formation, all point to processes far deeper down. Things that aren't explainable or understood on a flat Earth, but totally explained on a globe! No 768) Diamonds form 240 Km down. Under 1,600 degrees and 50,000 Km per square centimeter! It takes hundreds of millions to 3 billion years for a natural diamond to form and be brought back up to the surface! Diamonds aren't possible on a flat Earth! No 769) Niall Wells (See his OP) One half of the planes contrail is lit up by the sun while the other remains in shadow... If the Earth is flat how can this be? Explain! (See original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154996524681795/ No 770) Relative motion - Flying a model in a plane analogy: -------------- - Let's assume you are flying in a large plane, give it a lot of room say the size of a gymnasium. 1) The plane is on the ground and you fly a quad copter around, you can maneuver and land it without problem. 2) Now the plane takes off, it's CRUISING at 500 mph. You can STILL take off and land the quad copter with ease. Why? because the plane, the AIR and the quad copter are all going at the same speed, in the same direction. 3) The exception to this, is if you are flying the quad copter and the plane turns, the quad copter will hit the side of the plane. The air in the plane can't transmit movement fast enough. 3a) UNLESS, you turn slow enough to allow the person to adjust for the turn as he is steering the quad copter. 3b) Turn slow enough and the person won't even notice he is correcting for the turn. ------------- So, constant level flight, isn't an issue, Just like this analogy, - the the Earth, air and you are going the same speed. - the level forward motion isn't an issue - the turning of the Earth is slow enough that you don't notice any corrections you have to make, even when you are flying around. (See diagram No 770) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155537651241795/ No 770b) Note that the quad-copter is independent of the plane when it is hovering or in flight. Whatever air pressure there is from the planes movements have minimal effect on the quad copter. If the turns, or there are strong turbulence, the quad copter likely won't be able to compensate fast enough to keep up with the planes acceleration. During a turn, acceleration, or deceleration the quad copter will likely hit the advancing wall of the aircraft. (See diagram No 770b) ---------- Note: If the quad copter is hovering while the plane it accelerating it will hit the back of the plane. Although the air is moving with the plane during acceleration, it doesn't impart enough momentum for the quad-copter to keep up with the plane during any of the plane's maneuvers. No 771) John Stevens - The remains of deep open marine crinoids from the middle Permian in what is now the New Mexican desert No 772) Make your own Azimuth map, centered anywhere in the world! -------------- The flat Earth azimuth map is based on the north pole at it's center. However, this map can be generated with ANYWHERE in the world as it's center! https://ns6t.net/azimuth/azimuth.html No 772b) This will help you find your location to put on the Azimuth map generator. http://qthlocator.free.fr/index.php Here's an example for Toronto. It says my location is "FN03HP" No 772c) Put those co-ordinates into the Azimuth map generator and hit "Create map" https://ns6t.net/azimuth/azimuth.html No 772d) Voila - a Azimuth map based on Toronto. The world revolves around me! : ) No 772e) Just for laughs; *** EGOCENTRIC FLAT EARTH! *** NO 773) Gravity: ------- Kim Matthijssen - It's proven beyond doubt now that they detected gravitational waves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO No 774) Name one measured dimension of the flat Earth. Can someone give me the diamter or circumference of the flat Earth? Thickness? Anything? How can we have travelled the seas for over 4,000 years and not have a proper measurement of the flat Earth? How could we ever hide something like that? No 774a) Bruce Ing - Do you know what we call something that has no basis in reality, can't be confirmed, tested or proven? ... FICTION! No 775) Richard C Jantz - Lunar Eclipse (See meme) No 776) Flat Earthers don't understand how a solar eclipse works: Javier Navas Medina (See OP) Another glober problem on next August 21th eclipse. Earth rotating backwards??? https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154996564626795/ No 776b) David Michael Allsop - Not a problem. The problem is you can't think in three dimensions. You're also forgetting that the moon orbits us. No 776c) Bruce Ing - The moon is orbiting from west to east, just as the Earth is spinning from west to east. I don't see the problem. A solar eclipse is the moon casting a shadow on the Earth as THE MOON passes in front of the Earth. It is doing exactly what it should on a globe Earth and sun centered solar system! No 776c) Ruaridh Graham McNee - So flerpes think shadows move in the same direction as the sun? Got it No 777) Why can't we just hover and let the world spin under us?: -------- Margeir Simonsen - Lets play with the idea that the earth is a globe. If so i could get on a helicopter in Europe, reach a few hundred meters in altitude and just wait for the earth to spin me to America? No 777a) Jimmi Brewerr - You don't slam against the back of a train when you stand up on one either. No 777b) Bruce Ing - Margeir Simonsen, that statement proves you don't understand RELATIVE MOTION. 1) If you are going 1039 mph WITH the ground and air, at the equator. Would you just suddenly stop just by hovering in the air? 2) Although there is some coriolis effect and change in motion for a hovering object, wouldn't the pilots instinctive action be to ADJUST to hover in the same spot? 3) If the air is travelling WITH the ground, wouldn't it take a tremendous amount of ENERGY and WORK to go against it and push westward against the air at 1039 mph? 4) Even "hovering" at 1039 mph a helicopter would have to hover for 4 or 5 hours, or more, at a time. Helicopters don't carry that much fuel. They burn about 16 gallons per hour! 5) They loose the ability to lift after about 250 mph (eg the leading edge gets too much lift an the trailing edge loses lift) -------- - Inertia doesn't just stop. - the air doesn't just stop moving - wind resistance doesn't just stop acting on aircraft just because they are hovering. (Aircraft would still get carried with the wind!) ------- Do these points make sense? Do you understand relative motion a little better now? NO 777c) Bruce Ing - Relative motion and inertia. The ground, air and you are all going at the same speed, in the same direction. Things don't just stop because you think they should. No 777d) Joe Haley - burden of proof is on you to prove flat earth. As far as your helicopter "proof", the atmosphere moves along with the earth. No 777e) Johnny Orbital - If you're trying to disprove science, first learn what science actually claims Only Eric Dubay videos claim the rotation stops at the earth's crust The only person you're proving wrong is Eric Dubay No 778) Denial of gravity: ---------- Margeir Simonsen And dont give me that gravity crap No 778a) Brian Wiers - Why do things fall towards the center of the Earth, or what you call down without gravity? No 779) Does everyone realize how small the Earth is. Even if one can see 60 miles, maybe as far as 200 miles, that is still only a tiny bit of the Earth! (See meme) No 779a) Bruce Ing - I did this calculation earlier. -------- "If some places are suppose to cure 1200 feet over 60 miles, but it is 40 feet lower at the "hump", than it should be, that's still a curve, just a but flattened. Yes, such places exist, but overall it still averages out to an overall curve. Overall it is a globe. Sure some "flat spots". Do you realize how small a 60 or 100, even a 200 mile span, on a 7919 mile diameter sphere is? That is, max, Pi*r^2 = 3.1415925635*100*100= 31,415.9 miles squared VS 4*Pi*r^2= 4*3.1415925635*(7919/2)^2= 197,011,032 miles squared That's 0.0159% of the Earths surface! *** That's not a flat spot, that's a blemish! *** You guys are literally making a mountain out of a mole hill! Can you please put things in context and admit the world is round and see that we and anything we try to see "with our own eyes" is just a spec on the surface!" No 779b) Bruce Ing - A 200 mile diameter lake is 0.0159% of the Earth's surface! No 779c) Darren Sharpe - You'd never see the hump Bruce. Being anywhere on a ball earth is like being on top of the ball from the viewer's perspective the curve would run down and away from them in all directions. Its accepted we experience up and down as the same wherever we are on the globe if it is one. No 779d) Bruce Ing - Since the flat parts are only 1 in 0.000159 or 1/6,289 the Earth is a; *** It's a hexa-kilo bi-centa octa-deca hexa hedron! A 200 mile diameter patch is only 1/6,289th of the Earth! No 779e) Jon Grice - It's actually this. Many, many flat sides that form a globe No 780) Peter Mirtitsch At the equinoxes, the Sun rises due East and sets due West from every point on Earth where it can be seen. This is NOT possible on a flat Earth. No 780a) Peter Mirtitsch At the equinoxes, the Sun rises due East and sets due West from every point on Earth where it can be seen. This is NOT possible if the Sun is only 3000 miles away. No 781) Peter Mirtitsch - The terminator between night and day occurs on a Grand circle arc on a globe, which can be confirmed by observing Sunrise at the same longitude but different latitudes. This cannot happen on a flat Earth. NO 782) Peter Mirtitsch - On a flat Earth, the terminator between night and day MUST be on a curve, unless the sun is very far away, in which case we can see a nearly straight line, if the light is partially shaded. No 783) Peter Mirtitsch - On a flat Earth, if the Sun is only a few thousand miles away, it will be seen at totally different points in the sky depending on where you are, so that some points would see sunrise in the northeast at the same time as others see it in the southwest. No 784) Peter Mirtitsch - The Sun and Moon would never be seen to go below the horizon on a flat Earth, while some part of the Earth still has daylight. No 785) Peter Mirtitsch - On a flat Earth, with Sun and Moon circling at about 3000 miles high, we cannot have eclipses in the way we have observed. No 786) Peter Mirtitsch - We KNOW that the Moon and Sun cannot both be at only a few thousand miles. This is laughably easy to verify with little tech. No 787) Peter Mirtitsch - At first or last quarter, where we can see half of the Moon, we know that the Earth Moon Sun angle is 90 degrees. At this point, we also know that the length of the Earth Moon side of the triangle is 3000 miles. We can measure the Moon Earth Sun angle quite easily, using a clinometer. From this, we have two angles of a triangle. Take the sum of the two away from 180, and we have the third angle. We can now work out the other sides. If the Sun is 3000 miles high, the Moon could only be about 7 miles high, and therefore have to be much smaller, to still give the same appearance eclipses, but less dense, to reduce the tidal effects. (We shall ignore the inverse cube law) This would look totally difference, and the phases wouldn't work. If the Moon was 3000 miles high, the Sun would have to be MUCH further away. (About 1,285,714 miles away) No 788) Peter Mirtitsch - Lastly, and TBH, the one which should have been mentioned first, as it is the strongest evidence for a globe Earth and against a flat Earth, is the Mohorovicic Discontinuity, which is linked to the Earthquake Shadow Zone. This CANNOT happen on a flat Earth, and can ONLY happen on a spherical Earth with at least a partially molten core. https://www.google.ca/search?q=Mohorovicic+Discontinuity&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA710&oq=Mohorovicic+Discontinuity&aqs=chrome..69i57.400j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 No 788b) Peter Mirtitsch - Kyle Krish I thought you flerfers do your own research? If you had, you would have known about the Moho and ESZ, as they are two of the strongest pieces of evidence for a GLOBE. Best part is that they are easy to explain in my own words WITHOUT a flerfchoob vid. Would you like me to do so, and I only need to add one simple diagram too? No 788c) Peter Mirtitsch - The fact that the ESZ is always circular demonstrates that the Moho MUST be round from all angles, and the exterior must be a similar shape to this. The only shape which can produce this is.....a sphere. No 788d) Mohorovicic discontinuity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohorovi%C4%8Di%C4%87_discontinuity No 788e) Shadow zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_zone No 789) Dan Renner - Flat-Earth doesn't comply with sunrise and sunset, as they are seen and demonstrated by the global Earth model, as well as reality. No 789a) Peter Mirtitsch - Also the changing position of sunrise and sunset over the year. No 790) Dan Renner - Flat-Earth doesn't comply with the illumination of the moon. No 791) Dan Renner - Flat-Earth doesn't allow for lunar eclipses. No 792) Dan Renner - Flat Earth doesn't allow for solar eclipses (like the one coming up on August 21st). No 794) Dan Renner - Flat-Earth doesn't account for time-zones as they are actually experienced (half day/half night). No 795) Dan Renner - Flat-Earth doesn't work with the satellites that we can see for ourselves, and as photographed and identified by hobbyist astronomers. No 796) Dan Renner - Flat-Earth claims don't fit with the timeline of computer technology. NO ONE, could come anywhere close to producing photo-quality CGI in 1946, when the first extraterrestrial photos of the global Earth were published. And NASA wasn't formed until 1958. (Computer output was via punch cards!) No 797) Dan Renner - Flat-Earth doesn't work with the trigonometry which shows Earth is a globe. When are you dumb theists EVER going to learn to listen? You CANNOT CHANGE REALITY by being brash, arrogant, and stupid! No 798) Dan Renner - "Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony." No 799) Dan Renner - Flat-Earth isn't consistent with the curvature of water, as we watch ships disappear over the horizon. (And no, telescopes don't bring them fully back into view. Optics don't/can't work that way.) No 800) Dan Renner - Flat-Earth doesn't work with gravity, and gravity is easily demonstrated by actions as simple as rolling a pencil off of a desk and noting that it changes direction and accelerates - and neither of those actions can happen without an applied force. No 801) Dan Renner - Flat-Earth isn't consistent with the fact that the moon - photographed from different hemispheres at the same time - will appear inverted when the photos are compared. No 802) Dan Renner - Flat Earth isn't consistent with the phases of the moon. No 803) Dan Renner - Flat Earth isn't consistent with the shape of the moon, revealed through shadows and the perceived shape of its craters. No 804) Dan Renner - Flat-Earth doesn't account for the fact that travel times and distances are demonstrated to be consistent with global-Earth maps, and completely inconsistent with the distances on flat-Earth maps. No 805) Dan Renner - Flat Earth isn't consistent with the singular view of the moon. Under the flat-Earth model, the Earth would see multiple faces of the moon, or, at times, would see the edge of the moon (assuming wrongfully, that it's a flat disk). No 806) Dan Renner - Flat Earth doesn't allow stars to rotate Counter-Clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, and Clockwise in the South… which they DO! No 807) Dan Renner - Flat Earth doesn't allow for Antarctica to have 24-hour daylight from September to February… which it does. No 808) Dan Renner - Flat Earth is not consistent with observed evidence of parallax in the solar transits of inferior planets. No 809) Dan Renner - Flat Earth is not consistent with anything in positional astronomy. No 810) Dan Renner - Flat Earth is not consistent with observations of stellar proper motion. NO 811) Dan Renner - Compass directions don't work on a flat-Earth. As soon as you cross the center-point (North Pole), East and West would flip. No 812) Sunrise and sunset shadows DON'T match flat Earth: ------------------ No 812a) As the sun is rising or setting, the shadow goes up and down. It goes up and down buildings, mountains, clouds and plane contrails! NOTICE: The ground can be dark FIRST, then the clouds go dark! (See diagram No 812a) No 812b) On the flat Earth, the sun is like a spotlight and when the clouds are lit up, SO IS THE GROUND behind it! This doesn't happen in real life. The ground goes dark first, then the clouds! (See diagram No 812b) No 812c) Joe Stewart - The 30 mile wide 3000 mile high sun is illuminating the bottom of clouds less than 10 miles high. Can any flat earthers explain why I see this happen every single morning on my way to work because this is impossible on flat earth. (See image No 812c) (See OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155045319236795/ No 812d) (See meme No 812d) No 812e) Clouds can't be lit from below, by a flat Earth sun, because it is way too high at any point in it's orbit. (See diagram No 812e) No 812f) Shadows go up buildings during sunset. It is a physical shadow caused by a physical barrier from the horizon! (See video No 812f) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz0kddeoVg4 No 813) The moon "APPEARS" to travel east to west, during the day. Yet it has a 27.3 day cycle going west to east. Every day, it advances, eastward, by (1/27.3)rd of a rotation! This is inexplicable on a flat Earth. ----- However it is totally explained on a globe. 1) The Earth rotates faster than the moon orbits, therefore the moon appears to travel east to west, in a given day. 2) The moon orbits west to east, so that explains why it is advancing westward every day. No 814) Surface speed vs linear speed during a solar eclipse: Damian Starost (See OP) Alright guys, I've always been a globehead myself but this video seems to make sense. It's about the solar eclipse that's about to happen on the 21st of August over USA. It shows how the eclipse should happen the other way around and how the models shown to us are wrong. If some globehead has an explanation for this I would greatly appreciate the input, thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgPzqjm5Wog https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155001173661795/ No 814a) Bruce Ing - Damian Starost, The biggest factor is that the moons speed is higher that the Earths surface speed. Surface speed along a circumference is NOT the same as rotational speed. The rotational speed is 1 day vs 27.3 days. However the linear speed is about 1,039 mph vs over 2,200 mph. -------- Here is the rough calculation. Radius of moon's orbit =239,000 miles Diameter of orbit=2*radius= 478,000 miles Circumference of orbit= diameter*Pi= 478,000*3.141592635= 1,501,681.24 miles mph of moon = circumference/27.3 days/24 hours= 2,291.94 mph *** The shadow of the moon would cross the Earth about twice as fast as the surface of the Earth travels! *** No 815) Harrison Smith (See OP) Apollo 9 1969 Anyone else see the curve? https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155002328746795/ No 815a) Jason Terry - This is a pic from the same mission No 816) Proof of the Earth spinning: ----------- Johnny Orbital - have you researched stellar parallax and stellar aberration? http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/88-is-there-a-proof-that-earth-moves-intermediate No 816a) From Abd Aziz Gagah OP I m not sayin earth is flat but i cant believe if the eart is spining. https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155002333711795/ No 817) Water freezes from the top: ------ Ice can't hold back water! Oceans are at 4 degrees because ice floats AND water freezes from the top. So the bottom of the ocean is at 4 degrees. *** The entire ocean would have to freeze solid for an ice wall to be solid on the bottom! *** No 818) If we mention that things can't be seen over the horizon and the horizon is curving away from you. Why does every flat Earth say the horizon is straight? When we are talking about the horizon looking away from you, what does that have to do with looking left and right? -------- We see curvature looking out over the horizon, like looking down a 2x4. This shortens the distance and amplifies the curvature. It has nothing to do with looking left and right, which is harder to see, as it is such a small drop, over such a long distance, it is hard to tell if it is "straight". (See diagram No 818) ------------ This HAS TO BE intentional. No one can switch from z axis discussions to x axis without knowing they are wrong! No 819) Cody Matthew (See OP) https://www.facebook.com/paulwilsonimages/videos/1456109264468891/?fref=mentions (Link to OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/?multi_permalinks=10155001628521795&comment_id=10155002670216795¬if_t=like¬if_id=1501598732139409 No 819a) Bruce Ing 1) The stars, and everything goes down in straight line, because the Earth is turning, not the stars turning over a flat Earth. 2) Notice everything is setting below the horizon. The stars, sun and milky way can't move like this on a flat Earth with a ROTATING sky! No 820) Marco Alvarez - So i was looking at some flerf math and they say the sun is 32 miles wide and 3000 miles away, that would have an angular diameter of 0.611 but the sun is 0.5 so that means the flerf sun would look 1.22X it's size now ? No 820a) Marco Alvarez - Also to visually compare green is real sun and black would be flerf sun No 821) Ryan Wynn (see OP) Please like the page Flat Earth for more entertainment and laughs! https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154999980881795/ No 821a) Benjamin James Muthig - Except the Sun is millions of times bigger than the Moon.... How would this work on a flat earth? Why do we get a large penumbra if the Sun and Moon are so close to each other? No 821b) Robert Tiffany - Actually Ryan, when the light source is significantly larger than the object casting the shadow, this is exactly what shadows do. No 821c) Cody Matthew - Plus just look at it. Instead of seeing a cone shaped focused shadow, view the cone shape as a straight shadow being cast from the moon. It's called perspective. No 821d) Cody Matthew - I've actually seen a flat earth model that "explains" solar eclipses. But of course, that's a DIFFERENT flat earth model than the one that is regularly referenced, it doesn't work with our moon phases, doesn't reflect the moons easily observable location in the sky, you can't predict the eclipse, you can't predict the total eclipse path, and lunar eclipses are impossible (as is the case with every flat earth model). But ya know... fuck science. Flat earth makes sense. No 821e) Eric Thomas - You can see the sun and moon getting closer to alignment this couldn't happen on flat earth NO 821f) Eric Thomas - As a matter of fact as far as ive seen the sun and moon are the same size on flat earth and orbit at the same height wouldn't they crash into each other and even if the sun were slightly higher the whole world would go dark not just a small path across the us lol No 821g) Cody Matthew - Don't you know? Total solar eclipses are visible by everyone everywhere. Bruce Ing - That would be another thing against a flat Earth. People would see a solar eclipse from different angles on a flat Earth, so they wouldn't see it all at the same time! No 821h) Corey Baratta - This is such b.s., they take shit that ONLY works on the globe and then rearrange it. Doesn't work that way No 821i) Zev-Velvel Griner - This is all explained by umbra and penumbra.Contrary to flatard fairy tales, the sun is huge, way larger than the moon and it's light is NOT "parallel". Think HUGE CANDLE. No 821j) Bruce Ing That shadow also proves the sun is much larger than the moon. So, even though it is much farther away, the light from it, the sun can go on one side or the other side of the moon, at any given time, thus causing the cone shape mentioned in the OP! No 822) Bruce Ing - The moon is getting farther away by 2.5 cm a year. They measure it! Three sets of pyramid mirrors left on the moon by the Apollo misssions! They shine a laser at the mirrors to measure the distance. No 822a) It's all part of the Earth, moon, tidal system caused by GRAVITY! Again, evidence and phenomena that prove gravity, explain what we measure and can't be explained by a flat Earth. No 822b) from Abd Aziz Gagah's OP Something spinning is getting slower... https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155003781566795/ No 822c) Lunar laser Ranging Experiment: NO 823) Peter Mirtitsch - To give an idea of scale, try this, at proper scale. No 824) Dan Renner - Flat-Earth doesn't comply with sunrise and sunset, as they are seen and demonstrated by the global Earth model, as well as reality. No 825) The sun between the clouds: How can a 32 mile diameter sun fit between clouds only a few hundred or few thousand feet thick? (See diagram No 825) No 825a) source OP: Emily Lunn O'Brien Look at this picture I took of clouds in front of and BEHIND the sun. How come there are clouds surrounding the sun if the sun is 93 MILLION MILES AWAY?? (hint: its LOCAL!) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155008872396795/ No 825b) Josh Lewis - All of those clouds are in front of the sun Dave Weir - *all clouds are in front of the sun. No 825c) Dolan Vaudo - Since your type respond to YouTube so well... https://youtu.be/fwkq4-id5t0 No 825d) David Dingess - The light is simply passing through the less dense clouds No 825e) The sun being between the clouds even conflicts with other flat Earth explanations: No 825f) Christian Piers Wilkinson No 825g) Joseph King - This is really all about Occam's Razor. FE theory needs to make grand assumptions and rewrite all of science and history to make any actual observations fit. On the other hand the spherical earth explains everything we see elegantly with repeatable results. This is simply a matter of choosing the explanation that best fits the empirical evidence. Flat Earth doesn't explain anything that we see with our own eyes. No 825h) Johnny Orbital 1 question are you claiming the clouds are as high as the sun? or are you claiming the sun is as low as the clouds? No 825i) Curtis Boyles - I like your line of thinking, Johnny. Let's say someone lives at the southern tip of south America and can see the sun which is only 32 miles wide and 3000 miles high then why can't they see the ice wall on a flat plain? If the sun is in fact so small then how can anyone even see it at all when it's that high? Curtis Boyles - These idiots think you can zoom in to bring ships back on the horizon but you can't zoom in and see the sun at night... ffs. No 825j) Lex Verdillo - But how come there (are) clouds 3001 miles above? No 825k) Bruce Ing - The sun is moving somewhere around 1,039 mph. So, how could it be almost stationary between a layer of clouds for any length of time. In fact we are lucky it isn't within the atmosphere, it would reek havoc! No 825l) Bruce Ing - The sun is 3,000 miles up, which means the air is too thin to support the formation of clouds. In fact, there isn't any atmosphere or water vapour to speak of! No 826) Sun dog: -------------- Dolan Vaudo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_dog No 827) John Harrison - Since I know the Flerf believers are a tried & true bunch, dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge regardless of popular opinion, perhaps you could tell us how far away this sun is, its size (volume, circumference, & diameter), composition (god beams?), and explain retrograde motion of planets with mathematical examples? Also, I'd be curious to know more about the moon. No 828) Kim Matthijssen - National Aeronautics and Space Administration's photo. If you want to share something as awesome as this, why not share it with the flerfs? I'm sure they will appreciate it as much as any sane person would do! https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/search/?query=Kim%20Matthijssen%20-%20National%20Aeronautics No 829) Henry Marshall-Dutton (See OP) Hey flat earthers, particularly any islamic ones, If earth was flat, can you explain how and why a saudi prince went up to space in a shuttle?? Dont even try say he works for NASA you fuckin lemons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_bin_Salman_Al_Saud (Link to OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155013753046795/ No 830) Dan Renner (See OP) If there are so many satellites in space, how come we don't see them frequently in photographs from the International Space Station? HERE IS WHY! (Link to OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154987784081795/ No 831) Gravity being weak is it's strength: There are 4 fundamental forces of nature. - The strong nuclear force - The weak nuclear force - Electromagnetism - gravity That is in order of strength. The thing about gravity, is if it were any stronger, things would all have collapsed into black holes and life would never have formed. That give you an idea of why electromagnetism can't work. Electromagnetism is millions of times stronger than gravity. It is TOO STRONG! ------------- Try getting two magnets of opposite poles to hover above each other, (without any external support), you CAN'T. They will flip over and snap together. The forces are too strong and that makes them impossible to balance. Gravity and orbits work because gravity is so weak, that orbits will naturally balance out. The system can fine tune itself. *** The fact that gravity is so weak, is it's strength! No 832) Brandon Carter (See OP) Proof: Varying Star Constellations Observation originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE) He said the earth was round because it was the only way you can explain varying star constellations seen while moving away from the equator. (Link to OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155011418626795/ No 833) The Twilight Zone: --------- The twilight zone, seems to be a big area of confusion for most flat Earthers. *** It is possible for us to be in shadow at the same time that other objects higher up or in space, (e.g. clouds, mountains, planes and the moon) are in sunlight. Many flat Earthers try to use this as a reason why the Earth can't be spherical, however they don't seem to understand that it is quite possible on the globe Earth and the OPPOSITE of what would happen on a flat Earth. The sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west as does the moon. (However, the moon appears to advance eastward every day by 1/27.3th of a circle every day.) (See diagram No 833) No 833b) The shadow at dusk, rises from ground level, as the Earth rotates (the sun "sets".) So things on the ground are in darkness before things above them. (See diagram No 833b) No 834) The down angle of the horizon is about twice what it should be on a flat Earth: ------------- No 834a) These phone app readings show that the horizon is actually below level. 2) The horizon HAS TO BE below level. *** It physically has to be! *** Explanation: As you go up, the ground drops below you. At 35,000 feet, the ground is 35,000 feet below you. 3) On a flat Earth, it would extend away from you, 35,000 feet below your eye level. So, the horizon, with no clouds is about 230 miles away and 35,000 feet down. That is not level, that is an angle of 6.628/230 = 1.65 degrees. Why do we see 3 degrees, because it is actually curving downward. It isn't at the level it should be if the Earth was flat, it is TWICE as far down as it should be if it were flat! No 835) The south pole disproves the ice wall: ------------ Jeremy Shelton - The question you should be asking is why no one has pictures proving the edge doesn't exists ------------ Bruce Ing - There are pictures proving the edge doesn't exist! People take pictures at the south pole, ALL THE TIME! That means the world is spherical and the ice wall doesn't exist. - They are mutually exclusive. *** Either the south pole exists or the ice wall does. *** We have pictures of the south pole! No 836) Marco Alvarez - This is a good place for flight info and South Pole pictures https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2015/january/22/around-the-world-over-the-poles No 836b (See image No 836b) No 837) Richard Keyes - Bruce Ing your idea of the spherical earth seems right this debunks the flat earth theory completely.. http://remnantofgod.org/flatearth.htm No 838) Joby Dorr - If the Earth is flat why do long-distance ballistics have to take the Coriolis effect into account? https://loadoutroom.com/thearmsguide/external-ballistics-the-coriolis-effect-6-theory-section/ No 838b) Joby Dorr If the Germans had not considered the Coriolis effect they would not have been able to shell Paris in WWI from 113 km away. http://www.vcsp.info/Chapter_8/Application_to_Long-Range_Artillery_-_Shelling_Paris_in_WW1/Shell_Trajectory_in_Atmosphere_on_a_Rotating_Earth.aspx No 839) Darren Biby - There are a couple of things you can look for to quickly identify pseudoscience. First, most of their arguments are against other claims rather than supporting their own. Second, they focus a lot on authorities. Either with a bunch of quotes or claiming 'mainstream' authorities are all conspiring against them. If someone is making a claim and employs these two tactics as the bulk of their argument, you can rest assured they are full of nonsense. No 836) Marco Alvarez - This is a good place for flight info and South Pole pictures https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2015/january/22/around-the-world-over-the-poles No 840a) Joe Haley https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/lunar/2017-august-7 No 840) Heinrich Kotze (see OP) Hi guys ..i just want to ask ..i keep on reading about the eclipse that is suppose to happen in this month ..i just came out tonight to watch the moon rise and saw it was a full moon but as it got higher it caused the same affect as a moon eclipse but not even a half moon ...is that also an eclipse and are we supposed to see it happening now ? (Original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155020132181795/ No 841) Solar Day: ---------- The Earth rotates once, (360 degrees), every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds. Since we are orbiting the sun, the Earth is at a slightly different angle, so we don't reach high noon to high noon in 360 degrees. We have to add 360/365.24 = 0.98565 degrees to a day (24*60/365.24=3 minutes 56 seconds), to make it a 24 hours. No 842) What does it matter what speed we are going through a vacuum? -------------- 1) I asked a question on that thread. The question was, if we found out today that the Entire universe is going 100 billion mph in the direction of the constellation of Orion. *** What difference would it make? *** Bruce Ing - It didn't matter before we found out. No 842a) - It doesn't matter now. Whatever direction and speed everything is going at TOGETHER is irrelevant! That is relative motion! No 842b) 2) The second part of that, is what difference does it make how fast anything is going in a vacuum? *** How can going at any speed in a vacuum affect anything? *** It can't vacuums DON'T suck anything. Pressure pushes out! No 843) In regards to the rotation of the Earth being faster than the speed of sound, at the equator: ------------ Kainoa Aalona The speed of sound is 767 miles per hour. The Earth rotates at over 1000 miles per hour which means we're spinning at almost 1 1/2 times the speed of sound yet we don't feel a thing. This so called planet is just one giant sonic boom (Original OP referenced) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155023055106795/ No 843a) Jess Kendall - Thing is, planes that travel at the speed of sound are traveling relative to the atoms in the air, but the earth rotates with the air. No 843b) Daniel Broome - Clocks generally have 12 marked hours on the face. A day is 24 (ish) ergo the hour hand makes 2 revolutions every day No 843c) Jess Kendall - think about when you drive at the same speed as someone else down a motorway. you are both going fast, but if you just looked at the other car you wouldn't see it move. No 843d) Nick Murphy - Say it with me... "rotation is measured in rotations over time. Not distance over time." Now. Again... No 843e) Floyd Marston https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=328980640905331&set=p.328980640905331&type=3 No 843f) Sam Marin - That speed is relatively slow compared to everything else in the universe take 24 hours to even go 24000 miles No 843g) Derrick Hammer - The speed of sound is the distance traveled per unit time by a sound wave as it propagates through an elastic medium. If the medium is also moving, then the "speed" must be calculated accordingly. No 843h) Peter Mirtitsch - THE EARTH DOES NOT ROTATE AT 1000MPH!!!! THE EARTH ROTATES AT FIFTEEN DEGREES PER HOUR!!! No 843i) A sonic boom is the difference in speed of 767 mph between two fronts. Please tell me where on Earth the air is going at two speeds with that big a difference? No 844) Jonathan Barron - If you don't want these bruce you can delete them. I didn't take them but an acquaintance I met in another group did Using a light source bigger than the dangling ball No 844b) See image No 844c) Uldis Romanovs - I put it all together. (See meme No 844c) No 845) Lawrence James Holzhaeuser https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1865865203440515&id=100000511601993&set=gm.914805162008617&source=48&refid=7&__tn__=EHH-R No 846) The details of the horizon only work for a spherical Earth: --------- - The horizon is ALWAYS a circle 360 degrees around is (that mysteriously looks flat, but makes sense on a sphere) - it is ALWAYS a circular patch of earth from high up enough - there is NEVER any ground or water visible beyond the horizon - the distance to the horizon can be calculates with out elevation and curvature calculations This is only consistent with a line of sight tangent to horizon on a spherical Earth. No 847) Regarding density in a vacuum: -------- Philip Cowley - If "weight" is "how heavy something is compared to what's surrounding it.", why are objects in vacuum chambers not infinitely heavy? No 848) Pictures of partial Solar Eclilpse - August 7-8, 2017 ----------- Ian Banders The big flying space pizza looks so pretty against the moon ( Click photo for full photo. ) No 849) When we build a dome, e.g. Rogers Center, in Toronto, we have huge technical issues. The materials have trouble enough supporting themselves over a 700 foot span, let alone, supporting water above them. The Rogers Center roof is made of steel and light weight fabric and weights over 10,000 tons! Yet, we are expected to believe that there is an INVISIBLE dome over our heads spanning at least 25,000 miles, that holds back a sky full of water? - No explanation as to what it is made of! - No evidence of this water! - Evidence that we can see through all of this and spot planets, stars, nebula and galaxies huge distances away, showing that there is a vacuum beyond the atmosphere, NOT a dome or water. Yet we are suppose to believe people who have no sound arguments, no evidence, nothing they can prove and don't understand the most basic illusions or scientific principles? No 849b) Original OP, that I am responding to: ----------- Damien MacDonnell (See his OP) like if you believe something, Or someone intelligent built this enclosed planatery EcoSystem we live in and that we are submerged underwater with the firmament keeping the waters above out from flooding us out. #OperationFishbowl #FlatEarth #FlatEarthSociety #TheLieIsOver (Link to OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155024388816795/ No 850) The horizon is a circle 360 degrees around is, ALWAYS: ----------- If you are looking at the horizon from a plane or high mountain, it will look flat. However, looking at a large, curved sphere, from such altitudes looks flat, 360 degrees around, due to our perspective! You are looking slightly down and your line of sight is tangent to the horizon. This AUTOMATICALLY makes it look flat! HOWEVER, it is a circle, 360 degrees around. *** Let that sink in. IT IS A CIRCLE! No 851) How can we see through water overhead? ---------- Astronomers, including amateur astronomers on this site take pictures of objects tens or thousands of light years away. The present pictures comparable to what we see from the hubble telescope. How does that happen with a dome and water overhead? *** You can't see more that a thousand feet through water. It absorbs all the light! No 852) How can we hold back the pressure of water over hour heads? ----------- We have to go down in cramped spaces, encased in steel and thick windows of acrylic, just to go down a few thousand feet. How can any structure, that is also clear, hold back miles of water over our heads? What keeps that water from leaking in through the bottom of the wall? What keeps that pressure from forcing water up through the flat Earth? Structurally and physically, it can't work! No 853) Derrick Hammer - Technically speaking, nothing sucks. What we call "suck" is really just a lower (or absence of) pressure that allows for higher pressure to push that lower pressure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjcOfH7B2UE No 854) The moons apparent direction and shadow direction during an eclipse: --------- The moon appears to go from east to west, when we look at it during the course of a day. (See diagram No 854a) No 854b) However, it is actually the Earth rotating faster than the moon rotates (27.3 days vs 1 day), so the moon appears to be going east to west. (See diagram No 854b) No 854c) The moon also advances every day as well. If we look at the moon at the same time every day, it will appear to advance about 13 degrees every day. (See diagram No 854c) No 854d) This is because the moon is rotating from west to east. During the course of a day, (24 hours), it has gone forward in it's revolution. (See diagram No 854d) No 855) If shadows always spread out, why is the solar eclipse from a 3,000 mile wide moon only casting a 100 mile wide shadow? ------------ Aditya Singh - Some basics are here (See meme No 855) No 856) Sun, Earth and moon distances and proportions: ----------- Shane Welsh (See diagram No 856a) - Distances between sun and Earth and Earth and moon. https://www.facebook.com/shane.welsh.35/videos/1772261902788261/ No 856b) Shane Welsh (See diagram No 856b) - True Scale No 857) Solar Eclipse, Umbra and Penumbra: ------------ T-jay Harfleet No 857b) T-jay Harfleet - A solar eclipse doesn't just "pinpoint" a shadow. No 857c) Amit Rout - ... Would you please consider the fact that sun is many many times larger than the moon.. Even if the shadow of moon falls on a larger part of land, the light of the sun will definitely cancel it out No 857d) Phillip Hunter - No one is saying there will be complete darkness art the eclipse. Just that as you look up stirring the totality of the eclipse, the profile of the sun will be blocked out by the profile of the moon. Simple. No 857e) From OP - Isaac Mercado https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155027882156795/ No 857f) Nick Pulmer - You seem to forget that the out side of the shadow is actually what's bigger, and that tinny little spot is just where it's darker. Go to Nashville Tennessee on the 21st. No 857g) Geoff Broad (See diagram No 857g) No 857h) Geoff Broad (See diagram No 857h) No 857i) Nick D Cooper - Yes. If you assume that the Sun is a single point of light. Its not though.. its a massive ball of single points of light. An absolutely huge vast ball of single points of light, No 857j) Geoff Broad (See meme No 857j) No 857k) (See image No 857k) http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/eclipses.html No 857l) How far apart are the sun and moon during a solar eclipse on a flat Earth? No 858) Equatorial Mounts explained: For anyone who doesn't know, since a star, planet, sun or moon is a fixed position in the sky and the Earth is rotating, we can track it with a single axis of rotation. These devices that we use are called equatorial mounts, and they can be mounted on a tripod, at the right angle and then rotate to counter the Earth's rotation. If the Earth were flat and the sun, moon, planets and stars were turning, you would have to track in two axis, to simulate looking at a curved path from below. Here's an illustration. (See diagram No 858) No 859) A demonstration of what a reflection on flat water should look like. ------ Manas Sikdar - This photu concludes that this earth is indeed fulat! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155808407951795/ ----------- No 859a) This picture demonstrates that a reflection of the sun on flat water is not a long streak, as flat Earther's claim. It is a mirror image! (See picture No 859a) No 859b) A curved mirror, like a fun house mirror, elongates things. (See picture No 859b) No 860) Paul FE Parmesean - Please find me a uncut video. No 860a) Liam Gustafsson - Yes, that's right! Checkmate! If they don't have a video of every possible space activity it must all be fake! I'm woke No 860b) Ronald Kinney - Probably because such a video would be really really fucking boring, and would be a waste of precious down link bandwith? No 860c) Ronald Kinney = Paul FE Parmesean The reason you've never really seen a video like you are looking for is because the people who work for NASA, and the public in general, really are not interested in watching an astronaut go through all the steps of leaving a spacecraft and entering the vacuum of Outer Space. We honestly have much better things to be doing with our time - like actual Science, which allows us to learn, and expand our knowledge of the Universe. No 860d) Liam Gustafsson - Paul FE Parmesean, we both know if that film existed you would reject is fake. Wouldn't make any difference. You've already rejected all the evidence as fraudulent, why would that footage be any different? No 860e) Here you go, an astronaut returning from outside and compressing in the air lock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqWcV9m9cP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hCglh2qL_Q No 860f) Calvin Gorvman uh oh! ONE camera. ONE shot. UNCUT. https://youtu.be/rAO6LQlMn_0 No 861) Five Hour unedited space walk; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysf3boaRyJI No 862) Paul FE Parmesean (see his OP) Those space suits are not made for space. (Original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155033342151795/ No 862a) Training underwater means the suits have to take negative pressure of several atmospheres. That means they should have no probable taking positive atmospheres and the pressure in a suit is less than one atmosphere in outer space. *** So, using a suit in outer space isn't a harder technical challenge, it's easier! No 863) Didn't they have IMAX pictures from space, 25 years ago, back in the 90's? How could they fake that, with the technology they had then? No 864) When they ask where the stars are in pictures from space... - Check out any high altitude, flat Earth, pictures or videos. *** Where are the stars in those pictures? No 865) James William Kaler (from his OP) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAPJ2sy8UPc No 866) If the sun seems to be going east to west, when viewed at daily, and according to flat Earth. Why does the eclipse shadow go from west to east? No 866b) The eclipse in April 8, 2024 No 867) Geodetic markers: ----------- Geodetic surveyors put geodetic markers every 20 or 30 miles, around the country. Sometimes it is a famous land mark, e.g. The Sears tower in Chicago. They look like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLUaCWAtams https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXTHaMY3cVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKGlMp__jog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXnNBtsFSaw No 868) Correcting survey lines: Road offsets/Detours due to curvature of the Earth! --------- If you lay out land in a grid, the problem with a spherical Earth, is that the lines won't be parallel. You have to correct and shift the lines every 100 miles or so. --------- Have you ever driven on a road and noticed the north south roads have an offset, for no apparent reason at all? That is because land becomes wider as one goes south, in the northern hemisphere and north in the southern hemisphere. http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/gerco-de-ruijter-grid-corrections-highways-driving-wichita https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC122YE_correction-survey-lines-i?guid=0c81bc36-f1fe-4fdd-a023-1db674781671 http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/gerco-de-ruijter-grid-corrections-highways-driving-wichita http://www.tested.com/science/earth/557287-challenge-building-straight-roads-spherical-earth/ No 868b) If we are going from 0 width to 10,000 Km, over 10,000 km, then that would literally be a correction of 1 to 1. If we take a mile and average it's width over 10,000 km (6214.26796 miles), we get a correction of about 10.196 inches, per mile wide, per mile up. Concession roads in Canada are 1,000 acres, 1.25 miles apart, so for every 1.25 miles up, we would need 15.9311 inches. -------------- The math behind it. A concession road is 1.25 miles wide, that is; 5280 feet/mile * 1.25 miles * 12 inches/foot = 79,200 inches wide This is along a length of 1.25 miles going north, so that is; 79,200 inches/6214.26796 miles*1.25 miles= 15.931079998 inches per 1.25 miles north No 869) Andrew Paul Cotterill (See OP) So where is this from thought there was a dome???? https://www.facebook.com/DailyMail/videos/1441862045894711/?fref=gs (Original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/search/?query=Andrew%20Paul%20Cotterill No 870) Refraction and lensing do not mean things look curved: ---------- Richard Krombacher (See meme No 870) No 870a) Bruce Ing - Actually refraction occurs BEFORE the horizon. ---------- - You have to see light in a straight line. The light has refracted, before it reached the horizon. Two straight lines; i) from the object to the refraction point ii) From the refraction point to you. - Refraction and lensing do NOT mean you see something curved! - Light goes in a straight line and is bent at a point beyond your view! No 871) Mark England (See meme No 871) No 872) Shadows in different directions on the moon: ------- Paul FE Parmesean None of the Apollo missions brought any extra studio lighting with them on the Lunar Lander, so the Sun should be the only light source on “the Moon” and in all pictures taken there. In that case, the light should only come from one direction and all shadows should be cast in the opposite direction. However, in dozens of official NASA photos there are shadows being cast in up to 3 directions simultaneously, often at up to 90 degree angles, which can only be the result of multiple light sources, not present on the Moon. Several pictures even show overhead spotlights reflecting in astronaut’s helmets and multiple lens flares originating from two or more light sources. Response: Bruce Ing - Actually shadows can, and do, appear to go in different directions when they are going down or up a slope. This explains why it is "up to 90 degrees" difference in angle. However never going backwards against the light source. No 872a) Here is the setup. there is a flat section and sections going up and down hill. (See picture No 872a) No 872b) When you look from the top at a section going down hill, the shadows look parallel, but from the side, the shadows appear to go at different angles. (See picture No 872b) No 872c) When you look from the top at a section going up hill, the shadows look parallel, but again from the side, the shadows appear to go at different angles. (See picture No 872c) No 873) The Milky Way: The stars we can see at night are only a tiny fraction of the stars in the milky way. (See diagram No 873) No 873b) We know this, because we can actually see the milky way galaxy that we are in, in the night sky! (See illustration No 873b) No 873c) Just look up at night! Any amateur astronomer can take a picture like this of the milky way! (see picture No 873c) No 873d) There are also dust clouds in the way, so just like the Earth blocks the sun at night, a lot of the light will never be seen by us, including the galactic center. No 874) Tony Hughes - Geotropism -------- Geotropism (also know as gravitropsim) is the growth of the parts of plants with respect to the force of gravity. The upward growth of plant shoots is an instance of negative geotropism ; the downward growth of roots is positive geotropism. You may argue that they grow towards the sunlight, but while seeds are in the ground, without any light source they will grow upwards and roots grow downwards and never see sunlight. No 875) The moon's tilt, with respect to the solar plane, explains why eclipses are rare: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10156183169396795/ The moon is tilted about 5 degrees, compared to the solar systems plain. That gives it a movement of about +28 degrees to -28 degrees compared to the equator, in a single lunar rotation (27.34 days). 1) That explains why the moon can be very high in the sky one day and low in the sky two weeks later. 2) That and the moon's distance also explain why we don't see solar or lunar eclipses very often. 3) The 27.34 day lunar orbit means the sun and moon are NOT opposite each other in orbit! (See diagram No 875a) No 875b) Here is a diagram of the Earth and moon to scale and a representation of the angles between the plains of rotation. (See diagram No 875b) No 875c) You can see the reflection of the sun. It is off by 23.5 degrees! (Image No 875c) No 875d) Hussein Ey Ahmad - where the sun?!!! moon, stars?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxbPCV_kbpw (See original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155042260356795/ No 875d-1) As mentioned above, the sun and moon are are not in alignment with the Earth and satellite. (Diagram No 875b) No 875c-3) the stars can't be seen because of exposure. The same reason you can't see stars in high altitude balloon videos. (Image No 896) No 876) Eric Dubay on Polaris: ---------- Kumba Jerome Ataman Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-lT2EZJ69E&feature=youtu.be No 876a) Kumba Jerome Ataman Re: your video; Polaris: 1a) Polaris is very far away, so even with the speed we are going around the galaxy, (Polaris is going in the same direction WITH us), it's apparent change in position is very small in a given year. It is slowly going out of alignment due to a 26,000 year wobble in or axis. So in about 69 years, it will be off by about 1 degree around this wobble. 1b) Some of the motions, e.g. our orbit around the sun are insignificant, because the are such a small change compared to the vast distance between us and Polaris. 1c) Other motions, the orbit around the galaxy, the orbit of the galaxy through the universe, don't have much effect on how we see Polaris, because we are going the same speeds and directions as Polaris. we are BOTH orbiting the galaxy, which is taking us through the universe. 1d) The distance to Polaris, 433 light years, is well known and Dubay is cherry picking old measurements with newer more accurate measurements, as he often does to make it seem like things are not known very accurately. This all relates to and is explained by RELATIVE MOTION. 1e) Polaris can NOT be seen south of the equator. Perhaps a few miles south if one is on top of a mountain, but otherwise not at all. No flat Earther has been able to show picture proof of Dubay's claim of seeing Polaris south of the equator! 1f) Many of the constellations he mentions are relatively far south of the north pole and are and SHOULD be visible that many degrees south of the equator. There is nothing strange or impossible about this on a globe! 1g) The northern constellations visible at the same time, are the ones near the north pole. The constellations farther away from the pole star are not visible by everyone at once! The one's he mentions south of the equator aren't near the south pole! That is no different than at the north pole! Some constellations, like Octans are right beside the south pole and are visible everywhere at once! He calls the northern constellations he refers to "norther circum-polar constellations. Why doesn't he call the southern ones southern cirum-polar constellations? ... because he purposely chose ones that are far away from the southern pole! 1h) The angle at which one can see Polaris is proportional to one's latitude. No amount of perspective can explain this. If we take the angle and the distance and assume the Earth is flat then we get totally different elevations for Polaris, going right down to touching the Earth according to any observer at the equator! Again perspective and vanishing point would say that the star should disappear if far enough away, BUT it doesn't it goes below the horizon, south of the equator. 1i) If Polaris is about 3,000 miles up, as some claim, then it's "vanishing point" should be abotu 187,000 miles away, well beyond the edge of the flat Earth! At the equator, Polaris should still be well up in the sky! 1j) Claiming that the southern constellations going around the south polar axis is false and unnatural is BS. He uses England as an example and FAILS to mentino that many constellations are NOT EVER visible from England. Those in the southern hemisphere! 1k) He falsely states that everywhere it is seen that the starts go in an arch from south east to south west. In the southern hemisphere they go from north east to north west. This, again is NOT physically possible on a flat Earth. 1l) The same thing that we see in the northern hemisphere is true for the southern hemisphere. They are two totally different hemispheres and identical in size and arch. 1m) The north and south polar axis can be seen from any point along the equator, where it is night, AT THE SAME TIME, which is impossible on a flat Earth! Eric Dubay says word salad and constantly states things are not possible when in fact they are and do happen! *** When Eric Dubay says something is impossible, that is when you should investigate it and see if he is correct. More often than not he is making a false statement or outright lying! What he claims is not possible is actually what happens. He is a liar! -------------- From Kumba Jerome Ataman's OP https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155043027921795/ No 876b) Polaris on a globe Earth makes sense and is in the same position for every latitude north of the Equator. No 876c) On a flat Earth, why can't you see Polaris from the southern regions? Chille? Australia? The ice wall? No 877) Air has pressure, it pushes on water. We can demonstrate this, by reducing the air pressure on water and it "boils". That just means the water pressure is high enough to bubble water vapour out of the water. We usually boil water by raising the temperature, therefore giving enough energy to raise the water pressure past 14.979 psi. However, lowering the atmospheric pressure allows the water to boil at a lower temperature and pressure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTVwAZ0_9p0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glLPMXq6yc0 No 878) Vacuums don't suck - Demonstration: If you go into outer space, the pressure in your body, which is use to 14.979 psi (sea level pressure), pushes out. SOme animals, e.g. spiders and flys with an exoskeleton can resist this pressure or likely equalize pressure, so they don't "explode" in a vacuum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB-KggcniJM No 879) Air pressure pushes on things, here on Earth. We don't feel it, because it is all around us. However, when you go up on a mountain the air pressure is lower and therefore there is less air and oxygen to breath. Here is a demonstration showing air pressure on water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjcOfH7B2UE No 880) What is the temperature of space? Space has no temperature. However, it allows heat to escape and if there is no heat to replace it, e.g. the sun, it would get very cold. So near the Earth's vacuum, the temperature is around minus 15 degrees on average, the sun shining on one side and the heat radiating from the cold side. In deep space, it gets very cold, because there is no sun to keep you warm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hTAr2GkhpM No 881) Drachenfutter Rämond (See OP) Some ballers have been talking about atmospheric conditions. They claim the atmosphere has less pressure at higher altitudes. I conducted a small experiment. I took 2 buckets filled half way with water, and connected them with a hose that had no air. (a siphon) I then elevated one above the other. If there was more air pressure surrounding the one at the lower altitude, the pressure should push the water into the higher bucket. The opposite happened. The water was moved into the lower bucket. This seems to prove that higher altitudes actually have more air pressure. (Original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155037861286795/ NO 881a) Bruce Ing - Drachenfutter Rämond, if you want an explanation of where you went wrong. Both water pressure and air pressure go down as you go up, however water is thousands of times denser than air, so water pressure is much higher than air pressure for a given height. *** The small change in air pressure can't compete with the much greater change in water pressure! *** (The numbers in my diagram aren't actual calculated figures but they give you an idea.) No 881b) Bruce Ing - Drachenfutter Rämond Just like air pressure goes up as you get deeper into the atmosphere, water pressure goes up as you get deeper into the water. The pipe has just as much pressure as a container. Thickness doesn't matter! So at the surface of the top container the water pressure is zero. There is no water on top of it. At the surface of the bottom container, the water pressure is 1 foot of water! -------------- *** Sure the air pressure goes up by 1 foot of air, but water is 1000:1.23, so the water pressure difference is 813 TIMES higher than the air pressure difference. *** The water will flow down to the bottom container and spill out, until the water levels equalize. No 882) If you don't believe in the macro, how do you believe in the micro? ------------- Krystika Lyn Bruce - This is the part I have the hardest time with. Like, how egotistical do you really have to be to believe you're the center of a damn thing? Or are you just scared of being a small part of everything? And this leads me to another thing I'll never understand about this way of thinking.... If you don't believe in the macro, how do you believe in micro? I have yet to see even one Fe try answer that. No 883) Science vs Pseudoscience: -------- Hussein Ey Ahmad (See meme No 883) No 884) Blood doesn't boil in a vacuum: ---------- There are a lot of myths of bodies exploding etc. in space. It's probably likely that some things will swell due to a lower pressure outside than inside your body, you would certainly get the bends and suffocate due to lack of air/oxygen, however, you would not likely explode in the vacuum of space. Since there are comets full of water that have been around for billions of years, if you went into deep space, you'd probably be a frozen corpse! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1HmpKxZ-1Q No 885) Water does boil in a vacuum. The question is whether our skin is enough to maintain enough pressure and prevent water, e.g. in our lungs from boiling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3RU1AHhWFI No 886) Here is an explanation of the cockpit display from my friend who captains a Boeing 777. So, the level line is above the horizon. In this case the horizon is 2.2 degrees below level. The plain's angle, negative 2.5 degrees, is shown below and is independent of the level line or the horizon! No 887) Martin Humphreys (See OP) Wonder what flaties think of solar halos (Original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155045869036795/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(optical_phenomenon) No 888) Aaryn McKenzie-Rae Spring (See OP) Doesn't look so flat to me. Sitting on this plane looking at curvature. (See picture No 888) (Original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155045727586795/ No 889) Northern and southern constellations: ---------- Note the constellations are not arranged in a single disk around the north pole, BUT two identically sized hemispheres! https://empoweryourknowledgeandhappytrivia.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/how-many-constellations-are-in-the-sky/ No 890) Norther Circumpolar constellations No 890a) http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/120-observational-astronomy/stargazing/how-the-motion-of-the-earth-affects-our-view/732-do-we-see-the-same-stars-from-above-and-below-the-equator-beginner No 890b) Image reversed No 891) The pole star conundrum: ----------- https://chizzlewit.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/flat-earth-theory-and-the-pole-stars-conundum/ No 892) Our size and the fact that the horizon is below eye level explain why we can see constellations across the equator from the poles. -------- Some flat Earthers are claiming we shouldn't be able to see the southern constellations from the north pole (and visa versa). However, they neglect 2 things; 1) When we look at the horizon we are looking down. - So we see more than 180 degrees of horizon, if unobstructed. At 6 feet tall, we see 180+0.00723x2 = 180.01446 degrees of sky. 2) We are very small and things are very far away. - So that extra 0.00723 degrees, over light years means we can eventually see some things below or above the equitoral plain from one pole or the other. Here is a diagram looking from the north pole. (See diagram No 892a) No 892b) And a second one looking from the the south pole. - See how that slight extra angle extends out into space, and you can eventually see constellations on the other side of the equator. (See diagram No 892b) No 892c) From closer to the Earth, one would think there is a blind spot, BUT the stars are so far away they don't fall within this blind spot. (See diagram No 892c) No 893) Tony Hughes - A post of mine about outer space.... --------- Weightlessness can be achieved in space, in water and for about 20 seconds on a parabolic plane flight. There are plenty of uninterrupted zero gravity videos from ISS etc. that are much longer than a parabolic flight could produce. How can this be then? Not underwater and not on a parabolic flight. It's in fucking space that's why. I've attached one of these videos. Don't give me any of that shit that they're on wires...wires would only allow movement through a single plane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBVUTFPate0&feature=youtu.be (Original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155043705876795/ No 894) The stars we see from above or below the equator, over the course of a year, would end up being section of sky, minus a cone shaped section at the other pole. Notice there is a cone of stars that is never visible from either hemisphere, but one of the poles always is! Here is a diagram for the northern hemisphere, the same is true of the southern hemisphere. (See diagram No 894) No 895) This is what is visible from the equator over a year. Other than a small area, close to Earth, everything is visible at some point during the year. *** The flat Earth can't explain the shape, timing or locations of constellations that are and aren't visible during the year. No 895b) We can see past the poles to stars on the other side, from all around the equator: ------------- Moreover, everyone can see past the poles to the stars on the other side of the pole, all AT THE SAME TIME from all around the EQUATOR! A physical impossibility on a flat Earth! (...unless there are multiple south poles, all identical and at slightly different angles, even then, they would merge and clash at some point in the sky!) No 896) No stars in high altitude balloon pictures and videos: ---------- When flat Earths ask why are there no stars, I have to ask, why there are no stars in high altitude balloon or rocket videos and pictures? It's the same effect, they complain about NASA pictures, exposure! No 897) When flat Earthers talk about a spherical Earth, they neglect or ignore gravity! *** Gravity has one obvious effect on large objects, it pulls them into spheres! *** ---------- William Jason Bass This is the answer. (See meme No 897a) No 897b) Alex Dieter - Gravity is an attractive force between masses. And since earth is spherical, the force works in the direction of its center. So no matter where you are on the earth, this force is towards the center of the earth. Like in this image: No 897c) Jon Coxon - Gravity works toward the centre of mass, from all directions, equally. Up or down is only relevant to you and your position. No 897d) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zmwc5 No 898) Analysis of the horizon, revisited: --------- No 898a) Why is it that EVERY picture of Earth is a circular patch of ground? - Even flat Earth high altitude balloon pictures and video show a 360 degree patch of ground! No 898b) Why is EVERY picture/video of Earth from high altitude balloon a 360 degree horizon? - 360 degrees would MAKE IT A CIRCLE. That means IT HAS TO CURVE AROUND YOU! It doesn't matter if you can't see the curve, it's a CIRCLE! (Patch of Earth as seen from the ISS) No 898c) Why is EVERY 360 degree horizon a set distance away? - This distance is ALWAYS calculable by CURVATURE CALCULATIONS! https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial No 898d) The blackness of space and no stars: ----------- Why does EVERY horizon end with a tangent to our line of sight? When you look across large bodies of water or from high altitude balloons ... - No water beyond the horizon, just sky - No flat Earth "rising to eye level" just beyond the horizon, just the blackness of space! No 898e) What is the ONLY shape where you can look at a horizon, with your line of sight tangent to the horizon and have it look flat, ALL THE WAY AROUND the CIRCLE? - A spherical Earth is the only thing that works, every time! No 898f) Conclusion: There is only one shape, ONE, where you ALWAYS 1) see a circular patch of ground 2) the horizon is 360 degrees around you 3) the horizon's distance is calculable by curvature calculations 4) your line of sight is tangent to the horizon and you only see sky afterwards 5) you see a flat looking horizon, 360 degrees around you *** The only thing, THE ONLY THING, that fits this is a spherical Earth! *** No 899) Your GPS shuts down if it goes too fast or too high: ------------ You need a newer GPS to send to space. The old one's will shut off if they go too high or too fast. The newer ones have to go too high AND too fast, so they will work in high altitude balloons. How could GPS units ever go too high and too fast if ICBM's don't exist and don't go around the world in orbit? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPtbzJlcNKc No 900) The Arecibo Telescope: ---------- The Arecibo radar dish can and has gotten more accurate speed and directional data for meteorites and asteroids, such as Apophis. Radio reflection measurements tell us how far away the planets, moon and other objects around the Earth are. The tell us things are much further away than what flat Earthers think! They can measure the distance to an asteroid to within 10's of meters and calculate asteroid projectories for 10's or 100's of years into the future! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3WiRunOsWY No 900b) See picture of the Arecibo radar dish. (See picture No 900b) No 901) Apophis asteroid: ------------ How are things like this asteroid with orbits of tens of years possible on a flat Earth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis No 902) Daniel Manahan - If you believe that we should see a curve then please do yourself a favor and have the representative from the flat earth society who does your computer simulations recreate my experiments and verify that I am not lying to you in my analysis ask someone you trust to prove it to you with 3d simulations like this (See Image 902a, b and c) --------------- The current claim is you can't see the curve But why would you? this is what you would see at various altitudes at one mile up, no curve is visible and this is what you would see on a smooth but curving 7900 mile diameter sphere with a 35mm lens No 902b) See original OP https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155048729236795/ No 903) "We are the size of a grain of salt on a hot air balloon." ----------- Steven Duff - The curvature is very difficult to see in perspective even at a high elevation. We are the size of a grain of salt on a hot air balloon. What to see for real? Save up $1,000 and get yourself a helicopter ride and a telescope. If you fly up 10,000 feet or even 2 miles up and point your telescope towards a known landmark 400 500 hundred miles away you will not be able to see it. Example you're in California you are not going to be able to see Chicagos sears tower. Please it's a very inexpensive test for you to do and will show you. No 904) Limitations of vanishing point and seeing beyond the vanishing point. ----------- If you can see something, then it hasn't reached it's vanishing point. A point source of light may be smaller than it's vanishing point, but be bright enough to see. e.g. the vanishing point of the flashlight ,(a physical object), may be a mile away, BUT the light itself extends beyond the vanishing point of the object! *** Basically, you CAN see beyond the vanishing point of a physical object! No 904b) You can see the flame from a lighter 2.3 miles away. You can NOT see the lighter anymore. It's vanishing point is probably about 100 meters, BUT the light extends FAR BEYOND the vanishing point! *** There is No physical vanishing point for a light source. It vanishes when the light it sends out has been absorbed, or spread out so much that there aren't enough photos reaching us to see it. No 904c) Objects vs light sources (Reflected vs Emitted light): ------ 1) Objects are seen by reflected light. They are visible, until there isn't enough reflected light to see them. i.e. they are too small for our eyes to make out. 2) Light sources put out their own light and that light goes straight in every direction. - They vanish, when their light is too dim to see, and that is much farther away, than when a physical object is too dim to see. - Light sources put out a much more intense light than reflected light. *** Therefore, they are visible much farther than physical, non-radiant objects. No 905) Niklas Greuling - Here photos from the iss seen through a telescope, explain this flat earthers No 905b) Richard Krombacher where are all the stars, huh??? ... are you somehow mentally disabled??? Karol Masztalerz stars are too faint to be seen in short exposure Jairo Amaral Not that either. It can get even brighter than Venus, so you have to reduce the exposure to match it, and this alone already prevents you from seing stars. Jairo Amaral Stars don't appear in short exposures like these. No 905c) Jairo Amaral - I also don't get starry fields when I photograph the Moon, for the very same motive. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152386736112719&set=a.10152381300302719.1073741827.572887718&type=3&theater No 906) Setup to check alignment of "towers and perspective: See pictures; No 906a to No 906h. No 906i) Notice if they are line up and the same height they will always be lined up, top and bottom and anywhere in between. The only one that was out of alignment, was one that was tilted slightly at the top. No 907) Speed of the eclipse shadow: ---------- Note that, since the moon is orbiting the Earth. It's shadow speed is independent of the rotation of the Earth itself. The shadow will cross the Earth going 2288 mph, and cross the entire planet in about 4 hours. Mind you during this time, the Earth is rotating at 1,039 mph at the equator and about 700 mph in the USA, so the Earth will be catching up to the shadow. So, the net speed of the shadow will be about 1,588 mph, crossing the USA. No 907b) Note: The moons orbit is physically INDEPENDENT of the Earths rotation. Regardless of how fast or slow the Earth is rotating, the moon will continue to go 2288 mph around the Earth, in it's orbit. The moon turns counter clockwise, as the Earth "STAYS STILL" in the middle! *** How does the Earth's movements affect the moons rotation or the moon's shadow? IT DOESN'T! No 908) Seeing tilt or leaning due to curvature: ------------- It is very hard to tell if something is leaning, if you are looking face on and from a distance: ----------- No 908a) Ade Rumbold - Is this building leaning? (The leaning Tower of Pisa) It leans 5.5 degrees, yet we can't tell! (See picture No 908a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155880759271795/ No 908b) Ade Rumbold - Let's looking from a different angle. (See picture No 908b)) No 908c) If you can't tell a 15 degree tilt from a few hundred feet away, how can you tell a fraction of a degree tilt from 9 to 12 miles away or more? No 908d) Mountain faces lean, 10 to 30 degrees, but can we tell how much they are tilted from 100 miles away? How much is the mountain tilted away from us in this picture? Please tell us to the nearest degree. (See picture No 908d) No 908e) How much is this cliff face tilted? To the nearest degree, how many degrees is this tilted? (See picture No 908e) No 908f) The tilt of a building is 24,901/360 = 1 degree per 69.1694 miles. How can anyone tell if something is tilted 1 degree, 69 miles away? No 908f-2) Flat Earthers seem to think we have radar or special abilities to be able to see and sense the smallest change in angle or the smallest curve. *** Yet, none of them will actually measure anything to confirm that their senses are being fooled! *** No 909) The looming effect: ---------- Looming is a form of Atmospheric Refraction. Much like a mirage, the atmosphere curves light, so we can see it, even though it is over the horizon. (See illustration No 909) Ade Rumbold https://www.britannica.com/topic/mirage-optical-illusion?fref=gc#ref222622 No 909b) Ade Rumbold - This explains the effect better. http://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html?fref=gc=gc#ref222622 No 910) Floyd Marston - Maybe this will help you understand your old debunked meme Michael Harris https://giphy.com/gifs/YiGsW0Wm9bCqA/html5 No 910a) 51 mm distance No 910b) 98 mm distance No 910c) 159 mm distance No 910d) 415 mm distance No 910e) 1162 mm distance No 910f) Here's an illustration of the distances and Field of View (FoV). No 910g) The Dolly Zoom: Pieter Elctricboogalo - It's called the dolly zoom, the further the camera is away from an object, the more of an object can be seen. Even this meme flat earthers made includes distances. Flaffers really meme'd themselves - If you are farther away, you see more of the Earth, but you have to zoom in more. - If you are closer, you see less of the Earth, and you have to zoom out and see a wider angle. (See illustration No 910g-1) (See original OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/266665527141135/permalink/360958397711847/ (See illustration No 910g-2) (See video No 910g-3) https://www.facebook.com/pieter.elctricboogalo.9/videos/124501978365765/ No 911) When we say the ground rises to eye level, we don't mean it physically rises. We mean, as we look out, we tilt our heads higher and higher until finally at infinity, we are looking straight out level. No 912) Water seeks the lowest energy state: -------- Isaac Mercado (see meme) No 912b) Dan Renner - Exactly! Because water seeks the lowest energy state. And fighting the contour of the planet would require a higher energy state. And you don't have the first clue what any of that means... do you. And you don't want to understand. No 912c) When we talk about dams and hydro electric projects, we talk about potential energy. Gravitational energy stored, in the form of things being higher up and having the "potential" to fall and do/release work. ----- On a large body such as the Earth, whatever is farther away from the center of the Earth, has a higher potential. It can fall farther than other parts of the Earth that are closer to the center. *** Just like lifting a bowling ball over your head isn't the most stable place for it. Lifting water into any shape other than a spherical Earth, isn't the most stable place for that water. It will want to fall towards the center. The shape where everything is the most stable, where everything has fallen as far as possible, and is as close to the center as possible, is a spherical Earth! (See diagram No 912c) No 913) Dan Renner - You NEVER HAVE TO LIE to support the truth. The truth is what best supports the truth. COMMON FLAT-EARTH LIES - The horizon always rises to eye-level (it's 3-degrees lower at 29,000 feet) - Water seeks flat and level (it seeks the lowest energy state) - NASA admits to using CGI (they admit to using Photoshop, to edit their PHOTOGRAPHS. Photo-editing rules out CGI). - The angle of crepuscular rays point to the sun. (The angle isn't real. It's produced by perspective.) - Planes never fly over Antartica. (They provide tours and cruises to Antarctica). - Samuel Rowbotham proved Earth is flat. (He lost the bet to Alfred Russell Wallace, who demonstrated the curve). - Nikola Tesla was a flat-Earther. (His ideas for wireless transmission were based on a globe). - Relativity is false. (If you pass another car on the highway, you demonstrate relative speed). - Gravity doesn't exist. (Rolling a pencil off a desk results in a direction change and acceleration - both require action on the pencil). - A telescope will reveal the hull of a ship beyond the horizon. (Just stupid! Optics can't reach out to a given distance and bend the light, which is why it's never demonstrated.) - Planes would have to fly nose-down to compensate for the curve. (Planes have a maximum operational ceiling, above which they can fly no higher. They do adjust pitch about 1° per 60-miles.) - The Van Allen belts would have prevented the moon missions. (The Van Allen belts produce ion radiation, not electromagnetic radiation. It's easy to shield.) - On a globe Earth, people on the bottom would "fall" off. (Things fall "down". "Down" is always toward center mass.) - Rocket engines can't work in a vacuum. There's nothing to push against. (The exhaust pushes against the engine, just as in jet engines, ramjet engines, and all rocket engines.) - The moon is self-illuminating. (Self-illumination wouldn't produce the phases of the moon, or the shadows around craters.) - Maximum viewing distance can be calculated as 8-inches per distance squared, in miles. (False, line of sight requires many other factors, i.e. height of viewer, height of target, distance to horizon, etc.) - Perspective accounts for sunrise and sunset. (Perspective would cause the sun and moon to shrink to a tiny pin-point. They don't.) - Passengers on airliners sometimes see a curve because the jet window is curved. (Bending a flat sheet will not produce distortion). - If the sun moves 500,000 mph, we should see very notable differences in our view of the constellations over thousands of years. (FALSE! The distance the sun moves in thousands of years is negligible by comparison.) - No one has any photos of the curve. (Totally false! We have thousands of photos of the curve. Claiming they're fake doesn't make them fake.) - Odd fringes around the Earth and moon in NASA photos shows they're fake. (The fringing is known as "JPG Artifacts" and are caused by the extreme file compression common to JPGs. This is produced through repetitive saving and compression.) - NASA photos of Earth are fake. (There is no evidence any of them are fake, though NASA does use photo-compositing, which is a valid method to produce real photos by piecing photos together.) - Astronauts admit they never left low-Earth orbit. (False, they state that at the time the shuttle program was operating, they couldn't leave Earth orbit - because the shuttle wasn't designed for deep space.) - People should be able to feel the rotation of the Earth. (There is no human sensory system which can detect steady motion. We detect acceleration only.) No 914) The flat Earth rocket thrust conundrum: (Bruce Ing 2017-08-20) ---------- If rocket exhaust doesn't push on the rocket engine, while exiting, then how does it exit the rocket engine? For every action there is an equal and opposite ... whoops! (See OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155058219666795/ No 915) The Umbra Conundrum: (Bruce Ing, 2017-08-20) -------- If the sun and moon are the same size, we run into the odd situation where the umbra is exactly the size of the moon. The Penumbra can be various sizes depending on the distance between the sun and the moon during a solar eclipse, but the umbra is A SET SIZE! (See OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155058221371795/ No 916) Aircraft, use the engines to pump the thin outside air into the cabin to pressurize it. Meaning that the air at 35,000 feet is evenly mixed, just like at ground level. Air molecules don't separate out, even though some are denser than others. *** Density DOESN'T work! *** No 917) HOW does density work? ---------- If something is more dense then it pushes downward? What if things are the same density? Then they don't push downwards? -------- Well, that's not how things work! *** Things push downward, even if everything around it is the same density! No 918) How does god keep a 25,000 mile diameter, 9 mile thick disk of rock and water STABLE? Here's a diagram with proportional diameter and thickness. It's 1 pixel thick and 2778 pixels long! No 919) Geoff Broad - FE wrecked by the solar eclipse. (See meme No 919) No 920) The sun and moon are NOT exactly the same size: -------- The sun is 400 times larger than the moon, BUT the moon is 390 times closer, so the moon's disk appears to be a little smaller than the sun's disk. - Apparent diameter of the sun 33 arc minutes - Apparent diameter of the moon 31 arc minutes *** They AREN'T exactly the same size and YES it is just a coincidence! No 921a) Since the moon's orbit is elliptical, some times the moon is farther away and doesn't completely cover the sun. "By the way, although it’s fascinating that they are so similar, the sun and moon aren’t always the same size as seen from Earth. In fact, the moon and sun are rarely exactly the same size. The moon’s distance from Earth varies slightly over the course of a single month. So the moon’s apparent size in our sky is always changing." http://earthsky.org/space/coincidence-that-sun-and-moon-seem-same-size No 921) "Simple approach to proving flat Earth" video: -------- Akpanke Innocent (see link) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PopB6DBIZ_8 No 921a) He gives a test for flat Earth, but this also gives a test to show how close to spherical the Earth is. It's within 0.3% of a perfect sphere! So, not a perfect sphere, but close. *** Spherical Earth proven! No 921b) If you use the same technique to prove a flat Earth, gravity should pull to the center, so as you get away from the north pole, things should start tilting, until you get to the edge. At the edge, you should be able to stand on the side! *** So, flat Earth debunked! No 922) Pin hole box pictures of the solar eclipse: No 922a) 2:09 PM - 1 hour into the eclipse No 922b) 2:52 PM - Just about 60% throuugh the partial eclipse. No 922c) 3:32 PM - Near the end of the eclipse. No 923) Joe Haley - Solar Eclipse (See meme No 923) No 924) Jesse Palomino (see OP) Why don't flat Earthers have an explanation of the beginning of the flat Earth? (See OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155057998326795/ No 925) India came up with the idea for a globe Earth long before NASA... ----------- Jenna Simons (see OP) https://www.facebook.com/TheArtOfLivingGlobal/videos/1455485337839803/ (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155056240056795/ No 926) Joe Haley - Lunar eclipse April 5, 2014 (See meme No 926) (See original OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155056314081795/ No 927) Sleeping in space: --------- Jeremiah Pierson (See original OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155052491936795/ No 928) The first historical calculations of the Earths circumference: ----------- Chris Vargas (See OP for discusssions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155053317026795/ No 929) Discussion on Muslim scientific history: ------- Chris Vargas (See OP for discusssions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155053315631795/ No 930) Most of the USA and Canada went partially dark this afternoon, between 2 and 3 PM, this afternoon, Eastern Standard Time. How does flat Earth explain that? It certainly isn't a NASA illusion. How do they explain the paths, timing and views from across the entire continent. These views were consistent with a globe Earth model, BUT when picking a point that is consistent with a flat Earth, invariably that point would NOT be consistent with other points at that time! The fact is, science is a model based on what is actually happening. Science has to be correct for every situation or we find out why it isn't and take that into account or adjust the scientific model to fit the facts. That is why science is correct, it is simply a reflection and description of what we see! Can flat Earth say the same? (See OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155061002151795/ No 931) Analysis of solar Eclipse Aug. 21, 2017 and solar output: ------------- The sunlight in Toronto, some 1,500 miles away was reduced by 75%! That means for a circle 3,000 miles on diameter, at least 75% of the sunlight was blocked. That's 75% of 150 watts per meter squared, across a 3,000 mile diameter circle, was blocked by a 32 mile diameter moon. That's 3,000^2/32^2*150*0.75= 93,876,953 watts per meter squared being absorbed by the moon, during the pass. That's tens of thousands of degrees! That's explosive temperatures! ------- In real life, the 2,049 mile diameter moon absorbs 122 watts and reflects 28 watts per meter square. (See Diagram No 931b) No 932) Things free fall GOINGS UP as well as down, because gravity is a constant. (The Bremen Drop Tower) If you throw something in the air, it will decelerate at the same rate going up as it accelerates going down. That is because of gravity! --------- The Bremen Drop is a 100 meter tall zero g lab, it can experience zero g for 5 seconds, in a vacuum. - 10 meters the first second - 20 meters the second second - 30 meters the third second - 40 meters the 4th second So almost 5 seconds of free fall. It gains another 5 seconds of free fall by firing the experiment container straight up, thereby experiencing 5 seconds of constant deceleration on the way up and down. For a total of 10 seconds of free fall in a vacuum chamber slightly more than 100 meters tall (IN A VACUUM!). ----------- This tower gets almost 10 seconds of free fall, in a 100 meter tower, because it free falls going up as well as down. See video No 932) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4aCMDQsx740 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10156409133191795/ No 933) Things having the same weight regardless of the atmospheric pressure: -------------- If you weigh yourself at sea level, or on top of a tall mountain, you don't the same, even though the air density is much different. This should NOT be the case if you go up and down due to density. Things should go up faster or slower with variations in density between objects. (e.g. something is pulled with the same force, independent of density variations around it.) No 933b) Steven Duff - Got you on this one. You will actually weigh more or less depending on your geographic location. Bruce Ing - Steven Duff That would be due to gravitational fluctuations! That shows that gravity varies around the planet by a small percentage, less than 0.3% variation. That is independent of air pressure! *** That proves gravity! -------------- However, if you are standing at the base of a mountain and weight yourself then go up on top of the mountain and weight your self, what is the difference in weight? The difference in atmospheric pressure could be significant. Maybe 12 psi instead of 14.979 psi. Why don't we weigh 20% less? *** How is this proportional to density? It ISN'T! No 934) Analyzing a picture with the sun's reflection: ------------ Kenn Siman Gabatin Look at the sunspot ! It can't happen in a Heliocentric model ! (See picture No 934) No 934a) Bruce Ing - Kenn Siman Gabatin Why can't this happen on a globe Earth? Exactly what geometrically, perspective wise, in terms of angles etc. makes this impossible to happen on a globe Earth? No 934b) No 385) Foreshortening: ------ Foreshortening is an effect where the sun's reflection, near the edge of the horizon, appears shorter than the sun itself. - This is entirely due to the water curving. - It's like a funhouse mirror, if the mirror is curved, you seem squashed. http://orfe.princeton.edu/~rvdb/tex/sunset/sunset.pdf No 934c) This is what happens on flat water. A MIRROR image! No 934d) Look at the land across the water, it goes straight into the water! Seriously, it is partially hidden behind the horizon. No 934e) Kenn Siman Gabatin - "A Mirror tells what it is being reflected upon. !" Bruce Ing - Kenn Siman Gabatin, does your picture tell what is being reflected? Does it look like what you see in a FLAT mirror? Does the fact that you see all those waves tell you anything? No 934f) (See original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155056176111795/ No 935) Do you see anything that would indicate a globe Earth? --------------- Donna Rivera (see OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155056176111795/ Phil Zona - Look around. Do you see anything that would indicate a globe earth? The evidence is right in front of you? No 935a) David Murphy The eclipse No 935b) The horizon and it's significance: -------- Bruce Ing The horizon which is; - ALWAYS 360 degrees around you? - Appears level, even when you look around the CIRCLE? - Has a distance calculable by one's elevation and curvature calculations? - Is ALWAYS a circular section of Earth when viewed from ANYWHERE and any height on the planet? What is the ONLY shape where that is ALWAYS true? ... a SPHERICAL EARTH! No 935c) What we don't see in pictures: ---------- Bruce Ing What have we NEVER had a picture of? 1) The EDGE of the Flat Earth 2) The ICE WALL 3) The ENTIRE flat Earth No 935d) All pictures explainable by globe Earth: ---------- Bruce Ing ALL pictures of Earth fit on and can be explained by a globe Earth. (e.g. - refraction, - observer elevation, - sea level flatting due to gravitational effects, - atmospheric effect etc. There are NO pictures or situations that are only explained by a flat Earth. No 935e) The seasons, sunlight and constellations that we see: ------------ Bruce Ing The seasons, the angle of the sun during the summer and winter, the seasonality of the constellations, the moons phases and cycle which is independent of the suns, the angle of polaris relative to one's latitude, rotation of the stars in the northern AND southern hemispheres, the limited visibility of the constellations from each hemisphere, the visibility of ALL the constellations ftom the equator, the fact that the north and south polar axis are visible anywhere along the night time equator simultaneously. No 935f) The significance of high altitude pictures: ---------- Phil Zona The flat earth pictures have been suppressed Bruce Ing - When we see high altitude balloon pictures or video. Ones that are supplied by flat Earthers themselves, we see; - A horizon who's distance is determined by altitude and curvature calculations - No interference due to haze - A view that is way above any clouds, mountains or obstructions - A horizon that is way to close for a flat Earth - The blackness of space with NO STARS (due to contrast, just like in NASA and space pictures!) - NO flat Earth "rising to eye level" No 936) Brien Muñóz #RIPFE (See meme No 936) No 936b) Bruce Ing - Apart from that the curves are straight paths across a globe. That is why they look "s" shaped when stretched out on a flat map. No 937) Analysis of flat Earth eclipse explanation: ------------ https://www.facebook.com/HELIOGEOMAN/videos/1915775465357649/?hc_ref=ARTU4PeQHppwe9IQmBI-Ig4mnIT4wrzvQvKDTnffskh6EIAwWUjj7HqPVWnbec7hLzk&fref=gs&hc_location=group ----------- No 937a) The moon should be revolving from the tropic of Capricorn to the tropic of Cancer every 27.34 days. It does NOT! No 937b) According to the video, the flat Earth sun should be over the tropic of Capricorn, almost 6,000 miles away. It isn't. The sun is over North America now, because it is SUMMER! No 937c) Analyzing the location and distances of the flat Earth sun and moon, we see that it is shining on North America at a very shallow angle of 26.6 degrees. This isn't the case, the sun is virtually overhead for most of North America! No 937d) How does a sun and moon, shining at an angle of 26.6 degrees cast a shadow that is almost perfectly circular? The shadow according to this model should be a very elongated oval! No 937e) The umbra and penumbra on a sun and moon almost the same size should be very similar in size. In actuality, there was a circular umbra about 70 miles in diameter and a penumbra over three thousand miles in diameter! Why? Because the sun is much bigger than the moon! No 937f) Lancer Gonzales - Your animation had just showed that the U.S.A., North America, Russia and Europe can't see any eclipse at any time since they are beyond your eclipse 'sweet zone'... sadly that's not the case and even Antarctica and the north pole area have seen an eclipse at one point. No 937g) Lancer Gonzales - And that circular movement of the sun and moon while circling your flat earth will surely fuck up the way you'll see its movement in the sky. No 937h) Joseph Knight - So, if the main rout of the sun and moon are below the equator then how the fuck did it show up in the US? No 937i) Steven Duff - Technically in the flat earth model if the suns rotation and the moons rotation were at different speeds which actually contradict all the bullshit models they have there is a slight chance that in fact a eclipse could take place. If a properly produce model was generated it could make sense. However no such model will exist because the earth is round. No 937j) Bruce Ing - The sun and moon have to contort, speed up and slow down by half (from 750 to 1500 mph.) There is no reason or forces given for the sun and moon to contort in such a manner. As Steven says, they contradict other models where the sun and moon are opposed and at least "balance" each other to some extent. In this model, the sun has a 6 month cycle and the moon has a 14 day cycle. HOW? No 938) How to test and demonstrate gravity: ----------- Ruaridh Graham McNee - Gravity can be easily tested. Just throw things of various masses off a tall building and see what happens No 939) Analysis of the firmament and waters above: ------------ Ana-Maria Plus Michael is feeling cool. - The Earth only looks round because the firmament is round. The firmament is transparent, but it bends light, so the stupid astronauts think that the Earth is round... while it is perfectly flat! (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155062206466795/ No 939a) Bruce Ing - If there were 3,000 miles of water above us, in a dome, that would been there is at least 3,000 miles of water pressure pushing on us. Either the air has to be at enough pressure to resist this water and prevent water from up welling into the dome or the dome and Earth have to resist the pressure. 1) The air has to resist the pressure. Water pressure rises at 0.433 psi per foot, therefore 3,000 miles of water would excerpt; 3,000 miles x 5,280 feet per mile x 0.433 psi/foot = 6,858,720 psi. That's 6.858 million pounds per square inch of pressure needed for the air to resist water leaking in from the bottom. *** A ridiculous number so the air pressure certainly isn't holding back the water pressure. 2) If instead the Earth is sealed and prevents the water from coming in, then we have a pressure of 6,858,720 psi, on every square inch of ground below us. Across a disk 25,000 miles across. Seeing how much 9 miles of rock weights, it is about 2,500 lb per cubic yard. That's 2,500/3 feet per yard/9 square feet per yard squared/12x12 inches per foot squared = 0.643 psi/foot So the pressure downwards of 9 miles of rock is; 9 miles x 5,280 feet/mile x 0.643 psi/foot = 30,555.56 psi The pressure of water from above is; 6,858,720/30,555.56=224.46 TIMES greater than the weight of the entire Earth's crust! *** Needless to say, the water would have blown open the crust, explosively and killed us all, a long time ago! No 940) How orbits self balance: -------------- My analogy for orbiting is a yo-yo. Swing a yo-yo around in a circle, over your head. i) The yo-yo wants to fly away, that is centripetal force. ii) The string is pulling the yo-yo back, so it can't fly away, that is like the planets orbiting. So, the Earth is orbiting the sun, and centripetal force going outwards and gravity pulling inwards are balanced. --------------- a) Planets closer orbits at a faster rate,, (more rpm's), BUT the sun has more gravity, because they are closer, so they balance out. b) If a planet goes at a faster speed, it can go further out, but it loses centripetal force, because it takes longer to spin and it has a slower rpm eventually it will balance at some point. --------------- Here's the main point: 1) When an orbit is faster, (greater rpm), it is actually going slower, speed wise, but it has a smaller orbital circumference too. - So a planet with a smaller orbit actually has a higher centripetal force. 2) When a planet is going at a faster speed, it will go farther away from the sun, BUT it's orbital speed, rpm, will slow down BECAUSE the circumference gets bigger by the radius squared. - Therefore the centripetal force will be reduced. 3) Gravity gets smaller by twice the radius as well. - Eventually gravity and centripetal force will balance, and that is a stable orbit.. 4) It takes LESS gravity farther out, to keep things in orbit! *** The entire system self balances! No 940b) For example; - Mercury's orbit 88 days - Venus's orbit 225 days - Earth's orbit 365.24 days - Mars orbit 687 days - Jupiter's orbit 12 years - Saturn's orbit 29 years - Uranus's orbit 370 years - Neptune's orbit 165 years - Pluto's orbit 248 years *** The faster the speed around the orbit, the bigger the circumference and the longer it takes to orbit, NOT less time, more, event though they are going faster! No 941) Chris G Cowgill - RIP FE ----------- Information on seismic readings and how we know what is within the Earth. (See original post if you wish to continue the discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155063016756795/ No 941b) John Camp - None of them thought about seismic wave data. They're focused on above the Earth and ignored the Earth's interior. P waves are detectable on the opposite side of the globe. No 941c) John Camp (see meme No 941c) No 941d) John Camp - Bruce Ing Research how the epicenter of an earth quake is triangulated. Not possible on a flat Earth. No 942) Revisiting z axis and x axis curvature: -------------- (See this OP to continue discussion please.) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10154950236366795/ Dennis Burbank - NOTE TO ALL GLOBED HEADED SMARTIES !!!! YOU MIGHT WANT TO STUDY A LITTLE BIT OF FLAT EARTH BEFORE DEBATING ... BECAUSE AT LEAST ON THIS SITE , I HAVEN'T CHATTED WITH A SINGLE GLOBED EARTHER THAT EVEN KNOWS JUST THE BASIC FACTS ON THE GLOBED EARTH .. THE VERY SHIT THEY PREACH... yOU NEED TO UPDATE YOUR SHIT BECAUSE WHEN YOU COME AT ME WITH THE " BOAT" DISAPPEARS OVER THE HORIZON VID , I ALREADY KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW MUCH.. ------------- No 942a) Bruce Ing - Look at any pictures/video of SHIPS, (not small sail boats, they are too small to see far away), on a CLEAR day with NO refraction! Look out about 9 to 12 miles, you will see ships hidden behind the horizon (roughly 24 and 54 feet being hidden respectively). No 942b) Rick Abercrombie - That's bullshit.... because the horizon should be curved too as well..... Rick Abercrombie - A BALL EARTH IS curved in all dimensions not just looking forward thinking it sunk behind a the horizon... how come the horizon still straight Bruce Ing ---------- Chris G Cowgill - Because the field of view is too small. 24,901 mile circumference, remember? No 942c) Bruce Ing - Rick Abercrombie, I am talking about the curve visible when you look straight out, like sighting along a 2x4 to see if it is straight (looking at the z axis.) Why are you changing the subject and asking about looking left and right? That's like looking at a 2x4 from a 10 feet back and trying to see if it is curved! (Looking at the x axis.) --------- You are literally changing the subject! The curve is visible because it is EASIER to see things dropping behind it, by sighting ALONG the curve. That should be an obvious distinction! The horizon IS the curve. It is the crest of the curve. -------------- Bringing up the y axis when we are talking about the z axis curvature is ignorance at best and dishonestly moving the goal post at worst! (See Diagram No 484) No 942d) Dennis Burbank - THE REASON HE'S TELLING YOU ABOUT THE LEFT AND RIGHT IS BECAUSE EVERY POINT ON A SPHERE DESCENDS EVENLY AWAY FROM EACH OTHER POINT SMARTY !!! ITS PART OF THE GEOMETRY ! And btw your own geometry says your curvature does not exist.. 33,000 = 0.056 and we have 0.056 X 3.1 = 0.036 of curvature would be visible at 110,000 ft. but yet every globed headed freak can see the curvature from the ocean when they see the boat drop.. smh LMAO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I just schooled these guys yesterday on their own BS !! When you bring up Gravity , and you tell them its not a fact... OH SHIIIT DO THEY GET TRIGGERED !!! Or one of my favorites... When someone says that Gravity is a fact because they detected gravitational waves !!! lmao hahahahah Or you get retards like Branden Larragoitiy and Chris G Cowgill.. Watch this EVERYONE !!! Hey Branden and Chris ...? Can you 2 define what makes up a Scientific Fact? Then show me Just one Scientific fact that proves the Earth Globed ? Show me a scientific fact that proves the earth moves , show me 1 scientific fact of the curvature, and 1 scientific fact that proves Gravity? And guess what Branden and Chris..? I do have the answer to the question..? Q. Why can't you see the curvature at 110,000 ft which is 3X the distance needed to see the curvature that according to globed math we should see at 33,000 ft but we can't... The reason the curvature is not visible from 33,000 ft like the math tells us is simply because the curvature doesn't exist ! Math doesn't lie 5X2=10 10/2=5 5+5+5=15 see forwards and backwards..? hahaha -------------- -------------- Bruce Ing - Dennis Burbank Which way is EASIER to see curvature? Are you just going to ignore this point? Bruce Ing - Looking out in front of you, you are looking at one spot on a horizon and seeing if a ship drops 24 to 54 feet. *** A noticeable drop, under THOSE CONDITIONS! Looking from left to right, you are comparing; 54 feet of drop (27 feet on either end) across 47,520 (9 miles) and 96 feet of drop (48 feet on either end) across 63,360 (12 miles). *** Harder to see under THESE CONDITIONS! -------------------- As usual flat Earthers generalize and don't take things in context! *** It is simply easier to see a difference in elevation sighting along a line than look at the entire line from the side! *** No 943) Building your own reflecting telescope: (See video No 943a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snz7JJlSZvw No 943b) Gooby Vanpo - Here is a link so you can build a Galileo based telescope...then you can verify nobody tampered with it. https://www.space.com/24114-how-to-build-a-telescope-science-fair-projects.html No 944) The curve under the lake Pontechartrain causway: ----------- Floyd Marston (See image No 944) No 945) What lights up the planets, if the sun is close: -------------- Connor Kruse - Go buy a telescope. Explain to me continental drift. Explain to me how a coreless earth produces a magnetosphere. Explain to me what your firmament is made out of. Explain to me how planets far away in the solar system are illuminated by the sun which is supposedly just a few hundred miles above us. We can see Saturn and Jupiter at night with the naked eye. What lights them up if the sun is really just a small ball floating above earth? Give a scientifically backed answer to any of these questions and I wouldn't be laughing in your face. (See original OP if you wish to discuss things) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155068328111795/ No 946) Millenio Justine - Here is some info on the gravity formula and how to understand it. http://www.wtfprofessor.com/gravity-formula/?fref=gc No 946b) Ceyhun Emanet - The centrifugal force is depending on the period of the earth, which is w = ~0.25 rad/h or w = ~0.00007 rad/s. The centrifugal force is F = mw^2r. For me, the centrifugal force would be F = 100 kg x 0.00007^2 x 6370000 m ~ 3 N. The opposite gravitational force would be F = 100 kg x 9.81 = 981 N. So the gravitational force is roughly 330 times stronger. (Somebody solved the gravity force against the centrifugal force like this) But I want also to ask you Millenio Justine this: Does this formula fits to a baloon full with helium? lets make this formula for 1 liter helium, 1 liter helium approximately 0.18 gram... ok.. put 0.18 gram to the M(mass) in the formulas ,check it out ...centrifugal force is for 1 liter helium = 0,0000059439744 N; F=m x G: 0,00018 x 9,81(!!!???) = 0,0017658= means gravity is still 297,0739577882435 times more powerful than the centrifugal force...why the helium goes up...while the water still sits down on the global earth? just make the logic..I am curious about this...The density relativity beats that force???? No 946c) Millenio Justine - Ceyhun, your calculations for centrifugal force and gravity seem to be correct. This explains why we don't 'feel' the spin, generally speaking. The short answer here is that the helium balloon doesn't rise because of the centrifugal force. It rises because gravity pulls on the air surrounding it more so than it does the balloon, causing it to rise. Similarly, gravity pulls on the water in the oceans more strongly than it does the surrounding air, hence it doesn't rise. If you place a helium balloon in a vacuum, it will fall to the ground. Hence, you know gravity is pulling on it constantly, even when relative densities do not apply No 947) Analysis of horizon at 110,000 feet: --------------- When we look at the horizon at 110,000 feet, we see that, on a globe model it is 406 miles away and 220,000 feet below eye level. This give us an angle downwards of 5.86 degrees. No 947b) When we further look at it and take, for example a 30 degree field of view, we see that the angle to the edges does drop more. The edges will be at 6.07 degrees. However, this is only a difference of 0.21 degrees, from the centerline to the edges. This appears virtually straight, so any pictures we see will only have a slight curvature. *** On a picture 1000 pixels wide, we would only see a drop on either end of 1.83 pixels! No 947c) Marco Alvarez Good video to add as they mention altitude as they go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyq5eN9C4Cc&feature=youtu.be&fref=gc No 948) How waves compress as they get closer to the edge of a curve: ------------- Juff Juff - need i say more (See meme No 948) No 948a) Zev-Velvel Griner - The picture shows a perfect SMOOTH CURVE to the horizon. The wave lines compress exponentially as you get closer to the curve. No 948b) Paul Abel - Try it from a higher altitude.... Curve... (See image No 948b) No 948c) Petrus Der Meister - Obviously CGI. Paul Abel - Try this one then. From INSIDE the Concord... No CGI here Petrus Der Meister - Dude, I'm totally messing with you. No 949) Why we don't suddenly move at 1000 mph when we jump in the air: ------------- No 949a) The short answer; Inertia, gravity, friction, air resistance, air pressure, relative motion, the slow rate of rotation, the Earths substantial mass and roundness all contribute to why we can't feel it rotating No 949b) The numbers and facts explained; INERTIA - You mass, say 80 Km had substantial inertia going along with the Earth and air. It wouldn't suddenly just stop and their is nothing that is NOT going at that same relative speed to oppose it. GRAVITY - Things are held down to the ground, so they move WITH the Earth. Even if you started off not moving, you would be pulled to the ground. Hitting a surface going 1,039 mph would quickly get you up to speed! FRICTION - Friction with the ground, keeps us going at the same speed as the Earth. It is the mechanism by which physical objects gain the momentum to go at the same speed as the Earth's rotation. This happened when the Earth formed. We have ALWAYS been going at the same speed as the Earth rotates. When we cross the Earth, (e.g. to the poles), we gain or loose momentum as we go, due to friction with contact with the Earth. AIR RESISTANCE - Flat Earther's always argue that if we jumped up, the Earth should be spinning 1000 mph below our feet. However, along with momentum (we are already going 1000 mph), we would have to fly westward AGAINST air resistance to go 1000 mph. Where does all that force and energy come from? *** Things don't just suddenly stop or start moving! AIR PRESSURE - The air has very little resistance with the ground, however, it is moved by air pressure. The air near the surface is moved due to contact with the ground and that force eventually propagates through the atmosphere due to built up air pressure. This happens constantly and the air has been moving with the Earth since the beginning. RELATIVE MOTION - Because the ground, the air and people are all going at the same speed, we can't feel motion. Things moving at a constant speed, don't produce acceleration (change in speed or direction) and acceleration is how we tell that we are moving. THE SLOW RATE OF ROTATION - Because the Earth rotates so slowly, even though the surface speed seems high, we can't feel the change in rotation. After an hour we only go 15 degrees around the circle. That's 0.000964 rpm! Not fast enough to feel the change in angle. THE EARTH'S SUBSTANTIAL MASS - Because the Earth is very massive, we don't feel it moving. We move as one mass. It is easier to rock a car, or a small boat than an ocean liner or the the ground! THE EARTHS ROUNDNESS - There is no noticeable wobble, because the Earth is so close to round. If we were oblong or a funny shape, then the rotation would not be centered. However, with a very round object, the surface stays relatively the same distance from the center as it rotates. No 949c) See original OP; Carl Stiltz Moore - Right see if u can prove this then ....... IF the earth is round and spinning at 1000 mph why when you jump up in the air you still land in the same place when u land ?? (Check out original OP if you wish to discussion this topic) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155077830006795/ No 949d) Stephen Addis - Re 949 Jumping in the air. Here's a simple experiment to perform yourself. Jump in the air on a moving train. Observe your take off and landing point. Calculate where you should have landed if the train were to move horizontally independent of you. (Simple calculation from train speed and your time in the air). Apply the results to spinning earth issue. ( hint - you are moving at same speed and in same direction as the train when you jump) anyway make sure that you have fun flat earthers. No 950) We see the southern polar axis and stars ON THE OTHER side! That's like seeing past the ice wall and stars wrap around from the other side of the flat Earth! Not possible! It's an actual polar axis of rotation on a globe Earth! No 951) The light output of the flat Earth moon: ---------- The light from a moon would be 28 watts per meter squared. So that's about 32 mile diameter=51.4944 Km diamter Area of a circle, (for rough estimate), = Pi r^2 = 3.1415925635 x 25,747.2 x 25,747.2 = 208,2621,262.27 meters squared Total wattage = 28 watts per meter squared x 208...= 58,313,395,343.608 What is powering this thing with 58.3 billion watts an hour? No 951b) When they say the moon creates it's own light, they are changing the moon from a natural phenomena to one requiring light and power to be generated and controlled. They are going from a simpler, self sustaining system to one which has to be setup and maintained! No 952) On a flat Earth you still have to look down to see a horizon: ----------------- Even on a flat Earth, YOU HAVE TO LOOK DOWN TO SEE A HORIZON! The horizon on a globe is about twice as low as on a flat Earth. Flat Earth, 3 miles out 6 feet down, globe Earth 3 miles out 12 feet down etc. No 953) The horizon is twice as far down as flat Earth would predict. ------------- 1) If you look out at the water, the horizon is 3 miles out. The water is level, so, if you are 6 feet tall, the water is 6 feet below your eye level. That is a physical fact. 2) We can measure the angle of the horizon and see how far down it is from eye level, with survey equipment. 3) When we measure the horizon we will find it is 12 feet below eye level! Why? Because the water is curving away from you for 3 miles and that is an additional 6 feet added to the original 6 feet. *** The horizon is ALWAYS twice as far down as our eye level. No 953a) Example 1: The horizon is 3 degrees down. It should be 1.5 degrees down on a flat Earth. Flat: 30,000 feet, horizon is 229 miles away = 1.42 degrees Globe: 60,000 feet down horizon is 229 miles away = 2.81 degrees down! No 953b) Example 2: The theodolite reads 13 minutes 42 seconds down angle (Observer at 260 feet)=0.2283 ----------- Flat: 260 feet, 19.745497 miles to horizon=0.143 degrees Globe: 520 feet, 19.745497 miles to horizon=0.286 No 953c) Conclusion: *** THE HORIZON IS TWICE AS FAR DOWN AS FLAT EARTH WOULD PREDICT! It MATCHES curvature! No 954) Analysis of Perspective and the Horizon: -------------- This may be how things "appear" to look, however, it is not a proper representation of what is actually happening. No 954a) Here's the setup to show perspective on a flat Surface. No 954b) Notice the tops of the batteries are lined up. Every elevation in a perspective should be lined up. - top with top, - middle with middle and - bottom with bottom No 954c) I've lined them up on a line, so they are all in line. No 954d) When we check ground level, we see that all the bottoms line up. The tops slowly go down, BUT the important thing is, physically all the batteries are the same size. *** They do NOT physically get smaller as you go down the line. It is one object receding and that object does NOT change in size! No 954e) Here is an illustration. Things horizontal STAY horizontal: ------------- Objects stay the same elevation and the same size as they go along. They do not go up or down, they appear to get smaller because they are farther away, not because any lines of sight on them go up or down! (See diagram No 954e) No 954f) Angular Diameter: -------------- Objects stay the same size, but as they recede their "Angular Diameter", the size the appear to be, gets smaller as they get farther away. (See diagram No 954f) No 955) The sun set test: ---------- Dan Renner - That's a silly question, Carl Stiltz Moore. It depends upon the specific evidence. The sun is evidence for the globe. It came about by clumping and gravity. When you see a sunset, which do you see? No 956) David Michael Allsop http://wwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com/.../Ping-Pong-Moon.jpg (See image No 956) No 957) Compensating for fish eyed lense: ----------- Calvin Gorvman - No more fish eye lense excuses, flatties. Find another exc (See original OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155086022216795/ No 958) John Camp https://www.sciencenews.org/article/map-reveals-invisible-universe-dark-matter?fref=gc&dti=2205176794 No 959) John Camp https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145822-weve-just-seen-15-new-mysterious-cosmic-radio-bursts-from-space/?fref=gc&dti=2205176794#.WagEcsHZs7Q.facebook John Camp - Must be squeaks from them cleaning the "dome" with a giant squeegee! No 960) Vanishing Point and the horizon: ----------- Zack Tryon, The trouble with drawing objects smaller as they converge on the horizon, the "vanishing point" is what we see in your diagram. 1) Things don't shrink to the same point. 2) it depends on their size 3) The distance is different for different objects depending on their size. *** The horizon is NOT defined by a vanishing point! One thing to note in your picture, the angle of the vanishing point is way to steep! Obviously you are trying to explain the sun vanishing at the horizon, but the sun is much bigger than you presume and the vanishing point for a 32 mile sun, is well beyond 3 miles to the horizon on a calm ocean! No 960a) Things don't vanish at the horizon due to their vanishing point. It depends on their size and distance. They do NOT all converge at the same point, on a horizon. *** In fact, they don't have to be near a horizon to vanish. Their vanishing point can be in mid air, just like a bird flying away from you disappears after a few hundred feet! (See diagram No 960a) No 961) Luminous Vanishing Point: (Defined by Bruce Ing, 2017-09-01) ----------- Physical objects have an apparent size and appear to vanish at a certain distance because they are too small to see anymore. This is NOT the case with very bright objects, objects that emit their own light. They don't vanish until their light can't be seen anymore. This could be many orders of magnitude farther than the vanishing point based on their size. No 961a) A 32 mile sun, definitely does NOT vanish 3 miles out, at the horizon. It doesn't even vanish at 100 miles as we might expect for an object 32 miles across. It's luminous vanishing point may be millions of miles away. Consider the fact that we can see a flame from a lighter 2.3 Km away. How much farther can we see a the sun that is 32 miles across and much brighter? No 962) Laurent Besson Difference between : - Azimuthal - Equatorial (See video No 962) Telescope mounts, the two basic types. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVsG09M6QAU (both) No 962b) Here is a video demonstrating an equatorial mounts as it follows the sun through the day, and into the night, when it is UNDER the Earth. Equatorial Mount - Wolfie6020 (See video No 962b) (time index 2:34) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_LMZ2YjBk (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155091070876795/ No 962c) Azimuthal and vs Equatorial mounts: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10156065995251795/ There are generally two types of mounts for telescopes. i) The Azimuthal mount, which turns 360 degrees in the horizontal direction and swivels up and down. The kind we usually find for cameras and cheap telescopes. These are find for stationary viewing, where we set something at a particular direction and angle and leave it, but it doesn't work well for tracking stars, planets and celestial bodies. This is because we have to adjust two axis at any given time to follow an object. ii) The second type is a equatorial mount. This also has a horizontal plate which swivels 360 degrees, an a second axis which swivels up and down, BUT this second axis has a perpendicular axis mounted on it, that swivels 360 degrees, with a smaller axis that the telescope sits on. This works differently in that, we align the perpendicular axis with the north or south polar axis, using the first two axis and then point the telescope at the object we are looking for and lock the 4th smaller axis. After that, the only thing that has to be swiveled is the perpendicular axis that the telescope is mounted to. We can swivel only one axis, because once lined up with the polar axis, the Earth turns, taking the telescope with it. We only have to turn the telescope to counter act the Earths rotation. (See diagram No 962c) No 963) If the dome turns, shouldn't the atmosphere turn too? If the entire sky is turning east to west on the flat Earth, why isn't it dragging the atmosphere with it? Why don't we have 1,039 mph winds at the equator? 2,078 mph winds at the edge? No 963a) Javier Navas Medina - Atmosphere is below the dome, therefore below the stars. Bruce Ing - How does that work on flat Earth? They say the spinning and whizzing around the universe should be felt and affect the Earth but the same doesn't apply to the flat Earth dome spinning? (... which is closer!) Bruce Ing So, what is between the atmosphere and the stars and the dome? No 963b) Julie van den Broeck - By the way: Does the dome touch the ground? And do you think atmosphere stop before dome there too or just above us? Like · Reply · 22 hrs No 963c) Bruce Ing - If the dome spins, then as Julie van den Broeck asked, does it spin right down to the ground. If it spins, why doesn't the part lower, in the atmosphere spin the air at 2,078 mph in Antarctica (That's 3 TIMES the speed of sound!)? Bruce Ing - If the dome doesn't spin, then how do the stars, moon and sun spin within the dome and what keeps them afloat? No 963d) Julie van den Broeck - Don't forget about Sun tail, The way this fireball spinning around center of Earth should create strong winds too (imagine at its t° : the difference of heat... would be enough to create winds) And the way those winds should be stronger at northern winter: Sun accelerate to be able to complete his larger circle in the same time! No 964) Buoyancy revisited: --------- (See original post if you wish to comment.) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10156876425306795/ Buoyancy relies on gravity. Because gravity pulls down air, it creates pressure. The differential pressure between the top and bottom creates an upward pressure. If the force of gravity pulling the item, (e.g. a balloon filled with helium), is less than the force created by the differential in the air pressure, then the balloon will be pushed up. No 964a) Zack Tryon - "Gravity is only a theory, we observe the law of density and buoyancy, nothings changed there or ever will". On the surface gravity and density are the same, the only difference being gravity is the force that attracts everything to the centre of the spherical earth. Strong enough to hold down 55 trillion tonnes of water but weak enough to rain upside down and allow insects to fly. Give me a break. You don't even understand what gravity is claimed to be, you've only ever witnessed density and buoyancy. Example. If you jump off a cliff into water, you fall because you are more dense than the surrounding atmosphere, the same is for a helium balloon, it rises as it's less dense than the surrounding atmosphere. If you claim gravity exists than a helium balloon must be an anti-gravity device to you lol Daniel Broome - Buoyancy relies on gravity to exist, unless you'd like to prove that the flat earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2? I'll wait.. No 964b) Gravity is an ACCELERATION. We can counteract it with ANOTHER acceleration, e.g. centripetal force and falling down at 9.81 m/s^2 (free falling). In both case you are accelerating to oppose or cancel out gravity. ------------- No 964b-1) When you do it in a zero g plane. Things do NOT separate due to buoyancy. (The liquids stay mixed.) You do not separate due to density (You don't fall out of the air). (See screenshot No 964b-1) No 964b-2) In orbit, the acceleration from centripetal force counteracts the acceleration from gravity and you have micro-gravity. Things float! Air bubbles don't separate from a liquid, unless you apply acceleration, then the rise to the middle. *** When you spin the water, the acceleration pushes the water to the outside and the bubbles "Rise" to the middle! (See screenshot No 964b-1a) (See screenshot No 964b-2a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn_hdADpFlA No 964b-3) Centripetal force itself proves buoyancy is caused by gravity. When you stir a liquid the bubbles go to the middle, they go sideways away from the acceleration. Not the density, the ACCELERATION! (See screenshot No 964b-3) No 964c) Let's try this one for demonstration of gravity, not density; ---------- No 964c-1) Gravity is acceleration. We can simulate it with centripetal force, which itself is acceleration. Take a bottle of water and put some soap in it. Stir it vigorously so there are bubble in it. The bubbles will rise to the top, but slowly. Now stir it in a cyclone action. The turning will create a centripetal force. Thus the bubbles will go, SIDEWAYS, to the center of the cyclone, a lot faster due to the high acceleration. This is because buoyancy is due to differential pressure, from acceleration. You created greater acceleration sideways. Several g. So the air "ROSE" SIDEWAYS! (See image No 964c-1) Q.E.D. ----- No 964c-2) Also, in zero g, oil and water do NOT separate (e.g. in a zero g plane), neither do bubbles in a liquid (e.g. experiments on the ISS), so buoyancy is NOT due to density! - See No 964b for fuller explanation and examples. No 964d) Stephen Addis - Zack re buoyancy. It is important, but can be difficult, to establish the primacy of natural phenomenon. Buoyancy is observable phenomenon but as Bruce has demonstrated it is a secondary phenomenon. This error is common to all flat earth misconceptions; true observations are put forward as primary principles but the most elementary of hypothesis testing demonstrates that they are not generalisable thus completely fail as any kind of scientific principle. I guess that believing flat earth stories is enjoyable in the same way that fantasy world books are fun to immerse in and dissolve reality for a while. Have enjoyed stumbling into this site but have to get back to the real world now. No 964d) Experiment - Dish soap and bubbles in gravity and under acceleration: Here is the bottle shaken with bubble slowly rising to the top. (See No 964d-1) As I start to spin the bottle, the bubbles start rising to the middle, instead of the top. (See pictures No 964d-2 to 5) No 964d-6) I have just substituted gravitational acceleration with an artificial acceleration. Things rise, in the opposite direction of the acceleration! ----------- ----------- Anyone can do this test themselves. ----------- - Without gravitational acceleration (a steady force from gravity), there is no differential pressure. - If there is no differential pressure, there is no buoyancy! No 965) Todd Moore - Hurricane Harvey from space. Pics from space accurately represent the reality around us. FE has nothing (See image No 965) No 965b) Hurricane Irma and Jose from space: https://www.space.com/38093-hurricane-irma-jose-katia-from-space-videos.html No 966) Why can we see the blackness of space at the edge of the world, 360 degrees around? -------------- If we are in a high altitude balloon and can't see the edge of the flat Earth, then why can we can we see a horizon 360 degrees around with the blackness of space beyond that? There should be flat Earth rising to eye level, but we don't see it. There should be flat Earth visible until the edge of space, but we don't see it! HOWEVER, we see the blackness of space 360 degrees around! That can only work if we are looking at a circular patch of Earth with the horizon all around and the rest of the Earth curving away below the horizon, on a spherical Earth! (See OP page if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155098557441795/ No 966b) 1) Why is every picture from high up, e.g. high altitude balloon, ISS, satellite etc. ALWAYS a 360 degree view with the blackness of space AFTER the horizon? 2) Think about it, if the world were flat, after the horizon we would see more flat Earth, right up to the edge of space! 3) What's the only way it could make sense to see the blackness of space around the edge, 360 degrees around? A spherical Earth! No 966c) As we get higher, we see larger and larger sections of the flat earth. From low down we see small circular sections of the Earth. (E.g. ground level to planes, we see from 3 miles to 200 miles out to the horizon. Nothing but blue sky beyond the horizon.) From higher up, we see larger circular sections of Earth. (e.g. high altitude balloons, we see out about 400 miles to the horizon, and then the blackness of space). From higher still we see larger circular sections of Earth and can start making out parts of countries. (e.g. from the ISS we see out about 1443 miles to the horizon and then nothing but the blackness of space.) From farther still, we see almost the entire globe. (e.g. geosynchronous satellites and Lagrange point one, we see roughly 45 to 48% of the surface of the Earth.) *** NOTE: We NEVER see more than half the Earth and every view is a circular horizon 360 degrees around! *** No 967) Zooming in will bring things behind the horizon back: ------------- Michael Harris (From OP) See original OP https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155097674601795/ No 967a) Laurent Besson - Michael Harris zoom 50x https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BVgKOvECJw Vanish? No 967b) Marco Alvarez https://youtu.be/zyq5eN9C4Cc Marco Alvarez - All lines on rocket are fraught no fish eye effect No 967c) Laurent Besson - An other video at 17h30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrNZwcSePRU Same size ! No 967d) Laurent Besson - sure you could find some proof here : https://www.youtube.com/user/lolotux/videos No 968) Rockets do NOT push on air, revisited. Water powered rocket sled: ---------------- Okay everyone, here's a water powered rocket sled. See time 27:28. The rocket sled has almost 2 tons of water and the pumps force water out the nozzle. The mass of the water pushed out the back forces the sled forward. - The water coming out the back, is just loose water droplets and falls quickly to the ground! *** NOTHING PUSHES ON AIR! *** See video time index 28:04 (See video NO 968a-2) https://youtu.be/TOPM_JpXkKE?t=1684 -------------- *** Please let me know if you understand, agree and have accepted the fact that rockets do NOT push on air. *** If you guys can't admit that rockets do NOT push on air, then you are just trolling! ------------- DOES EVERYONE NOW UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT HOW ROCKETS WORK? No 968b) (See original OP if you wish to discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155099278216795/ No 968c) David Michael Allsop - https://youtu.be/ii6D1R6lXVA Here you go Bruce, it's even got instructions that are so simple even flerfers can follow them. No 968d) David Michael Allsop - I used to show this one to the kids. https://youtu.be/4r9gmLfpFTg No 968e) David Michael Allsop - And this one. David Michael Allsop https://youtu.be/mTUGKhrt7fM No 968f) Sam Peacock - If every force a has an equal opposite the what is the opposite force the water is using to generate friction to push the sled forward? If there's resistance trying to slow down the sled surly that same resistance is used from the rear the propel it? -------------- Bruce Ing 1) It's like throwing a ball! The person goes one way and the ball goes the other. In this case, the water, being thrown by the pumps goes one way and the sled goes the other! 2) The loose water dropping to the ground, after does NOT push on air! 3) *** The water is the opposite reaction! *** Just like exhaust gas IS the opposite reaction. No more is needed in the system! No 968g) Bruce Ing - For example, say the rocket weights 1,000 tons and the fuel thrown out on a second weighs 1 ton. The rocket went forward by 1 mph, therefore the exhaust gas being 1,000 times lighter went back a thousand times faster, or 1,000 mph. That is balanced! That is equal and opposite reactions. No more is needed in the equation! *** That is the complete system! *** No 968h) Zack Tryon - Wont work in a vacuum tho!!! lol ----------- Bruce Ing 1) If something gets thrown out in a vacuum, e.g. the exhaust, then the rocket goes one way and the air goes the other. Action/reaction! 2) There is NO air resistance so the rocket actually goes faster and MORE efficiently in a vacuum! How much air and water do you need in a rocket? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrPt-AktIMs No 968j) Dual thrust water rocket: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ_p25VoswQ No 968k) How to make a huge water bottle by splicing bottles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGxOnuNxDoQ No 968l) Water Rocket parachutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_4203387455&feature=iv&src_vid=tGxOnuNxDoQ&v=nnZbji8Payc No 968m) Bread crumb bottle rocket: Note, air is NOT very good as a thrust medium. So, saying that air pushes back on water, in the open, is just nonsense! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QOF4tqBUis No 968n) 2 Stage Water Rocket: - If they can make a 2 stage water rocket that flies up to 864 feet, then why would you doubt that real rockets can go to mach 17 and into orbit? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SScKAlKiFg NO 968o) Zero G with bottle rocket: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umtG_zMYTok No 968p) Here is a picture of water powered rocket sled. - The water goes one way and the sled goes the other way. Action, reaction. (See picture No 968p) No 969) Shane Keddell http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/7-diy-experiments-b-o-b-the-earth-is-round/ (See Ömid Mehdi's OP if you wish to comment) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155100253671795/ No 970) Derrick Hammer - showing under what circumstances we should see curvature. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth No 971) Max Orchard Flat Earthers, explain this please. Don't answer if you're going to avoid the question or spam memes, I'm looking for an honest explanation of a FE sun. From you, not from some YouTube video either. (See original OP if you wish to discuss or comment) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155098864056795/ No 972) Tell me exactly why you choose to believe weather forecasts, if you don't believe in satellites in space? No 972b) It's ridiculous to listen to or believe in weather forecasts, which are based on information and pictures from satellites orbiting the globe, YET not believe the world is spherical! That is just self delusion on the part of flat Earthers! No 972c) Weather satellites: "The first weather satellite, Vanguard 2, was launched on February 17, 1959" - That's 10 years before the moon landings. - If the Earth isn't a globe, how do we have weather satellites orbiting the Earth, 24/7? Geosynchronous weather satellites send pictures back every 10 minutes! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_satellite No 973) Video talking about water in a pipe: ------------ Adidia Gabriel shared a link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-K1mc-k9UE&feature=youtu.be Bruce Ing - Another stupid click bait! 321 views. Don't click on it. He keeps talking about a pipe 1 Km long but he has a standard length pipe on a table, so about 10 feet! No 973b) Adidia Gabriel - You are such an asshole! Are you a decider of what click bait is? No 973b-1) Bruce Ing - I gave reasons why it is wrong. The guy is tapping on a 10 foot tube of water and then showing a Km long calculation. That is totally deceptive! So, yes, that is my opinion. Click bait. No 973b-2) Adidia Gabriel - Your opinion, good! Everyone is entitled to decide for himself sometimes. Many others have haled it and even passed it on by sharing without compelling anyone to watch or not to watch. Bruce Ing - I've given you reasons why it is wrong. i.e. I base my opinions on facts and proof. ------------ Can you tell me what it proves? No 973c) Adidia Gabriel - If gravity could force water to stick to a ball earth, why then would just a length of pipe affects it behavior on the water. No 973c-1) Bruce Ing - Adidia Gabriel Gravity is an average of all the matter around us. In this case a globe Earth 7919 miles in diameter. That means the curve it induces is very, very small! You can't just take generalized ideas, like "gravity forces water to stick to a ball Earth" and ignore the SPECIFICS. The curve is 8 inches per mile. It is a curve, so the smaller the length the less the curve! E.g. a tenth of a mile is not a tenth of the curve, it is a hundredth! In this case 10 feet vs 1 Km is 10 feet vs 3280.84 feet. (We compare the square of the distance.) Assuming the drop is 8.2 cm as they said in the video. That's 0.00007618 cm vs 8.2 cm! How do we even measure 0.00007618 cm? No 973c-2) Bruce Ing - Adidia Gabriel The short answer is on a curve it is approximately the square of the distance. The longer the distance the greater the drop, by square. (So 2 miles would be 4 times the drop of 1 mile) The shorter the distance the smaller the drop by square root of the distance. ( So half a mile is 1/4 the drop of 1 mile) No 973d) Adidia Gabriel - I have not notice any curve in real live observation. Even the ship Visibility proof is not true because it is just vanishing point and inability of human eye to see beyond a certain point. A good binoculars or camera normally bring the ship to view. This wouldn't be possible if it has disappeared into the earth's curvature. No 973d-1) Bruce Ing - Adidia Gabriel Have you ever used binoculars to bring a ship back into view? Have you actually looked far enough BEYOND the horizon to see things drop behind it? No 973d-2) Bruce Ing - These ships are 9 and 12 miles out. This means the curve is VERY gentle and the Earth is VERY BIG. The calculations show you that you can't see curve for several miles, until AFTER the horizon. So you not being able to see it isn't proof of no curve. It is proof that the Earth is too big to see a curve! No 973d-3) Bruce Ing - We have to look 30 miles to see 400 feet of city skyline disappear. 30 MILES! Does that tell you something? The Earth is very big! No 973e) Adidia Gabriel - Earth is too big to see the curve but enough to prove it with things we ;like ships and other? How possible? No 973e-1) Bruce Ing - Because the farther out you look the bigger the drop. Small sail boats are too small to see very far out, but ships can be seen until they disappear behind the horizon. The same is true with tall buildings and mountains. They can be seen very far away, so we can see them disappear bottom first, or re-appear, top first. No 973e-2) Bruce Ing - STOP GENERALIZING! You saying "The Earth is too big to see the curve" is meaningless. Give me SPECIFIC numbers! *** Show me that you understand the dimensions. *** How far is the horizon? How far beyond the horizon should we see, to see significant drop to test it? Why can't we see curvature before the horizon? No 973e-3) Bruce Ing - Here is a diagram of the horizon and the drop 6,9 and 12 miles out. Does this make a little more sense to you now? Does it give you some idea of the sizes we are talking about? No 973e-4) Bruce Ing - Adidia Gabriel Are you willing to understand the entire situation? Is your understanding a BELIEF ,(generalized knowledge that supports your ideas), or FACT (based on concrete, testable observation)? More importantly, do you want to understand everything, in context and objectively OR is your ideology more important than facts? No 974) Apollo 11 launch tower video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKtVpvzUF1Y We see a lot of technology goes into a launch. - Ablative paint material protecting the launch structure - thrust from the engines pushing air down and away from the rocket and into the launch pit A further demonstration of how rockets work. No 974b) The Apollo first stage burned 15 tons of propellant PER SECOND! https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Apollo-11s-fuel-was-burned-in-the-first-1-000-feet-of-the-ascent How did the air push back on that? How did the air provide a million lb of support? *** Rockets simply do NOT push on air! *** No 974c) Who would put this much thought, technology and ingenuity into a hoax? https://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html No 974d) How can anyone see all these multi-stage rocket launches and say they are fake. These rockets are getting up to mach 17 and higher, where are these fake rockets going? How do they fake it and then make a second fake landing weeks later? It is simply impossible to launch so many missions, then launch second secret missions to "pretend" to come back down weeks later! No 974e) 400,000 people employed at NASA to enable the moon landings. Where is the extra money? How about salaries and materials? Does any flat Earther have numbers, accounting showing money is being stolen, or was it just spent? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO77Nv0f_dk No 975) David Lautenschlager - Question for some of the smarter members of this group... is it possible to capture an image like this from a land based telescope? (See original OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155103395706795/ No 975b) Jairo Amaral - Yes. I take images like these myself, with my own equipment. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152426077262719&set=a.10152426076827719.1073741828.572887718&type=3 No 975c) Karol Masztalerz m33 I did No 975d) Mikey MacKinven - Captured this myself with a 200mm lens, and it was only 11 degrees above the horizon and only viewable a few months a year at night here in NZ. No 975e) Bruce Ing - If anyone wants to research it and not just call everything fake, look up an amateur astronomy site on Facebook. This is the one I'm on; https://www.facebook.com/groups/astrophotographers/ No 975f) Bruce Ing - The simple truth. We are in the Milky way, going around every 250 million years. How can we prove it? Look up at the sky on a clear night. WE SEE THE MILKY WAY GALAXY! *** WITH OUR OWN EYES! *** No 975f-2) Bruce Ing - We see sun sets, sun rises, moon rising and setting. WITH OUR OWN EYES! No 975f-3) Bruce Ing - Proof of what science is telling us, the consistency, the fact that everything works and makes sense, it's all in front of us! ------------ What can flat Earth truly explain? What can flat Earth predict? What has flat Earth produced from it's explanations? Any technology? Measuring tools? Better understanding of the universe? NOTHING! MEASUREMENT IS THE ENEMY OF THE FLAT EARTH! ------------ How can an ideology, like flat Earth, based on vagueness, misinformation and making up your own nonsense be true? No 975g) Laurent Besson - From this group of amateurs: https://www.facebook.com/groups/astro/?fref=gc&dti=2205176794&hc_location=ufi No 975h) Karol Masztalerz - I'm an astrophotographer. yes, you can. Here is my own photo of the same object, M31' No 976) High Altitude balloons, revisited: No 976a) Flat Earth high altitude balloon video. See 5:07 minutes in. *** BLACK SKY, NO STARS! *** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALh_kFq1FkM NO 976b) *** BLACK SKY, NO STARS! *** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ynkAL5UUZU No 976c) 43 seconds in. *** BLACK SKY, NO STARS! *** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPx66nWqBOo No 976d) 3 hour video, even gets to twilight. Maybe a chance of stars ... Hmm .. Nope. *** BLACK SKY, NO STARS! *** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6QinYav-_Q No 976e) 2:51:16 minute video. 58 minutes in, reaches above the clouds into the upper atmosphere. *** BLACK SKY, NO STARS! *** 1:09 in *** SHOWS CURVATURE! *** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv4Hwk17F8Y No 976f) What do we see about all these? 1) The horizon is 360 degrees around. *** IT IS A CIRCLE! *** 2) The horizon is below eye level (since we are 100,000 feet up or higher! 3) We can't see stars, just the blackness of space due to contrast and exposure 4) We see the blackness of space, BUT not the thousands of miles of flat Earth that we should see from this altitude. (e.g. 6 feet=3 miles, therefore 100,000 feet=50,000 miles) 5) We can see curvature in some of these videos and they don't appear to be fish eyed lenses 6) The ground, no matter how high we go or where we launch from is a circular PATCH of Earth! What conclusions can we get from all this? *** The only thing that fits, ALL these conditions, is a spherical Earth! *** No 976g) You don't just look and say "It looks flat to me!" You analyze what you are seeing and figure out what it means! No 977) Debunking, you can see stars trough the moon: ----------- Joseph Green (See meme No 977) (See original OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155102865626795/ No 977a) Martin Humphreys - Youtube synchronised moon rotation to understand the moon phases in relation to earth. As for the glow it's from a geostationary satellite or possibly orbital one. Depends if it moved. There's a logical explanation. No 977b) Jay Crossingham - Funny how this is the only image of a ‘star’ being visible through the moon. I have been and taken pictures with a P900 of the moon and can not see through it. No one can. So what is more likely? The moon is see through but only one person on the planet can see it, or it’s not a star in the picture? I’ll let you figure it out. No 977c) Jairo Amaral - https://youtu.be/g99W1N3ydYQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g99W1N3ydYQ&feature=youtu.be No 977d) Jairo Amaral - https://youtu.be/26X6pMeD104 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26X6pMeD104&feature=youtu.be No 977e) Jairo Amaral - https://youtu.be/qRq76tfsxHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRq76tfsxHA&feature=youtu.be No 978) Criteria for testing a and confirming a flat Earth, conclusively: (See OP Page if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155105655646795/ ----------- I have shown many things that can only happen on a spherical Earth, thereby disproving the flat Earth. However, if one wanted to prove conclusively that the Earth was flat, we can come up with some criteria that would only work on a flat Earth. *** Can you come up with any criteria to test your flat Earth hypothesis? *** --------- The things I can think of are; 1) A picture of MORE than 50% of the Earth at one time. - On a sphere, one can only ever see 50% or less of the Earth at one time, therefore if you can see more than 50%, then it supports flat Earth and excludes the globe Earth. 2) Measurements showing the horizon's distance and drop consistent with a flat Earth. - A globe Earth's horizon is twice as far down as your eye level. Therefore if the horizon's drop is only as far down as eye level, the horizon is NOT curving down and away from us. 3) Landing a person on the moon, 3,000 miles away. - Since we have rockets that can go mach 17. we should easily be able to co-ordinate and reach the flat Earth moon, in about 4 hours, actually. 4) Measurements from 3 places on the surface of the Earth, simultaneously of the sun or moon, to get a confirmed height and diameter. No 979) How does the flat Earth stay together? (See OP page if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155105823791795/ -------- Rocks are good in compression but not tension. Water can take conpression but needs to be confined. *** So, when a crack forms why doesn't the flat Earth just split and drift apart? *** 1) There is no gravity, so there is no attractive force to keep it together. 2) Density only goes down. There is no sideways attraction. - In fact the downward force would make things worse. It would tend to push out and spread things apart. No 980) Kieran Purvis - You can detect the curvature of the Earth, simply by standing up! Or are you too lazy to even stand up? https://www.metabunk.org/stand-up-to-detect-the-curve-of-the-earth.t8364/ No 981) Hunter Strozier (From his OP) Flat Earthers Explain: 1. GPS 2. Explain why flights from South Africa to Sydney and fights from Japan to Italy take a very similar amount of time to fly. Where if the world was flat it should take much much longer. 3. Explain the magnetic field of the south pole since it really doesn't exist in a flat earth. 4. Explain how and why if the earth was flat that the sun follows a path just above the earth. 5. Explain how the sun works on a flat earth. How would it produce light in a cone shaped manner? I have more but my brain hurts trying to understand how anyone could believe the earth is flat.. (See OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155105926016795/ No 982) Curt Thurston (See OP) Greetings. Here's a computer simulation of how the Sun would appear in the flat earth model. An object approaching then receding at 1000 mph would both appear to increase velocity as it gets closer, and appear to get larger, and decrease velocity as it gets further away and appear to get smaller. But that's not how it works in real life. Any flat earth scientists here with a logical explanation for that? (See original OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155104561251795/ No 982b) James Mckaskle - I recognize this from geogebra. Here is the full applet: https://ggbm.at/C9BcVgd4 I made a simplified 2D version, as well. https://ggbm.at/GTTBHK8T A visual curvature calculator for the height of objects hidden below the horizon https://ggbm.at/V8daQKqJ Elevation of Polaris as a function of latitude on the globe https://ggbm.at/qqBZ8tHS And Polaris' elevation angle on a flat earth vs observed angle. https://ggbm.at/hntN5qyk No 983) Andy Wilson (From OP) The coriolis effect This is only possible on a spinning globe.. Absolutely 100% impossible on the flat earth model. (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155104960751795/ No 984) Mahmoud Elsharawy (From OP) How do phases of the moon work on a flat earth? (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155100569556795/ No 985) Phases of the moon and flat Earth: ------------ On a flat Earth, we would see multiple phases of the moon at the same time, from different locations around the Earth. In real life we don't see this. (See image No 985a) No 985b) If the moon were spherical, we would see different sides of it, at the same time. If the moon were flat, the disk would be seen at different angles and therefore appear circular or oval, depending on one's angle. (See image No 985b) No 985c) You could see most of the moon at the same time, except for about 17 degrees, at the top of the moon. So we should be able to see 343 degrees of the moon, from one side, down under the moon and up the other side. Then 360 degrees of this view around the moon, from all sides. (See image No 985c) No 986) How to take star trails: ------------ Aim the center of your camera at Polaris (or the south pole). Take a long exposure as the world will turn for an hour or two. The picture will rotate around Polaris as the Earth turns. No 987) How beautiful the night sky can be! Thank you Jeff! --------------------- Jeff Wolffenbuttel https://www.facebook.com/letminlun.haokip/videos/1575045319212874/ -------------- Jeff Wolffenbuttel - Bruce Ing the plane is moving south , the stars should be rising up , they don't No 987a) Analysis of the trip: ----------------- He is going about 1,000 miles (15 degrees) southward and about 1,000 miles westward (15 degrees of sky). He is chasing the sky, not quite keeping up with it. The sky does turn slowly a few degrees as is expected. -------------- He therefore was following the sky, and the stars were drifting just slowly faster than he was going. So, he may only have drifted a few degrees in the east/west direction and about 15 degrees in the north south direction. No 987c) How much the stars moved during the trip. About 10 degrees south and 10 degrees east/west. No 987d-1) Jeff Wolffenbuttel - Distance travelled Jeff Wolffenbuttel - SSW direction Jeff Wolffenbuttel - 1/4 earth diameter and stars don't rise No 987d-2a) Bruce Ing - Jeff Wolffenbuttel I analysed and gave the times and distances for you. That video was NOT the entire flight, just a quarter or less of it. Look at the times! By 1:46 he was at the tip of Africa. The video ended just after 2 hours. You're assumptions are wrong! No 987d-2b) Bruce Ing - A 2 hour 11 minute flight is about 1,310 miles. The Earth would have rotated 2000 miles, so he is about 690 miles BACKWARDS from where he started acording to the stars. That is about 10 degrees or 40 minutes BACKWARDS! No 987d-2c) Bruce Ing - Jeff Wolffenbuttel, you also totally ignore the fact that he goes about 600 mph westward and the Earth is going 700 to 1,039 mph eastward and northward! He is practically standing still with respect to the sky and the Earths rotation. That is peobably why this video was taken on this particular trip! You are just proving the Earths rotation is correct and that you guys always take what you don't understand as evidence. *** Your disbelief is not proof! *** No 987d-2d) Bruce Ing A 2 hour 11 minute flight is about 1,310 miles. The Earth would have rotated 2000 miles, so he is about 690 miles BACKWARDS from where he started acording to the stars. That is about 10 degrees or 40 minutes BACKWARDS! No 987d-2eBruce Ing - Jeff Wolffenbuttel *** What you are failing to take into account is the rotation and tilt of the Earth. The plane started with the Earths rotation going eastward and northward, due to the tilt of the Earth> When the plane flies southwest against the rotation, it is practically standing still! (See picture 987d-2e) No 988) Julie van den Broeck As explained, Kevin, angular elevation of celestial pole on a sphere will depend on your latitude. 90° at Pole, 0° On Equator and a lot of possibilities between those No 989) Julie van den Broeck - That's also the reason you can understand Earth has both celestial poles: (See image No 988) No 990) All the stars and constellations we see around us are relatively close. We only see a small section of the Milky Way that is rotating WITH us. (See meme 990) Note that this is a small patch that is rotating around on a 250 million year journey around the Milky Way. To point out the speeds and claim they are huge and ignore the vast distances or the time for the one rotation (250 million years), is cherry picking at it's finest! No 991) Rules for seeing ships over the horizon: ------------- Some general rules to ensure one is seeing ships actually go over the horizon are; 1) We should look at ships not boats, because small boats are too small to see clearly from far away 2) Nothing disappears BEFORE the horizon, so we should look after the horizon 3) Hidden Curvature starts AFTER the horizon, so the 8 inches per mile should be applied after the horizon if we want to figure out hidden curvature, and not just overall curvature 4) The higher up you are looking from the FARTHER out the Horizon is, so you must look even farther out to see things hidden by curvature. e.g. Looking 9 to 12 miles out, (if you are 6 feet tall), will allow you to see ships hidden by 24 to 54 feet of curvature, but if you are on a ship, the horizon is almost 9 miles out so ships will be fully visible. 5) We should look out on a day when there are NO MIRAGE EFFECTS, otherwise it is hard to know how far out a boat or ship is, as the mirage effect will extent the visibility of the ship by up to twice the distance. No 991b) The higher up you go, the farther out you have to look before you see the horizon. *** EVERYTHING is VISIBLE UP TO the horizon. No 992) Jor Mihálik - shared The Weather Channel's video. No fisheye lens. https://www.facebook.com/TheWeatherChannel/videos/10155806800840921/?hc_ref=ARSBi7vRx_MyUCRMmx9lIeRyFc5sWqMI5O5orgJyo28xGwSF7pbq-RFNA5dPTzgnxFM&fref=gs&dti=2205176794&hc_location=group No 993) Jesse Kozlowski - Link to new app to plot flight paths on flat Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ebYH6d59Ng&feature=share No 994) How the sun looks from the perspective of someone in the daytime and dawn and dusk, on the flat Earth. If we draw the distances to scale, we see that dawn and dusk would see the sun at about 26.6 degrees in the air. Note that, at the same time, there is someone under the noon day sun and it is still 3,000 miles up! (See diagram No 994) (See OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155113138001795/ No 995) Picture of sun setting and full moon: ----------- Zack Tryon (From OP) Flat Earth, Brain Puzzler: ... If the sun is 93 million miles away and the moon is only 238,900 miles from earth ... then how is the sun lighting up the side of the moon facing earth as it is 92,761,100 miles behind the moon ? (See picture No 995) (See original OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155113303991795/ No 995a) Lachlan Field - Its a composite picture. Made of multiple shots. No 995b) Alex M Duffield - This image isn't possible in either No 995c) Ameen Salie - Read up on who took the picture the guy spent months in one place waiting for the perfect shot it happens its not fake. No 995d) Carlos Castañeda http://www.snopes.com/sun-full-moon/ No 995e) Aaron Towers - Two pictures of the same location at different times of the year combined. No 996) Moon lit by Earthshine: --------------- Ronald Kinney - Oh for fucks sake... It's not just the Sun that lights up the Moon, but reflected light from the Earth... Gods Dammit! How did these people ever manage to find their way out of their mother's womb being this ignorant? Juan Torres II - Now how sir do you really know that? Ronald Kinney - Google "Earthshine"... (See original OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155113303991795/ No 996a) Bruce ing - Reflected light from the moon is 1 millionth the strength of sunlight (10% reflection). So, say reflected light from the Earth is 10 times that, (That's 100% reflection or 100,000 th of the sun's output), then that light from the Earth would come back 1 millionth of it's original strength. One million if 100,000th is 1÷1,000,000÷100,000= 0.0000000000001 or 0.00000000001% 1x10^-10 percent of the sun's light. OP is WRONG! No 996b) Bruce Ing - You can barely see Earth shine at night. We sure as hell don't see it in broad daylight! No 996c) Patrick Frei - Because the more light there is the weaker the reflection, right... Do you even physics? No 996d) Bruce Ing - Ronald Kinney, you can't just blindly come up with whatever excuse you want, it has to make sense when we ANALYSE it and measure the numbers! ------------------ Bruce Ing - The sun shines with 28 million watts per meter squared. The moon reflects 28 watts per meter squared. The Earth is 4 times bigger than the moon, so let's say 4 times brighter and 100% reflection. That's 150 watts per meter squared, at 4 times the brightness coming back at 1 millionth the strength. That's 0.0006 watts per meter squared. That means Earth shine is 1/46,000th the strength of sun light reflecting off the moon. Any way you look at it, we won't see Earth shine in broad daylight! No 996e) Bruce Ing - Ronald Kinney TRANSLATION: Earthshine is too weak to see during the day! No 997) How to see the inner planets from Earth: --------------- Some flat Earthers argue that we should not be able to see the inner planets from Earth, or not be able to see the at night. They forget that we live in a 3D world, on a globe and we just have to look before dawn or after dusk, when 1) the sun is behind the horizon 2) the planets are on the right side of the sun so we can see them 3) we aren't so far into the night side of the Earth to block our view No 998) Jason Watkins (from OP) 360 image of the moon https://www.facebook.com/jason.watkins.792303/videos/117638278936470/ (See OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155116522441795/ No 999) Millenio Justine To all the flerfs saying "gravity can't be proven": Gravitational attraction between objects of mass can easily be demonstrated, as this high school science experiment shows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pSkz4zmcpY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkjqrlYOW_0 No 1000) How light from the sun creates and umbra and penumbra: (See OP post for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155116823711795/ ------------ Does everyone realize that light from every part of the sun reaches goes in every direction, roughly in 180 degrees? That is why there is a penumbra and an umbra. 1) In the umbra NO light can reach the shadow. 2) In the penumbra, some light still reaches into the shadow. 3) The rest of the Earth still gets light from most of the sun. (See diagram No 1000) No 1000b) Areas where sun is totally blocked (Umbra), partially blocked (penumbra) and not blocked at all (the rest of the Earth. (See diagram No 1000b) No 1001c) The solar eclipse as it moved across North America and the world turned in the same direction (See image No 1000c) No 1000d) Second picture of solar eclipse from DSCOVR:EPIC Aug. 21, 2017 (See image No 1000d) No 1000e) Second picture of solar eclipse from DSCOVR:EPIC Aug. 21, 2017 (See image No 1000e) No 1000f) Mark Pearsons - I often wonder if people realise that space is full of light, light coming from every single star and galaxy fills every square nanometre of space and the only time we see it is when it hits something and reflects and enters our eye and lands on our retina. Just a thought. No 1001) How shadow of the moon can be smaller than the diameter of the moon: (See original OP to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155115802791795/ -------------------- Curt Thurston - The shadow of the moon on the Earth can be smaller than the moon if the diameter of the light source (the Sun) is wider than the Moon. The Sun is about 1 million miles in diameter and sends out parallel rays of light that are at least a million miles wide by the time they reach the moon and the Earth. The entire Earth is illuminated at one time so you know the rays of the Sun are at least 8000 miles wide (diameter of the Earth) and that's almost four times the size of the Moon (2100 miles). You can't replicate it with a flashlight, try a searchlight, a softball and a basket ball or lights and objects to scale. Here's a drawing of the Sun, Moon and Earth to scale. The distance between the Moon and Earth is too scale. The distance between the Sun and the Earth is 1/100th actual scale. The graphic is 9300 pixels wide, to have the distance from the Sun to the Earth to be in scale the g (See diagram No 1001) No 1002) Relative motion, the ISS and taking pictures: ------------------ "KC Cabell Bruce Ing nice I love how the space station can slam on its breaks and take beautiful pictures and videos as it hoovers in one place. KC Cabell Bam in your face!" ---------- Bruce Ing - I sure hope you are trolling. Do I have to explain to you; 1) how far way 255 miles is and even if something is going by fast, we can still take a picture of it. 2) The picture, compared to the size of the planet isn't that high a resolution. Seriously, we're not taking close ups of people zooming by at thousands of miles an hour. ------------------- We are taking a picture of a swath of land 1443 miles to the horizon. It would take 6 minutes 58 seconds to go 1443 miles at mach 17. That means the ground is going by at 3.62 miles a second AND they are looking out at 1443 miles of ground, so 0.2508% of the image is shifted every second. We move our hands way more than that when we take a picture of a person! ---------------------- Do you understand relative motion? ------------------------- ------------------------- The math behind it. If the ISS is going mach 17, that is about 767.269 mph x 17= 13,043.573 mph The distance we are looking at to the horizon is 1,443 miles, so it will be covered in; 1,443 miles /13,043.573 miles per hour=0.110629 hours 0.11062919 hours * 60 = 6.6377 minutes= 6*60+0.6377*60 seconds/minute=398.265 seconds 1,443 miles/298.265 seconds = 3.62 miles/per second 3.62/1,443*100=0.2508% No 1002b) Bruce Ing - KC Cabell, cars go by a red light camera at 60 mph. They are less than 50 feet from the car when they take the picture. That's equivalent to the Earth going going 1,615,680 mph when we are 255 miles away from it. *** Compared to a car going 60 mph by a red light camera, the ISS is going about 11.74 feet an hour! ------------------ The math behind it; It is a ratio. If the car is going 60 mph 50 feet away then the ISS is goinng X mph 255 miles away. 60/50=x/255 60 mph*(255 miles*5280 feet/mile)/50 feet=x x=1,615,680 mph No 1003) Looking at the energies and light output of the sun and moon. ------ No 1003a) The sun uses nuclear fusion. Something impossible on a 32 mile diameter ball of gas, from the flat Earth model. At 4750 degrees kelvin and over 28 million watts per meter squared, such a small sun would have exploded instantly! We've made and detonated nuclear bombs with bigger diameters than that! No 1003b) How do you explain the source of power of the sun in the flat Earth model? --------- The large mass and gravity on a 990,000 mile diameter sun keeping ir held together even under such high temperatures and pressures makes sense. A 32 mile diameter sun has no explanation for it's power source! No 1003c) How do you explain such a small moon causing a solar eclipse? On the globe model, it would receive 150 watts per meter squared, just like Earth. However, a flat Earth moon had to block 92 million watts per meter squared, to cause a 3,000 mile diameter shadow, (penumbra), at 75 percent coverage. It would also have exploded instantly! The size of the shadow and the amount if sun light covered, on the flat Earth model, just don't add up! No 1004) How does a 32 mile wide moon create a 70 mile wide umbra? (See illustration No 1004a) (See OP if you wish to discussion, please) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155118004566795/ No 1004b) Note that the moon must be bigger than the umbra and smaller than the penumbra (if there is an umbra and penumbra). A few other things to note. An umbra can't be bigger than the moon and a penumbra can't be smaller than the moon, otherwise we are dealing with a light source that is smaller than the diameter of the moon and it will be a single shadow. No 1004c) Solar eclipse Aug. 21, 2017 75% coverage over 568 miles away. That would be a penumbra of 1514.67 miles in diameter, with an umbra of 70 miles in diameter. How is that physically possible with a 32 mile diameter moon? (See diagram No 1004c) No 1004d) Distance from center to Toronto - 568 miles (See diagram No 1004d) No 1004e) Aug. 21, 2017 Eclipse 20 minutes in (See picture No 1004e) No 1004f) Aug. 21, 2017 eclipse One hour in (See picture No 1004f) No 1004g) The flat Earth moon, umbra and penumbra to scale. (See diagram No 1004g) No 1004h) How does the flat Earth sun and moon shadow work? (See diagram No 1004h) No 1004i) The path of totality and partial solar eclipse for the Aug. 21, 2018 solar eclipse. (See diagram No 1004i) No 1004j) There wasn't just an umbra,but a huge penumbra that crossed North america at the same time. Here is the pattern of the umbra AND penumbra. (See illustration No 1004j) No 1004k) This is the eclipse taken from the DISCOVER:EPIC satellite 909,000 miles away. (See picture No 1004k) No 1004l) The shadow will go from full brightness (totality) in the center, and feather off at the edges to zero shadow. NOTE: The total light blocked is just the amount of light covered by the moon. Even though the shadow was spread out across a 3,000 mile diameter, from full shadow to nothing, the total light blocked was just the diameter of the moon. So, an area 2,149 miles in diameter was blocked. *** A penumbra is just partial coverage! *** (See diagram No 1004l) No 1005) Rockets would only work if we knew the shape of the Earth: -------------- People launch rockets going mach 25, that's 17,000 mph! 1) How can anyone launch anything that will go half way around the world in 45 minutes and not know the shape of the Earth? In 10 minutes the rockets are in orbit. If the Earth were flat, where would they go? They would be across the entire flat Earth in 93 minutes! When they re-enter, they leave a trail, like a meteor, so it would be obvious if they re-entered after take-off. 2) Where are the rockets? Where are the satellites? Where are the reentry burns? 3) If they are faking launches and showing first and second stage live video, where are these rockets and satellites ending up? 4) Please tell me how this works on a flat Earth? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwGP8b9vv4U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHWDNrrfhnI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyq5eN9C4Cc No 1006) Simple test of curvature: http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html No 1007) When did people figure out the radius of the Earth: ------------- Zev-Velvel Griner - Just in case you think there's a trick involved . . . https://www.quora.com/When-and-how-did-scientists-measure-the-radius-of-the-earth (See OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155114234826795/ No 1008) Energy output of the flat Earth sun: If not, the sun's surface is about 4,750 degrees, whether flat or globe. That means it's putting out 28 million watts per meter squared, over the entire surface of the sun. 1) Shall we calculate the wattage for a 32 mile diameter sun? 28 million watts x Pi x r^2 = 28,000,000 x 3.14159265359x(16 mi*5280 feet/mile*0.3048meters/foot)^2= 28 million watts x 3.14159265359 * 84480.3048^2= 627,796,439,408,907,670 watts! 627 quintillion, 796 trillion, 439 million, 907 thousand 670 watts! Every second, of every day for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Someone tell me what can power that? How does such a small object contain that much nuclear energy without exploding? No 1009) Frank Walter - Why does the sun set behind the horizon instead of becoming dimmer and dimmer way above the earth? No 1010) Not comprehending scales beyond our human size perspective: ------------ Adrian Hernandez (from OP) (See meme No 1010) (See original OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155120636301795/ No 1010b) I hate to tell you, but correcting for 23 feet every minute is very easy. The thing is, curvature is cumulative. So, 2 minutes is NOT 46 feet of curvature, but 92! What flat Earther's don't get is that we don't think or act that way. *** No one can see or react to what is going to happen in an hour or 2,200 miles away! *** We steer, second by second, then next thing you know, bam1!, 1 hour later, 2,200 miles of flight and 568 MILES of curvature! *** If you were driving that distance it would take you 3 days driving 10 hours a day! The whole way there, never being able to see more than 60 miles or so! *** This just shows, WE ARE VERY SMALL, and the world is VERY BIG! --------------------- I guess flat Earthers can't grasp what is beyond their vision or picture scales far bigger than them that have no direct visual or physical bearing on them! No 1011) There is no such thing as anti-gravity: -------------- Unlike magnetism and electrostatic attraction, there is no opposite for gravity, there is no repulsion. So magnetism and electrostatic attraction CAN'T be the cause of or a substitute for gravity. No 1012) Gravity is way weaker than magnetism - Comparison: -------------- Aaron Magnifico - One thing I have ran into is they never answer questions. And when they do answer questions their answer just explains what they believe not what is actually happening. And Bruce Ing you're awesome for this because there is no way electromagnetism or electrostatic force keeps us on earth. Those forces are way too strong. I believe quantum physics shows that the force gravity is one billionth, of a billionth, of a billionth, of a billionth times weaker than electromagnetism. It's so weak that when we jump into the air we actually break through some of the field. And most of all fields I believe quantum mechanics explains have to be longer than a 10th of a centimeter to be classified as a force stronger than gravity? Correct me if I'm wrong I'm trying to remember the information off the top of my head. No 1012b) "For the electron and proton, the gravitational force is 39 orders of magnitude weaker than the electrical force." ------------- Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/myths-of-physics-2-gravit_b_5718233.html No 1012c) It depends on scale. Gravity is cumulative, so on planetary scales, gravity is stronger than electromagnetism. (There will never be an entire planet that is one giant magnet! However, on a l on l comparison, magnetism is way stronger, for a given mass. No 1012d) Magnets are 1 newton second/coulomb.meter. A neodinium magnet can be 35 to 52 MGOe (Million) Gravity is G = 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 *** So that's 52 million vs 6.67408 × 10-11 or 17 orders of magnitude difference! *** --------------- References: https://www.google.ca/search?q=Magnetic+force+measurements&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA710&oq=Magnetic+force+measurements&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.7829j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field https://www.google.ca/search?q=Gravitational+constant&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA710&oq=gravitational+constant&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i64j0l4.4612j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=magnet-grade No 1013) Andrew Cannon - How did the 2011 tsunami cross the Pacific Ocean and impact South America when there is no straight line of sight between Japan and South America on the flat earth model? No 1013b) Michael Martinez? (from OP) So I was reading an article about the recent earthquake in South America and they brought up the tsunami warnings that went out. This made me think how is it that the Christmas Eve earthquake of 2004. Now I'm wondering how is it that a tsunami originating at the yellow spot on your "flat earth" map would strike Somalia? Considering there is no way that the tsunami would have made it passed the coast of India? Seems like your map has magical powers over the paths of tsunamis too lmao. Earth is round and your brains are flat. Another nail in your stupid stupid FE coffin. (See original OP to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155125948991795/ No 1014) The tides are water bending. Tides are a bulge of water in the ocean. They are a thousand miles long. A thousand miles of water 3 feet higher than the rest of the ocean. WATER BENDING! No 1014b) Chris Brocious Ok so after a full day of scouring the internet for anyone willing and able to debate the flat earth theory.... this is all I got: (See OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155124088991795/ No 1015) The reason the horizon looks flat: ---------- The reason the horizon always looks flat are a combination of reasons. 1) The horizon is 360 degrees around, so it is a circle, it MUST eventually curve 2) We are looking at it almost edge on 3) The Earth is very large, so we only see a very small arc of the horizon 4) the circle is a LEVEL circle, 360 degrees around. It is at the same level, 360 degrees around. *** Let that one sink in, it is at the same LEVEL all around us. (It has to be horizontal!) No 1016) If the sun is low and small, then what are driving the Aurora's? ----------- Bob Wajszczuk A direct result of hot spinning iron and nickel in the core of a spherical Earth. Spinning metal creates a magnetic field. Then the solar winds interact with our magnetosphere at the poles and give us the Aurora. This cannot happen on a flat Earth. Game. Set. Match. #earthisasphere (See OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155124322426795/ No 1017) Why we can't see the lunar lander's from Earth: ------------- It's about resolution, wavelength and size of telescope. - We would need a 500 meter wide telescope to make out any details of the landers on the moon! See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155127222551795/ No 1017b) We can see nebula pretty clearly, even though we can't see details on the moon. However, one has to realize that the nebula look like a pretty good size spot compared to something on the moon. This is because, even though they are really far they are huge. A nebula can be 11,000 light years across! So, even though you think you are seeing a lot of detail, you are seeing very low resolution of a very big object. For example 11,000 light years, with 2,000 pixels across, means each pixel represents 11,000 x 6 trillion miles / 2,000 = 32,282,540,928,000 miles 1 pixel is 32 trillion miles across No 1018) The temperature of the upper atmosphere and "vacuum": ------------- Air is just a bunch of atoms bouncing around and off each other. The hotter the atom, the faster it bounces around. As you go higher; 1) the air gets thinner, there are less atoms per unit volume 2) the atoms that manage to stay that high, are bouncing faster, so they have more energy and therefore more heat So, 60 miles up, it is a near vacuum, the individual atoms may be very hot, say 2,000 degrees. *** They have to be, it is because they are bouncing and flying around with so much energy that they can stay so high. *** However, there are very few of them. As I've mentioned before 2 or 3 atoms per cubic cm vs 15 million per cubic cm at sea level. So each atom is very hot, but the average temperature of that cubic cm, the total amount of heat, is very low. No 1019) Why we can see stars around other planets but not Earth: ----------- Adry'al Baht Yahuda Any idea why Stars show up here but not when viewing Earth? (See original OP to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155126527806795/ No 1019b) Bruce Ing - That's Earth, it is a lot brighter than the stars. Notice the rest of the picture is black, with NO stars! Adry'al Baht Yahuda - You don't see those two additional stars in the photo? No 1019c) Bruce Ing - Adry'al Baht Yahuda - Do you take into account that this is 888 million miles away from the sun, so the sun is a lot dimmer? How is comparing something taken 888 million miles away proof that we should see stars on Earth. With the square law, 888 million miles divided by 93 million is 9.5 times. So 9.5x9.5=90.25 *** The sunlight on Earth is 90 TIMES stronger than at Saturn! *** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/what-the-sun-looks-like-from-other-planets_us_577ec142e4b0344d514e9182 No 1020) The Solar Winds and Comet Proof: ----------- The solar winds are proof that we revolve around the sun. The sweep past the Earth and out of the solar system. They don't come in the direction of the sun according to a flat Earth, but a constant direction, weather night or day, as if it were a globe! Comets prove the sun is the center of the solar system! (See original OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155133542781795/ No 1020b) If the solar wind were from a sun moving across a flat Earth, it would be constantly changing direction throughout the day! We don't see that, the solar wind comes from a constant direction far out in space! No 1020c) Daniel Kotek - Because the sun is a hot-ass, fresh-ass ball of plasma, made mainly from hydrogen and helium. Comets are water and rock, comets don't have tail unless they get close enough to a star that melts the ice in the comet and since gas is more expansive than liquid it wants to break out. That means lots of geysers are on the surface of the comet and it actually has two tails- one is facing 180° from star and that is the gas tail, and the other is facing in almost the same way as the gas tail but a little bit against the direction it goes and is made from debris from the comet. (See diagram No 1020c) No 1020d) Ronald Kinney - Benjamin Cravendale Pritchard Except... The Sun DOES have a "tail".. https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-s-ibex-provides-first-view-of-the-solar-system-s-tail No 1020e) Peter Mirtitsch - Francisco Marini let's ignore the fact that the Sun is MUCH larger and only shines by emitting radiation due to fusion, and a comet is smaller, icy, and releases a stream of dust and vapour due to being heated, and also a second plasma tail due to the Solar wind. Some stars DO have a tail, depending on their stage of development. (See diagram No 1020e) No 1020f) Micheal Cline - It's actually thought to have two "tails". Created by the Heliosphere. But you'll all just deny it, and tell me, "Go do your RESEARCH!".. (see meme No 1020f) No 1020g) Micheal Cline (see meme No 1020g) No 1020h) Micheal Cline (see meme No 1020h) No 1020i) Micheal Cline (see meme No 1020i) No 1021) Things coming back into view when you zoom them: ----------- Malmin Lee - Get a fkn coolpix or telescope and it comes right back to view dumbo No 1021a) Bruce Ing - Things DON'T come back into view when you zoom in. - When you can see ships, you CAN'T see people and small boats anymore. - When you can see cities and buildings, you CAN'T see ships anymore. - When you can see mountains, you CAN'T see cities or buildings anymore! No 1021b) Bruce Ing - Malmin Lee - Here's my explanation for seeing hidden curvature AFTER the horizon. Your eye level is 6 feet up, on shore, so you are above everything and can see out. As you look down, eventually there will be a point, on the curved water, where your line of site is tangent to the water. That is the horizon. Everything BEFORE the horizon is visible. Everything AFTER the horizon, starts dropping out of view. (See diagram 20-3) No 1021c) Here are ships from 4.4 to 9.7 miles away. 1.4 to 6.7 miles of hidden curvature. Their hidden curvature is 1.97, 6.4, 18.64 and 31.73 feet respectively. No 1022) Sunlight on the moon looks white: ------------ Mustafa Elriash - We all knows that the moon lights up bc of the sun reflection on it .... So in that pic where does the light come from and make these shadows ??? (See original OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155141777881795/ No 1022a) Mustafa Elriash - The sun light is yellow guys this is white !! Alex M Duffield - The sun is yellow as the light is passing though the atmospher e wheich removes blue No 1022b) Alex M Duffield - Notice how a sunset goes yellower and yellower untill it becomes red and sets? that is because the sunlight is passing through more and more atmospher wwhich reflects out blue light (this is also what makes the sky blue), withoiut an atmosphere the suns light is white No 1022c) Alex M Duffield - Nitrogen, it reflects out blu light (which makes the sky blue) and makes light passing through the atmosphere yellow. No 1022d) Bruce Ing - Sunlight is white, it appears yellow, because some of the blue is filtered out by our atmosphere, making the sky appear blue! No 1022e) Bruce Ing - The sun's surface is 4750 degrees celcius. If we look that up on a black body radiation table, we'll see it is a bright white light. Even though the sun is called a yellow star, it actually emits white light. No 1022f) Bruce Ing - Look at any high altitude balloon pics of the sun, from flat Earthers, the sun looks white in the upper atmosphere! No 1023) Trips from Auckland to Buenos Aires: Curves over a globe vs flat map ---------- Carlos Castañeda - Luis Lucas Rodriguez (See meme No 1023) No 1023b) Carlos Castañeda (See meme No 1023b) No 1023c) Carlos Castañeda - A friendly challenge to all Flat Earth believers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBP-cNfCuxY No 1024) Why doesn't Earth have a tail?: --------------- Krishna Thupili - why doesn't earth have a tail? it's made of rock and ice and stuff... obviously because it's stationary... Sophie Sara Holcomb (See original OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155133542781795/ No 1024b) Bruce Ing - The Earth has enough gravity to keep an atmosphere in place. That means it can easily keep water vapour and rocks in place too! --------------- Also, Earth does lose some lighter gases, especially helium. (That is why there is not a lot of naturally occurring helium in the atmosphere.) So I wouldn't be surprised if it had a faint helium tail as it went around the solar system. No 1024c) Earth has a dust trail, like swirling dust behind a car. https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/12nov_dusttail No 1025) How we see Mercury and Venus, revisited: ------------- Charles Dominiak One more before bed, if venus and mecury are between us and the sun, how can we see them at night, when we are on the oppisite side of the planet? (See original OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155145860911795/ No 1025a) Ajisaka Octawiyano - To put it simply, there's a reason why Venus is called "The Evening Star" or "The Morning Star". You can only see it a few hours before the sun rises or a few hours after the sun sets. Interior planets have something called maximum elongation. These planets won't appear further than a certain angle from the sun. For example, Venus won't appear 47 degrees further from the sun (which means venus will either rises around 3 hours before the sun rises or sets around 3 hours after the sun sets.). Mercury is pretty hard to observe, though. The maximum elongation for mercury is only about 28 degrees. No 1025b) Ajisaka Octawiyano - A bit simulation for this. (See image No 1025b) No 1025c) Ajisaka Octawiyano - Venus from earth (See image No 1025c) No 1025d) Ajisaka Octawiyano - Mercury from earth (See image No 1025d) No 1026) The zooming effect, revisited: ----------- Torang Sinaga (from his OP) (See original OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155148983241795/ No 1026a) Caleb Hubbell - The bottom image is a narrow field of view form a large distance. The one on the moon is a wide field of view. The earth's diameter is 12756 kilometers It is viewed at a distance of 384400 kilometers. You can use the small angle approximation to see how bit it would appear to your eye. (12756/384400)*(180/pi)= 1.9 degrees For comparison, the moon from earth has an apparent size of 0.5 degrees, so the Earth would appear 3.8 times larger than the moon appears from earth. The satellite that took the photo was 1600000 kilometers away. from the earth, and roughly 1200000 kilometers away from the moon. (12756/1600000)*(180/pi)=0.457 degrees (3474/1200000)*(180/pi)=0.165 degrees So from this distance, the Earth would only look 2.7 times larger than the moon. I'd say that looks pretty consistent with the picture. Or 1/2.7=0.37 --- the moon will appear 37% as large as the earth. (See diagram No 1026a) No 1026b) Bruce Ing - The picture in the OP is part of a series of pictures from DSCOVR:EPIC. It is 990,000 miles away, between the sun and the Earth. So, this picture was ZOOMED in 990,000 miles away from Earth (7919 miles in diameter) and about 752,000 miles away from the moon (2,159 miles in diameter). The moon passed between the Earth and the satellite, as it orbited around the Earth, going WEST to EAST! The same way it did for the solar eclipse on August 21, 2017, only one month ago! (See Gallerie/Lunar transit 2016) https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/galleries/2016/lunar_transit No 1026c) Bruce Ing - This fits with how much sunlight the moon blocked, during the Aug. 21,,2017 eclipse. For a globe moon, it's still roughly 1300 watts per meter squared, for a 2,159 mile diameter moon, making a shadow covering several thousand square miles on Earth. A 32 mile diameter moon would have had to block so much more sunlight. 2,159^2/32^2×1,300=5,862,950 watts per meter squared! The surface of the moon would have been exploding! That is impossible! (Look up galleries/Total Solar Eclipse 2017) https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/galleries/2017/total_solar_eclipse No 1027) The Equatorial Mount Proof: ------------- 1) When you set a tripod, so that it's axis of rotation is parallel to the axis of rotation of the Earth, you can follow the sun, moon, stars and nebula with one rotation, going clockwise, (in the north and counterclockwise in the south), that maintains sight of the object from horizon to horizon. (Look up equatorial mount). That is, one can counter the rotation of the Earth and keep an object in sight. *** For most places, (except near the north and south poles), this means the line of sight goes at an angle from horizon to horizon, THROUGH THE GROUND, and around to the other side. 2) If the sun were rotating around the Earth, then such a rotation, would; i) not track a star, sun or moon properly! ii) go around the sky and NEVER go below the ground! iii) The north pole alignment of the equatorial mount, would always be perpendicular to the Earth! (See diagram No 1027) (See OP if you wish to discuss this) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155167874886795/ No 1027b) This means for most places, when you track everything, it goes from horizon to horizon, AT AN ANGLE and UNDER THE GROUND to the other side! No 1027c) The axis if rotation for most places is at an angle to the ground. ** NEVER perpendicular to the ground as it would be on a flat Earth! (Impossible on a flat Earth!) *** At the Equator the axis if rotation is parallel to the ground AND goes ALONG the equator at the same time! (Impossible on a flat Earth!) No 1027d) The arcs across the sky would be parallel to the latitudes. So, on a flat Earth, star paths would change direction as one went east or west. i.e. The same star trail would be at 90 degrees, 10,000 km east or west on the equator. *** The SAME star is going at a different path in each location AT THE SAME TIME! *** This is, again, impossible! (See diagram No 1027d) No 1027e) Here is a top view of equatorial mounts being used on a flat Earth. Notice that the telescopes will track the same stars going at different angles AT THE SAME TIME, on a flat Earth! (See diagram No 1027e) No 1027f) Andy Dingley - Well done! Smart comment and question. "The equatorial mount doesn't prove the earth is spherical, but it does directly prove that the stars rotate around an axis that is at angle to what you or I think of as vertical." Great. I think we can broadly agree that. BTW - the armillary sphere of some sundials is an analogous axis. "If the apparent motion of any given star can be counteracted by rotating the scope around the scope's polar axis, then the apparent motion of all stars must BE a rotation around the scope's polar axis." Small issue to clarify here. It demonstrates that apparent motion is a _relative_ rotation. It doesn't indicate - either way - whether it's the Earth rotating or the stars moving around it. Now, a couple more points. What's the angle of an equatorial mount, to the vertical? Why does this change with latitude? At the North Pole, mounts on both a spherical and flat earth would be vertical. But for a globe, the equatorial mount is at the perpendicular complement to that angle (it goes lower as you go nearer the equator). This is also true for a flat earth, but not the same linear relationship. Also, away from the North pole, the star trails on a globe are still circular. On a flat earth under an earth-sized firmament, they'd be obviously egg-shaped (as you're nearer to one side of their path than the other). Also, what happens for Southern latitudes? On a globe, the equatorial mount angle starts to climb again, as you move towards the South pole, but you're now looking at the _other_ pole of rotation. On a flat earth it wouldn't even be horizontal yet and there's no southern pole of rotation. Yet we _do_ observe this southern pole of rotation. No 1027g) The south pole, on a flat Earth simply doesn't make sense. It is a pole, that is facing south, in any number of directions, 360 degrees around the edge! (See diagram No 1027g) No 1027h) How can the sun go directly overhead, the UNDER the Earth, VERTICALLY, at the equator. (See diagram No 1027h) No 1028) Carlos Castañeda - You are not aware of the big size of the earth. (See diagram No 1028) (See OP if you wish to discuss this) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155166533711795/ No 1029) Carlos Castañeda - Huge container ship eclipsing the horizon: ----------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpAGXpusAiQ (See original OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155166533711795/ No 1030) Daniel Black (See original OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155168254856795/ ------------- Hey Flat Earthers: Your knee-jerk retort to photographic evidence of Earth being an oblate spheroid is to immediately say it's "CGI," () so let's talk about Felix Baumgartner’s livestreamed space jump, found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvbN-cWe0A0 Check it out briefly and then come back to this post. I'll wait. Now, since that was live, you'll instead jerk your other favorite knee and say the videographers used a fish-eye lens, and guess what? You're actually RIGHT (for once)! They totally DID use a fish-eye lens! So that's GOTTA be why the flat earth below him looks so darn curved, right? Let's grant you that. Let's all imagine—as a Facebook group—that the earth’s horizon in the video of Felix's space jump is flat. Still with me? Ok, now imagine what kind of distortion we should expect from Felix and his "Zenith pod" in order to bend the horizon that much, and how funky he would look at such an extreme angle. If you correct for the angulation, you can visualize the curvature of the earth as being much less extreme, but definitely not flat, unfortunately for Team Collin Flearth. Felix and his pod are only slightly distorted/curved, yet the earth is SUPER-curved, so if you “uncurve” him and the pod slightly, and “uncurve” the earth slightly by the same degree, you STILL have a verifiably not-flat earth. (See picture No 1030a) To demonstrate, I took a screenshot of the original, fish-eyed version of the footage (first picture), and used Photoshop’s “spherize” effect to do a reverse fisheye of 50%, and that seemed to straighten out the walls of his distorted pod quite nicely. In fact, since humans are objectively NOT made of straight lines, my goal was to instead use the right side of that Zenith pod as a reference for how much curvature should be removed. I drew a straight line parallel to the side of the pod to show that it is—indeed—straight, so all the fish-eye lens' effect is now completely corrected for. You can clearly see the bent pod sides are now straight, right? You can very clearly see that it runs parallel to the white line I drew next to it for reference. So was Felix CGI? Is all of Facebook a fish-eye lens? Let me know what your creative, evidentiarily-unsupported fever-dream hypothesis is in the comments below. UPDATE: Oh, and as all of you who are spouting nonsense, nonsequitors, and unsubstantiated claims continue to do so, just bear in mind: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (See picture No 1030b) No 1030c) Nils Vdneuker No 1030d) El-Fuego Sanchez - Hm... No 1030e) Vinny Hall - Dude...The camera view from inside the Zenith Shows a Flat EYE LEVEL Horizon... Bruce Ing - I would say from inside it definitely looked flatter. However, it was also a much smaller section of horizon that was being viewed and it still look slightly curved. The fact is, regardless, one is viewing a 360 degree horizon, with nothing but blackness (no stars), beyond the horizon. ** It is a CIRCLE! *** It MUST eventually appear as an arc of a circle. No 1031) OB Senior “- Good scientists make models and then try to break them.” Gravity is the model. It has been tested and is yet to be proven wrong. Density requires mass. Mass produces weight as a result of gravity. Buoyancy and weight each require gravity to exist. To claim gravity is fake, you need to break the model. https://scienceornot.net/2012/01/17/scientific-models-are-tested-by-making-predictions-and-checking-them-against-real-world-data/ No 1032) Paolo Cauriz (See his OP) THE EARTH IS GLOBE. see the sun over the horizon. ohh shoot., the earth is FLAT!! yes, the earth is flat..!! https://www.facebook.com/aman.khalidd/posts/1450599255008660 No 1032a) OB Senior - Another perspective https://youtu.be/6ifijsiwY5I No 1032b) Ade Rumbold - How is zoom going to help with this?? https://youtu.be/1ceDX1gHwKg No 1033) James Jones I love it when these [flat Earthers] post the Chicago skyline claiming it is proof of the flat earth.What the[y] fail to see its proof for the curved earth. Oh and where is the sun going? (See original OP if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155174444701795/ No 1033b) Many times when FE says the sun gets bigger they are using GLARE. Use a proper solar filter. NOT an anti-glare filter, but smoked glass or something that will remove the glare completely! (See video No 1033b) Wolfie6020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSrqcD-6H5A No 1033c) Example of no solar filter vs solar filter Time 1:49 (See picture No 1033c) No 1033d) James William Kaler - Simon Dittli is correct. Solar filter. Nice try. Here is a prize for your effort. (See video No 1033d) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFTWGdR8SiU - A sun set with and without a solar filter. No 1033e) Dave Greg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X3Pcaurwsc No 1034) Ships going over the horizon. Standard case for seeing curvature: ----------------- Standing on the shore 6 foot eye level. - The horizon is about 3 miles out - Hidden Curvature starts AFTER the horizon - Ships 9 and 12 miles out have 24 and 54 feet of hidden curvature, respectively. No 1035) Geodetic surveying and the shape of the Earth: ------------- http://flatearthdeception.com/geodesy-proof-of-the-flat-earth-deception/ (See image no 1035) No 1036) Orrsam Abubaker (See original OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155176040741795/ --------------- A simple traveling experiment everyone can do to see the earth is a sphere. Granted since the earth is so large you will need to travel a reasonably large distance so the earth curvature comes into effect. The idea is simple: Starting from point A you move in a straight line for a certain distance. At point B, turn right 90° degrees, move along the line for the same distance. At point C, turn again to the right and do the same, at 90 degrees. Eventually you'll get back to the starting point: thus we just created a triangle with 90° degrees. This proves that that Earth has a spherical shape (not a perfect sphere), since these movements would only create an incomplete square with three sides if we were to do it on a flat surface. No 1036b) Anthony Trujillo http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTriangle.html No 1036c) Wayne Gage - Travel in a straight line halfway around the earth and make a 90 degree turn and travel straight to your starting point. Actually make any degree turn and go straight back to your starting point. No 1036d) One quarter of the circumference of the Earth: ------------- A quarter of the distance around the globe (e.g. north pole to equator) would be 24,901/4=6,225.25 miles. If we look up the distance from the north pole to the equator, we get 5,400 nautical miles = 5,400 x 1,1508 miles/nautical mile = 6214.32 miles. https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=qTpJWoWLL8XujwTB27Yg&q=Distance+north+pole+to+equator&oq=Distance+north+pole+to+equator&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30k1l5.322.4165.0.4362.30.21.0.5.5.0.178.2028.6j11.17.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..8.22.2085...46j0i46k1j0i22i10i30k1.0.E2350Z6BZio -------------- On a flat Earth the distance would be what? Circumference of the equator = 24,901 miles Circumference = Pi x diameter therefore diameter = circumference = 24,901/3.14159265 = 7926.23 miles Radius = north pole to equator = diameter/2 = 3,963.12 miles *** The flat Earth distance from the circumference to the equator is short by 2,251 miles! No 1037) What would the Earth be like if the Earth was flat? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa5X2rj65Qo No 1038) Horizon line below the center of screen: ------------ Carlos Castañeda - Damien Frazier With a wide angle lens, when an horizontal line is below the center of the lens, it will bend up the extremes and the same happens when the line is a curve, so it can straighten a curved line (like the horizon) (See original OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155176331486795/ No 1039) Flat Earth vanishing point explanation, analyzed: (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155176331486795/ -------- Andrew Darnell - The point is that you can see it at all..... showing us its behind the horizon doesn't prove a thing... (See meme 1039) No 1039b) Chris Brown - No, you don't understand perspective. (See meme 1039b) No 1039b) Niklas Greuling - Everything gets smaller the further it's away why doesn't that apply to the sun? No 1039c) Bruce Ing - This flat Earth perspective is very pretty, but it is NOT how perspective works! Things don't vanish after the vanishing point. If it is an object with light being reflected, it will be to small or faint to see, HOWEVER, if it is a bright self illuminating object, like, oh say ... THE SUN!, it will be visible past the vanishing point. The sun's vanishing point, for a globe Earth sun 990,000 miles in diameter is 100 light years away! (To the naked eye) For an equivalently smaller sun, it would still be the square root of the ratio. (16^2/495,000^2)*100 light years=613,245.808 miles away! *** The flat Earth sun would be visible, to the naked eye, over half a million miles away! *** No 1039d) Bruce Ing - Also, thing don't get smaller and then bigger again after the vanishing point. That is just how they "appear" to look from our perspective. They don't actually physically do that! ---------- In fact the sun's diameter is the same size and we can actually calculate an angular diameter for it, even after the vanishing point. It simply does not disappear. With binoculars, a vanishing point's distance is extended, especially for something as bright as the sun! No 1040) Why do planets all revolve in the same direction: ----------- Patrick McCann You really think planets revolve around the sun? What are the chances that all of the planets in our solar system revolve around the sun in the same direction the same way. Don't you think the chances of them going different directions should prove that it's not real (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155176725061795/ No 1040b) Bruce Ing - Planetary disks form and START rotating preferentially in one direction. That means the sun, the planets and everything in them automatically rotate in the same direction! ---------------- Think of it like water draining. At first it's random, but very shortly everything around the drain starts going in one direction. It's literally totally random, depending on very small initial conditions. Then all the water follows the drain in the same direction. What are the chances some of the water will start going in other directions? Zero, if it does, it hits the majority of the water, which is moving together and gets stopped. No 1040c) Patrick McCann - Water down a drain is different than spheres orbiting another sphere. The water is getting pushed by the other water. And all of it is trying to go down. No 1040c-1) Wil Ezekiel - The analogy points to the water all being part of the same "disk" of rotating material, just as an accretion disk around a star is. The dust and gasses then condense, still orbiting in the same direction (because why would they decide to randomly reverse) as they become planets No 1040c-2) Bruce Ing - Patrick McCann You forget gravity. The dust and rubble is attracted to each other, so it influences each other, just like the water molecules pushing against each other. No 1040d) Matt Birdsong - Why the solar system is flat: https://youtu.be/tmNXKqeUtJM No 1040e) Patrick McCann - Why don't the planets orbit the sun like this? No 1040e-1) Michael Hansen - Because they all formed from the same disk. ALMA actually has taken an image of a distant protostar where there are trails in the disk, suggesting forming protoplanets. No 1040e-2) Joshua Ray Derke - Also. Electrons don't actually orbit nucleuses like that. No 1041) Kaleb Powell - I did some research. 1935. 13.5 miles up (See screenshot No 1041) No 1041b) Kaleb Powell - 1946. A v2 rocket was equipped with a camera that captured pictures every 1.5 seconds. The film was in a steel box to prevent it from getting damage from coming back into the atmosphere. (See picture No 1041b) No 1041c) Kaleb Powell - 1960 The first photo of Earth from a weather satellite, taken by the TIROS-1 satellite on April 1, 1960 (See picture No 1041c) No 1041d) Kaleb Powell - This was in 1966. Photo shop and cgi weren't thought of. First photo of Earth taken from moon (See picture No 1041d) No 1041e) Kaleb Powell - Heres that photo not zoomed in (See picture No 1041e) No 1041f) Kaleb Powell (See picture No 1041f) No 1041g) Kaleb Powell (See picture No 1041g) No 1042) How does a lunar eclipse happen on a flat Earth? (See image No 1042) No 1042b) The sun, moon and Earth's diameters are to scale, as well as the distances. Please show us how a lunar eclipse happens? (See diagram No 1042b) No 1043) Rockets going into the Bermuda Triangle? ------------- Bonieleth Palma How about this photo? Globies will be triggered (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155177118806795/ No 1043b) Geoff Broad No 1043c) Jamal Louise - A gravity Turn (See documents No 1043-1, 2 and 3) No 1043d)Alexey Posohovsky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY-5nqCplg8 No 1043e) Millenio Justine - OP here's your answer. Maybe do a bit of research into rocket trajectories before posting No 1044) Orbiting is falling at the same speed as one goes around the curve. Newtons canon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpiknSRTmT4 - Go to slow and you fall back to Earth. - Go to fast and you fly off into space. - Go at just the right speed and you fall at the same rate as you are pulled around the Earth. Voila you are orbiting! ----------- Orbiting is the balance between centripetal force and gravity. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155178960151795/ No 1044b) John Camp - Two dimensional trajectory. An object will travel horizontally for the length of time it’s falling vertically. Dy= Vit + 1/2a(g)t^2. If it enters geosynchronous orbit and is in circular motion, the velocity vector is directed tangent to the path and centripetal acceleration or force is directed towards the center. No 1045) The moons coverage and "perfection" (See my OP for further discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155187888111795/ ---------------- Mark Crockett - Why do planets spin? Also why is the moon the perfect distance from Earth so that we have a perfect solar eclipse? Bruce Ing 1) Planets spin, because of gravity. Things don't fall in straight, they come in at angles. 2) The sun is about 32 arc seconds across and the moon is 31 arc seconds. So NOT perfect. It's just a co-incidence. In 10,000 years, the moon will be farther away and won't cover the sun anymore. During the last solar eclipse on Aug 21, 2017, the umbra was 70 miles across and the penumbra thousands of miles. That's NOT perfect. *** That's 0.1225 % of the people seeing perfect coverage and 99.8775% of people seeing partial coverage! *** No 1046) Flat Earther's keep mentioning star trails, as if it were a real phenomena and not just an effect from long exposure and fish eye lenses. *** How do they explain stars, at the equator, rising from the horizon and setting at the opposite horizon 180 degrees away? (That means those stars are making a circle around and UNDER the Earth!) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155180836181795/ No 1046b) If we look at the angle that stars are going from horizon to horizon, will that tell us that they are setting behind the horizon and NOT going farther away? e.g. If they are going farther away, then the should take a long time at the horizon, as they come closer, then go by overhead relatively quickly, then take a long time to disappear at the horizon. After all, they have to go 172,000 miles from the horizon to zenith, then 172,000 miles again from zenith to the setting horizon. ------------ New test: Does it take the same amount of time to go 15 degrees down at the horizon as it does to go 15 degrees across the sky? No 1047) The Star Angular Movement test: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155180863216795/ ------------ Does it take the same amount of time to go 15 degrees down at the horizon as it does to go 15 degrees across the sky overhead? - On a flat Earth, it should take a very long time for the stars to rise the first 15 degrees from the horizon (160,000 miles), should go by very quickly across the sky (24,000 miles), then take a very long time to see the last 15 degrees (another 160,000 miles). - On a globe, the angles are virtually equal. 1 hour for every 15 degrees. No 1048) The cloud on horizon proof: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155187857531795/ ------------- When we see clouds at the horizon, those clouds are usually 30 or 40 miles away but may be 100 miles away or more for higher cloud cover. HOWEVER, this cloud certainly isn't more than 200 miles away and certainly appears near the horizon. Now look at the same sky, on a cloudless day. You can see the sun set. You can see it go right down to the horizon. Since this sun is up to 6,000 miles away, on a flat Earth, that means it is shining through sky that is 30 to 100 miles away, yet is also near the horizon! How does that happen on a flat Earth? (See illustration No 1048) No 1048b) Is the sun shining through; a) 6,000 miles of atmosphere, on a flat Earth? b) or that the sun is shining through several hundred miles of atmosphere? (.... causing blue, then orange, then red to be leached out? As would make sense on a globe Earth!) No 1049) If science tells us so much about EVERYTHING, what is there to fear? How does it make sense that they are brainwashing us with so much information? Never mind giving us the tools and ability to reason and figure out everything about world around us? We could build our own rockets, electronics, machinery, structures, weapons medical treatments, crop cultivation, better clothing, how to repair anything etc. with the information that I learn from science. *** Why should I be worried about science? (See my OP for further discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155179053101795/ No 1050) Gravity demonstrated on other planets: ---------------- If gravity is fake, why do we see all other planets are spherical and most of them even have moons orbiting them? Just look at any amateur astronomy site on Facebook! Pictures courtesy of Jairo Amaral (Image of Saturn) (See image No 1050) No 1050b) Image of Jupiter and moons. No 1050c) Image of Mars. No 1051) Zooming in does not change the time the sun sets or bring the sun back. (Thanks to Wolfie6020) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuV3roqT7j0 No 1052) Wolfie6020 videos P900 observations from 45,000 feet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf7MuCeyvaU Lets find the ISS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_B6TrLM5Qg Ships disappearing over the horizon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUwvu0WPq8U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDdwP0Ucomk Star Trail Challenge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzG4KUSv-gs Does a pilot have to pitch it's nose down as it travels across the Earth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avXJqA3w7qk Sunrise at equinox, ground level and 1,200 feet up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6xCHwyQVVc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5ECDfnBi7g No 1053) How gravity works. It's all about balance. ----------- The gravity on the surface of a sphere is the same anywhere on the surface of the sphere. Farther down, the gravity is less and equals the average gravity of the smaller sphere. There is also pressure created by all the material around you. Water and rock pushes in from the sides, there is pressure from below and less pressure from the atmosphere around us. All this must balance. If there were a very high mountain, say 100 miles tall, the weight of the material, (pulled down by gravity), exceeded the supportive strength of rock or even steel. The material would flow, crack and shift until it is in equilibrium. 1)The best naturally balanced state is a spherical Earth! 2) Exceptions have reasons, mechanical energy, - e.g. muscles, putting effort into fighting gravity, - atoms excited by heat bouncing around and escaping into the atmosphere - applied principles of lift, drag, weight (due to gravity) and thrust etc. No 1054) Horizons below eye level, revisited: ----------- 1) If you are on a high mountain looking down, how can the horizon be at eye level? *** You are looking down! *** 2) The same goes for a commercial flight. If you are 35,000 feet up, how can the horizon be at eye level? Does the horizon bend up 35,000 feet? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155197679841795/ No 1054b) Draw a mountain and a line at eye level. The ground goes horizontally away at the base of the mountain. The only way to look directly at a horizon 210 miles away, is to look down at a small angle! No 1058) Compasses in South Africa and Chile would NOT point directly south, but at an angle towards Australia. How can that happen on a flat Earth? No 1059) How do flat Earthers explain the fact that the north and south magnetic poles are not at the same place as the polar axis? No 1060) Joseph Green (from his OP) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155216413731795/ No 1060a) The suns vanishing point, for it's size, means; 1) it should vanish at the horizon about 172,000 miles away 2) It should be 64 times larger in diameter at high noon than when setting. (Correction 57 times.) We don't see any of that! --------- 3) It's vanishing point, due to it's brightness, is 613,245 miles away! (As suming the globe sun is visible for 100 light years and the ratio of area of a 32 mile diameter sun to a 990,000 diameter sun). No 1060b) Also, nothing vanishes under a vanishing point, as FE'ers say. A vanishing point depends on elevation and size. A 3,000 mile high sun, around 6,000 miles away is still 26.6 degrees above the horizon as it is suppose to be "setting" on the flat Earth. Flat Earthers don't understand or actually model the proper proportions or distances for anything. When we do that, it shows that flat Earth is wrong! No 1061) Sy Scott You should be able to detect earths curvature from an aeroplane at a cruising height of around 35,000ft but you need a fairly wide field of view (ie 60 degrees) and a virtually cloud free horizon. So all you special cunts posting pics of Horizon’s from ground level can go forth and multiply (a polite way of saying fuck off). Here is a stunning image of Concorde cruising at around 60,000ft notice anything? Can’t possibly be a fisheye lens because Concorde herself isn’t distorted in anyway. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155218405991795/ No 1061a) Ben Nickle - I can already tell it's CGI because the Concordes nose isn't bent downward like it should be in every photo of it on the runway. So the photo must be bent to create the bend in the horizon. Sloppy photo bending job. Ivan Moose Johnston - You dont know anything about the concorde obviously. The nose is shifted downwards for takeoff and landing to give the pilot better vision. No 1061b) Sy Scott For those special bastards that know nothing about Concorde. Your welcome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde No 1061c) Marco Alvarez No 1061d) Marco Alvarez No 1061e) Marco Alvarez No 1061f) Zack Pretorius - Who took the pic? Ironman or thor Alex Lee - Adrian Meredith took the photo from a RAF Tornado. No 1062) Aiesha Cooper Excuse my ignorance but... If the earth was flat than how do you explain ocean tides ? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155219039346795/ End of list No 1062b) Kenneth Banks - How does a round earth explain it Bruce Ing - Gravity pulls on the oceans. The part closest is pulled the most (high tide). The part farthest away is pulled the least, less than the Earth even, so the Earth itself is pulled closer than the water on the back side (second high tide). Bruce Ing - When the sun and moon are in alignment, there is an even higher tide! No 1063) The south magnetic pole (it's actually a north magnetic pole) is off of Antarctica, south of Australia. If you were in Southern America or South Africa your compass would be pointed way off, on a flat Earth! In many cases it would not be pointed south but east or west! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155228683666795/ No 1064) Scott Lefter Explain This Flat Earthers (I Thought Gravity Didn't Exist)? "Thousands have gathered along the banks of the Qiantang River in China to watch huge waves crash into each other during a tidal bore, a world-renowned natural wonder." https://www.facebook.com/thsealife/videos/503435936686086/ No 1065) Bob Wajszczuk So I as I told a few people I was at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon this past weekend. Here’s a brief video of me almost 4000ft below the rim and huge canyon walls on both sides of me. No cell phone signal but look at my GPS still working. No balloon could have this ability to reach my area either as it would have to hover over an extremely small area. https://www.facebook.com/bob.wajszczuk/videos/10155927601387369/ No 1066) Kyah Taylor question for a flattard how do you think the international space station works on a flat earth model, you cant just say it doesn't exist because you can see it with your bare eyes and you can photograph it with the right gear ..im genuinely curious (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155229467966795/ No 1067) Rocks would fall off the bottom of the flat Earth: ----------- Rock and water have no tensile strength. That means if they get pulled apart, they will just break up. There is nothing to keep them from drifting apart. This is an issue with the flat disk) staying together, however more than that. They say that on a spherical Earth, things should fall down, e.g. Australian's are upside down, however, a spherical Earth, held together with gravity is self sustaining, and self supporting. The flat disk is hovering in space, has far more issues with "down". *** Rock can't support itself, any rock on the bottom of flat Earth would fall of and the entire flat Earth would collapse and fall apart. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155236538441795/ No 1068) *** We should all be weightless on a flat Earth, because it should be constantly falling downward. *** There's nothing to support an entire planet in space, when down is always towards the ground, on a flat Earth! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155238273876795/ No 1069) Nathan Grieg So, your theory is so obvious, that your model has Australia looking like this? (See image No 1069) No 1070) Density: ---------- If a dense object is in mid-air. Then the air all around it is less dense. Why does it preferentially go down? Why not left, right, forward, backwards or up? *** There is NO reason why density would choose one direction over another! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155241432851795/ No 1071) It's a cloudy day and the clouds are acting like a solar filter. You can see the sun, it's about the size of a pea in an outstretched hand. Proof, that the sun is not bigger during the day. *** It's just GLARE! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155247530366795/ No 1071) It's a cloudy day and the clouds are acting like a solar filter. You can see the sun, it's about the size of a pea in an outstretched hand. Proof, that the sun is not bigger during the day. *** It's just GLARE! No 1072) Equatorial mounts revisited: ------------- When you trace the path of the sun, moon or stars across the sky, they are making a path in a plain. That is, they are NOT curving in a circle around a flat Earth, but going in a straight path, along a flat disk. ------------ If you are tracking a circular path around a flat Earth, you have to turn around 360 degrees, BUT you also have to move up and down, as the object gets nearer and farther. However, if you are tracking objects on a globe, you can set your telescope with it's axis of rotation aligned with north and you only have to turn in a circle. In effect, countering the rotation of the Earth. (The stars and other objects are so far away, that any small shifts up and down are irrelevant.) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155255733166795/ No 1073) Horizon distance, flat vs spherical revisited: -------------- Horizon on a flat Earth is LINEAR. 6 feet up, 3 miles out., 12 feet up, 6 miles out, (+ 3 miles) 18 feet up, 9 miles out, (+ 3 miles) 24 feet up, 12 miles out. (+ 3 miles) Guess what? We DON'T see that. ------------- We see a horizon who's distance is getting closer and closer, WITH RESPECT TO THE ELEVATION, because it is part of a curved surface! 6 feet up 3 miles out, 12 feet up, 4.24 miles out, (+ 1.24 miles) 18 feet up, 5.19 miles out, (+ 0.95 miles) 24 feet out, 6 miles out (FINALLY!) (+ 0.81 miles) etc. The fact that there is a horizon, the fact that it's distance is predictable with curvature, shows that the horizon IS part of a curve! No 1073b) When we look at the distances to the horizon, we see that the distances get shorter, DRASTICALLY, as one's elevation goes up! (See image 1073b) NO 1074) The horizon is NOT a vanishing point: ----------- The horizon itself does NOT vanish. It is a line. Why doesn't that line converge to a point? ... because the line is crest of a wave. a physical barrier. The crest where everything goes over and can't be seen anymore. *** The horizon itself is proof that it is not a vanishing point. You can ALWAYS still see the horizon, so how could it be a vanishing point? No 1075) Considering the number and size of impact craters on the moon, how can one think the moon is only 32 miles across? ----------- Some of the largest impacts on Earth, involve asteroids many miles across. If that happened on a 32 mile diameter moon, it would have shattered it into pieces! *** Assuming the largest craters are up to 100 miles across or more, that would make the moon thousands of miles across! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155261796251795/ No 1076) Before, At and After the horizon: ------------ Here is an example of what we see before, at and after the horizon. i) BEFORE the horizon everything is 100% visible and water even appears to "rise to eye level", up to the horizon. ii) AT the horizon, you can see everything, but there ISN'T any water visible after it. iii) AFTER the horizon, there is no water visible and the bottom of objects are hidden by the horizon. If the Earth is flat, why isn't there any water "rising to eye level" after the second rig? (See diagram No 1076) -------------- References: - Google Morecambe Bay oil and gas - Google Douglas Complex look for map --------------- Disclaimer: - Tilt not illustrate - Scale; Vertical 6 feet to 30 pixels (1:5), Horizontal 3 miles to 245 pixels (1:64.653) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155268013791795/ No 1076b) If objects are visible after the horizon, then why isn't the water below them, which is much bigger, and far more easier to see, visible? This same water can be seen if we go up, in the same location! Horizon drop as Quad copter climbs See video No 1076b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXdDXou4XXM No 1076c) There are a few rules I would follow to see curvature. *** I have to stress, when looking ACROSS the horizon. - That means seeing things drop behind the horizon. 1) Everything BEFORE and AT/ON the horizon is 100% visible, (so that is not proof of no curve!) 2) Hidden Curvature starts AFTER the horizon, so 8 inches per miles STARTING at the horizon 3) Small boats are TOO small to see far enough away, so look at big ships AFTER the horizon Therefore, look for large ships well after the horizon. (See diagram No 1076 or 1076c-adjusted) -------------- Disclaimor: - Tilt exaggerated due to exaggeration in horizontal scale - Scale; Vertical 6 feet to 30 pixels (1:5), - Horizontal 3 miles to 245 pixels (1:64,653) No 1076d) Here is an example of large ships AFTER the horizon. We see ships 9 to 12 miles out with Hidden Curvature of 24 to 54 feet. (See picture No 1076d) No 1076e) Here is an example of a city, AFTER the horizon. We see Toronto at 30 miles, with an estimated 486 feet of hidden curvature. (See picture No 1076e) No 1076f) Horizon visible from the top of Mount Everest. The horizon is visible about 208 mile away. (See picture No 1076f) reference: https://www.quora.com/On-Mount-Everest-an-observer-sees-the-horizon-roughly-230-miles-away-The-Earth-should-curve-35-000-feet-Why-doesnt-the-observer-see-the-curvature No 1076g) Since any mountain at the horizon is above the horizon and close to eye level. Therefore, the horizon, which is well below the mountain top, is BELOW eye level! (See picture No 1076g) No 1076h) Mount Everest, interactive panorama, just cool! http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html No 1076i-1) According to flat Earth logic, if we can see the bottom of ships, when we zoom back in, then we should see the VAST amount of HIDDEN water below them as well! ... BUT WE DON'T. NOTHING gets brought back into view, that is hidden below the horizon, when we zoom back in! (See picture NO 1076i) No 1076i-2) Why do we see the ship and the land go BELOW the horizon. The picture is already zoomed in, so the ship is taking up most of the frame, YET, no water, beach or hull of the ship has returned into view! No 1077) Proof the sun is far, by perspective through clouds. See the video, at 7:35 to 8:09 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WXVV2WAgPI (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155268041606795/ No 1077a) When they show you the sun, that appears to be nearby in some clouds, it does seem close, however, the clouds are going by at 500 mph and the position of the sun, stays in the same direction. *** This is like looking at an object far away, to one side of you, it appears not to move at all, because it is far away! (See images 1077a-1, 1077a-2 and 1077a-3) No 1077b) Here is an example of something close and something far. Notice when something is far away, it doesn't appear to be moving, even if you are moving past it relatively fast. (See diagram 1077b) No 1078) Two equatorial mounts: ------------- Equatorial mounts face in different directions in the northern and southern hemisphere, even though they are both aligned to the north/south axis, because the world is a globe, not a flat Plain! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DDI8WSEX8o (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155268930916795/ No 1079) Which Way Is Down? - Vsauce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4xYacTu-E (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155268931386795/ No 1080) Surface speed vs rotation, revisited: ---------- (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155270457471795/ No 11080a) Axel Jx Caporal (see meme No 1080a) No 1080b) Nathan Grieg - Let me fix that meme for you. Axel. (See meme No 1080b) No 1081) Distances to the horizon get shorter as we go up: ------------- When we look at the distances to the horizon, we see that the DISTANCES GET SHORTER, DRASTICALLY, as one's elevation goes up! (See diagram No 1081) - Vertical scale 15 pixel to 6 feet = 1 pixel to 2.5 feet - Horizontal scale 60 pixel to 1 mile = 1 pixel to 88 feet (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155271739746795/ ---------- (Number from No 1073); Horizon distances on a flat Earth is LINEAR. 6 feet up, 3 miles out., 12 feet up, 6 miles out, 18 feet up, 9 miles out, 24 feet up, 12 miles out. Horizon distances on a spherical Earth is geometric. 6 feet up 3 miles out, 12 feet up, 4.24 miles out, 18 feet up, 5.19 miles out, 24 feet out, 6 miles out etc. *** Distances shorten geometrically, (e.g. according to a curved surface), not linearly, as would be expected on a flat Earth. *** The distance to the horizon is literally calculated with our elevation and curvature! No 1082) Holly Hays What's pulling him down if gravity doesn't exist? https://www.facebook.com/SpearReviews/videos/1545561152200992/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155270613101795/ No 1083) Tools to extend ones senses and abilities: ------------- Flat Earthers seem to want to "see everything with their own eyes". however, if ships over the horizon are 9 to 12 miles out, if curvature on the ground is measured in fractions of a degree (arc seconds), if any position where one can see curvature directly is well above the atmosphere, then that means one thing. Once can not use one's senses to directly see curvature. The Earth is simply too big and our senses are NOT sensitive or powerful enough. *** We need tools to see curvature! - Theodolites, helps us measure angles, to an accuracy of 5 arc seconds (5/3600th of an degree) - Telescopes and binoculars let us see ships and cities 9 to 12 or 30 to 50 miles away - High altitude balloons, or better yet satellites and space ships let us see from far higher than we could see otherwise. - Most importantly, OUR BRAINS let us analyze and put things in context. ---------- Why are flat Earthers so resistant to using tools to extend our abilities and senses? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155274231301795/ No 1083b) Here is some information on a surveyor's level. When we look through a survey level, we see that the horizon is below eye level! It is accurate to 1 mm per Km! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z23-fu7dTsk (See image No 1083b) No 1083c) Horizon as seen on instrument during flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLQhUX8brbA No 1084) Rail guns don't shoot in a straight line, they shoot in a ballistic trajectory: ------------ Charles Cooper - Can anyone explain this? (See meme No 1084) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155276611476795/ No 1084b) Marco Alvarez - I fixed your garbage ass meme (See meme No 1084b) No 1084c) If you check later in the video that discusses the railgun, you will see that it says it shoots in an arch. Not a straight line. ---------------- If it shot in a straight line, it would start falling to Earth like any other object. *** 3 seconds later, it would hit the water. (assuming a 50 foot deck height) If it is travelling mach 7, it would have to be in the air for 68 seconds to reach 100 miles. *** It would never make it in a straight line shot! *** That is basic physics. (See image No 1084c) No 1084d) Here is an example of the ballistic projectory, the straight line trajectory, according to physics and the trajectory proposed by flat Earthers. (See image No 1084d) (See video No 1084e) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i737rM6FxqE No 1085) Parallel lines never meet - Parallel line proof: --------- If eye level and ground level are level lines and parallel lines never meet, then how can the horizon be at eye level? (See diagram No 1085) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155288244536795/ No 1086) Area of the Earth proof: ----------- If we calculate the area on a globe, we get 197,011,037 square miles. (7919 mile diameter globe). If we calculate the area on a flat Earth, we get 486,993,828 square miles (24,901 mile diameter circle). The flat Earth area is 2.47 TIMES bigger than the globe Earth? Why? Because it is a stretched out projection. We don't see all this extra land or water! *** The flat Earth is way bigger than in reality! No 1087) Angular diameter of sun and moon (flat and globe Earth): ------------- If we look at the "apparent size" of the sun and moons, we see that the sun and moon are very close in size. In reality they are both take up about half a degree in the sky. That is called their angular diameter. (i.e. If you divide the entire sky, from horizon into 180 degrees, then if you looked at a slice about half a degree across, that is how much of you view the sun and moon take up.) Knowing the distances we can calculate their exact angular diameters. We find that, for the globe, the sun has an angular diameter of about 0.533 degrees, the moon 0.518 degrees and the flat Earth sun or moon about 0.611 degrees. Note: That the flat Earth sun and moon are TOO BIG! (See diagram No 1087a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155309474181795/ No 1087b) Angular diameter calculation for the globe sun (See screen shot No 1087b) No 1087c) Angular diameter calculation for the globe moon (See screen shot No 1087c) No 1087d) Angular diameter calculation for the flat Earth sun/moon (See screen shot No 1087d) No 1087e) Here is the website to calculate angles. Just put in the diameter of the object "a") distance to the object "b", to get an estimated angular diameter "A". http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm No 1088) Dark side of the moon: ------------- Here is my best explanation. 1) On the top left side of my illustration, there is the side of the moon that is always facing the Earth (Earth side) and the side that we never see (far side). 2) The moon rotates, as it orbits , so the Earth side is ALWAYS facing the Earth, (in green) and the far side always faces away from the Earth (in blue). 3) Notice as it orbits, it just rotates at the same rate as it orbits. So, when it orbits once, (every 27.34 days), it also rotates once. As the moon orbits AND rotates, a different angle of the moon is facing the sun. *** So the Earth side AND Far side both get some degree of sun and shade during the course of a month. *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155307508056795/ No 1088B) Note that the Earth rotates once every 24 hours and the moon orbits AND rotates once every 27.34 days. (See diagram No 1088b) No 1088C) If we calculate the angle from one side to the other side of the Earth, looking at the moon, we get 1.89 degrees. We don't notice a difference in the appearance of the moon from one part of the Earth or another, during a day, because it is so far away. (See calculation No 1088c) No 1089) Perspective drawings; Side view and Forward facing views: Gagah Aziz Abd (See his diagram, No 1093a) No 1089b) There are forward facing perspective drawings, (things will appear different sizes due to distance), and there are side facing perspective drawings (things will stay the same size, because they are all the same distance apart). That is how things work in real life! *** You can't just draw how you think things work on a picture and MIX "FORWARD FACING PERSPECTIVE VIEW" objects with "SIDE FACING PERSPECTIVE VIEW" views, you end up with garbage! (Just like mixing the globe and down!) Go take a drafting course, learn how to represent reality in diagrams or leave the perspective diagrams to the engineers! No 1089c) Forward Facing Perspective drawings: Notice that as you look out to see, things "appear" get smaller, because they are farther away. We represent this in a drawing by making things look smaller as they get farther away. (see diagram No 1093c for forward facing perspective) No 1089d) Side View Perspective drawings: Notice, when you are looking from the side, no matter how far away from shore things are, they all appear the same size. Why? Because you are looking from the side and they are ALL the same distance from you. *** It doesn't matter that they are different distances from the person on shore! *** (see diagram No 1093d for forward facing perspective) No 1089e) See original OP for discussion; https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155302776366795/ No 1090) Peter Yingling - Two people 1 mile apart on the Equator head due south. As they go they get closer together, Two other people start from the same two positions but head north. As they head north they get closer together. Can anyone explain how that is possible in the flat Earth model? (See link for Peter Yingling's original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155300497251795/ No 1090b) The magnetic south pole is off the coast of Antarctica, south of Australia. Anyone can follow a compass south from anywhere on the equator and meet, (by ship), at the south pole. Having NEVER gone northward, due east or due west. Just a steady southward journey. Voila, the lines are ALL converging at a point south of the equator! (See diagram No 1090b) No 1090c) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155309651256795/ No 1091) No 1092) Making your own water level: ----------- Colin King (from his OP) Which is it? And don't say "Photoshop", because you can do this experiment yourself. (See image No 1092) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155305978186795/ No 1093) New York is tilted 50 degrees, because it is at 40 degrees north latitude from the equator! (According to flat Earth thinking.) 40.7128° N, 74.0060° W https://www.google.ca/search?q=New+York+cities+latitute&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA710&oq=New+York+cities+latitute&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5310j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (See diagram No 1093) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155309752361795/ No 1093b) Of course the Earth is tilted 23.4 degrees, so it would vary from a 26.6 degrees to 73.4 degree tilt, (relative to the sun)! No 1094) This demonstrates a few things about weight. ------------- 1) Things have weight, even when they are sealed inside other things. (There is no way for the air to know that the vacuum chamber is less dense. It isn't density, it is the direct force of air being pulled down in the vacuum chamber that adds weight.) 2) Balloons sink when you take out air pressure. 3) The pressurized container weights more, because the denser gas inside pushed down directly on the container, then onto the scale. ---------- - If air is in the middle of something, how does it know if it is the same density, less dense or more dense than the air around it? After all, air is just loose molecules bouncing off of each other. It doesn't there is no magical way for things to compare each other's density. They are all pulled down by gravity, whether, liquid, solid or gas, and act direction on each other. Actionlabs - Weight when you take the air out of something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlW5cGdOr60 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155308755916795/ No 1095-old) How lenses and refraction work: Light doesn't curve! ------------ One thing to note, is that light doesn't curve. It bends at a point and continues on in a straight line. Light doesn't curve around the Earth, it bends at a particular spot. That means that we see a straight line to the point of a mirage, at the horizon and everything in between the horizon and us is a straight line of sight. (See diagram No 1095-old) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155316970966795/ No 1095) Atmospheric Refraction and the horizon: -------------- Although there are days when light refracts, allowing us to see objects farther or limiting our view of an object, e.g. mirages, I will assume we are looking at days when the atmospheric refraction is very small. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155327143776795/ 1095a) For a globe Earth, When we look at a ship, we see everything up to the horizon, but only the top of ships after the horizon. This could be due to refraction, except that everything up the the horizon is visible, meaning light doesn't refract for any object before the horizon. This doesn't make sense. Light does not selectively bend for one object and not another. The light from the small boats before the horizon must be coming STRAIGHT to our eyes! *** That means the light is coming up, NOT bending downwards! *** (See diagram No 1095a) 1095b) For a flat Earth, light bends, that would explain why we see the tops of ships, but not the bottoms,(purple line), however, everything before the horizon is visible, indicating that the light is NOT bending before the horizon. (See diagram No 1095b) No 1096) Light houses and looming: ----------- Light houses are visible farther than they otherwise should be, at night because of a phenomena called looming. This is light bending due to variations in atmospheric density. This bright "haze" can be seen over the horizon. In the pictures we see the looming of the light, on the left side and the dipping distance. (See image(s) No 1096) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155324336096795/ No 1097) Since the moon is always the same size and the sun can always be eclipses by the moon. Then regardless of the glare, and a lack of a solar filter to check, the sun must appear to be the same size from dawn to dusk, too! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155324331111795/ No 1098) A supermoon is when the moon is closest IN IT'S ORBIT! That refers to it orbiting the globe! It is only slightly larger than normal. (See image No 1098) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155324539661795/ No 1099) Antarctica from pictures. ------------ We can analyze the pictures we get from space and confirm for ourselves that Antarctica is a continent. (These are pictures from the DSCOVR:EPIC satellite) ------------------ We can also see many other proof in one image; - the world is spherical - water curves - there is no ice wall - clouds move and change slowly from frame to frame - The Earth revolves - The moon orbits counter clockwise (looking from the north pole) etc. Here are a series of picture, of Antarctica, selected as the Earth revolves. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155329228456795/ No 1099a) A selection of pictures of the Earth showing Antarctica as seen from different sides of the Earth. (See Images No 1099a) No 1099b) Selecting the best of the bunch and organizing them according to their view around the globe. (See Images No 1099b) No 1099c) Close up of each image, of Antarctica (See Images No 1099c) No 1099d) Analysis and picking the outline of Antarctica through the cloud cover. (See Images No 1099d) No 1100) How to tell if a boat has reached the horizon yet. ------------- If you look out or zoom out and see a boat and there is water visible behind it, that means the boat has NOT reached the horizon yet. (See diagram No 1100a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155332382751795/ No 1100b) You are looking down and the horizon is where your line of site is tangent to the water. Everything before the horizon is 100% visible! (See diagram No 1100b) No 1100c) In fact, if the world is flat, the horizon should keep rising to infinity. - That means that every boat should ALWAYS have water between it and the horizon. - No boat should ever be at infinity! (See diagram No 1100c) No 1101) Things before and at the horizon are 100% visible. Things after the horizon have the bottom missing even though the rest of the object is clearly visible! How can flat Earthers argue about this simple, basic truth? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155329958111795/ No 1101b) In my opinion, there are no videos of ships, (not little boats, but actual ships 100 feet high), going below the horizon and being able to be brought back into focus by zooming. That isn't opinion, that is fact. That is TRUTH! ------------- e.g. ship below horizon, zoomed in. No mirage effects, calm, clear day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw No 1101c) Ship over horizon No 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T874RMncnAQ No 1101d) No 3, cruise ship going below horizon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEWVmGKkNVY No 1102) Not being able to see water after the horizon is proof of curvature: ----------- See meme by Gajo Jim - Claims not being able to see curved water after the horizon is proof of flat Earth. Think about it. Why can't you see the water after the horizon in the first place? (See meme No 1102a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155333487101795/ No 1102b) When you can't see water, in fact you can't see entire oceans behind a horizon, that is because it is hidden behind the curve! The water behind the horizon isn't visible, even though it is much, much more water than the first 3 miles, BECAUSE it is BELOW the horizon. *** The water has curved below the horizon! *** (See meme No 1102b) No 1103) Nathan Grieg - Look, you can prove the earth is a sphere in 2 minutes. (See meme No 1103a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155336618851795/ No 1103b) Nathan Grieg - This one is from my own phone. Horizon dropping is proof of a sphere earth. (see image No 1103b) No 1104) Aleksandar Zmejkovski - why using cell towers, when there are satelites ? (See his OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155331897256795/ (See my OP if you wish to discuss these issues) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155336656311795/ No 1104a) Richard Taylor - Satellite phones do exist, but typically have very low bandwidth, high latency, and require line of site connection to the satellite. A close proximity cellular tower is much less expensive to install and has none of the problems described above. No 1104b) John Wilhelm III - Right here for you... http://www.getgds.com/.../cellular-vs.-satellite... No 1104c) Alex M Duffield - Takes a lot of power to boost a signal to a satellite and a large antenna, easier to boost to a tower that relays off the sats No 1104d) Richard Taylor - Mark Greenwood Plus, satellite phones work where it is not feasible to put a cell tower - Like the middle of the ocean. How do you think it is possible for you to use your cell phone on a cruise ship? The ship has a satellite uplink, then converts it to a signal that your land-based cell phone can use. 1104e) Anthony Trujillo - Are cell towers everywhere in the world? Are there towers in the middle of the ocean, or unpopulated areas? GSM has a maximum range of 35km, unless fitted with very cost prohibitive department to get the same up to 70km. Mind you, that's only for the lowest frequencies, where data tends to be slow or nonexistent. WiMAX has a range of about 70km max per tower. CDMA and IDEN have ranges limits only by the ability of the phone to transmit back to the tower, and in reality that is somewhat equal to the other standards. So, that's why we have satellite phones. No 1104f) Bruce Ing A cell phone, goes from receiver to receiver. Each area is a cell, hence cell phone. 1104g) Questions about how things work can be applied to globe AND flat Earth! 1) On a globe we have cell phone towers for most applications and satellites for coverage of remote areas. That makes sense and there are reasonable explanations for both situations, (regardless of whether one believes it ir not.) -------- 2a) Is there such a thing as satellites on a flat Earth? NO! They would need hundreds, or thousands, of balloons to fake satellites. 2b) Also, the area of a flat Earth, 24,901 mile diameter vs 7919 is; Pi*r^2 vs 4*Pi*r^2 = 489,993,828 vs 197,011,013 square miles. 2.487 TIMES more area on a flat Earth than globe, to cover! ------ *** That mean that flat Earth makes less sense, not more! *** 1105) Star trails can't work on a flat earth: --------- Picture show star trails going diagonally, that means DOWN UNDER the flat Earth! That doesn't make sense on a flat Earth. They should always br over your heads or in a plain around your head. ALL stars rise and set below the horizon! That is impossible on a flat Earth! No 1105g) Carlos Hugo Castillo Luevano - cost... how many cellphones are in a small area? what bandwidth do you need to provide voice and data to all this cellphones? it is lot cheaper to put closer antennas than can do the job. 1106) Why the moon can't be a hologram: --------- The moon shines with the equivalalent of 28 watts per meter squared, on it's surface. That's 15 billion watts! That is hard enough on a globe with sunlight reflecting off of it. It would require hundreds of times more power to make it a hologram floating in mid-air! The world doesn't generate that kind of power, and the moon has been here throughout recorded history. They didn't have holograms 50 years ago, let alone thousands of years ago! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155337026866795/ No 1107) Why the moon appears to change it's tilt during the day: ----------- BJ Painter - See the man in the moon. He looks up then he looks down. 3 hrs in between shots. That makes 0 since on any globe model. (See his meme, No 1107a) (See original post for BJ Painter's discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155330531411795/ (See my OP if you wish to discuss this post further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155337033331795/ No 1107b) The Earth is tilted, so as we turn, we change angle and perspective with respect to the sky. Notice, during some times of year, we will turn down, (or up), and around the globe. (See diagram No 1107b) No 1107c) This also happens in the horizontal plain. We are after all turning on a curved surface, a sphere! (See diagram No 1107c) No 1108) If I am standing on a horizon and look at two people to my right and left and they are on the horizon. why can't they see each other? It's a straight line after all! If we had a bright light, the people to my right and left should be able to see each other! (See diagram No 1108) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155336436546795/ No 1109) No 1109) Why doesn's anyone talk about all those things beyond the horizon that we DON'T see? *** Most of the time the horizon is empty sky! Nothing visible along it what-so-ever! ------- - Why can't we see that mountain 300 miles away? - Where are those ships beyone 15 miles, travelling for days! - Where are the cities and hills that just aren't visible 50 or 60 miles out? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155336736631795/ No 1110) Proper diagrams, perspective and their significance: -------------- Many flat Earthers give diagrams like the following. The problem with suck a diagram is that it is inaccurate and therefore missing a lot of real world information. Things from the side are the same distance apart and therefore all the same size! (See meme No 1110a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155339403651795/ No 1110b) When we draw things according to the right scale, we see that whatever is at eye level stays at eye level. e.g. Things at 6 feet, stay at 6 feet. Things at 50 feet stay at 50 feet etc. Having line of sight actually drop to the horizon isn't physically possible! - In real life eye level stays at eye level, - so eye level AT the horizon is ABOVE the horizon! (See diagram No 1110b) No 1111) The path of the supermoon vs the sun: ----------- The path of the supermoon is higher in the sky than the path of the sun. How does this happen on a flat Earth, if the sun and moon are at roughly the same altitude? (See diagram No 1111a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155346454311795/ No 1111b) This is explained on a globe, because the plain of the moon is at about a 5 degree angle to the plain of the sun (the ecliptic). (See diagram No 1111b) No 1112) Does everyone understand that; 1) the distance to the horizon depends on your elevation, 2) everything is 100% visible right up to the horizon, and 3) Hidden Curvature starts AFTER the horizon (so 8 inches per mile squared AFTER the horizon.) -------- e.g For a 6 foot tall person, the horizon is 3 miles away. 4 miles away, 1 mile after the horizon, the hidden drop is only 8 inches! (See Diagram No 1112) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155342213496795/ No 1113) Flat Earth moon tidally locked? ------------ 1) Why is the flat Earth moon tidally locked with the north polar axis (Supposedly, according to recent posts 2017-11-30)? 2) Why is the direction of the sunlight, from the same stationary point in the sky, instead of changing with the flat Earth sun? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155340804181795/ No 1114) Inertial reference frames: ------------ Imaging you were all in a room, hurtling through space and there were no windows to see out of. Would you know how fast you were going? You could all be stationary, or you could all be going near the speed of light. *** How would you know the difference? *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155351987281795/ No 1115) Flat Earthers think of pictures like this steam train, when dealing with the air and the rotation of the Earth. However, even if initially, the air started off motionless, (which it didn't.), there is no friction or resistance with the vacuum of space, so ... *** What stops the air from catching up and spinning with the Earth? *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155353706886795/ No 1116) How do stars and any objects past Pluto go faster than the speed of light? ---------- They would have to to rotate around the Earth once a day! There are objects billions of light years away. One can't just ignore all the science or facts that we can all see for ourselves! Look through a telescope! The evidence is all around you! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155353749071795/ No 1117) Why does a volume of water, in the middle of a container have weight? It is neutral buoyancy, and surrounded by water OF THE SAME DENSITY! *** So, why does it push down? *** (See diagram No 1117) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155355391276795/ No 1118) We only detect the Earths magnetic field: ---------- If the Earth, moon and sun are supposed to be driven by magnetism, why do we detect one magnetic field? Our compasses are only drawn to one magnetic source, the Earth's magnetic poles. If there were magnetic forces strong enough to hold up 32 mile diameter objects weighing 15 billion tons, shouldn't our compasses go haywire? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155355769946795/ No 1119) Tidal Locking: ------------ 1) When the moon was turning, it would have a bulge, due to the gravity of the Earth pulling on the near side of the moon. 2) This bulge would turn with the moon, so the bulge would be at an angle to the Earth. The Earth's gravity would pull on this bulge, thereby slowing the moon. 3) This happened until the moon turned at the same speed as it orbited. Therefore, the bulge is always in the same place. That is how tidal locking stops a moon from turning -------------- *** Tidal locking can only happen with gravity. *** Tidal locking proves the moon orbits the Earth! (See image No 1119) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155358756721795/ No 1120) The moons increasing speed and distance: ------------- 1) The moon causes a bulge on the Earth. (This is the tides) 2) As the Earth rotates, the bulge gets pulled forward with the rotation. 3) Because this bulge is now a little ahead of the moon the bulge pulls the moon a bit. 4) This pull makes the moon speed up a bit. It's distance increases. *** That is why the moon gets about 2.5 cm farther away every year. (See diagram No 1120) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155358760386795/ No 1121) As we go up, we look down at a steeper angle: -------- 1) Is there some reason, on a flat Earth, why as we go up, we look down at the horizon at a steeper and steeper angle? -------------- 2) If you don't think this is the case, then please explain why, as we go up, the distance to the horizon matches curvature? (See diagram No 1121) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155358744161795/ No 1122) The sun is full daylight bright, even if the sky is black: -------------------------- When we see high altitude balloon pics and a black sky, remember THIS IS DAYTIME! The balloon is just above most of the atmosphere, but the sun still shines as bright and the Earth is daytime bright! The same is true from space. When the ISS is looking at the daytime Earth, it is in FULL DAYLIGHT! *** Ask yourself, would you expect to see stars in the bright daylight? *** (See images No 1122a to d) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155360922396795/ No 1123) A Kg of water on a globe: ------------- A Kg of water is pulled down with a KG of force (9.81 Newtons). If that is the case, then anywhere on the surface, that Kg of water is pulled towards the center. Why do flat Earthers keep on insisting that north is up and south is down, when it has nothing to do with gravity or a spherical Earth? (See meme No 1123) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155364917121795/ No 1123b) Stand outside. North, east, south west are just directions! Vertical is above your head and below your feet! *** North is up has NOTHING to do with a globe! *** No 1123c-1) Why is this correct? (See image No 1123c-1) No 1123c-2) ... and this wrong? (See image No 1123c-2) *** Flat Earth is the ultimate directional bigotry! *** No 1123d) When an object is being pulled inwards equally on all sides,what shape does it take? Think of a balloon. What shape is it? It is spherical! (See image No 1123d) No 1124) Dear Flerfers....How does a ringz stick to a spinnin' ball? *This ain't from scary "NASA" btw, so screaming "NASA LIES" is not an answer. (See original OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155367706396795/ No 1125) Angle of sun in Toronto vs Estimated by flat Earth: ------------- Here was the sun this morning. Dec 13, 2017 9:10 AM 30 cm ruler, shadow 150 cm Angle of sun = 11.3 degrees (Actual) When we calculate the shadow based on a flat Earth, Height of sun = 3,000 miles, Distance to sun = 5773.81 miles Angle of sun flat Earth = 27.5 degrees *** As we have said before, the sun is way lower in the sky than is possible on a flat Earth! *** (See supporting images No 1125a to h) (Image No 1125a - Time of measurement) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155373226676795/ Image No 1125b - Initial setup - ruler Image No 1125c - Setup to measure length of shadow Image No 1125d - Length of shadow Image No 1125e - angle of shadow Image No 1125f - Distance on flat Earth. Image No 1125g - Current location of high noon sun Image No 1125h - Estimated angle of sun on flat Earth. No 1126) Andy Haverland (See meme No 1126) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155373194121795/ No 1127) The Earth rotating at 1000 mph and the Coriolis effect, analyzed: ----------- 1) The Coriolis effect is determined by distance in a given time. A bullet may travel 1000 yards in a second. The vertical and left and right difference may be 4 inches. ------ A person only walks 2 yards in that second. That displacement, then, would be 4 inches*2/1000= 0.008 inches. *** However, that person never really leaves contact with the Earth. From one step to the next is too short a distance and it is affected by touching the ground, the whole time! ------------- 2) In 500 seconds one could walk 1000 yards. In theory that's 4 inches difference. In reality 500 corrections and a net zero difference from the original, intended path! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155373540756795/ No 1128) How the atmosphere meets the vacuum of space: ---------- Gravity pulls air molecules down. They bounce around, but unless those air molecules reach escape velocity, they slow and fall back down. The consequence of this is air that gets thinner as one goes up. The atmosphere gradually thins out until it meets space. *** No need for a barrier, just a balance between gravity and air molecules. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155374607996795/ No 1129) The sun, moon and other objects at various distances: ------------ The sun and moons apparent size hardly change during the day. Even though it goes from 3,000 miles overhead to 6,200 miles away during sun set. We don't see this with other objects. Mountains are 5-6 mile high, and landscapes are 30 or more miles across, yet they shrink drastically with distance. *** So, why does the flat Earth sun and moon stay the same size throughout the day? *** (See pictures 1129a to d) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155374843146795/ No 1129a) The sun going across the sky, stays the same size (See image No 1129a) No 1129b) The moon stays the same size, as it goes going across the sky. (See image No 1129b) No 1129c) Mountains closer are bigger. (See image No 1129c) No 1129d) As mountains (and whole mountain ranges), get farther away, they get smaller. (See Image No 1129d) No 1130) Characteristics of a flat Earth and the horizon: ----------------------- If the Earth is flat, everything should rise to eye level. 1) When we ZOOM in, there should ALWAYS be water behind the object we are looking at, no matter how far away they are! 2) NOTHING should ever go behind the horizon on a flat Earth ocean! (See No 3, the horizon is at infinity, so how are things be after the horizon on a flat Earth?) 3) The horizon on a flat plain, rises to eye level at INFINITY. (Everything before infinity is in front of the horizon and should be below it and visible.) 4) Ships going behind the horizon IS IMPOSSIBLE on a flat Earth! (Model a flat open ocean, now put a ship where it will be over the horizon! IMPOSSIBLE!) ----------------- These are basic facts about a flat plain. The horizon we see can't exist on a flat Earth! *** So, why do any of you think the world is flat, when the most basic understanding of flat proves it isn't? *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155375913311795/ -------------------- No 1130a) When we zoom in, we should see more water behind the object. (See diagram No 1100a) No 1130b) Nothing should go behind the horizon. (See Diagram No 1130b) No 1130c) The horizon is at INFINITY! (See diagram No 1130c) No 1130d) Ships should NEVER be behind the horizon on a flat ocean! (See Image No 1130d) No 1131) The Temperature of the moon based on energy output: ---------------- Globe moon - 2,159 miles in diameter, reflecting 28 watts per meter squared Flat Earth moon - 32 miles in diameter, emitting 126,278 watts per meter squared! Which one makes more sense? (See Calculation No 1131a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155377765276795/ -------------- -------------- No 1131b) The science behind it. Black body radiation is the amount of heat, light and total energy that is emitted from a body at a given temperature. In this case 126,278 watts is about a temperature of 1221.591 Kelvin. (0 kelvin is minus 273.15 Celcius), 948.441 Celcius or 1739.1938 Fahrenheit. (See Calculation No 1131b) Reference; Caclulator for black body radiation emissions: - just enter temperature and press calculate. http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php No 1131c) A globe moon has a temperature of about 150 Kelvin, -123.15 Celcius or -189.67 Fahrenheit. (See Calculation No 1131c) -------------- Reference; Calculator to convert from Celcius to Fahrenheit: https://www.google.ca/search?q=33.8+degrees+Fahrenheit&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA710&oq=converting+celcius+to+f&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i64j0l4.4493j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 No 1132) Weight and Mass: -------------- Weight and Mass are scientific terms. ----------------------------- 1) Mass is the amount of stuff in it. *** It's units are Kg. 2) Weight is proportional to Mass. *** It's units are Newtons or lb (about 4.4405 Newtons/lb) (See Diagram No 1132) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155377893061795/ ----------- ----------- Weight = Kg * local gravitational acceleration For example; 2a) - On Earth it is Kg * 9.81 m/s² (=9.81 Newtons/Kg) (about 2.2092 lb/Kg) 100 Kg on Earth weighs 981 Newtons or 220.92 lb 2b) - On the moon it is one sixth this, Kg * 1.622 m/s² (=1.622 Newtons/Kg, about 0.365272 lb /Kg) 100 Kg on the moon weighs about 98.378 Newtons or 36.5272 lb 2c) - In space, gravity doesn't exist, so your weight is zero. Kg * 0 m/s² = 0 Newtons 100 Kg in zero g weighs about 0 newtons or 0 lb --------- *** Weight changes with gravity! *** No 1133) Earth's magnetic field, the globe and flat Earth: ----------- No 1133a) The problem with a flat disc Earth is that a flat disk magnet has it's magnetic north around the edges, NOT in the middle! We can illustrate this by putting metal filings on the magnet to show the magnetic field lines. Like I did last night. (See picture No 1133c) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155385656436795/ No 1133b) Some would complain that a compass should go down at an angle into the ground to point to magnetic north, on a globe. This isn't true though. Magnetic field lines arc up, into space, around and back down, from pole to pole. They don't go straight to the compass! (See picture No 1133f) See pictures No 1133a and b and 1133d and e, for setup. (See pictures No 1133a,b,d and e) No 1134) How an Artificial Horizon self levels: ------------ An artificial horizon has vanes that open and close, and adjust the horizon, so it is always level. From Wolfie6020 (See video No 1134) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTCqMHyhg (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155386091246795/ No 1135) I just wanted to emphasize how the horizon and it's distance viewed from different elevations IS curvature! The distances and elevations simply do not match a flat Earth! See diagram No 1135a - for height and distance to horizon chart (based off of chart No 3d) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155386328941795/ No 1135b) See legend diagram No 1135b (Based of of diagram No 3d) No 1135c) Closeup of lower elevations No 1135d) Close up of higher elevations No 1136) Adjusting globe pictures for correct distance and size: -------------- Just like from ground level, you will always see a horizon 360 degrees around you and it's always roughly the same distance away all around you. i.e. It's a circle! *** You always see a circular section of Earth. ------ What you are seeing isn't a bigger continent, it is a smallest section of Earth, from closer! *** What you are seeing is proof that the Earth is spherical! No 1136a-1) Flat Earthers always show side by side pictures of Earth, the same size. (See diagrams No 1136a-1) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155395651926795/ No 1136a-2) What they fail to grasp, is that the bigger continent is actually being view from closer, and you are seeing a smaller circular section of Earth. *** We don't always see half the globe! *** (See diagram No 1136a-2) No 1136b-1) Here is a common meme presented by flat Earthers with several years of Earth pictures. (See Image No 1136b-1) No 1136b-2) Here are the images corrected to the right sizes. Picture looking at a SMALLER section of Earth, from closer up. (See diagram No 1136b-2) No 1136c) Here are several images from DSCOVR:EPIC, showing several faces of Earth and the roughly correct full size image of the globe and continents. This is what I used to adjust the previous images. (See Image No 1136c-1 - Australia and Asia) No 1136c-2) Africa. No 1136c-3) North and south America No 1136d) How satellite images, from close up are taken. Notice the close up satellite can only take small strips of the Earth at one tiime. (See diagram No 1136d) No 1136e) Blue Marble original source pictures: https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723 (See diagram No 1136e-1 - Globe East) No 1136e-2) See diagram No 1136e-2 - Globe West) No 1137) Ratio of distance to size comparison, Satellite vs galaxy: -------------- Look at this diagram. Look at the ratios. The satellite, is smaller, relative to it's distance that the galaxie is relative to it's distance. It's not just the distance of the object, but it's size, relative to that distance that is important. Satellites are too small to see, literally too small. Even for a telescope, certainly too small for a camera. You'd have to zoom in a lot just to find a satellite. (See diagram No 1137) - Also, pictures of the Earth, aren't zooming in to find a satellite, they are zoomed in just enough to take a picture of the ENTIRE Earth. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155396015446795/ No 1138) Resolution and Ratio of satellite to a pixel: ----------- Say we take a picture of the Earth, and it's relatively high resolution, so 2,000 pixels across. That means one pixel represents an area almost 4 miles across. If there is a satellite in that pixel, it's only a small part of the light from that 4 miles across! *** The resolution isn't high enough. *** We aren't zoomed in on a small enough area to get any images of satellites, EVER! (See diagram No 1138) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155396019481795/ No 1139) The sun goes straight across the sky, so the slats on blinds don't have to be adjusted during the day to keep them at the right angle, with respect to the sun. Therefore, the shadow from these blinds stays a thin line, once's you adjust it accordingly See Cody's lab: (See time index 0:30) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILwBaXplwZU (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155397361071795/ No 1140) I picks two locations on Google maps that are roughly the same distance by eyeballing it. One set of cities in the northern hemisphere and one in the southern hemisphere. On a Globe, these distances should be about a 10 to 20% difference from eyeballing Google maps. On a flat Earth, the southern hemisphere distance should be about three times longer than the northern hemisphere distance. --------------- In reality the distance from Toronto to London is 5,720.37 Km. And from Montevideo to Cape Town is 6,656.78 Km. *** It fits the globe Earth! *** (See figure No 1140a for Toronto to London distance) No 1140b) Coordinates for the given cities. ------------- Toronto/Coordinates 43°42'00" N ,79°24'58" W London/Coordinates 51°30'26.6"N 0°07'40.1"W Difference in longitude = 79°17'17.9" W Average latitude = 47°36'13.3" N Difference in latitude = -7°48'26.6" ------------------- Montevideo/Coordinates 34°54'04.0"S 56°09'52.2"W Cape Town/Coordinates 33°55'29.6"S 18°25'26.8"E Difference in longitude = 74°35'19" W Average latitude = 34°24'46.8" S Difference in latitude= -0°58'34.4" (See figure No 1140b for Montevideo to Cape Town distance) No 1141) De Sam - The very FIRST video footage (that I know of) of Earth from space taken by a V-2 rocket in 1946....You know, the "prime" of CGI. https://www.facebook.com/desammz/videos/932029106954340/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155397064856795/ No 1142) Vanishing point should recede if one zooms in: --------------- 1) Vanishing point, means things disappear because they have become too small to see. 2) This is often used as a reason for the horizon. 3) However, this mean if we zoom in on the horizon, it should become more detailed and we should see the horizon farther back, at the new vanishing point, due to the higher resolution. We don't see that! (See diagram No 1142) No 1143) Modelling gases with magnets: --------- Cody shows hwo gases compress, due to gravity. When he holds the model vertically, the magnets on the bottom get more compressed than the magnets at the top. However, when he tilts it horizontally, there is no effect from gravity and the magnets spread out uniformly. This is just like the atmosphere, thinner/less dense on top and denser near the ground. See Cody's lab video No 1143: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNCIp3fm7V0 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155402773031795/ No 1144) If the horizon "rises to eye level" at infinity. *** Then how is this horizon, 3 miles away? (See image No 1144) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155402777351795/ No 1145) Wahbi Oussama (see meme No 1145) How can the 32 mile sun appear near the horizon, when compared to the sun, the distance to the "ground" is not even close to 3,000 miles? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155405190581795/ No 1146) ANY picture of the globe will always be a circular section of Earth. ------------- Mark A. Wells - If you go to where the vanishing point is from where you looked out, you're going to see a continuation of the plane of the Earth, period. You will not instinctively or intelligently find any evidence that will confirm you are on anything that resemble this, period. I tell you what Bruce, I'll go by what I can instinctively confirm at a basic level, and you keep following what you was indoctrinated to believe. (See meme No 1146a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155405548106795/ No 1146b) Flat Earthers think pictures like this can't happen in reality (e.g. the continents are too big.) What they fail to understand is that, looking at a spherical surface, from a lower altitude, would produce; i) a circular section of Earth ii) the land/water AFTER the horizon, 360 degrees around the obsever would be completely hidden by the curvature. *** That is to say, the the rest of the ENTIRE Earth woud be missing, because it is beyond the curve! *** (See diagram No 1146b) No 1146c) Pictures from high altitude balloons show exactly this! - A circular section of Earth, with the rest of the Earth NOT visible, because it is hidden beyond the horizon! - A horizon 360 degree around! - *** No stars, only black sky! *** (See image No 1146c) No 1146d) Pictures from the ISS show thatas well! *** A circular section of Earth, with the rest of the Earth NOT visible, because it is hidden beyond the horizon! *** (See image No 1146d) No 1146e) - From the shore looking at the horizon 3 mlies out to the horizon - From a commercial aircraft looking 212 miles out to the horizon - From high altitude balloons looking 387 miles out to the horizon - From the Red Bull jump, looking 433 miles out to the horizon - From a V2 rocket looking 1,443 miles out to the horizon - From the ISS looking 1,443 miles out to the horizon *** It's all the same horizon! *** It's all the same curve! *** Not linear, but geometric difference in distances (See No 1146e) No 1147) Nathan Grieg - Bruce Ing, I've got another. High tide occurs every 25 hours. That's because from one spot on Earth facing the moon to the same spot, it takes 24 hours for the Earth to spin, but the moon has rotated about 1/27 th of it's way around it's orbit, so it takes the same spot on Earth another 53 minutes to match the same spot on the moon. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155407747586795/ No 1148) The distance to the horizon is given by one's elevation and curvature calculations, (a geometric relationship). Can any flat Earther tell me why the distance to the horizon is based on curvature and not linear? (Which would put the horizon way farther than we see it!) (See No 1148a - Legend) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155410406806795/ No 1148b - diagram of distances and angles No 1149) Some examples of the images captures by Karol Masztalerz (See original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155404253666795/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155414718531795/ No 1150) Gregory Apple --------------- SpaceX proves the curvature of the earth! How, you say? The launch was after sunset, but the Falcon9 rocket gained enough altitude that its exhaust trail is illuminated from the sun below the horizon. The great thing about flat earth becoming popular in the last 2 years is that it coincides with the impressive progress made by private space companies. Soon private citizens will have access to space. It's a game changer. It will be priceless entertainment to see the sheepish look on the face of every flat earther when they have to recant all their ridiculous claims and apologize to all their friends and family members they have alienated through their cult behavior. (See Youtube for news coverage) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVi01wACopc (SpaceX launch facility coverage) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrSE0a-svCE (SpaceX News coverage) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRzZl_nq6fk (Original facebook page of this article) https://www.facebook.com/groups/266270063883533/permalink/300641773779695/ https://www.facebook.com/greg.apel/videos/10159522081020478/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155415046806795/ No 1150a) Rocket nozzles are sized depending on the air pressure. At sea level, the nozzles have to be smaller, and higher pressure, to maintain efficiency. At lower atmospheric pressures or in the vacuum of space, the nozzles have to be much larger, to maintian efficiency. We see the exhaust spread out much more with the second stage. (See diagram No 1150a) No 1151) Aplenglow - Red sunset on mountains: ------------------- Nathan Grieg - Was just watching the beautiful alpenglow disappear from Mt Baker in the distance and wasn't sure if we've added alpenglow, or more specifically bottom to top sunsets, as a globe earth proof. (See images No 1151a and 1151b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpenglow (My OP referring back to original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155422204201795/ No 1152) De Sam - Flat Earth? Distinguishing between Photographs, Composites and CGI. (See video No 1152) https://www.facebook.com/desammz/videos/939277052896212/ (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155420386276795/ No 1152a) Composites - Blue Marble (See picture No 1152a) https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BlueMarble/BlueMarble_2002.php No 1152b) Photographs (from space) - DSCOVR:EPIC picture from 2017-12-28 (See image No 1152b) https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ No 1152c) CGI - Images made entirely from scratch Every flat Earth image is CGI! (See image No 1152c) No 1153) Balanced orbits, motion and cancelled effects of gravity: ----------------- Kordell IStack Franklins Globe head (See meme No 1153) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155422322741795/ No 1153a) Just as people orbiting the Earth are weightless. (It is a balanced system.) The moon orbiting the Earth experiences micro gravity from Earth. i.e. it is a balanced system. The sun pulls the moon with about twice the force as the Earth does, however, since the moon and Earth are in orbit around the sun, it too is a balanced system, so the net effect is zero/micro gravity. ANYTHING IN ORBIT is in balance, so the net effect is zero. That is why it is in orbit, it is a balanced system. The only time we "feel" gravity is if the system isn't balanced. When we stand on the Earth, it is NOT a balanced system. The Earth's gravity is felt, because we don't spin or orbit the Earth, we are stationary on it's surface. *** The net force is down 1 g. *** ----------- All the motions you are talking about in your diagram are orbits, They are balanced systems. So the net effect felt is zero! ----------- *** Balanced systems, balanced orbits is why things don't go flying off into space! *** Balanced systems is why we don't feel the effects of moving through space around other objects. No 1154) Relative motion and the Concorde: If people complain one should not be able to stand on the Earth with a 1000 mph wind, what about the Concorde? (See picture No 1154) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155422877781795/ No 1154b) See meme No 1154c) Laurent Besson - Even birds know that! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t724LmhwDe8 No 1155) Aurelijus Alekserius - To illustrate my previous comment (See illustration No 1155) Constellations change over time, but may take tens of thousands of years to notice the differences! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155422881866795/ No 1156) Carlos Hugo Castillo Luevano - This is a Campbell stokes Sunshine recorder, an optical device to record how many hours does the sun shine. as this is an optical device, it can not be tricked, it cannot be CGI. (See image No 1156a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155434111761795/ No 1156b) As the earth rotates, the sunshine recorder will leave a mark in a specially designed card where meteorologists can count the hours of daily sunshine. However, this can also be used to validate the trajectory of the sun, the cards are not the same for each season of the year. for example in the equator, the card used are the next ones, winter card, summer card and equinox cards are used twice a year, if the earth would be flat, the trajectory of the sun should be always quite the same, but we see a different behavior recorded in this cards: (See image No 1156b) No 1157) Flat Earth shadows do not match reality (revisited): ------------- No 1157a) One thing that is often missed is the fact that, due to the tilt, the shadows on a globe is offset from the polar axis. (See diagram No 1157a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155434263306795/ No 1157b) Twice a year, in spring and fall, the shadow does line up with the polar axis. At this time, the flat Earth being in half shadow and half sun is correct. (See diargram No 1157b) No 1157c) However, during the other 363 days of the year, the shadow is NOT aligned with the polar axis. This leads to strange shaped shadows and parts of the flat Earth being in sun and shadow that are impossible in real life! (See diagram No 1157c) No 1157d) Animation of the actual sun and shadow on a flat Earth. (See diagram No 1157d-1) See Video No 1157d-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLOVb_gVbV0 No 1157e) Here is a real time map of sun rise and sun set. Notice it is always a 50/50 split, because it is a globe map projected onto a flat surface. Notice today (January 13, 2018), All of Antartica is in sun light! (See screenshot No 1157e-1) (See link No 1157e-2) https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html No 1158) Yesterday, Jan. 3, 2018, we were at perihelion. The closest to the sun in our orbit. We know this from astronomy. Any one can get a solar filter, measure the sun and confirm this! How can the sun be in the Tropic of Capricorn in, the southern hemisphere, yet appear bigger, on a flat Earth? https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/december-solstice.html (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155432819931795/ 1159) Analysis of ISS picture of Italy: ------------ Jason Jarvis - Whats wrong with this picture..? (See image No 1159a) (See Jason's OP for original post) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155440552071795/ (See my OP if you wish to discuss with me further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155443980841795/ No 1159b) Here is my analysis; The maximum distance visible from the ISS is 1,443 miles. (This is no where near that, as we are looking out at the horizon.) The maximum angle is 19.50 degrees down to the horizon Andnthw camera appears to be pointed down at the horizon. I have marked off 1,443 miles in the approximate direction they are looking. It looks about right. We see probably about 900 miles, not the full 1,443. ------ Next on my list is to take a picture on a globe at the right elevation to see/show that things actually look that steep from the ISS. (See map No 1159b) No 1159c) If we model this.The tape is about 4.1 mm above the surface of this 13 cm globe (255 miles up) We draw a straight line to the horizon and end up in the middle of Europe, around Slovakia. (See picture No 1159c) Picture No 1159d) Image of Europe. Slovakia is about where the line of sight touches the horizon. The picture, matches calculations, matches modeling! No 1160) Playing fields aren't a realistic model of a globe or a flat Earth! What are they saying, water is sloped before the horizon and flat after it? (See diagram No 1160) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155443897126795/ No 1161) A more accurate calculation of the horizon's drop: --------------- Mark Kelly - Quite easy on a GE, it all depends how accurate you want to be. First you need to calculate the distance to the horizon. Horizon distance in feet = sqrt((r+h)*(r+h) - r*r) where r = radius of the earth in feet and h = observers height in feet. For a very rough estimate you could just add the drop from the horizontal at the horizon distance to the observers height. This really isn't accurate because the straight line distance to the horizon is longer than the red line in your image. Works out to be around 200500 ft this way. A more accurate way is to use a simple right angle triangle. The length of the hypotenuse = horizon distance, you can calculate the angle from the observer to the horizon ( arcsin(horizon distance/(r+h))*180/PI ) and from there you can get all angles & side lengths easily. So this works out to be 199,515 ft below the horizontal with a 100,000 ft observer height. This is without accounting for standard refraction, you could include that if you wish quite easily. I have no idea how you could work this out with any accuracy on a FE, I've never come across a decent equation for calculating the horizon distance on a flat plane. (See diagram No 1162a and b) No 1162) De Sam - File this under: "Obvious things Flat Earthers never even bother to think about." (See meme No 1162) (See original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155431303776795/ No 1163) Rolo Ariel Marino - WHY DOES THE SUN GO DOWN DURING SUNSET INSTEAD OF STAYING IN THE SKY UNTIL IT IS NO LONGER SEEN? (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155438368141795/ No 1164) Mark Mathahs - To the FE side: Without claiming that everything in the sky is fake, please provide a single FE model that explains ALL of the following: a) The fact that the solar ecliptic (23.5°) and the lunar ecliptic (about 6°) are obviously not the same b) The tides c) The lunar eclipse d) The consistent angular diameter of the sun, regardless of location on Earth e) The phases of the moon, and specifically, the crescent moon, which can be on the top side of the moon, the bottom side, the left side, the right side, the upper-left quadrant, the upper-right quadrant, the lower-left quadrant, and the lower-right quadrant f) The sun and moon both appearing on the horizon when rising and setting g) The fact that as you gain altitude, you can see further (according to FE, distance viewing, even with a telescope, is limited by the atmosphere, yet I can get on a plane and see several hundred miles) h) The discrepancies (FE vs. GE) of distances and flight times between various international airports i) The stars in the southern hemisphere rotate clockwise around the southern celestial pole, while the stars in the northern hemisphere rotate anti-clockwise around the northern celestial pole j) The fact that sensitive scales must be re-calibrated when moved from one latitude to another (weight varies by 0.5% if the same calibration is used at the equator and in polar regions) k) The fact that, relative to a viewer in the northern hemisphere, the moon appears upside-down to a viewer in the southern hemisphere l) The fact that the sunrise terminator and the sunset terminator are 180° apart . . Added by Robert Walker: m) The Foucault pendulum n) The curve of the earth's shadow on the moon during a Lunar eclipse o) The sheer volume of photos and videos from the moon, satellites, space stations, etc (if these are merely art work, how large is the staff that's producing them?) p) The global cooperation between nations, since astronauts and space-bound scientists represent several countries (as well as religious backgrounds (or lack there of), political affiliations, etc) . . Added by Gerry Haines: q) The fact that Neptune was discovered due solely upon the fact that it was perturbing the orbit of Uranus . . Others: r) The coriolis effect, which causes storms to swirl clockwise in the Southern hemisphere, counterclockwise in the Northern hemisphere, and also prevents these storms from crossing the equator . . . If any GE folks would like to add to this list, please do so, but again, to the FE side, I want to see a SINGLE model that explains everything above, and everything that might be added. Thank you. (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/143752942921617/permalink/154193321877579/ No 1165) Wahbi Oussama - so how would a flerfer explain this. (See meme No 1165) Matt Pattavina - It would never appear at the horizon if it was at the apex of a dome over 3000 miles high (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155446621766795/ No 1166) Nathan Grieg - Still haven't explained why things fall TOWARDS the earth! (See meme No 1166) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155447932906795/ No 1167) Dave Greg But not possible to see the buildings and shoreline at Mount Maunganui Beach from the shoreline of Maketu Beach only 18 miles away using a Nikon P900... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7xERxcKS0s No 1168) If we can see the horizon at around 3 miles, for a 6 foot observer, that is a 6 foot rise for a 15, 840 foot run. That gives us an angle of 0.0217 degrees. If as flat Earthers claim, this is the vanishing point, e.g. the point at which things become too small for us to see, then this same "angular diameter" should be constant. Applying this angle to different altitudes, we should have the same ratio for any altitude. Can someone tell me why the vanishing point isn't a consistent angular diameter? -------- The angle seems to get bigger, the higher we go, meaning objects of the same apparent size, (e.g. bigger objects farther out that appear about the same size), mysteriously aren't visible, the higher up we go. Sure we see farther as we go up, but objects have to be proportionately bigger to "vanish"! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155450460206795/ No 1169) Kim Matthijssen - Here is an experiment proving the Coriolis effect. That proves a rotating sphere. https://youtu.be/aDorTBEhEtk ------------- Smarter Every Day , using a large kiddiey pool to prove the Coriolis effect. This is a neat one. It is two videos played side by side! (See screenshot No 1169) (Video 1 - northern hemisphere) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDorTBEhEtk&feature=youtu.be (Video 2 - southern hemisphere) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihv4f7VMeJw (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155451666896795/ No 1169b) Kim Matthijssen - The coriolis effect proves a rotating sphere. Beyond doubt. It's been game over for FE before it ever started, you guys just don't know it yet. Toilets, sinks, bathtubs etc, they are NOT affected by coriolis, because other forces are acting stronger upon them. Weather systems and the experiment in this video however, prove our earth to be a sphere and rotating. (See combined video No 1169b) Time Index 3:25 https://youtu.be/BiBrV4Q9NYE?t=205 (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155451666896795/ No 1170) Stars seen from the south pole: If the south pole doesn't exist, how can people travel to and take pictures of the stars from the south pole? These are pictures taken over the Black Island Satellite Station, near McMurdo Station. Picture: Star trails, looking straight up - McMurdo Station (See picture No 1170a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155451789351795/ References for pictures; https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/destinations/antarctica/south-pole-Antarctica-winter-weather/ http://www.antarcticimages.com/Antarctica/Auroras-and-Star-Scapes/i-3wfM4kH Picture No 1170b - IceCube Neutrino Observatory (See picture No 1170b) Picture No 1170c - Black Island station (See picture No 1170c) Picture No 1170d - McMurdo Station - Fuel tanks and Auroras (See picture No 1170d) Picture No 1170e - Milky Way over Black Island Satellite Station (See picture No 1170e) Picture No 1170f - The stars above Castle Rock (See picture No 1170f) Picture No 1170g - Stars above McMurdo Station (See picture No 1170g) No 1170h) Here is a video of the star trails, seen from McMudro Station. Notice they are going the opposite direction from when we are looking north towards polaris, in the northern hemisphere. (See video No 1170h) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzWpYVr4qZs No 1171) Nathan Grieg - Because I've been to the flattest place on earth, and there is a giant fucking island missing in the middle of all that flatness. This is Isla Incahuasi that should be in all those pictures of the salt flats...but isn't. It's literally smack in the middle of all that flatness, but never in any pictures of the flatness because it's behind the curve. (See images No 1171a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155452928991795/ No 1171b) Location of "Inca house") "a hilly and rocky outcrop of land and former island in Bolivia situated in the middle of Salar de Uyuni, the world's largest salt flat," (See picture from Nathan Grieg No 1171b) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Incahuasi No 1172) Shadows can't get taller on a flat earth. (See image No 1172a) See video No 1172b: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3QhgMuwAsY (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155454746441795/ No 1173) The moon isn't that bright, compared to the sun. It blocks more light during solar eclipses than it reflects on the Earth, during an entire year. Even so, it is far brighter than stars. *** That is why stars are not visible in daytime pictures of Earth or on the moon itself. *** They are too dim and need a long exposure to show up on pictures! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24iM2UwMBvU (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155454803206795/ No 1174) Similar Triangles: Here is an example of distance to the sun calculations that I've been working on this afternoon. The trouble with sun rays, splitting, is that they don't represent the true distance to the sun! There may be some optical effects causing them to split, but whatever, they show way too close a distance to the sun, for globe OR flat Earth! In the future anyone can use this formula; X=B*A/(E-A) (See diagram No 1174a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155455677766795/ No 1174b) Comparing similar triangles and the sun's rays: e.g. Crepuscular Rays analyzed. If we use similar triangles to compare how much sun rays should spread out with a flat Earth or globe sun, we see that the rays are practically parallel in both cases. However, seeing rays spread out like a triangle, just doesn't work for a flat Earth or globe Earth! (See diagram No 1174b) Note: Across 20 miles, for a flat Earth, a 2 rays a mile apart would diverge to 1.0067 miles. For a globe, the same rays a mile apart would diverge to 1.000000215053763440 miles. We can measure the divergence and see that the sun is NOT 3,000 miles away! *** The sun's rays are too parallel to be only 3,000 miles away! *** No 1174c) Damian Zielinski (See meme No 1174c) No 1175) "Give me a reason why you think the world is a ball: (See original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155452130346795/ No 1175a) Nathan Grieg - Because the sun sets due west for everyone on Earth on the equinoxes. (See diagram No 1175a) No 1175b) Nathan Grieg - Because everyone sees the same size and face of the moon. (See image no 1175b) No 1175c) Nathan Grieg - Because the moon has phases and they are predictable decades in advance. No 1175d) Nathan Grieg - Because the horizon exists at all. (See image No 1175d) No 1175e) Nathan Grieg - Because it's absurd to think these people all facing the opposite direction see the same pole star rotating in a different direction than people in the northern hemisphere. (See image No 1175e) No 1175f) Nathan Grieg - Because Australia doesn't look like this. (See diagram No 1175f) No 1175g) Nathan Grieg - Because the sun doesn't vanish to a point at sunset. (See image No 1175g) No 1175h) Nathan Grieg - Because the horizon drops. (See image No 1175h) No 1175i) Reed Richards - Best reason is the Coriolis effect. If the earth wasn't spinning there would be no Coriolis effect. That's why storms in northern and southern hemispheres spin in different directions, the Coriolis effect affects fluids on the planet and in the atmosphere. Flat earther can you explain why storms spin differently below the equator than above? No 1176) Tom Oliver - Flat earthers: I'm interested in all things related to the electro-magnetic field on your model. Included but not limited to: -The source of the field (if no iron core) -It geometry, is it a monopole or toroidal? -schumann resonances -wireless communications -protection from solar winds -lightning activity (See original OP, if you wish to discuss) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155456832621795/ No 1177) Pear shaped and Oblate Spheroid revisited: Rob Taylor - Earth is flat, retards (See meme No 1177a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155460509501795/ No 1177b) We are still getting the Pear shaped and Oblate spheroid argument against NASA, almost daily. Often I ask what the exact dimensions are and no one every answers. They never give specifics! That is cherry picking. ------------ When you look at the actual numbers, you see they are talking about a difference of 20 or 30 miles for a 7,919 mile diameter object! If you measure the Earth in this picture, you will find the image is 4 pixels wider than it is tall. That is about 0.257 percent difference. (From 1554 pixels to 1558 pixels) THAT is the pear shape and oblate spheroid they are talking about. *** Not acknowledging the exact numbers is just dishonest! (See picture No 1177b) No 1178) If there is only one hemisphere of stars, then why do we chart two identical sized hemisphere of stars? We have star charts for a northern AND southern hemisphere of stars! (See diagram No 1178) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155460577091795/ No 1178b) Joe Haley - Which one is pear shaped? (See No 1178b) No 1179) Why is the sun be over the tropic of Capricorn and as you get farther south of the tropic of Capricorn, you get more and more hours of daylight? (See diagram No 1179) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155460733706795/ No 1180) Great Circle routes, straight paths and projections onto flat maps. ---------------- If we put a string on a globe, between two points and pull it tight, we get the shortest distance on a curved surface. This is part of a circular path going all the way around the world and back up. It is called a great circle route. (See picture No 1180a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155461965791795/ No 1180b) When you look at the path from the equator, it looks like an arch going way south and back up. (See picture No 1180b) No 1180c) When this is projected onto a Mercator map, it looks like an arch. However, it is actually the shortest distance between two points on a globe! (See map No 1180c) No 1180d-1) Path from North America to Asia on a globe. Again, it looks straight from above. (See picture No 1080d-1) No 1080d-2) The path looking from the equator, or projected onto a flat surface, looks like a curve. (See picture No 1080d-2) No 1181) Self supporting, self balancing structures: 1) The spherical Earth is a self supporting structure. It pulls itself into a spherical shape. Iron core, molten iron, magma, crust, oceans, it all gets pulled towards the center. Nothing collapses or falls off, because THERE IS NO WHERE FOR IT TO GO! e.g. A rock falls onto the ground, the ground supports the rock, the mantle supports the ground, the core supports the mantle. It is balanced and stable. 2) When things are in orbit, they are balanced. Centripetal acceleration acts outward and gravity pulls inward. They are balanced, so things experience weightlessness. things are in perpetual free fall. Again things are balanced. *** The Earth works because everything is balanced! ----------- ----------- In contrast to this, nothing on the flat Earth is balanced. - Some force is needed to keep the flat Earth and moon rotating and changing speeds and distances throughout the year. - some constant force is needed to keep the sun and moon sun and moon from falling out of the sky - some force is needed to make things go down on the flat Earth. Some force is needed to keep the stars, sun, moon and planets rotating around the Earth, without flying off etc. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155462825531795/ No 1182) Cailleach Bheur - Question.. If the earth actually is like this, then how comes the moon affects the sea, pulls on it and gives us tides.. Constant ebb & flow.. BUT THE SUN DOESN'T?! Take your time.. (See diagram No 1182) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155457467056795/ No 1183)Caleb Hubbell - You can find the angular separation between two spherical coordinates with the spherical law of cosines: a=acos(cos(b)cos(c)+sin(b)sin(c)cos(A)) This gives you an angle in radians. Of course, geographic coordinates are spherical coordinates, but they are measured from the equator instead of from the north pole, so we can just flip the cosines and sines, since cosine of 90-x degrees is sine of x degrees. This angular separation equation provides an answer in radians. To find the actual distance, the angle in radians is just multiplied by the length of the radius... d=r*acos(sin(f1)sin(f2)+cos(f1)cos(f2)cos(?2-?1)) ?1 = longitude of first location ?2 = longitude of second location f1 = latitude of first location f2 = latitude of second location r = radius of the earth d = great circle route distance (See diagram No 1183) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155470547451795/ No 1183b) Caleb Hubbell - This is how you can calculate great circle distances from sets of geographic coordinates. No 183c) Caleb Hubbell http://gisgeography.com/great-circle-geodesic-line-shortest-flight-path/ No 1184) How weight changes with altitude and location. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkG1iFanoNo (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155467345391795/ No 1185) Med Bourja - Hello to everyone, I'm asking what is the best proof of the globe earth that you have ? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155464832586795/ No 1185a) Marty Church - All major bodies in space are Spheres. We can see this without nasa. Common sense. Education. How things Actually work in the real world.......or...... Listen to FE with Zero evidence/proof/testable facts? Lol Easy choice. No 1185b) Zoran Drazic - Mutual Zenith angles - two observers, personally measured. (See diagram No 1185b) No 1185c) Wahbi Oussama - The sun set No 1185d) Korina O'Connell - The stars No 1185e) Luis Purcell - sStar trails No 1185f) Luis Purcell - Different constellations in different hemisphere No 1185g) Joey Hayz - plate tectonics No 1185h) Dillon Knapp - I can see the convergence when running a level. If you go over 200’ in distance, the difference in the gravitational alignment between the two points are slightly different. This causes the level rod to appear to have a higher reading. Causing for a slight error when you check back in. When you take in consideration the earths curvature, the error is then nullified. -land surveyor No 1185i) Anggito Antonius - Physical theories No 1185j) Lucas Allen - The coriolis effect No 1185k) Dillon Knapp https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round#page-3 Here’s some shit I did when I was a little kid interested in factual science. Funny how I could calculate this then. Can you guys use simple trigonometry? No 1185l) Carlos Hugo Castillo Luevano - I have a huge list.. But my best proof the earth is a globe is the routes when I plotted my shortest route between 2 points when flying. No 1185m) Darren Cooper - The best proof is it's already proven lol question should be what's the best proof you have op No 1185n) Philip Cowley - Best proof of the Globe.... Where to start... there are so many! This is a good one! The APPARENT path of the sun, moon, stars and planets as observed by millions of astronomers all over the world for thousands of years can ONLY be explained by the Earth being a globe. (See diagram No 1185n) No 1185o) Philip Cowley (See diagram No 1185o) No 1185p) Carlos Hugo Castillo Luevano - Global atmospheric circulation. (See diagram No 1185p) No 1185q-1) Carlos Hugo Castillo Luevano - The path recorded during equinox on a campbell stokes sunshine recorder. And the path to the left in winter. (See diagram No 1185q-1) No 1185q-2) Philip Cowley - Not just at equinox... The path that the sun, moon, stars and planets take every single day (or night) is proof of a globe. No 1185q-3) Carlos Hugo Castillo Luevano - Sure. But the straight line during equinox debunks the magical sun that flat earthers believe. No 1185r) Borris Johhny - YES, here we go The Moon its Earth's natural satellite and this satellite is made up rock dust, not of a cheese, or some playful goddish person, and yes this celestial body has shadows on it, So right now humanity in the 20th century have ventured out there using their chemical heavy flying rockets, Even collected everything and had taken pictures out of the Earth, And clearly From Apollo 11, NASA crew, Earth looked like this: (See diagram No 1185r) No 1185s) Carlos Hugo Castillo Luevano - Long haul flights between cities in different continents in southern hemisphere. Impossible in flat earth. (See diagram No 1185s) No 1185t) Carlos Hugo Castillo Luevano - Images from meteorological satellites like DSCOVR. Look to the sun and wave the camera! (See diagram No 1185t) No 1185u) Borris Johhny - And also for Moon Eclipses, the Earth basically rotates each solar day right and then usually there are even telescopes while are making constant observations on the Moon during the time for an eclipse, so technically If the World was flat, we would even not even see the whole shadows of the Moon because the dome blocks the orbit of the Moon, So there is no dome, we can see the Moon perfectly. No 1185v) Carlos Hugo Castillo Luevano - The changes needed to do to aeronautical instruments, gyroscopic attitude indicator in this example , to compensate curvature of earth. (See diagram No 1185v) No 1185w-1) Roger Morton (See meme No 1185w-1) No 1185w-2) Adam Scott - It's gotta be photoshopped, only a select few have the opportunity to claim they've seen it like this, and they are lying of course!! the select few is only about 7 billion people or so, and they are keeping the truth from the rest of us. No 1185x) Carlos Hugo Castillo Luevano - Eratosthenes experiment. Validates numerically the circumference of the earth. Doable even by flat earthers who doesnt know about trigonometry. Only basics math. No 1185y) Rodney Tresch - I would say the distance around Earth at southern latitudes is a globe sealer. But when dealing with a conspiracy lover, they can dismiss all things as 'fake'. ---------- For those people, I think the star patterns have had them stumped for a while now. I have seen several wild attempts to bring that into the fold. But they are unable to overcome the critical flaw that a southern central point of stars presents. And even calling it 'fake' has been unsuccessful with the group. No 1185z) Bruce Ing - The northern and southern hemisphere of stars are equal sizes (See diagram No 1185z) No 1185za) Fahad Joudeh - Physics and astronomy. Four seasons. Time zones. The fact that there are areas on the planet that don't have a normal sunlight cycle, which would not be possible on a flat earth. And above all, my favorite ''proof'', a fucking middle school education. No 1185zb) Sy Scott - https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/ No 1185zc) Wesley Bacani - The Eclipse No 1185zd) Caleb Hubbell - The approximation of 8 inches per miles squared (or eight centimetres per kilometre squared) is almost correct, but it seems to be applied in the real world incorrectly. Instead of looking at it as direct drop from the observer, it should be seen first as a relationship between height of an observer and distance to the horizon. So what does this equation mean? For one, if you are eight inches tall, the horizon should be a mile away. If you are 7.848 cm tall, the horizon should be a kilometre away. 3959*(1/cos(1/3959)-1)=0.00012629 miles = 8.0017344 inches 6371*(1/cos(1/6371)-1)=0.00007848 kilometres = 7.848 cm Now there is a way to actually confirm this. You can see that I used a trig function, cosine, on a fraction. I divided the distance to the horizon by the radius of the earth to come up with a very close approximation to an angle in radians. This is called the small angle approximation. If I wanted to be more accurate, I could have used arctan, but at very small angles, the tangent is the same as the angle in radians. To convert from radians to degrees, you just multiply it by 180/pi. I'm going to give you an angle for each 1 kilometre interval. 6371*(1/cos(1/6371)-1)=0.00007848 kilometres = 7.848 cm (1/6371)*(180/pi)=0.0089932 degrees (32.376 seconds of arc) 6371*(2/cos(2/6371)-1)=0.0003139 kilometres = 31.39 cm (2/6371)*(180/pi)=0.017986 degrees (1 arcminute, 4.7 arcseconds) 6371*(1/cos(3/6371)-1)=0.0007063 kilometres = 70.63 cm (3/6371)*(180/pi) = 0.027 degrees (1 arcminute, 37.2 arcseconds) You can see that the higher up you get, the bigger the angle gets. Now how high would you have to be to get an angle that would be somewhat easy to measure? Well, lets try quarter of a degree intervals. 6371*(1/cos(0.25 deg)-1)= 0.0606479 kilometres (60.6479 metres) 6371*(1/cos(0.5 deg)-1)= 0.242597 kilometres (242.597 metres) 6371*(1/cos(0.75 deg)-1)=0.545866 kilometres (545.866 metres) 6371*(1/cos(1 deg)-1)=0.97048 kilometres (970.48 metres) Now, what is this angle? If the Earth is a globe, this angle is the angle between the observer and the point where his line of sight meets the horizon measured from the centre of the earth. But, we can't see through rock and its not possible to go to the centre of the earth, so you can't confirm the measurement this way. This could also be seen as how much a building would be leaning away from you if it was on the horizon. There are a few ways we can find the distance to the horizon. We already worked out how high we have to be in order for it to lean by one degree: 6371*(1/cos(1 deg)-1)=0.97048 kilometres (970.48 metres) So we have several ways to work out the distance to the horizon with this information: We can use a tangent formula: 6371*tan(1 degree)=111.2 or pythagoras theorem: sqrt(6371.97048^2-6371^2)=111.2 Or we could divide the circumference of the earth by 360 6371*2pi/360=111.2 kilometres A building would have to be 111.206 kilometres (about 69 miles) away to lean away from you by only one degree. This tiny angle of lean would be next to impossible to measure so this isn't a great way to prove it either. But, provided the same geometry, this angle is also the angle between the astronomical horizon; an imaginary line extended perpendicular to the observer, and the true horizon. If the earth is a globe, this should be possible for anyone to reproduce this measurement repeatedly. This IS measurable with any precision optical instrument that can be levelled and can be used to work out small angles. You can do this with a camera, a telescope, a theodolite, even a sextant or an astrolabe if you are high enough although those two (sextant or astrolabe) wouldn't be as accurate as a theodolite. I don't expect anyone to take my word on it. This is science. I encourage people to go out and see it for themselves. (See diagram No 1185zd) No 1185ze) Caleb Hubbell - I could show you some pictures of this actually being measured with a theodolite, but like anything else, one could claim it was faked. The best way to work this out is to confirm it yourself. (See diagram No 1185ze) No 1185zf) Caleb Hubbell - On the the equinoxes, the sun rises due east and sets due west for all observers regardless of latitude. At solar noon on the equinoxes, the sun's zenith angle is the same as an observer's latitude. This means the angle of the sun above the horizon at noon is 90-latitude. Likewise, the star Mintaka in the constellation of Orion lies almost perfectly on the celestial equator just as the sun does only on the equinoxes. This means that everyday, it rises due east and sets due west for everyone regardless of latitude, and its zenith angle when it crosses your local meridian (the highest point in the sky, above the south cardinal point if you're in the northern hemisphere) is the same as your latitude. It might be easier to visualize with these diagrams I made... (See diagram No 1185zf) No 1185zg) Caleb Hubbell - The direction that the sun rises never matches with what we would expect with a close sun. All observers see the sun rise due east on the equinoxes regardless of latitude. (See diagram No 1185zg) No 1185zh) Caleb Hubbell - The further south you go, the less things make sense. In Adelaide, Australia, the sun rises in the south east on the December solstice. But the sun should never be south of the tropic of Capricorn. This makes no sense if the earth is flat, but it works out perfectly on a globe. (See diagram No 1185zh) No 1185zi) Caleb Hubbell - Then of course there's the elevation of the sun above the horizon. If the earth is a globe, this makes perfect sense if the light from the sun is almost perfectly parallel. But on a flat earth, this would mean that the sun has to be in multiple places at the same time. (See diagram No 1185zi) No 1185zj) Caleb Hubbell - There are just too many positional paradoxes that are not reconcilable with a flat earth. (See diagram No 1185zj) No 1185zk) Caleb Hubbell (See diagram No 1185zk) No 1185zl) Reed Richards - The Coriolis effect. Google it. You will never be a flat Earther anymore. The Coriolis effect isn't CGI or manipulated by NASA. It's a real thing. No 1186) Adriatik Kastrati - How can both these be true? (See images No 1186a and b) (From original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155470390881795/ No 1186a) When things orbit they are balanced. Just like a space ship in orbit experiences micro gravity, because gravitational acceleration and centripetal acceleration are balanced, the same is true of other orbits. So, when you question how the moon can be orbiting the Earth, the Earth orbiting the sun and the sun orbiting the galaxy. They are all balanced systems. That is why we don't feel anything from those rotations! No 1186b) Star trails, like in your OP picture, is from the Earth rotating. it is rotating as it orbits the sun, but the other stars are so far away, relative to us that they hardly move during a rotation, a year or even a millennium. No 1186c) When we calculate and plot out the distance traveled vs Earth's orbit and the diameter of the solar system (out to Pluto), we see how exaggerated the motion, the OP picture is representing! (See diagram No 1186c) No 1187) Measured drop vs Apparent curve: There are two types of drop we can measure. The drop of the horizon form level (A), (I will call that the MEASURED DROP), and the drop on the edges of the arc, due to the fact that we are looking at part of a circle (B), (I will call that the Apparent curve.) -------------- i) When globers talk about the drop, we talk about the measured drop and the fact that the horizon is a level circle 360 degrees around (C). - We can measure this with survey equipment and the drop will be the same 360 degrees around, as one turns the level around in a circle. NOTE: One is always lookout straight ahead and measuring the drop of the horizon straight ahead. ii) Flat Earthers are always talking about being able to see the curve. By that, they mean being able to see enough of the circle to see the drop at the edges (D). - If we see a large enough field of view, i.e. a big enough arc/angle of the horizon we should be able to see it curve, because it is a circle One thing to note, when we are within the atmosphere. We are looking at the edge of this circle from a very SHALLOW angle! (See diagram No 1187a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155473404471795/ No 1187b) We can calculate the angle of this drop at the edges of the circle, within view. For example if we are 10 Km up, (about 33,000 feet), and we see a 60 degree field of view, then the; - measured drop (A) is 20,000 meters/347,000 meters = 3.21 degrees - The distance to the horizon (C) is 357 Km - The cross distance to the edge (D) is 309 Km (30 degree angle and 357 Km hypotheneus) - The drop from level of the edge is 3.7 degrees Therefore the visible drop from the center to the edge (D) is 3.7-3.21=0.49 degrees. (See diagram No 1187b) No1187c) Field of view of a human is 114 degrees. The field of view of a camera is dependent on several factors. Power of the lense, distance to the object or horizon etc. https://www.scantips.com/lights/fieldofview.html A 35 mm lense, 43 mm long has a 55 degree field of view. https://petapixel.com/2012/11/17/the-camera-versus-the-human-eye/ -------------- *** This means, 33,000 feet, we would be able to see curvature in person that the camera can't catch! No 1187d) Note that we compare the drop of the horizon from the level we see in front of us. We don't compare it from eye level, because we can't judge what eye level is! (See diagram No 1187d) No 1187e) Curvature App Simulation. Thank you Wahbi Oussama! http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Curvature%20App%3A%20Simulation%20of%20Globe-Earth%20and%20Flat-Earth No 1188) When gravity pulls the Earth into a ball, rock will bend and conform to the ball. Although on small scales we think of rocks as brittle, and or with large forces, like Earth quakes rocks will just snap, with slow, steady pressure, rock will bend and conform to the forces acting on them. Hence the Earth conforms to a ball. (See picture No 1188a) --------- Check out "Cody's Lab - Geo Sand Box with floating Perlite" on Youtube. For the source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFXHev_dLuE "Small arc segments of very large circles look flat"! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155474433396795/ No 1189) Gravimeter: ----------- We can measure changes in gravity across the surface of the Earth and figure out what is in the ground with a gravimeter. (See figure 1189) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155476074996795/ No 1189b) Accuracy of a gravimeter. A gravimeter is accurate to within ± 0.093 ± 0.003 milligal. A gal is a cm/s^2, so it is accurate from ±0.00000093 to ±0.00000003 m/s^2 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/TR018i001p00106/full No 1190) Flat Earthers often make excuse for why the sun is so low in the sky and things like atmospheric lensing. When we look at atmospheric lensing, we see that it makes things appear higher than the are actually are! The only explanation that makes sense, for the sun being so close the the horizon, is that the Earth is spherical. (See diagram No 1190a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155477132996795/ No 1190b) If lensing is causing us not to be able to see an object from a particular distance, then that same lensing should still be in effect when we go up, yet, it doesn't seem to be. There is no shimmer or distortion from this lensing as we go up! (See video No 1190b) - quad copter rising and going back down) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXdDXou4XXM No 1190c) Why does lensing end at a PERFECTLY STILL, LEVEL and STRAIGHT horizon, at exactly the same distance. *** A horizon that just happens to exactly match curvature! (See picture No 1190c) No 1190d) Atmospheric lensing: Atmospheric lensing makes the sun appear to be on the horizon, when it has already set low the horizon. Therefore, atmospheric lensing makes things appear higher in the sky, not lower in the sky! (See diagram No 1190d from link below) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction No 1191) Clarification, where ever you are everything is curving away from you. ------- The horizon is always the same distance 360 degrees around you. That is a basic property of a sphere. If you take your boat out to where the horizon is, then you are still looking at a horizon 360 degrees around you. *** The spot you are on is just as curved as any other part, so it won't look any different and you won't be able to tell it was part of a horizon from another location! (See diagram No 1191) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155477735621795/ No 1191b) We ALWAYS see, EVERYTHING up to the horizon, then things start dropping AFTER the horizon. *** This horizon is a 360 degree circle around us! (See diagram No 1191b) No 1191c) We should look at LARGE SHIPS AFTER the horizon, NOT small boats before or at the horizon. Hidden curvature starts AT the horizon, so 8 inches per mile squared, STARTING AT the horizon! That means large ships 9 to 12 miles out, with a hidden curvature of 24 to 54 feet. (See diagram No 1191c) No 1192) Video of sun using a proper solar filter: ----------- Anthony Trujillo - Yeah, no. Here's what a sunset actually looks like when you know how to camera. https://youtu.be/Mu9oYb4_AAo (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155478697166795/ No 1193) You are "above" everything BEFORE the horizon: -------------- Mahyar Shams - I know that the earth is motionless, do you? (See picture No 1193a) (See original post) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155480179201795/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155481678576795/ No 1193b) That's a beautiful picture! Unfortunately, you are only looking about half a mile across a lake. That's only about 2 inches of drop. (square of the distance 1^2 vs 0.5^2) Since you are 5 or 6 feet high. You are more than high enough to see over/across any drop to the end of the lake! *** Right up to the horizon, you are looking down on any water, so it is entirely visible! *** (See diagram No 1193b) No 1194) Rotating restaurant but we can't feel the motion: ------------ Nathan Grieg - Looks pretty fucking peaceful at the restaurant to me. But rotating 100 times faster than the earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9-lfqwtO04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fezfDGZ2a4 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155481807536795/ No 1195) Why do we have tides, if there is no gravity? ----------- Nathan Grieg - He's probably never heard of TIDES either. (See meme No 1195) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155481825136795/ No 1196) Why we have tides: Andy Haverland https://youtu.be/pwChk4S99i4 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155482098076795/ No 1196b) The moon pull water at an angle. This has a vector component directly towards the moon and in towards the bulge. That part that pulls in towards the bulge cause the high tide on the moon side AND the lower tide on the far side. (See diagram No 1196b) No 1197) Looking at distances North of, at the equator and south of the equator: ------------------ Tony Lampada - One argument I like to use with flat Earth people is asking them to explain shrinking south. Maybe you'll find this idea useful. (See website No 1197) https://medium.com/@notflat/could-the-earth-really-be-flat-94d256ffbca0 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155482761051795/ No 1198) The Shadow tracker experiment: Tony Lampada - Another idea is maybe suggesting the shadow trackers experiment. https://medium.com/@shadowtrackers/home-4e8faf3803ea If any of you want to actually do this, you may need my help. Just let me know. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155482799321795/ No 1199) The Celestial Planes Proof: (The Sun-wood slat demonstration) - Demonstrating Earth's Rotation - objects travel in planes crossing the Earth) If we align a flat piece of wood with the sun, so it creates a very thin shadow. That device will stay aligned all day long! Why doesn't the sun's angle change when it is moving across the sky? ... because the sun is moving in a plane. *** This plane is caused by the Earth's rotation, as the sun stays still! *** On a flat Earth, the sun's angle would change throughout the day. (See diagram No 1199) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155484868906795/ No 1200) For clarification, let us define it as; 1) Looking ACROSS the horizon - z axis curvature and 2) Looking ALONG the horizon - x axis curvature. It is much easier to see things drop behind the horizon, (looking ACROSS the horizon) than it is to judge the curve looking left and right, (looking ALONG the horizon). (See diagram No 1200) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155486590561795/ No 1201) Flat Earthers complain that we don't see the tilt that there is in my drawings. However, my drawing have an exaggerated horizontal scale, because the curve is so slight! If we drew the curve to scale, it would look like a flat line! See my example, across the entire picture, with 15 miles, we only drop 1 pixel! (See diagram No 1201) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155487353866795/ No 1202) Why do flat Earthers insist that north is up and south is down, when it has NOTHING to do with a globe, ignores gravity and the orientation of the sun and solar system? They literally choose an arbitrary direction for up and down, that ignores physics and 3D space! (See diagram No 1202) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155491401426795/ No 1203) Comparison of flat Earth and globe horizon: --------------- If we analyze what the flat Earth horizon should be like and what the globe Earth horizon should be like, then it proves that flat Earth doesn't fit with our observations. ------- If we look at the horizon, over large bodies of water, (to avoid land contours), we see: No 1203a) For flat Earth horizon; - The horizon should be level with the ground, so it should be below eye level - the horizon should "rise to eye level" at infinity - nothing should be on or behind the horizon (because it is at infinity) - when one zooms in, there should always be a horizon and water behind any object, rising to eye level - the distance to the horizon should be linear. i e. if you double your height, you should double the distance to the horizon (See diagram No 1203a) No 1203b) For a globe the horizon should; - be at a distance according to one's eye level and curvature calculations - the horizon should be twice the drop of one's elevation - the horizon's distance should get shorter, proportionately, relative to one's height - we should see everything BEFORE and AT the horizon - everything AFTER the horizon, it should drop st 8" per mile squared, STARTING at the horizon (See diagram No 1203b) ----------- We see exactly what we should see on a globe! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155492196551795/ No 1204) Answer to flat Earthers "Gravity holds the oceans down but..." argument: ------------ e.g. Tony Golledge - So one litre of water weighs 1kg.....this volume is apparently held down by gravity...if gravity has that much force i shouldn't be able to even lift my arm....but birds that weigh around 500grams can fly free.. explain this to me please ...its a google search about the approx amount of litres or gallons in the worlds oceans (See meme No 1204) (From original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155493345871795/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155495101481795/ No 1204a) Kail Weathers (See meme No 1204a) No 1204b) Stephen Flavell - Because we evolved muscles like every other creature on the planet NO 1204c) Toni Milner - The dead weight of water cannot be compared to the live weight of anything. Birds have muscles and wings.. hollow bones. They are literally built to fly. If you can't lift 1 kg of water I feel sorry for you. Gravity affects mass. The muscles structure in your arm can counteract gravity for a time.. eventually you will have to put that bag back down. No 1204d) Ian Mcdonald - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity Because gravity relates to mass. The ocean has more mass than a bird or a human being. Simple. No 1204e) Lewis Rizk - Birds fly using Bernoulli's principle. They don't fucking hover. No 1204f-1) Lewis Rizk How about this. The weight that you so eloquently used as a basis for debunking gravity. Is only possible because gravity. Weight is nothing more than a measurement relative to gravity. Congratulations. You're stupid in 2 ways. No 1204f-2) - Tony Golledge - Show me the scientific formula for gravity. .. ???? Thats right...there is no such thing No 1204f-3) Lewis Rizk - Tony Golledge (See meme No 1205f-3) No 1204f-4) Anthony Trujillo w=mg No 1204g) Lewis Rizk - Airplanes fly too. And can weigh over 1 million pounds. Mind blown. No 1204h) Joe Haley - birds have things known as wings. No 1204i) Lex Verdillo - Gravity attracts based on an object's mass. so if i say i weight 1kg, then that is the force of me being attracted to earth. the same to the mass of water. gravity is not a constant number of weight. but a constant force of attraction applied to a mass. birds can fly because they can negate their weight by making thrust using wings. so if a bird flies at a constant altitude, then its thrust applied is more or the same as its own weight No 1204j) Tyler Welling - It affects everything on a molecular level. (Technically an atomic level) which means the more dense the molecule, the larger the force of gravity will be. Imagine you had something made of 1 trillion atoms. And another thing made of 500 billion of similar atoms. The object with 1 trillion atoms would weigh twice as much. Waters weight is figured by the amount of mass per volume (density). So while flerfs are correct in saying that density is related to gravity, they're wrong in saying density IS gravity. No 1204k-1) To Tony Golledge What is the force of gravity on 1 Kg of water? (Let's use Kg as the force.) 1) How much does a Kg of water weigh? 2) Does that Kg of water weigh more, when I dump it in the ocean? 3) How much does each Kg of water in the ocean weigh? No 1204k-2) Science just describes what we see nature doing. Gravity is a description of the forces acting on each Kg of matter! No 1204k-3) You saying gravity is wrong, is saying sciences description of what nature does is wrong. BUT it isn't. The description models what is happening in real life very well! No 1204l) Rhett Kanis - If your bird weighs 500 grams, then all he needs to do is generate 501 grams of lift and he’s flying. No 1204m) Gravity acts per Kg, (a unit of mass), it is not "additive" the way the flat Earthers insist on doing it: -------------- Gravity is in everything, that means everything pulls on everything else. The average pull on a liter of water is 9.81 newtons (1 Kg x 9.81 m/s^2). That's it. ----------------------- *** Just because the ocean has a lot of water doesn't mean you can add the force on all the water and assume it's a huge force acting on a smaller object! NO! It is 9.81 newtons per Kg, for every Kg. No MORE and no less. So, that bird weighing 500 g, has 4.905 newtons of force on it (0.5 kg x 9.81 m/s^2). No MORE and no less! ------------------- *** So stop taking the entire ocean and equating the force acting on the entire ocean to the force acting on a smaller object! *** No 1204n) You wouldn't take the force of a big electro-magnet, picking up a car, and assume it is applying the same total force to a smaller piece of metal! So why are you doing it for the oceans and a bird? No 1204o) How things fly: ----------- Gravity is ONE of the FOUR forces acting on an object, when it flies. The other three are, LIFT, DRAG and THRUST. http://howthingsfly.si.edu/forces-flight/four-forces No 1204p) To Tony Golledge What is the force of gravity, acting on a Kg of water in that ocean? *** Lets assume a Kg is weight, (equal to 9.81 newtons, although that is only true on Earth), how may Kg's does a Kg of water weigh? *** No 1204q) Dan Orlovsky - You know, even IF the Earth was flat, which it's not... but even IF it was, something would have to keep us on it. No 1204r) Nadja Schaeffer - Birds produce lift. If it stops it falls. No 1205) Gravity revisited: Everything accelerates at the same rate, in a vacuum. ------------------ There are plenty of videos demonstrating this. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155495105251795/ e.g. No 1205a) Examples of things, of different density, falling in a vacuum. Feather and coin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV-qyDnZx0A Hammer and feather: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RKAb5accC0 Guinea and Feather: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXDZWKmRxI0 Coin and Feather - Teacher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVktTyEtcBQ (Brian Cox) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs (See diagram No 1205a) No 1205b) In order for acceleration, *** a force must act on an object. *** Question: What force, in flat Earth is making things accelerate at 9.81 m/S^2, on Earth's surface? Density doesn't have a force associated with it. The density of an object doesn't affect it's acceleration. One experiences the same force per unit mass, in a vacuum, regardless of an objects density! No 1205c) Cars have to have hundreds of horsepower to accelerate them forward. Going zero to 60 mph in 5 seconds is considered fast and takes a lot of force. (60 mph is 96.560 Kph or 26.8224 m/s). If you fell, you would go zero to 60 mph in 2.734 seconds! Way faster than any dragster! *** Where does all this force come from? *** No 1205d) The all important question is why is that FORCE in the downward direction? No 1205e-1) Jeffrey Dommer - It is but if the cause is gravity the bowling ball ought to fall fastest in a vacuum. No 1205e-2) Gravity pulls with the same force on all masses. 9.81 Newtons per Kg. So, lighter or heavier, every Kg of mass has the same force on it. Therefore, every Kg of mass accelerates at the same rate. ------------- Density doesn't change the acceleration! No 1205e-3) Jeffrey Dommer - No each object should have its own gravity shouldn't it? Therefore the bowling ball having more mass should fall faster even if just slightly. No 1205e-4) To Jeffrey Dommer The Earth is pulling on the mass! *** The Earth pulls on each Kg of mass. *** The force of gravity generated by 1 Kg of mass is tiny! 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 The Earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg So, the Earth pulls on every Kg of mass with 9.81 newtons of force! --------------------------------- 1) Each Kg pulls on the Earth with a very tiny force 2) ALL THE MASSES ADDED UP pull on each other with 9.81 newtons per kg! 3) *** EVERYTHING ON EARTH, including yourself, adds up to 9.81 newtons/Kg. *** ---------------- That is how gravity works. You add up all the mass, not just your mass! No 1205e-5) Jeffrey Dommer - So Jupiter and earth would accelerate towards one another at the same speed as a feather and earth if they were all in a vacuum? No 1205e-6) To Jeffrey Dommer No, the Earth is very big compared to you and me, a bowling ball etc. The Earth hardly moves, so we appear to accelerate towards it at 9.81 m/s^2. Both objects accelerate towards each other at 9.81 m/s^2. Guess which one does most of the moving, the bowling ball or the Earth? --------------- In reality it might be something like, Bowling ball 9.80999999999 m/s^2 and Earth 0.0000000000001 m/s^2. 9.81m/s^2 is the TOTAL for BOTH OBJECTS! *** The bigger object travels less and the smaller object travels more, proportional to their mass. *** No 1205e-7) Another example is, if you have a Kg, the Earth pulls on it with 1 Kg and the mass pulls on the Earth with 1 Kg (9.81 newtons) of force. The total acceleration is 9.81 m/s^2. Which moves more? : ) No 1206) You would weigh more at sea level than at the top of a mountain: ------------- "By one estimate, a person who weighs 150 pounds on the surface of the earth would weigh approximately 149.92 pounds at 10,000 feet above sea level." Source; http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/23/science/q-a-altitude-and-weight.html https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/8222/does-a-mountain-top-have-higher-gravity-than-a-nearby-sea-level-surface (See diagram No 1206) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155495107486795/ No 1206B) The average weight of a mass on the ground vs on an airplane: -------- Weight on the ground: 500 (calibrated 32 degrees south latitude) Weight in the air going west: 499 grams (430 knots, 33,000 feet) Weight in the air going east: 495 grams (550 knots, 41,000 feet, flown at 34 degrees south latitude) Average weight in the air: (499+495)/2 = 497 grams There was a 0.6% difference in weight! reference; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy0erMiS6xs No 1207) Jet engines vs rockets. Both jet engines and rockets produce thrust, with the hot gases that pushing on the engines and the exhaust leaving the back at high speeds (action, reaction). The only difference is the jet engine gets it's oxygen from the air and the rocket carries it's own supply of oxygen, so DOESN'T need any air! (See illustration No 1207) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155496414126795/ No 1207b) Geoff Broad - How Do Space Rockets Work Without Air? https://www.livescience.com/34475-how-do-space-rockets-work-without-air.html No 1208) The rule vs the exception: (Revisited) THE RULE: People ignore the rest of the time when nothing is visible. - Ships visible 9 to 12 miles away but NOT more than 15 - Cities visible 30 to 50 miles away but NOT more than 60 - The horizon visible 230 miles away from the highest mountain top, but NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING ever visible more than 300 miles away! Where are the; - Mountain RANGES? - Snow fields? - Wheat fields? - The ENTIRE OCEAN behind the horizon? Zoom out, where are they? *** Things that are huge and span the entire horizon, YET are mysteriously NOT visible! *** -------------------- Flat Earths nit-pick EXCEPTIONS, yet ignore the obvious, MOST of the TIME, MOST of the World is hidden from view! *** Even over a flat Ocean, from a ship 100 feet up, where is the entire expanse of the ocean? -------------------- Globe Earth is the RULE, flat Earthers are looking at EXCEPTIONS! *** Look out another 10 miles and their exceptions disappear! *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155496200271795/ No 1209) Minimum and maximum distances to the flat Earth sun. Here is a basic calculation of the minimum and maximum distance and angles to the setting sun. The sun would be 25.6 and 12.1 degrees above the horizon, respectively. --------------------- The height is 3,000 miles and the diameter of the flat Earth is 25,000 miles. (See diagram No 1209a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155496932936795/ No 1209b) The horizontal distances are 6,250 miles and 13,975 miles from shortest to longest, respectively. (See diagram No 1209b) No 1209c) Carlos Castañeda - I borrowed this from somebody else. Just a complement of your post. (See meme No 1209c) No 1210) Some basics for the horizon and why it looks flat: 1) The horizon is a level line 360 degrees around. 2) You are looking at the horizon from a very shallow angle, which makes any curve look flatter. No 1210a) The horizon is a level line, 360 degrees around. So, when you turn your head, looking for a curve, you aren't going to drop your head or anything, because the horizon is at the same level all the way around! (See diagram No 1210a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155497354196795/ No 1210b) Since you are looking at the horizon from a very shallow angle, whatever curve there is looks flatter! From ground level, it is practically a level line! (See diagram No 1210b) No 1211) "That support for pushing off from has to be taken up there also" Laurent Besson - Look at this time boat is static! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr4-96Qu5GQ Brilliant Laurent, thank you! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155497392006795/ No 1212) Model of the flat Earth: Sun Angles (See diagram No 1212) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155498844256795/ No 1213) Horizon drop at varying altitudes: Anthony Trujillo https://youtu.be/NqOQ_BCtqUI (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155499028266795/ No 1214) Experiment showing level water is curved: The targets are along the same line (sloping down). The water level is higher in the middle than at the ends. (See diagram No 1214) (See video No 1214b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uwvx7-x98U (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155499101546795/ No 1214a) First station No 1214b) Middle station No 1214c) Third station No 1214d) The total geography of the situation is that the rigs are dropping along a curved elevation. They have been set in a straight line so they aren't level with the ground. The water level follows the level of the ground and it is a curve. (See diagram No 1214d) No 1215) Anti-crepuscular rays: Just like parallel rays from the sun seem to diverge. The opposite is true on the opposing horizon. These are called anti-crepuscular rays. We see the full moon in this picture as well! (See picture No 1215) (See link No 1215b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticrepuscular_rays (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155500262741795/ No 1216) Antarctica Cup Ocean Race Acronautic: Jeremy Williams http://www.acronautic.com/antartica-cup-ocean-race/ Jeremy Williams - We know the equator is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference. I've highlighted the equator in red on what I gather to be the flat map that most of you can agree on. I've also drawn what would be a typical route for a team that is racing the Antarctica cup, that circle is a bluish purple. Can you tell me, using your flat map, how the purple circle can possibly be 14000 miles while the red circle is 25,000 miles? (See diagram No 1216) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155503448336795/ No 1217) Ways of Measuring Earth's Dimensions: ------- Nathan Grieg - You can measure the dimensions of the earth yourself in several ways: 1. Measure horizon drop with a theodolite. You can get the actual dimensions of the earth from that 2. Find two places with sunrise or sunset exactly an hour apart (half hour is probably more realistic) that is on a straight east-west road. Confirm sunrise or sunset times. Drive between the two point. Multiply x24.(or 48) Easy peasy. 3. Measure with a telescope. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcdBFfoi3uU (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155503576196795/ No 1218) Last nights total lunar eclipse (2018-01-31): Dave Greg - My best shots of tonight's total lunar eclipse during totality. Shot with my Nikon P900 camera. Tauranga, New Zealand. https://www.facebook.com/groups/dazzathecameraman/permalink/1163139003816845/ (See pictures No 1218a-1 to 1218a-9i) (From original post) https://www.facebook.com/groups/143752942921617/permalink/164452390851672/ Check time and date of lunar eclipse: https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/lunar/2018-january-31 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155505099541795/ (Picture No 1218a-1) No 1218b) Steve Markiewicz - From my son in Perth , Australia, Nikon P900, no tripod. (See picture No 1218b) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/266270063883533/permalink/317620218748517/ No 1219) Nathan Grieg - ... BTW, did you see Paul McCormacks' simultaneous lunar eclipse images? (See meme No 1219) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155508004411795/ No 1219b) How can we have everyone see the moon, at roughly the same angle, on a flat Earth, where the moon is so close and the diameter of the Earth is so large by comparison? (See diagram No 1219b) No 1220) Why we see totally different stars from summer to winter: --------------- Justin Miller - We see totally different stars from summer to winter. (See meme No 1220) (See original OP if you wish to discuss it) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155503451926795/ (See my OP "No 1220") https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155508008006795/ No 1220a) Polaris gets lower in the sky as you go south: ------------- Nathan Grieg - Also, why does Polaris get lower and lower in the sky at you go towards the equator? Doesn't make much sense on a flat earth with a dome that moves. (See meme No 1219a) No 1220b) What happens if one is south of the equator looking at star trails north? The north pole would be UNDERGROUND and you would get a pin wheel effect, mostly hidden below the horizon! Even more extreme than in your pictures. ----------- How can we point a camera to the north pole underground on a flat Earth? No 1220c) Caleb Hubbell (See meme No 1220c) No 1220d) Erik Laudal Christensen (See meme No 1220d) No 1220e) Two hemispheres of stars. Geoff Broad (See meme No 1220e) No 1220f) Rodney Tresch - This may help, Justin..... It specifically shows those constellations of the zodiac, but it shows when they are not visible due to their being positioned 'behind' the sun..... Orion, is located with Taurus. Hence it is nssssssssot visible at night in May-July. (See meme No 1220f) No 1220g) Here's a question. *** Where do the stars go, for half a year on the flat Earth? (See diagram No 1220g) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155508372496795/ No 1220h) This is my PLANOSPHERE. (See picture No 1220h) It is a chart of ALL the stars visible form my latitude, in the northern hemisphere, throughout the year. Notice, that a good 40% of the sky is visible any night of the year. We slowly move the window, 1/365.24th of a circle every day. -------------- More importantly, there is an equivalent one for the southern hemisphere. That means the northern and southern hemisphere are IDENTICAL, in shape and size. *** The southern hemisphere should be bigger on a flat Earth. *** - So, why isn't it? No 1220i) Dave Greg - Justin Miller here is a little video I made addressing the same question from someone else (btw I note that you have not been back to respond).... https://www.facebook.com/dave.greg1/videos/1612271555522885/ No 1221) Satellite flare: ------------- Todd Moore - Satellite flare, also known as satellite glint, is the phenomenon caused by the reflective surfaces on satellites (such as antennas, SAR or solar panels) reflecting sunlight directly onto the Earth below and appearing as a brief, bright "flare". (See meme No 1221) Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare (See original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/266270063883533/permalink/318331868677352/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155508011731795/ No 1221b) Todd Moore - For those who understand geosynchronous orbit, this pic needs no explanation. (See meme No 1221b) No 1222) Polaris is not at the center of the north pole: When we align an equatorial mount, Polaris is in a ring AROUND the north pole. Polaris is NOT at the north pole! It is just the star that is the closest to the north pole at this time. (See picture No 1222) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155508218856795/ No 1223) Two points on a globe can't be more than 180 degrees apart: --------------- No 1223a) We often hear the argument that seeing the moon at the same time from two locations on the Earth is impossible, because they are on opposite sides of the Earth. However, if two points are more than a 180 degrees apart, e.g. 200 degrees apart, then when the moon swings around to the other side, the two points are only 160 degrees apart (360-200=160). This is true for any two points. (See diagram No 1223a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155508523666795/ No 1223b) As well, the pacific ocean takes up almost 1/2 of the Earths surface. That means that all the land around the world is basically on one half of the Earth. Therefore, there are no points, in a inhabited area, which can't see the same part of the sky at the same time, at one time or another. No 1223c) Example: No 1223c-1) Bruce Ing - Clayton Holmes Why don't you grab a globe yourself. So much of what flat Earthers claim, could be explained and you could figure out yourself with a 4 dollar globe and some string from the dollar store! No 1223c-2) Clayton Holmes - Bruce Ing i did. So follow the white line to its end points. When you get to one end point tell me how the other endpoint can see what you see in the sky at the same time on a Sphere? (See image No 1223c-2) No 1223c-3) Clayton Holmes - It is impossible to see the same thing at the same time from this end point in Australia to that end point in the United States. (See image No 1223c-3) No 1223c-4) Bruce Ing Here is a picture from the DSCOVR:EPIC satellite, from Jan. 30, 2018. Notice you can see Australia, at the edge, (It's dawn, bottom left) and North America at the other edge (It's dusk, top right). https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (See image No 1223c-4) No 1223d) Analysis of example: - The distance indicated was 11,113.15 miles (17,884.64 Km). The circumference of the Earth is about 24,901 miles or 40,070 Km. Anything less than half that diameter, (12450.5 miles or 20035 Km), is always going to be on the same side of the Earth, even if the two places are very close to the horizon. There is about 2,150 Km to spare in this case. *** AND if it was more than half way around, just turn the globe around and voila, you have less than half the distance! NOTE: A lot of the distance is not obvious, because it is curving away from you, towards the horizon at the edges of the picture. (See picture No 1223d) No 1223e) One thing to note, when you are looking at a globe, you should always be looking straight down on the line, going across the middle of the globe. That is the shortest distance. It is a circle going all the way around the Earth, and it is called a "GREAT CIRCLE". It helps to use a string on a physical globe, as that automatically pulls tight into the shortest distance. It may make a big difference to whether you can see that two places are in line, if it is not directly over the line. (See picture No 1223e-1). No 1223e-2) Here is a picture of it directly in line, with the path down the middle of the globe. (See picture No 1223e-2) No 1224) A rotating ball compared to the Earth: ---------------- Richard B. Ang (See video No 1224) https://www.facebook.com/flatearthresearch/videos/1840090792968787/ (See his OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155508551036795/ (See OP "No 1224") https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155508659786795/ No 1224a) The rotational speed of a 1 foot radius ball, to be equivalent to the Earth's centripetal acceleration is about 0.222 rpm. That ball is going about 300 rpm, (5 times a.second x 60 seconds), or about 1,351 TIMES faster than a ball should go to simulate the Earth's centripetal acceleration! It's about 4,320,000 TIMES faster than the Earth is rotating! (See calculations for equivalent rotation for 1 foot diameter object - No 1224a) No 1224b) Orrsam Abubaker should be w^2 * r but all the calculations are done right. (See meme No 1224b) No 1225) Things that are impossible on a flat Earth with a close moon are very possible on a globe Earth with big distances: ---------- Flat Earthers will claim there is no way to see the moon at the same time from opposite sides of the Earth. (See meme No 1225) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155509848396795/ No 1225a) If we look at where the moon would be visible for any location, e.g. horizon to horizon, we find that there are places where neither would be able to see the moon, only one would be able to see the moon and both with be able to see the moon. (See diagram No 1225a) No 1225b) As we get farther out, the area where we they can both see the moon gets bigger! (See diagram No 1225b) NO 1225c) So, on a flat Earth, where they assume the moon is close, they will complain that you can't see something at the same time. HOWEVER, the globe model has the moon much farther out. So, there is a very wide area where you can see the moon at the same time! ------- Here is a diagram with the Earth, moon and distance to scale. There is plenty of area where the moon is visible from both locations! (See diagram No 1225c) No 1226) De Sam - If you ever wonder WHY Flat Earthers don't post time-lapse pictures of the MOTION of the Sun or the Moon, this is why....It clearly shows an orbit with an orbital Apogee and Perigee....and debunks a Flat Earth. The Moon is NOT magically hovering above a flat Earth in a 360 circle while chasing the Sun....Not one person on Earth has ever witnessed that, Ever! *This photo is of a full moon Lunar eclipse (timelapse)....The "dark sections" are NOT lunar phases, it's the Earth blocking the sunlight during the event. (See picture No 1226) (See his OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155509604221795/ No 1227) Moon's synchronous rotation: De Sam - There is a reason for that Kenneth Banks....The Moon IS spinning/rotating WHILE orbiting a spherical Earth....just like every other Moon in our solar system. (See video No 1227) https://www.facebook.com/desammz/videos/932575206899730/?hc_location=ufi No 1228) Atmospheric refraction makes things appear higher, not lower: --------------- When fish look out, from the denser water to the less dense air, things look higher than they actually are. (See diagram No 1228) The same is true from sunlight coming into the atmosphere. It is going from less dense air to more dense air. A continuous gradient. So it curves continuously as it comes through at an angle. *** Therefore, the sun appears higher in the sky than it actually is. *** The flat Earth sun, actually appears from 0.3 to 0.9 degrees HIGHER than it actually is, due to atmospheric refraction, never lower! (See diagram No 1228a) (See reference No 1228b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155511160701795/ No 1228c) When we look at a glass of water, we see it follows this pattern. The pencil looks higher to the observe and from underwater, the observer would look higher than it actually is. (See picture No 1228c) No 1228d) Unlike in a pencil in a glass of water, air density changes gradual, so light is bent in a continuous curve, as it comes down. However, the total curving is only about 0.3 to 0.9 degrees. (See diagram No 1228d) No 1229) Flat Earth models of flat table, and poles, not in line, are using a curved table! ---------------- Douglas Costa (See video on his OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155511304896795/ (Video No 1229) This video is dishonest. The table is curved! ---------- No 1229a) Here is an example with a straight and flat table. See Picture No 1229a-1 - setup Picture No 1229a-2 - straight and level Picture No 1229a-3 - Nothing hidden, no bulge in middle of table! Picture No 1229a-4 - setup of batteries in line, equally spaced Picture No 1229a-5 - Nothing hidden, when we bring eye level down to table. Picture No 1229a-6 - Zoom in on end Picture No 1229a-7 - zoom in right to end No 1229b) Curved Line at the end. See Picture 1229b-1 - setup Picture 1229b-2 - Down near table Picture 1229b-3 - right down at edge of table Picture 1229b-4 - line near curved end Picture 1229b-5 - zoomed in on end, right down at the tables edge. Note: That haze is my camera right at the table line No 1230) Magnetic, geomagnetic and true poles: No 1230a) The magnetic poles are not at the same location as the axis of rotation (the True north or south pole). The magnetic poles wander. (See diagram No 1230a-1 - south pole) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155514223766795/ References: Magnetic north vs geographic north http://gisgeography.com/magnetic-north-vs-geographic-true-pole/ South magnetic pole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Magnetic_Pole No 1230a-2 - Diagram No 1230a-2 - north pole) No 1230b) Magnetic vs geomagnetic north and south poles http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/poles/polesexp.html - The Geomagnetic poles (dipole poles) are the intersections of the Earth's surface and the axis of a bar magnet hypothetically placed at the center the Earth by which we approximate the geomagnetic field. (e.g. where a compass would point to.) - The magnetic poles are the points at which magnetic needles become vertical. - The true poles, are where the axis of rotation pass through. (See illustration No 1230b) No 1230c) If we plot the direction for the south magnetic pole on a flat Earth, we see that it all points south of Australia, meaning it's pointing in every which direction, depending on what continent and what longitude you are at, around the flat Earth! (See diagram No 1230c) No 1231) Magnetic declination: Compasses don't point to true north or true south. They point at an approximate location that we call geomagnetic poles. These points wander. The difference in angle between the true pole and the magnetic pole, is called the declination. When we navigate with compasses, we have to take this angle into account. (See diagram No 1231) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_declination (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155514236061795/ No 1232) Earth's axis of rotation changes location, it wanders: The Earth's axis of rotation is not fixed. It wanders with respect to true north. (See diagram No 1232a) This motion is called POLAR MOTION. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation Polar motion varies by a few meters over time with respect to the geographic poles (true poles). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_motion (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155514276721795/ No 1232b) *** Therefore, what we call true north, is an arbitrarily fixed location. It is a political location, for convenience only! (See diagram No 1232b) No 1233) The poles and their significance: Poles are Political Definitions ONLY! ----------------- The north and south poles (True north and south) are political/geographic locations. *** They do NOT co-inside with any natural poles! *** - The magnetic pole, isn't even pointing to True North, so why choose the north pole? - The celestial north pole wanders in a 26,000 year cycle - The axis of rotation wanders over time - The geo-political north pole isn't related to any of these! The geographic north pole, is therefore ARBITRARY! *** A flat Earther has to ask, WHAT IS THE FLAT EARTH NORTH POLE based on? *** The flat Earth picking the north pole as the center, is literally basing the flat Earth on a globe! *** (See collage No 1233) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155514300071795/ No 1234) Why do we use 360 degrees to describe the Earth? ------------ Peter Mirtitsch - Douglas Costa if the world is flat, why have navigators been using degrees, minutes and seconds for millenia, as if the world is spherical? http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/LongitudeIntro.html (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155514337646795/ No 1234b) Why do we have an equator? - On the flat Earth the equator isn't at the center. Either the circumference is too small or the diameter of the Earth is too big. A 25,000 mile diameter flat Earth and a 24,901 mile diameter equator just don't fit together on a flat Earth! (See diagram No 1234b) No 1234c) Carlo Manuel Teves Mendoza - Or International date line? No 1235) Definition of a meter and the Pole to Equator distance: --------- Todd Moore - The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole. In 1799, it was redefined in terms of a prototype metre bar (the actual bar used was changed in 1889). In 1960, the metre was redefined in terms of a certain number of wavelengths of a certain emission line of krypton-86. In 1983, the current definition was adopted. If the Earth is flat, this distance becomes a radius of a circle. Using 10,000km distance from North Pole to equator as a radius we get 62,831km for circumference at the equator. This is not even close to the 40,075km established circumference at the equator. THEREFORE Earth is sphere. (From original Post) https://www.facebook.com/groups/266270063883533/permalink/319326711911201/ No 1236) Todd Moore - Bruce Ing If you haven't already, feel free to check out my other posts of science at following page. http://m.facebook.com/FlatEarthFailure/?ref=bookmarks No 1237) The Constant Angle Proof: ---------- If we take a protractor, on a stick, and align it with the sun, we will see that the sun will move 15 degrees per hour, every hour. This will happen from sun rise, to sun set. Even though the distances near the horizon would be much farther, and the distances overhead, would be much closer, the sun goes at a constant rate! It does NOT speed up, overhead, (1,049 mph remember), and slow down as it gets farther away, (Seeing longer distance from a very shallow angle. Instead, it stays moving at 15 degrees per hour. This could not happen if the sun is close and at a constant height of 3,000 miles? (In fact this couldn't happen on a globe if it were standing still either!) It can only happen if we are turning and the other objects are relatively stationary. *** This is because the world turns at 15 degrees per hour, not the sun moving overhead! *** (See diagram No 1237) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155515857586795/ No 1237b) When we calculate the distances, we find the lower the sun gets the greater the distances get. In order to set on the horizon, say 1 degree above the horizon, the sun has to be hundreds of thousands of miles away. Meaning it has to go hundreds of times faster than at high noon. (See picture No 1237b) No 1238) Video of Rogers center from across the lake. We see videos from Fort Erie, 30.84 miles away, showing the roof of the rogers center. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHK4Yb7wKI&feature=youtu.be Although normally we would not be able to see it, we see some of it. That is likely due to miraging, as the air is very hazy and wavy at these times. *** The thing to note is there is STILL 150 feet of the city hidden behind the horizon, even with atmospheric miraging! *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155516260501795/ No 1238b) Here is a picture of the city from the video and a clear close view for comparison. It was impossible to fit a picture of the CN Tower and match the top and bottom. When the top matches the 500 foot hidden curvature also matches. It isn't clear, but there may be a lot of new taller buildings on the skyline. Alternatively there is just a lot of distortion which is flattening out the video, however, this only seems to flatten the bottom half of the picture! --------- *** As with any good investigation, there are times when we should say, there are more unknowns than knowns, and this is one of them. *** (See Analysis Picture No 1238b) No 1238c) One thing to note, is that the office towers are much taller than any of the condo's are allowed to be. The white tower in the background is almost 1,000 feet tall, but only seems to be 600 feet tall, if that line is correct! (See picture No 1238c) No 1238d) I think the problem is comparing close up shots of the Toronto Skyline, with the buildings near the lakeshore very close and the tall buildings very far away with a fuzzy video. The proportions just aren't right! No 1238e) Upon revisiting the issue, when I compare the Top of the CN Tower to the missing part on the bottom, I find that there is a lot of the tower hidden by the curve. - About 527 feet hidden. The buildings on the water front, are likely new. That is why there is a very bright white building that is never visible in any of the pictures that are presented. (It is likely that the Toronto waterfront is no longer worthy of photography!) The Toronto skyline has been home to numerous large and tall condo developments in the last 5 years. (As of the writing of this article - Feb 4/5, 2018). It is likely that ALL those buildings are new and much taller than the old ones. Mystery solved! (See Pictures No 1238e-1) No 1238e-2 Here are my measurements and quick calculations for the ratios and heights. ---------------------- Pixels Difference - First: Bottom - Internet picture of the Toronto skyline 408 451-408=43 vs 345 feet 451 497-451=46 vs 369 feet 497 634-497=137 vs 1099 feet 634 Total=634-408=226 vs 1814 feet - Next: top - video picture 76 117-76=41 vs 345 117 162-117=45 vs 369 162 231-162=69 vs ? = 573 feet 231 Total Height=155 vs ? = 1,287 feet visible About 1814-1287=527 feet of the Toronto Skyline is hidden (See diagram No 1238e-2) No 1239) Definitions of moons: ---------- Super Moon - when the moon is closest to us in it's orbit and a full moon Blue Moon - Second full moon in the same month Blood Moon - The Earth passes between the sun and the moon, and the Earth's umbra, tinted red from light going through the atmosphere around the edged of the Earth, tints the moon red. Smarter Every Day video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9reizHjwuNY (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155517549966795/ No 1239b) Another thing to note, is the sun is just coming up, at the same time that they are catching the lunar eclipse. (See picture No 1239b) No 1240) ISS Transit, Solar Eclipse and sun coming up at the same time: If the ISS isn't real and the sun and moon aren't close, then how can Smarter Every Day predict the ISS transiting, (going in front of), the sun, them watch the solar eclipse, on the same day, at the same spot? The ISS transit was timed to the second! (See screenshot No 1240) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155517875646795/ No 1240b) Link to Smarter Everyday's "Space Station Transiting 2017 ECLIPSE" video (See video No 1240b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepQoU4oek4 No 1240c) Also here is a picture of the ISS transiting across the sun. (See picture 1240c-1 to 1240c-4) (Picture No 1240c-1) (Picture No 1240c-2) (Picture No 1240c-3) (Picture No 1240c-4) No 1240d) Collage of all the photos. (Picture No 1240d) No 1241) We can't see satellites, because we don't bother learning how to track or find them: De Sam - These are satellites in VARIOUS orbits....So when someone asks "If there's a bazillion satellites orbiting Earth, why can't I see any of them?" It's simply because you most likely spend more time being tricked into doubting them, than you actually spend learning how to track them...Satellites exist, and Earth is a sphere, accept it. Video of satellites: (See video No 1241) https://www.facebook.com/desammz/videos/939327682891149/ No 1242) Falcon heavy launch! Check out time index 27:09 for falcon9's double landing! (on the live video) (Or 1:27 on the short version) (See video No 1242) https://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2018/feb/06/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-elon-musk-live-updates (See Picture No 1242b) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155520457746795/ No 1242c) Uninterrupted footage of the Falcon Heavy launching and booster landing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59pY74ZhQ50&feature=youtu.be No 1243) Live cam from Starman: Live streaming video from the Tesla vehicle with the the Astronaut suit, nick named "Starman", currently orbiting the Earth. (2018-02-06 6:10 PM Toronto Time) Soon to be headed to Mars! (See video No 1243a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBr2kKAHN6M (See Picture No 1243b) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155520506191795/ No 1243c) Real time tracking of Starman: (See link No 1243c) https://www.n2yo.com/?s=43205 No 1243d) Joe Haley Telescope confirmation of starman. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.space.com/39647-spacex-tesla-roadster-spotted-in-space.html (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155535172326795/ No 1243e) Where is starman? http://www.whereisroadster.com/ No 1243f) Can a car really survive space? (See video No 1243f) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tAqwl0V-gw No 1244) A DYI Theodolite to measure the dip of the horizon: You can make your own level and theodolite and measure the drop of the horizon from level for yourself. *** The one thing I would alter is setting the end of the level as your mark so when you sight the horizon on the cardboard you can read of the degrees directly. (See video No 1244) https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/ (See Picture No 1244b to 1244e) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155520902026795/ No 1245) Inertia means thing keep doing what they do, unless acted on by another force: ----------- Inertia means things want to keep doing what they are doing. If you let go of a balloon or a bowling ball, it wants to stay where it is. However they don't. The balloon accelerates into the air and the bowling ball accelerates down to the ground. *** It takes a force to accelerate things. ----------- In science the force comes from gravity. Where is this force coming from in FE? (See definition No 1245) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/search/?query=No%201245 No 1246) How do they fake comets, slowly going around the sun over a period of a month? - How is that explained on a flat Earth, if there is no such thing as gravity? (See picture No 1246) Comets go towards the sun, and their tail is facing away from the sun. Comets go away from the sun, and their tails are facing away from the sun (in the direction they are travelling!). They leave for years, sometimes hundreds of years and come back at a predictable time. How is that explained by a flat Earth centered universe? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155522133661795/ No 1247) Rocket sonic booms before landing: For those of you insist the landings were fake. There were three sonic booms for each rocket. One from the engines, one from the tail fins and one from the top fins. How did they fake the landing, along with the rocket launch? Also, there are numerous photographers taking pictures in this video, so plenty of witnesses. One final thing, one booster did land about 2 seconds before the other one, as some people were saying, so yes, there was a delay between the two landings. Put your headphones on and enjoy! (See video No 1247) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImoQqNyRL8Y (See picture No 1247b) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155522371681795/ No 1247c) Kenny Esskeyedeemore shared Rich Miller's post. https://www.facebook.com/rich.miller.984/videos/10215295014555805/ No 1248) Detecting Earth's Rotation using a Large Area Sagnac Interferometer: ----------- Carlos Hugo Castillo Luevano - Do you like youtube videos? Here you are. (See video No 1248) https://youtu.be/qy_9J_c9Kss No 1249) Exposure. Asking why we can't see stars. (See FE Meme No 1249) (See original OP for source of meme) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155524707781795/ Day time shots; - Very low sensitivity - very short exposure (1/250th to 1/1,000th of a second) Night time/stars; - Very high sensitivity - very long exposure (5-10 seconds to several minutes, even hours!) ------ I'll edit the pictures or add some when I get home tonight... (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155527694166795/ No 1249b) Peter Mirtitsch http://www.iflscience.com/space/why-can-t-we-see-stars-in-space-photographs/ No 1249c) 1) The moon picture is DURING THE DAY, your star pictures are DURING THE NIGHT. Try taking a picture of stars during the day and see if you get a sky full of stars. 2) Also, your star pictures are LONG exposure pictures! So, you are comparing day and night, literally! ------ The difference is BRIGHTNESS and EXPOSURE. No 1249d) The moon and the astronauts are standing in full sunlight. So they are a BILLiON TIMES brighter than the stars! *** IT IS DAYTIME! (With or without the blue sky) *** That's the whole point! No 1249e) Here is a picture of the moon overexposed. We may be able to see a star, if we overexpose the moon like that, but then, what is the point of taking the picture? *** They wanted to get a picture of the moon, NOT stars! *** (see picture No 1249e) No 1250) Meridians and Parallels: Ben Goodloe - How come a statute mile is 5280 feet and a nautical mile is 6000 feet and meridans change distance but parallels stay the same distance apart? How does that work if the earth is flat? (See his original OP for discussions) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155526569196795/ No 1250a) Definition of Meridians and Parallels: Meridians are lines of longitude, going north south, through the poles Parallels are lines of latitude going east west. (See diagram No 1250a) No 1250b) Nautical Mile: A nautical mile is one minute of latitude. That is, 1/60th of a degree. going north/south around the poles, 360 degrees. This translates to 1852 meters, in metric. (See diagram No 1250b) No 1250c) A meter: A meter was defined as 1/10 millionth the distance from the north pole to the equator, in 1799. (See diagram No 1250c) (It has now changed to the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre No 1251) Acceptable proofs that the Earth revolves around the sun: Courtesy of Bob Gumkowski http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2017/01/proof-earth-revolves-around-the-sun No 1252) Analyzing Captain Cooks travels: If the Equator is 24,901 miles, then the circumference of Antarctica is twice that, or 49,802 miles (24,901*2). - His route, accordingly would have been far greater than 70,000 miles on a flat Earth. If the diameter is correct, at 25,000 miles, then the diameter of Antarctica is 78,539 (25,000*Pi). He wouldn't have made it around Antarctica once, on a flat earth! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155532499546795/ No 1252a) If we look at a globe, the coastline of Antarctica is about 17,000 miles. The green line is about 61,120 miles (green), red line 43,010 miles and blue line 57,725 miles ((32,824 and 24,901 respectively). (See diagram No 1252a) No 1252b-1) If we look at the flat Earth map, then green line is about 54.5 cm or 82,575 miles. (See diagram No 1252b-1) No 1252b-2) The red line is about 40.5 cm or 43,454 miles. (See diagram No 1252b-2) -------------- Note, all estimates are conservative, so the actual values will be higher. *** If we look at the details and specifics, we will find that the values on a globe match what was recorded by Captain Cook and the flat Earth values are too big. No 1253) Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO): Courtesy of Roberto Wajszcuk https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/110 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155534930096795/ No 1254) De Sam - Heath Marter boldly proclaimed: "The International Space Station is FAKE!!" So I pulled up the ISS fly-over dates for his city/state....It will ORBIT over his entire state (Tennesee) for 4 mins today. I told him hours ago so he can prepare his PROOF that it's "1000% fake", and we can put this claim to rest....I can admit that I'm biased (because I watch it about 14 times every month), but I'm more than willing to invite proof of fakery....Here's your chance Heath. **It orbits over you 2wice 2marrow within 90 mins as well, so you can prove it's fake 3 times in less than 24 hours, good luck. (See schedule No 1254) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155533628976795/ No 1254b) De Sam // "Says a man who believes in imaginary satellites with no proof." // I have proof....satellites do exist sir. https://www.facebook.com/desammz/videos/939296912894226/ No 1254c) Sean Wright - 32 frames stitched together of the ISS in orbit. 32 L's for flat earthers. (See picture No 1254c) No 1255) How can rockets have a curved directory yet be constantly increasing in altitude? Nick Murphy (See meme No 1255) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155533946701795/ No 1256) I've said before that gravity pulling in, pulls things into the most stable shape, and that shape is spherical. However flat Earthers always say gravity doesn't exist. To show that acceleration forces things into into a shape that is balanced, we can use centripetal acceleration to imitate gravitational acceleration. I would propose a clear plastic wheel, filled with water and spun up to speed, so the water stays on the sides. It would be fighting gravity, but if we spun it fast enough, we would get a constant surface of water, going sideways. (See diagram No 1256a) No 1256b) Just like gravity pulls the Earth into the least energy state, i.e. a spherical earth, the centripetal acceleration in this demonstration forces water into a layer on the inside surface of this pop bottle. (See video No 1256b) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155535709076795/ No 1257) Calculating centripetal force from Earth's rotation: Earth's surface speed, is relatively large, by human standards, at roughly 1,037 mph (463.539 m/s) at the equator (24,901 miles/24 hrs) However, it's radius is also very large, half of 7,919 miles (6,371,627.4 meters). When we calculate the force, per Kg, we square the speed, BUT we divide by the radius, so we are dividing by a huge number (6,371,627.4 meters)! It's Earth's large radius that reduces significance of it's surface speed. In the end we get F = 0.0337227 Newtons/Kg, however Earth's gravitational acceleration gives us 9.81 Newtons/Kg. *** Gravity is way more than the centripetal force! *** That is why we don't fly off! (See diagram No 1257) -------------- -------------- The math behind it; F(centripetal force) = M v^2/r Where; F = The force in newtons M = mass of object in Kg's v = velocity in m/sr = radius in meters M = Let's say ONE kg v = 1037mph*1.6092 Km/mile*1000 meters/kg / 3600 seconds/hour = 463.539 meters/second r = 7919 miles * 1.6092 Km/mile * 1000 meters/km /2 = 6371627.4 meters F = 0.0337227 newtons per Kg A Kg has 9.81 newtons of force acting on it by gravity. Therefore 0.0337227/9.81* 100 = 0.34375829 % of gravity! http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html Q.E.D. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155537725871795/ No 1258) See meme - who took the picture of the lunar lander: (See meme No 1258) No 1258b) Derek Striker You forgot to post the comments below the photo. Let me help you. The Apollo 12 Lunar Module (LM), in a lunar landing configuration, is photographed in lunar orbit from the Command and Service Modules (CSM) on Nov. 19, 1969. The coordinates of the center of the lunar surface shown in picture are 4.5 degrees west longitude and 7 degrees south latitude. The largest crater in the foreground is Ptolemaeus; and the second largest is Herschel. Aboard the LM were astronauts Charles Conrad Jr., commander; and Alan L. Bean, lunar module pilot. Astronaut Richard R. Gordon Jr., command module pilot, remained with the CSM in lunar orbit while Conrad and Bean descended in the LM to explore the surface of the moon. (See screen shot No 1258b) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155537806641795/ No 1259) I can think of two observations/test that indicate the Earth is spherical and rotating. 1) If you observe a celestial object over 24 hours from 2 different longitudes, they make a circular path, going at different angles form each other. 2) If you weigh an object flying west and east, it weighs 1% more flying westwards, than eastwards. Laurent Besson "Eötvös effect....." Thank you Laurent! -------------- Considering I am just of average intelligence, could you tell me in simple words how this could be without the Earth being spherical and rotating? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155536795586795/ No 1260) Metabunks - Earth's Curve Horizon, BUlge, Drop and Hidden Calculator: (See website No 1260) https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155540500346795/ No 1261) Field of View and the Earth: ------------ We should always see a circular section of Earth. Right from ground level, everything is hidden AFTER the horizon. This carries through, right up into space! ***Having more hidden behind the horizon, the closer you are, is a characteristic of a globe! *** They are; 1) the same globe from different elevations, 2) wider or narrower fields if view. *** What we see and what we should see match! (See diagram No 910f) See link No 910) https://giphy.com/gifs/YiGsW0Wm9bCqA/html5 No 1261a) If we look at the video, we see that we can go closer, increase our field of view (wider angle of view) and keep the Earth the same size, in or field of vision. (See video No 1261a) No 1261b) here is a diagram illustrating the view from different distances. (See diagram No 1261b) - See item No 910 for a complete set of pictures. No 1261c) Here is an example of a globe at different distances and wider narrower fields of view (FOV, wider angle or smaller angle shots) (See picture No 1261c) No 1261d) The diagram below shows what we are seeing, as we get closer or farther away. (See diagram No 1261d) No 1261e) This explains why we will see the same continent, but less of the oceans and globe around it. *** It looks like the continents are getting bigger and smaller, but they are actually the same size and the picture is actually being taken from closer or farther away. *** No 1261f) Here is a comparison of North America as one goes farther out and the field of view gets narrower. Notice that you can start to see more and more of Canada. (See pictures No 1261f) No 1262) Elevation vs Area of Earth visible: Here is a scaled picture of the area visible from different elevations. - The area visible from 6 feet is only a fraction of a pixel - The area visible from an commercial aircraft is 1/40th the area visible from the ISS. (See diagram No 1262a) No 1262b) Here is a closeup of the area of Earth visible. (See digarm No 1262b) No 1262c) Area visible vs Elevation: For further comparison, here is the area visible compared to the elevation. (see chart No 1262c) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155541967991795/ No 1262d) We only ever look in one direction, so we actually only ever see half of those circles at any one time! No 1263) We turn south, if point east and try to go straight, but in the southern hemisphere we would turn north, if we pointed east and tried to go straight. William Weitzel https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10156076441876795/ No 1264) Roberto Wajszcuk - You can toggle between satellites and even verify the weather in areas yourself. You can choose between 2 different geostationary satellites...neither are run by NASA. One is GOES-16 that NOAA uses. The other is Himawari-8 that is a Japanese satellite. Now here’s the best part...you can see how the sunrise and sunset corresponds and it’s shown in observation. Also you can check weather for ground stations and see the data is correct. Now it does use the Blue Marble Data and then cloud data is overplayed on top. No huge conspiracy and literally impossible to fake in real time. (See website No 1264) http://rammb-slider.cira.colostate.edu/?sat=goes-16&sec=full_disk&x=10944&y=5376&z=0&im=12&ts=1&st=0&et=0&speed=130&motion=loop&map=1&lat=0&p%5B0%5D=16&opacity%5B0%5D=1&hidden%5B0%5D=0&pause=0&slider=-1&hide_controls=1&mouse_draw=0&s=rammb-slider (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155552551981795/ No 1265) From just after sun set, to iust before sun rise, we can see all but a few degrees of the sky. Why then are there constellations that we can only see at certain times of the year? This is explained by our tilt and the constellations being hidden by the daytime on a globe, but why can't we see them on a flat Earth? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155548640876795/ No 1266) Seeing the horizon's dip on commercial flights: When we examine picture from commercial flights, we can see that the horizon drops as we go up. (See original OP) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155548220661795/ Notice the distance from the curve of the wing tip to the horizon. (See diagram No 1266) Note: that when we look out during cloud cover, that the clouds are much closer than the ground, so we are see less curvature. Curvature at cloud level, not ground level! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155548874976795/ No 1267) Flat does NOT mean level on a globe: Flat Earthers often say a large salt flat is flat and level, claiming there is no curve. However, we have measured and shown curvature and the horizon dropping from eye level. If we find two points some distance apart on the globe, and make an imaginary flat plain between the two points, we would get a plain that looks straight and flat, but is NOT level. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155549907411795/ No 1267a) If you join two points on a globe, then looking on oneside, you are looking down, as you look along the plain. In actuality a flat plain is going downhill on both sides. (See diagram No 1267a) No 1267b) we can see this better if we draw a line between the beach and a ship, over the horizon. The water is a level curve. In order for the line to connect the two points, it must go down and back up. (See diagram No 1267b) No 1267c) Basically a flat plain, feels like a bowl. You go down as you approach the middle and go back up the other side. (see diagram No 1267c) ------------ - This is why a "flat" plain wouldn't make sense, on a globe. *** It would quickly fill with water! No 1267d) Cody's Lab - Why things would roll, on a long straight road: See video No 1267d) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5maJBnv37E No 1268) Can any flat Earther, discuss the globe model WITH gravity and why gravity should not work the way it does in that model? *** Give me some equations, math or logical explanation why, assuming gravity exists, it shouldn't do what it does? *** Let's discuss one topic, gravity, how it would act on bodies and what gravity would entail. ---------------------- - No assuming the world is a globe, (due to gravity!), and denying gravity exists, at the same time. Stop it with your bipolar proofs! - No bringing up every other topic under the sun - No meme spamming (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155551279276795/ No 1268b) Flat Earthers always assuming the world is spherical, that is due to gravity, then they after taking the globe model, deny gravity and substitute flat Earth "down" in it's place. That makes no sense! -------------- 1) If you want to disprove gravity, then please tell us, why the equations, which describe what we see very well, are incorrect. 2) Otherwise, if you want to prove down, is always south, please tell us why that is the case? No 1269) Joe Haley - The blood that is moving through your body has the same density all throughout your body. Flerfers explain why I pass out if I hang upside down too long? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155550359531795/ No 1270) P900 shoots picture of ISS. https://www.diyphotography.net/international-space-station-captured-nikon-p900s-monster-zoom/ (See image No 1270) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155550006471795/ No 1271) Gary Ahearne - Any flerfer wanna try explaining flight times on your map? From Auckland to Los Angeles, about 13 hour flight. From Auckland to Santiago in Chile only about a twelve hour flight? An hour less, to travel almost twice as far??? Something doesn't add up. Checking those times and distances on a globe, makes much, much, much, much more sense.. (See map No 1271) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155548127181795/ No 1272) Proof of gravity: (Test showing gravity) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155545459576795/ -------------- Proof 1 of gravity: No 1272a) (from No 964c) Let's try this one for demonstration of gravity, not density; ---------- No 1272a) Gravity is acceleration. We can simulate it with centripetal force, which itself is acceleration. Take a glass of water and put some soap in it. Stir it vigorously so there are bubble in it. The bubbles will rise to the top, but slowly. No 1272a-1) Experiment - Dish soap and bubbles in gravity and under acceleration: Here is the bottle shaken with bubble slowly rising to the top. (See picture No 1272a-1) ---------- No 1272a-2) As I start to spin the bottle, the bubbles start rising to the middle, instead of the top. (See pictures No 1272a-2) Buoyancy is due to differences in density and those differences are due to acceleration. Therefore gravitational acceleration is pulling things down and causing buoyancy, not density. Q.E.D. --------- --------- Proof 2 of gravity: No 1272b) The Earth's rotation should be generating some centripetal acceleration. This should counteract gravity. We can demonstrate this centripetal acceleration by measuring weights flying east and west. - When we fly east, we add to the centripetal acceleration, so things should weigh less. - When we fly west, things should weigh more, because we are counteracting centripetal acceleration. (See diagram No 1272b-1) This is what we see. ---- (from No 196) - You weigh 1% less, going east than going west, due to centripetal force! (See video No 1272b-2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy0erMiS6xs Q.E.D. -------- -------- Proof 3 of gravity: No 1272c) We can actually measure changes in weight, of a mass, from one area to another. This is done in gravimeters. where they measure very small changes in gravitational force and convert that to changes in acceleration. These machines can measure very small changes in gravitational acceleration. (See picture No 1272c) -------- -------- No 1272c-2) Accuracy of a gravimeter. A gravimeter is accurate to within ± 0.093 ± 0.003 milligal. A gal is a cm/s^2, so it is accurate from ±0.00000093 to ±0.00000003 m/s^2 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/TR018i001p00106/full Proof 4 of gravity: No 1272d) Formula for gravitational force is accurate: The calculations for force are F=G*m1*m2/r^2. G=6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 m1=5.972 × 10^24 kg m2=1 Kg r=6,371 km=6,371,000 meters F=9.8196497377 m/s^2/Kg (See link No 1289) http://www.softschools.com/formulas/physics/acceleration_due_to_gravity_formula/54/ This gives the correct answer for the weight of everything on Earth!) --------- - Please tell us SPECIFICALLY where these calculations are wrong? - How does gravity not do what we think it should do? - Why would gravity fall down "south" and not inwards? *** Please use your own words, not memes! *** No 1273) Laurent Besson - Some fler said : Where are the stars? It's here!!!!!!! (See picture No 1273) From amateur's photo https://www.facebook.com/groups/astro/permalink/1973537296003562/ (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155543416756795/ No 1274) Youngest woman to ski to the south pole: Dennis Augello - shared George Takei's video. (See video No 1274) https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei/videos/1138127836328722/ No 1275) Why can I find the shortest distance from anywhere around the world, with nothing more than a globe and a string? (See picture No 1275a-1) NO 1275a-2) I just realize, I've got the globe upside down. .... strangely enough, it couldn't care less! (see picture No 1275a-2) No 1275b) Frank Walter - Mr flaty I am on my way to Australia from Edmonton Alberta Canada, which direction do you think I should be flying ? (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155552271861795/ Marty Church - According to this...just go south. Umm...the south south that points at Australia. (see picture No 1275b) No 1276) Alessio Panasiti - If flat earth is going up at 9.8m/s, explain balloons. (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155550438491795/ No 1277) Buoyancy is caused by acceleration: - Differential density is caused by gravity and - Buoyancy is caused by differential density. Without gravity, there is No buoyancy. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155552471151795/ No 1277b) Maximilián Molnár - https://youtu.be/y8mzDvpKzfY - buoyancy of balloons in moving car (See Video No 1277b) https://youtu.be/y8mzDvpKzfY?t=123 No 1277c) Here, on a video, by Smarter Every Day, gravity is simulated by acceleration and the differential pressure causes the balloon or the air bubble to "rise" to the front of the car. (See picture No 1277c) No 1278) Dave Cox - So, has anyone addressed the international date line on a flat Earth scenario? (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155552081821795/ No 1278b) The international date line, goes from the north pole, across the Pacific Ocean to the south pole. Where on a flat Earth is the south pole? (See picture No 1278b) No 1279) Eratosthenese experiment performed across hemispheres: Laurent Besson https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155553546991795/ (See picture No 1279a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) No 1279b) Laurent Besson - Here a video which show 13 people AROUND the world making a measurement of the angles of sun between ground...... (See video No 1279b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZWTe9gxyeA Results: If we light the measurements up on a flat plain, the elevations for the sun vary greatly. However, if we assume a spherical Earth, then all the rays are parallel. Conclusion, the Earth is spherical. It is the shape that matches all the observations! No 1280) Perspective and vanishing point used by flat Earthers: Toni Milner https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.ca/2016/10/flat-earth-failures-perspective-and.html (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155554157426795/ No 1281) They used film cameras for rockets in the 50's and 60's. We get live pictures of rocket launches and the Earth from space from these cameras. How could this have been faked? (See video No 1281a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjofYotlaY0 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155554340871795/ No 1281b) If rocket launches are fake, why do they go to such expense and technological challenges to film them in such detail? (See picture No 1281b) No 1282) Horizon dip test equipment: Here is my own take on a home made theodolite. It's set to measure up to 15 degrees of dip from eye level. (see picture No 1282d) I'll start making measurements the next chance I get. I think for a high altitude measurement I'll take my son up the CN Tower! No 1283) Detecting high energy particles from the sun and space: Here is a device to detect high energy particles from the sun and outer space. That means it is detecting particles from other stars! See video No 1283) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l344Pd9w5no No 1284) Suicide burns - How the Falcon 9 lands: (See video No 1284) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_Voh7NgDE No 1285) When we see the Earth from low Earth orbit we are NOT seeing half the globe! ---------------- Heath Marter - You must gave missed this. You probably believe this BS too. The question you just wanna keep asking. Why are there no continents on this hemisphere in this clip from the fake x live feed? There isn't a perspective you can look at the supposed globe and not see ANY land on a whole hemisphere. The Pacific ocean is only %30.5 of the supposed globe people. You gotta be an absolute sheep to believe this is legit footage of earth. (See picture No 1285) (See video No 1285b) https://www.facebook.com/asmemtirasdoglobo/videos/2009005479355749/?hc_location=ufi (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155559205206795/ No 1285c) Has any flat Earther actually tried to mode the Earth to see what it should look like from low Earth orbit? Have you even drawn a diagram? How much of the Earth do you think you see at any one time? *** 1/30th! *** Could one of you spend $4 on a globe, from the dollar store and actually figure out PERSPECTIVE? A word you always use, but never show or prove! Here is a globe. The top of the tape is low Earth orbit. (See picture No 1285c) No 1285d) When we draw a straight line to see how far one can see from low Earth orbit, we see that it's not anywhere near half a globe! (See picture No 1285d) No 1285e) When we trace a circle to match how far we can see, we find that we can only see across a few small countries at one time. The edges would actually be at a very low angle, so most of what we can see is squished at the edges. (See picture No 1285e) No 1285f) From any height, we always see a circular section of Earth. From lower heights we may think we are seeing half a globe, but it is actually only a small fraction of the globe! (See diagram No 1285f) No 1285g) This is what we were talking about back in No 1159, when we saw Italy from the ISS. It ISN'T the whole Earth we are seeing, but only a small fraction of it! (See picture No 1285g) No 1286) There is a lot of hidden area, due to the curved surface: You may think you can see most of the Earth's surface by looking at one side, then the other. If we look at the pacific side of the globe, it looks like half the planet. (See picture No 1286) No 1286a) However, people don't realize how much of the surface is hidden by the curve. If we look at the opposite side, we see some of South America and Africa. Notice most of north America, Europe and ALL of Asia isn't visible. *** It's just at too steep an angle around the edges! *** (See pictures No 1286a) No 1286b) This is due to the fact that the edges are are at a very steep angle to our line of sight, so there is a lot of surface that we are looking at almost edge on. In fact, looking at the surface of a sphere, compared to a flat surface, there is about TWICE as much surface area on the sphere! (See diagram No 1286b) No 1286c) We need too look at the Earth from at least 3 angles, to see most of the globes surface at a decent angle. (See pictures No 1286c) No 1287) Looking at the continents in the center of view, on a globe, we don't realize how much of the surface is water. Usually we will look at it with North or south America, Africa, Europe, Eurasia or Australia in the center of the picture. However, looking from the north pole, straight down onto the Earth, we see that almost half the globe is taken up by the Pacific ocean. (See picture No 1287a) No 1287b) The amount of water on the globe is even more pronounced when we look at the globe from the pole, looking straight down at the Earth. *** The globe is almost entirely water! (See picture No 1287b) No 1288) Density is not a force and therefore can NOT accelerate things: In order for something to accelerate, e.g. a car, a rocket etc. it needs to have a force act on it. Things in a vacuum chamber accelerate at the same rate. What force causes that acceleration? Density is NOT a force, so what is that force? Gravity! --------------- Examples of things falling in a vacuum; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Zb3xAgIoY (Feather and nut in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV-qyDnZx0A&t=9s (feather and coin in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuULvNItSIw (apple racing a feather in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVktTyEtcBQ (coin and feather in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RKAb5accC0 (feather and "hammer" in a vacuum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDmb-AVTM6k (Falling box with water) No 1289) Verifying the formula for acceleration: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155563409576795/ The equations for acceleration take into account the mass of two objects and the distance between them. When we substitute the mass of the Earth and our mass, we get g=9.81 m/s^2. F=G(m1*m2)/r^2 (See link No 1289) http://www.softschools.com/formulas/physics/acceleration_due_to_gravity_formula/54/ No 1289b) Fredrick Chola //The problem is that mass is neglected by your definition which it shouldnt be// The mass of objects is neglected because compared to; 1) the mass of the Earth is so much bigger, and 2) the radius of the Earth is so much bigger than the objects. There is something like 10^-24 newtons difference for every Kg. So, it's insignificant enough to ignore. -------------- *** We do things in real life, and science, according to scale and accuracy. *** - We don't have to be accurate to the nearest 10^-24 units for weighing anything on Earth. We would want to be more accurate for sending a space probe, but even then, anything above 9 digits accuracy is overkill. No 1289c) Example of insignificance on force due to mass of object, compared to the Earth's mass. If I said 1 Kg has 9.81000000000000000000000001 newtons of force on it and 2 KG has 19.62000000000000000000000003 newtons on it, does that change our answer at all? - Can we even measure to that level of accuracy? - Does that make any difference to our calculations? *** At some point it gets ridiculous being precise to a level not warranted! *** No 1290) Tristrum Andrews - Was just gonna write flerfers suck, but this one will be a math lesson. The 8 inch per mile squared formula is a Pythagorean simplification of the curvature of the Earth and results in a parabola. Its only good for 100 miles or so. Also its in imperial measurements so it can suck my balls. Hard. So we shall create a new formula below. All we need to work it out is the formula of a circle on a Cartesian plane (the great circle cross section of the Earth) as well as the radius of the Earth which is 6371 kilometers. Here's the formula for a circle: (x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2 = r^2 (See Tristrum Andrews post for discussion and full proof) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155561624586795 No 1291) Analyzis of the Isle of Man. - The windmills are about 200 feet tall - We see bits and pieces of the Isle of Man with gaps in between - This picture must be very zoomed in, because if those are windmills, we are only seeing about 3 miles, so likely the tallest peaks of the Isle of Man.(The Isle of Man is about 31 miles long) - If the Windmills are 200 feet tall, there is 2,000 feet of the isle of Man that is hidden behind the curve! (See picture No 1291a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155564593506795/ No 1291b) The Isle of Man is 31 miles long. Compared to those wind mills, we should understand that we are only seeing the very tallest peaks of the Isle of Man. Where is the rest of the 2,000+ feet of the Isle of Man? (See map No 1291b) No 1292) Richard Gray - Gravity is *easily provable*, Heath, with a simple pendulum. Not to be confused with Foucault's pendulum - that's to demonstrate the earth is rotating. The science for it is very simple, and it's something anyone can do quite easily at home. It is not possible to make sense of the period of a pendulum's swing without gravity, 'g' as it's called. It's impossible to calculate the period in advance without it. The period does not depend upon the mass of the pendulum bob either, so the usual buoyancy/density patter is irrelevant. Only the length of the pendulum matters. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155564600306795/ No 1293) Analysis of Hawaii to Oahu visibility: River State Park has an elevation of elevation 73.4 meters (240.8 feet) (See map No 1293a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155564654226795/ Oaho's tallest peak is about 2,181.3 meters (7,156.4 feet) (See map No 1293b) The distance between River State Park and tallest Peak of Oahu is about 96.19 miles. (See map No 1293c) Therefore the Hidden curvature is 3,972.77 feet (See calculation No 1293d) Conclusion: That leave 3,183.63, of Oahu, feet VISIBLE! *** This means that half the Island is HIDDEN BEHIND THE CURVE! (3,972.77 feet is hidden!) If we can see the top of the mountain, then how can the bottom half of the island, which is wider, disappear due to vanishing point? (See picture No 1293e) No 1294) Seeing the peaks of things isn't proof that the world is flat. There is ALWAYS something hidden! People convince themselves that ALL of an object is visible, but ignore the fact that there IS a horizon and that the bottom of things are always hidden! (See diagram No 1294) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155564767886795/ No 1295) Swells don't explain what is hidden: When you draw out a swell, compared to the the parts of an island that is hidden, and factor in the observer elevation, we realize it isn't a reasonable explanation for why everything is hidden. A ship's deck is taller than any swell! Between islands, there certainly aren't 100 foot swells! (See diagram No 1295) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155564833136795/ No 1296) We should see the bottom of an object when we zoom in: Flat Earthers are always saying the bottom disapears first, however, there is no reason why the bottom shouldn't be visible when zooming in, if the world were flat! (See meme No 1296) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155564934241795/ No 1297) Analysis of the horizon, to date: Assuming we have a 6 foot eye level, standing on a shore, looking out at a large body of open water, we see; 1) The horizon is about 3 miles out 2) The horizon is below eye level (See picture No 430d), so we are looking slightly down at the horizon 3) Everything BEFORE the horizon is 100% visible and there is more water behind it, rising to the horizon 4) Everything AT/ON the horizon is 100% visible and there is NO water visible behind the horizon 5) Water AFTER the horizon is NEVER visible 6) Things start dropping 8 inches per mile AFTER the horizon. e.g. Large ships, which are big enough to be visible 9 to 12 miles out, drop with a predictable amount of hidden curvature of 24 to 54 feet (See picture No 1297a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155567982881795/ No 1297b) If we go out to sea; 7) We can estimate the distance to the horizon, if we know our eye level, with curvature calculations 8) As we rise, we ALWAYS see a circular section of Earth 9) The circular horizon is a level line, and it is below eye level, (as can be measured) 10) The horizon is a 360 degrees circle around the observer 11) At human scales, standing, on a mountain, or flying, the distance to the horizon is a very small angle, from 0.0434 degrees to 3.54 degrees (6 foot to 40,000 foot altitude) (See picture No 1297b) No 1298) Measuring the drop of the Chicago skyline: From No 430, we looked at measuring the dip of the Sears tower from level, at a point 52 miles away and 197 feet up on a hill. If we now do the calculations to get the drop, we can compare that to what we would estimate. The top of the sears tower is 7 arc seconds below level (With an accuracy of plus or minus 5 arc seconds.) (See picture No 1298a) No 1298b) When we calculate 7 arc seconds over 52 miles we get 9.32 feet of drop. a) The tower itself is 527 meters (1729 feet) tall. The tower is sitting at 182.3 meters (595 feet) elevation, about 20 feet above the shore of Lake Michigan. So we get a final drop of (1,729+9.32+(595-581))= 1752.32 feet. ---------- b) On the opposite shore, which is at 581 feet elevation, we are on top of a hill, 197 feet above the shoreline. When we do the calculations for drop from 52 miles away, we get 1803 feet of drop from shore level. So we can compare 1,803 feet of calculated drop to 1,752.32 feet of measured drop. *** We have confirmed 8 inches per mile drop across 52 miles! *** (See diagram No 1298b) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155568001141795/ No 1299) Tests showing curvature: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155568328201795/ No 1299a) Test No 1: (Originally from No 438b) Surveying, 1 Mile across a pond: (See video No 1299a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A90FfiLqEOo ------------- No 1299b) Test No 2: (Originally from No 1214) Measuring curvature, with a water level, along a straight road: (See Diagram No 1299b-1) No 1299b-2) It goes with this video. (See video No 1299b-2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uwvx7-x98U ------------- No 1299c) Test No 3: (originally from No 1298 and No 430) Here's this (Diagram No No 1299c-1) It goes with this survey measurement. (See picture No 1299c-2) No 1299c-3) Source of measurements and snapshots: (See original video No 1299c-3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCo6aKkl9F8 ------------- No 1299d) Test No 4: Laser level of lake: (See video No 1299d) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVa2UmgdTM4 ------------- No 1299e) Test No 5: (From No 1076) Ships at 9 to 12 miles out, showing 24 to 54 feet of hidden hull. (See picture No No 1299e) No 1300) If you think moonlight is cold. What is cooler, a clear night or a cloudy night? - The clear night. Heat can escape more directly into space on a clear night. Moonlight isn't colder, the "shade" is warmer. *** It isn't just shade, it is insulation against the cold, open sky! *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155570302521795/ No 1301) Orbiting is a balance between centripetal acceleration and gravitational acceleration: If the Earth isn't going fast enough, it would go closer, until the centripetal acceleration, (which gets greater with a smaller radius), increased enough to counteract gravity. If the Earth were going too fast, it would slow down, until the centripetal force weakened until it balanced gravity. *** Centripetal force decrease LINEARLY with distance and *** gravitational force decreases with the SQUARE of the distance. Somewhere, at some radius, there is always a balance. That is orbiting. BALANCE of forces! (See diagram No 1301) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155571552551795/ No 1301b) Gravity curves the Earths path, just enough to make it a stable circle! No 1301c) Adam Scott - When you throw a ball, it takes longer to hit the ground than if you were to drop it, throw it fast enough and with no resistance, it is called an orbit as it is in perpetual freefall. As is the earth around the sun. No 1301d) James Brotherton - The balance between gravity and escape velocity No 1302) Why isn't it faster to fly west: How are planes affected by the Earth's rotation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gNkgj9h2oM (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155574540656795/ No 1303) Observation of the sun's change in speed during the day: Notice the sun seems to travel slower when it is overhead. That is, it is taking the same amount of time to travel a SHORTER distance. This is the opposite of a close sun going overhead! --------- The simplest way to test this, is with a sun dial. Notice sun dials have evenly spaced marks on a circle with the needle at the appropriate angle for the latitude. (See picture No 1303) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155577199551795/ No 1304) The rolling shutter effect: The blades on these wind turbines look curved. This is due to how digital cameras scan images and the fact that the blades are moving. (See picture No 1304a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155578382521795/ No 1304b) This is why moving propellers curve in digital cameras. Here is a video from smarter every day, explaining the rolling shutter effect. (See video No 1304b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNVtMmLlnoE&t=79s No 1304c) Scott Smith - OMG! The propellers are flying off! Not really, just another rolling shutter effect. (See picture No 1304c) No 1305) Solar Flares: A solar flare gives off enough energy to disrupt electrical equipment across the entire planet. (See picture No 1305a) No 1305b) The problem with the flat Earth is the small size of the sun, means the flare from it isn't nearly big enough to release the kind of energy we are talking about! Solar flares are massive compared to the Earth. (See picture No 1305b) No 1305c) We can see the corona and solar flares ourselves. They can put a plate over the sun and look at the corona and solar activity every day. (See picture No 1305c) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155578578551795/ No 1306) Area and volume of space around satellites: Assuming 4,700 satellites, lets see how much area is between each satellite... -------- 1) The are of a sphere is Pi*4*r^2 r = 255+7,919/2 = 4,214.5 miles The surface area, just for low orbit, is 223,490,600 square miles. *** That's 47,551 square miles per satellite. *** ------- 2) Satellites range from 255 miles up to 20,000 miies up. That's a volume of; volume (satellite at 24,214.5 miles) to 4,214.5 miles up). vulume = Pi*4/3r^3 pi*4*(24,214.5^3-4,214.5) =59,158,789,225,524 cubic miles. That's 12,586,976,430.962 cubic miles per satellite! *** 12.586 BILLION cubic miles per satellite! *** ------------------ Conclusion: SPACE, IN ORBIT, IS VAST AND MOSTLY EMPTY! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155579234896795/ No 1307) Moon to get first mobile phone network: So, what happens when we have 24 our pictures and video from the moon, as flat Earthers have been requesting? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5441119/Moon-mobile-phone-network.html (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155578609766795/ No 1308) The Circular Star Trail Proof: and The Star Trail Angle Proof: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155582982431795/ If we are on a flat disk, looking at the north star, star trails should look like a flattened disk from an angle. (See diagram No 1308a) No 1308b) We don't see this. Instead it's as if the disk is tilted sideways, like a ferris wheel! (See picture No 1308b) This isn't at all how star trails should look on a flat Earth! (Basically, the angle is way to low on the horizon!) No 1308c) The Circular Star Trail Proof: If we are viewing a rotating disc from an angle it should look elongated and flattened. The only time we should see a perfect circle is when we are looking at it from the north pole! Why is it a perfect circle every time on a flat Earth? (See diagram No 1308c) No 1308d) The Star Trail Angle Proof: As we look at the star trails from further and further south, it gets lower and lower in the sky, meaning the disc seems to be tilting more and more. At the equator the disk looks vertical and the north pole is touching the horizon. How does this make any sense on a flat Earth? (See diagram No 1308d) No 1308e) A plate from an angle. (See picture No 1308e) No 1308f) A plate looked at perpendicular. (see picture No 1308f) No 1309) Buoyancy is cause by gravitational acceleration: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155587206831795/ No 1309a) Gravity pulls on everything, causing it an acceleration and in case of things like air, it causes air on top to press down on air below. This causes a difference in pressure on an object, e.g helium balloon. Less pressure on top and more pressure on the bottom. That creates a net force upwards. If the object weighs less than the air around it, meaning it has less force than the net pressure difference, it rises. (See diagram No No 1309a) No 1309b) If there is no acceleration due to gravity, there is no buoyancy. We see this when acceleration is cancelled out in the vomit comet. (See picture No No 1309b) No 1309c) If I shake up a bottle of soap water, the bubbles will slowly rise to the top, against the force of gravitational acceleration. (See picture No No 1309c) No 1309d) If we introduce an acceleration greater than gravity, then we can make bubbles "rise" against that acceleration. For example when I spin a bottle very fast, causing a very strong centripetal acceleration outwards. The bubbles "rise" inwards. (See picture No No 1309d) No 1309e) In this car, the balloon rises up, due to buoyance. (See Video No No 1309e) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8mzDvpKzfY&feature=youtu.be When the car accelerates, air is forced backwards, causing greater pressure in the back and the helium balloon "rises" to the front of the car. *** When the car stops accelerating, the balloon returns to the middle of the car. *** Unlike the car, the atmosphere has a constant acceleration acting on it, causing differential pressure then buoyancy, all the time. No 1309f) Summary: As I said before; i) buoyancy is due to differential pressure. ii) the differential pressure is due gravitational acceleration that pulls gas down on top of each other iii) the force of gravity causes this acceleration Without this force, there would be no acceleration, no differential pressure and therefore no buoyancy. No 1309g) Conclusion: Without gravitational force, there would be no acceleration, - Without acceleration there would be no differential pressure. - Without acceleration, there is no buoyancy! Density is NOT a force, it does not cause acceleration, therefore density does NOT cause buoyancy! *** Differential pressure is do to acceleration! *** *** An ACTIVE force, constantly pulling things down! *** ----------- No 1309h) For those of you who would argue that gravity was not taken out of the equation, we can do the experiment in micro-gravity in orbit (Yes, I know some of you will say outer space is fake.). (See picture no 1309h-1) No 1309h-2) Source video (See link No 1309h-2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn_hdADpFlA No 1309h-3) With this bubble of water suspended from a wire hoop, we can introduce bubbles, then swirl it to produce centripetal force and again the bubbles will "rise" to the middle. (See picture No 1309h-3) No 1310) Zodiacal light: Zodiacal lights are a triangular shaped glow, after the sun sets, that is from scattering of light off of dust around the disk of the solar system. You are looking at the angle of the eliptic or the plane of the solar system. (See picture No 1310) (See website No 1310b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiacal_light (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155587542981795/ No 1311) We haven't seen this one in a while, but to give everyone an idea of scale. Accurate comparison of distances across the solar system. If the moon was a pixel... (See website No 1131) http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155588468581795/ No 1311b) See collage of the sun and planets. Screenshots from the website. (See screenshots No 1311b-1 to 1311b-13) No 1312) Analysis of flat Earth, change in star view: The flat Earth explanation for our limited view of the stars is varied from visibility blocked at the horizon, we are looking slightly up, to atmospheric refraction. Let's analyze the flat View explanation. (See picture No 1312a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155588578731795/ No 1312b) If we draw points for the equator and north pole, we see that looking north, the amount of sky stays roughly the same at about 45 degrees up and moves across the sky according to distance, maintaining that 45 degrees. However going south, the angle drops from 45 degrees to zero, as we approach the equator! This doesn't make sense, neither why there is a difference between the north and south and what explanations there are for the limitation in view in the first place! (See diagram No 1312b) No 1313) There are Youtube channels that give detailed and fascinating information on aircraft. e.g. Mentour Pilot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYgi9hh7UHc There are also Youtube channels with loads of information on rocketry, space and astronomy. e.g. Vintage Space https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw95T_TgbGHhTml4xZ9yIqg Scott Manley https://www.youtube.com/user/szyzyg Spacerip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1mmTwjHhHs -------- How can we have so much information on such a variety of fields, yet, they are all claimed to be fake? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155596142661795/ No 1314) Pilot discussions on great circles. We can look up "How do pilots use great circles" on Youtube and there are a lot of discussions on "Great Circles". e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzYsb3Bys9Y (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155596173396795/ No 1315) DISTANCE IS KEY! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155590450701795/ *** The distances between things are far bigger than flat Earthers assume. *** This is the essence of why flat Earth is wrong. ------------------- The angles, the points of view, on a flat Earth simply don't work. The main reason why, is that flat Earths insist everything has to be small and close! --------------- 1) the moon and it's phases; - moon is far and circling the Earth - works - close - doesn't work 2) the sun setting; - sun far, and earth rotating - works - close and small - can't work 3) Viewing the Earth from different distances; - globe Earth - see more of the Earth as one gets farther, and the rest is hidden behind the horizon - works - Flat earth - have to deny pictures from space 4) Solar eclipse; - moon far, sun farther - works - moon close and small - doesn't work 5) Viewing the Earth from different distances; - Perspective from far satellite looking at Earth and moon - works - Close up small moon, space is fake - doesn't work 6) The motion of the sun and moon in the sky, no change in diameter; - Globe, makes sense, Earth is rotating, so the sun and moon go in a straight, plane across our view - works - Flat Earth - should curve over hour heads - we don't see that 7) Lunar eclipse; - Makes total sense on a globe - Flat Earth - makes no sense at all No 1316) Things that prove the world is spherical and rotating: - Things weight 1% more flying west than flying east - things weight less at higher altitudes than at lower altitudes - sun and moon rising and setting below the horizon - we can measure the drop of the horizon from eye level with survey equipment - there is a north AND a south polar axis of rotation - there is a north AND south magnetic and geomagnetic pole - star trails rotate in different directions in the north and southern hemisphere - There are two identically sized hemispheres of stars - the ISS and satellites orbit the Earth - pictures from space - observing the sun, moon or a star orbiting for 24 hours shows we are on a globe - the star trails always looks like a flattened disk, not a plate at an angle, like we would see on a flat Earth - the horizon drops as we go up - the distance to the horizon is calculated with our elevation and curvature calculations - every horizon is a 360 degree, level circle, below eye level, around the observer - the seasons, due to the Earth's tilt - the procession of the poles - gravimeters measure changes in gravity that can then be used for mining and deep drilling - astronomy - seismology - plate tectonics - meteorites - comets - supernova explosions - LIGO gravity wave detector - Solar storms - the sun spot cycles - telescope observations you can do yourself, the planets, nebula, the sun and moon - radio telescopes - radio measurements of distances to other planets and objects in the solar system - volcanism - radar - the ozone layer - the output of the sun - the moons phases *** any and every argument, about the physical Earth, that flat Earthers come up with that end up proving the Earth is spherical! ------------------- Did I miss anything? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155587518751795/ No 1317) Gravity is the force component in potential energy: We measure potential energy as energy stored by height. That energy is force times distance. The distance is the height. The force is graviational force! e.g. Our calculations and use of potential energy in hydro projects takes advantage of the fact that gravity is a force! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155601055826795/ No 1318) Gleem Mac - But electrostatics do that two the formulas are identical and both follow the law of inverse squaring (see formula No 1318) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155604860276795/ No 1318a) There is one major and important thing that is different with your formula. The gravitational constant G is very small, whereas the Coulomb's constant is very big. - Being very small allows gravity to function over very large distances. It is already very small, so making a small number smaller, still yields some significant force, with a large enough mass. - Making coulomb's number smaller, means it drops off far sharper and is essentially uselessly small after a short distance. So, sorry, but they are not equivalent, just similar. No 1318b) Gleem Mac It says a flat surface has "relatively weak magnetic fields". That is not a plus for electromagnetic effects. There needs to be very strong magnetic fields or electical charges to be able to hold a someone down to the ground with the equivalent of their own weight. 1) We simply don't see ir detect the level of magnetic fields or charges required for such strong interactions. - we are talking about fields as strong as standing next to an MRI machine. 2) The Earths magnetic field, although a very big magnet is relatively weak at the local level. It can move a compass needle floating on a pivot, but that's about it. 3) Local fields, electrical charges, e.g. magnetic rocks, lightning etc. are very local or of short duration and don't have any long range effects to speak of. ------- Nothing involving magnetic fields or electical charges can produce the steady force allowing for the 9.81 m/s^2 of acceleration we see. ------- *** All you have is vague descriptions claiming that electromagnetic effects can substitute for gravity, however measurements show otherwise! *** (See reference No 1318b) No 1319) Oh look, the clouds are a natural filter. (Mar. 9, 2018) Surprise, surprise, the sun isn't nearly as big as solar glare would make it seem! (See picture No 1319) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155604806526795/ No 1319b) Laurent Besson Exact Bruce Ing https://www.facebook.com/besson.laurent/media_set?set=a.10153158665586718.1073741839.632631717&type=3&hc_location=ufi Sun+eclipse+cloud.... Not so big (See multiple pictures No 1319b-1 to 1319b-6) No 1320) Pitot tubes - steady speed leads to a steady air pressure, (unlike a steady force causing steady acceleration that leads to differential air pressure). *** With all these safety analysis and improved designs and tracking, how can they be faked to make a flat world look like a globe? *** (See video No 1320a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ_jGGD-DX8 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155605403736795/ (See article No 1320b) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-a-pitot-tube/ No 1321) Electromagnetic effects replacing gravity: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155605406146795/ Although most materials are magnetic to some extent, there are three different kinds of material reactions to magnetic fields. - Diamagnetism - materials are REPELLED by magnets and magnetic fields. *** MOST materials are REPELLED by magnets! - Paramagnetic - attracted to magnets - Ferro magnetic - e.g. iron, some magnetic metals *** We don't see things being repelled by strong magnetic fields, on the Earth, at all. *** However, most materials should be repelled, NOT attracted! *** From Action Lab - "Everything is Magnetic! Moving Water with Magnets and Levitating Frogs" (See video No 1321) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMDRqKmqVNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8-JfSXPDp0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-nQPveFYYM No 1322)No 1322) Electrostatic pressure is a force that operates at close proximity's. It certainly doesn't replace gravitational force. e.g. How does electrostatic force operate on an object 20 feet off the ground? It doesn't! Flat Earth is borrowing a scientific term and using it out of context! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatics (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155605608481795/ No 1323) James Edward Angeles - Scale model using geogebra Black dot = Moon Line = Shadow Blue = Earth Yellow dot = US latitude -Moon to Earth distance: 238900 miles (240k miles) -Moon orbit circumference: 1494640 miles (1.5m miles) -Moon revolution period: 27.32 days (655.68 hours) -Moon approximate orbital velocity: 2288 mph (counter-clockwise) -Earth approximate rotational velocity (equator): 1040 mph (counter-clockwise) Moon velocity = Shadow velocity (Eastward) (See video No 1323) https://www.facebook.com/odditiescelestial/videos/1974746602539525/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155605625476795/ No 1324) Why we can't see a the Earth move in a video: No 1324a) DeSam Sts - This is Earth from Japan's Himawari satellite....Is this an accurate image of Earth Chayne? See video No 1324a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsnlNqcjNeE (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155614989651795/ No 1324b) Lauren Bessen - Eh oh!!!!! See video No 1324b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHUiG2Q70_0 No 1324c) Chayne Rogers - What is that de sam ? It looked like a video DeSam Sts - Cloud movement isn't as drastic as most ppl assume. Im in Ohio, and we didn't get any sun all day. Constant overcast and snow. No 1324d) Chayne Rogers - //How come the clouds didn’t move in the 24 hour laps Bruce Ing please clarify that for flerfers out there// Bruce Ing - It's a time lapse. Sure it looks like a video, but the frames aren't a second apart, not even a minute apart. *** Each frame could be an hour or 2 hours apart! *** ----------- *** If we watched the Earth in real time, it would look like a still picture. There's just no way a cloud will travel across a 4 mile pixel in a second or a minute, maybe in 15 minutes for a fast storm! ------- Compared to regular video 24 to 30 frames a second, it's only 1 frame every 2 hours! That means it is sped up = 2x3600 sec/hr*30 frames/sec = 216,000 TIMES! No 1325) Sun distances flat vs globe: The sun is the same size when setting. (One needs to use a solar filter to block out the glare.) (See picture No 1325a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155615611261795/ No 1325b) When we look at the distances and ratios involved, we see; Flat Earth - distance of sun at high noon 3,000 miles - distance of sun at "sun set" 6,250 miles Ratio; 1:2.083 *** Should be at least twice as big at high noon than at sun set. Globe Earth - distance of sun at high noon 93,003,959.5 miles - distance of sun at "sun set" 93,000,000 miles Ratio; 1:1.000042575 Pretty much 1 to 1! Imperceptible difference! (See illustration No 1325b) No 1326) Dave Greg - Flat Earth Debunked - Angular Size of the Sun https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX6iy03kvnk7TrOqsKycD5l3_DfjnbbQc No 1327) Franko Lambeth - When a ship goes over the "horizon" its curved they say. Someone should be at the median at a 90degree angle. From the person on the shore to the boat "over the horizon" you should see the curve that the boat went over. End all and do it as soon as you can. Thanks (See original post) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155619571986795/ No 1327 - preamble) Franko Lambeth Yes sir. I think you are misunderstanding. Think of two perpendicular lines crossing at the median. Franko Lambeth - Yes sir. I think you are misunderstanding. Think of two perpendicular lines crossing at the median. (See picture No 1327) Franko Lambeth - C is on the shore. D is the ship. (You have to turn the image sideways thoughtfully please) A is in the water looking at what SHOULD be the curvature. "B" should be the top of the curve that "A" sees between C and D. Mark Naldo - No, you must perceieve that the the 2nd viewer must also see A DIFFERENT HORIZON AND IN THAT CASE, YOU CANNOT SEE THE CURVATURE BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME AT SEEING THE BOAT MOVING AWAY FROM THE FURST OBSERVER WHEN THE TIME ITS NEAR THE SHORE. Ben McCormack - Like I said it isn't a cylinder so why would A. See it that way? Your thought would work assuming it wasn't curving away from A. And C. Bruce Ing If you are looking at the shore and a boat, and they are both at the same distance from you, ... they are at the same elevation away from you! It's a straight, level line, even on a globe! Remember, the horizon is a level line, 360 degrees around! (See diagram No 1210a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155621301141795/ No 1327a) Franko Lambeth - When the boat goes over the horizon is that not going over the"curve"? Someone looking at the both should see it. How far out before the boat goes over the "curve', sir? Bruce Ing - Franko Lambeth It's a 360 degree curved surface. If you are looking at a boat and the shore, and they are both at the same distance from you, that is a level line, that is itself a LEVEL circle! It is part of a continuous curved sphere! (See diagram No 1327a) No 1327b) We are ALWAYS in the middle looking at a horizon 360 degrees around. (See diagram No 1327b) No 1327c) If the boat is a little higher on the curve, we will think it is closer and lower! (See diagram No 1327c) No 1327d) If the boat is lower that the person ond the shore and the horizon, on a globe, then the boat seems to be dropping BEHIND the horizon. (See diagram No 1327d) No 1327e) On a flat Earth, if the person and boat are both at the 3 mile horizon, they will seem at the same level. However, when we zoom in, we will see land and water rising behind them as it approaches infinity. (See diagram No 1327e) No 1327f) On a flat Earth, if the boat is closer than the person, it will seem lower. Again, water and land should still rise behind the 3 mile horizon. (See diagram No 1327f) No 1327g) On a flat Earth, if the boat is farther away than the person, it will seem HIGHER and closer to the infintite horizon. Again, water and land should still rise behind the 3 mile horizon. (See diagram No 1327g) No 1328) Combined examples of curvature, horizon and drop: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155623567841795/ No 1328a) Things drop behind the horizon: No 1328a-1) Ships drop behind the horizon. - Their drop matches curvature - ships 9 to 12 miles out, with 24 to 54 feet of hidden curvature (See picture No 1328a-1) No 1328a-2) Cities drop after the horizon. 500 feet of hidden city from 30 miles away. (See picture No 1328a-2) No 1328b) Measurements show that the horizon is below eye level: No 1328b-1) When we measure the horizon, with survey equipment, it is below eye level and matches curvature. Example 197 feet up, measured dip of 13 minutes, 42 seconds. (See picture No 1328b-1a) This is from the following video; (See video No 1328b-1b https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCo6aKkl9F8 No 1328b-2) We can measure the dip with a level app on commercial flights. Here is an example of the dip from a level app. It is from 33,000 feet and measures about a 2.8 degree dip. (See picture No 1328b-2) No 1328c) Before, On and After the horizon: No 1328c-1) We see things BEFORE the horizon with water rising after them. No 1328c-2) We see things AT/ON the horizon with nothing rising after it. No 1328c-3) We see things AFTER the horizon, start dropping. - We can calculate this drop with 8 inches per mile squared starting AFTER the horizon. See the following diagram for an illustration of BEFORE, AT and AFTER the horizon. Disclaimor: - Tilt not illustrate - Scale; Vertical 6 feet to 30 pixels (1:5), Horizontal 3 miles to 245 pixels (1:64.653) (See picture No 1328c) No 1328d) For clarification, let us define it as; 1) Looking ACROSS the horizon - z axis curvature and 2) Looking ALONG the horizon - x axis curvature. It is much easier to see things drop behind the horizon, (looking ACROSS the horizon) than it is to judge the curve looking left and right, (looking ALONG the horizon). I mention this, because flat Earthers often try to side step the issue by bring up x axis curvature and claiming we should be able to see it as easily as z axis curvature. This is NOT the case. We can see drop, AFTER the curve, much easier than drop ALONG the curve. (See illustration No 1328d) No 1329) Gravity is a force that causes acceleration, and buoyancy not density: I will illustrate the following; No 1329a) Gravity is a force No 1329b) Gravity causes acceleration No 1329c) this constant force/acceleration causes differential pressure in our atmosphere No 1329d) without differential pressure, there is no buoyancy Density is NOT a force, and a steady force is needed for acceleration, gravity is that force! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155623573421795/ ----------- No 1329a) Gravity is a force: No 1329a-1) Gravity is a force, we can measure it directly by a number of tests, however the simplest one is a gravimeter. (See picture No 1329a-1) No 1329a-2) Accuracy of a gravimeter. A gravimeter is accurate to within ± 0.093 ± 0.003 milligal. A gal is a cm/s^2, so it is accurate from ±0.00000093 to ±0.00000003 m/s^2 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/TR018i001p00106/full No 1329a-3) Some may argue that this is due to differences in air pressure, etc. However it is NOT. We use these measurements to predict and figure out what is deep within the Earth, for mining and deep drilling. No 1329b) Gravity causes acceleration. We can show that things fall with a constant acceleration by dropping things in a vacuum, removing air resistance. See examples of vacuum drop experiments: No 1329b-1) Feather and coin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV-qyDnZx0A No 1329b-2) Hammer and feather: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RKAb5accC0 No 1329b-3) Guinea and Feather: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXDZWKmRxI0 No 1329b-4) Coin and Feather - Teacher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVktTyEtcBQ No 1329b-5) Just like a car with it's engine, things don't accelerate without a constant force. This force is gravity. We have measured the force of gravity and get a force of G=6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 per Kg of matter, (dependent on the distance between the center of two objects.) We know that things drop at 9.81 m/s^2. - We calculate this force for gravity with the formula F=G(m1*m2)/r^2 to show that it is the cause of this acceleration. e.g Calculating Earths force on objects; G=6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 m1=5.972 × 10^24 kg m2=1 Kg r=6,371 km=6,371,000 meters F=9.8196497377 (m/s^2)*Kg Q.E.D. No 1329c) A constant force and/or acceleration cause buoyancy. No 1329c-1) To illustrate this, here is an example of buoyancy of a balloons in moving car (See Video No 1329c-1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8mzDvpKzfY&feature=youtu.be No 1329c-2) When the car accelerates forward, the air is pushed back, causing greater density. The differential pressure causes a force that pushes the balloon forward. Just like a balloon is pushed up, in the atmosphere by differential pressure cause by gravity. (See screen capture No 1329c-2) No 1329c-3) In the video, the air bubble is forced forwards by this acceleration. (See picture No 1329c-3) No 1329c-4) Note when he lets off the gas, and the car stops accelerating, the buoyancy stops and the balloon returns to it's center. This means that we need a constant force (by the engine), causing a constant acceleration, to create differential air pressure. On the Earth, the constant force of gravity, is what creates the differential pressure. That is why air pressure is higher on the ground than it is higher up! *** No constant force, no differential pressure! *** No 1329d) Without differential pressure, there is no buoyancy No 1329d-1) Buoyancy is cause by differential pressure. Since the pressure at the bottom is greater than the pressure at the top, this causes a greater force at the bottom. If the substance weighs less than the air it displaces, then there is a net upwards force. Buoyancy! (See diagram No 1329d-1) No 1329d-2) We can show that if we remove or negate the constant force, that there is no buoyancy. We see this in zero g. People float in are! Here, we see that liquids in a density tower, do NOT separate in zero g. No constant force, causing acceleration, no differential pressure and no buoyancy! (See picture No 1329d-2) No 1329e) Conclusion, we see a cause and effect. - Gravitational force, causes acceleration, - this force/acceleration causes differential pressure and - this differential pressure causes buoyancy. Without the constant force of gravity, there is no reason for things to accelerate downwards or rise due to buoyancy. Density and buoyancy, are not substitutes for gravity! No 1330) Example of stars moving over time: Here is an example of stars changing location, relative to the rest of the sky, over time. See time index 4:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQDU65mZnLw (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155625499221795/ No 1331) Collage of Antarctica - DSCOVER:EPIC satellite - Feb 15, 2018 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155631876031795/ No 1332) A small localized moon's light: If the moon is 3,000 miles up, and the Earth is only about 25,000 miles across, there is no way for the moonlight to be hidden from view. - It is WAY above the clouds - There is no way light can bend and be invisible - The light from stars has way more range than that, so the sun, which is much brighter should be easily seen from one side of the flat Earth to the other - There is no reason why the sun's light should be focused only in one direct or be a "spotlight" (See meme No 1332) No 1332b) In the meme, the observer may be in the dark, BUT he can still see the light bulb, meaning *** the light is reaching the dark parts too! *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155631909071795/ No 1333) Sun rising and setting videos: Sun Rising Videos; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoNE_7iHZnI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXxBLUFRnHo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpHU3dK9Xg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qED3ow9M98Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8 Sun Set Videos; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmgrtfXGQmI (Hawaii sunset with green flash) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwus2nqU0SY (green flash) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOdn1lJ8v08 (blocked?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWbwmmOYnaw (4 hours!) Moon rise; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehulHtKfpuM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WtVmwqFrrw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xph44sxUc Moon set; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtUSEC7GQho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRK-txG_R-8 (1 hr long) Moon lunar eclipse; August 7, 2007 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLBMZ51m7PE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy6v8BJouyU (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155631919006795/ No 1334) The sun is 3,000 miles up. The tallest possible clouds are about 50 miles up. The tallest mountain is 7 miles up. - There is literally no obstruction high enough to block the sun from being seen on the dark side. (See diagram No 1334a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155631992771795/ No 1334b) So, when we look at pictures from high altitude balloons where is the flat Earth that should be rising to eye level? (See picture No 1334b) No 1335) Although perspective does mean that things drop as they get farther away, we have to look at the actual numbers and compare them with things like, say, a tunnel. No 1335a) When we look at a 3,000 mile high sun, vs a 25,000 mile diameter Earth, that really ISN'T that far away. That's 25,000/3,000 = 8.333 times farther away than the height of the ceiling. If the ceiling is 10 feet high, then that's only 83 feet, 4 inches away! (See picture No 1335a) No 1335b) When we compare that to how far the sun has to be away to "set", we see that it must be way farther away, far off the flat Earth, to appear to be setting. (About 172,000 miles away to be 1 degree above the horizon.) Perspective doesn't explain what we see in real life! (see illustration No 1335b) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155632132426795/ No 1336) The amount if sun light/energy reaching the Earth is about the same all year, just measure it perpendicular to the sun's rays. It's about 150 Watts per meter squared. The sun is actually farther away in the June, for the summer, in the northern hemisphere, than in December. The difference in temperature is not because of variations in distance. It is because of; 1) the tilt of the Earth and 2) the hours of sunlight (See diagram No 1336) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155635686401795/ No 1337) Cosmic rays and neutrinos: If the Earth is flat, then why do cosmic rays and neutrinos come from every direction? Not just from the sun? References: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-neutrino-and-an-electron-neutrino https://www.space.com/32644-cosmic-rays.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155653962616795/ No 1338) From Andy Haverland (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155655456411795/ Video 1338a) Flat Earth... A Mountain of Evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPDtMQqlprk&app=desktop Video 1338b) Flat Earth: Reviewing the Mountain of Evidence https://youtu.be/pnZtstDDQ3s Here are the things that were not tested for, measured or taken into consideration. 1) He is looking down at an angle, so, looking across the mountain tops isn't seeing level mountain tops, but mountain tops dropping more as they go further out! 2) The valleys are lower than the curve, so they allow us to see "across" the curved Earth, through "gaps"! 3a) If we continue the line, then there should be mountains that drop even more, BUT NOT a single mountain is visible beyond the second set of peaks, because they have ALL dropped below the curve! 3b) It take 3 peaks in a row to define and test a curve, not just two. Two peaks doesn't tell us whether it is a level line or we are looking down a slope! 4) Most importantly: No one ever measures or indicates where eye level is! *** How can we know we are looking at a drop or level scene if we NEVER attempt to measure the drop? *** (See diagram No 1338c) No 1338d) There are NO hills visible after the second line of peaks! This is because everything drops off behind the horizon after these peaks! (See picture No 1338d) No 1338e-1) One can't assume the Earth is flat. Without measuring the dip of the peaks below eye level, one can't confirm whether it is flat or curving downwards. (See diagram No 1338e-1) No 1338e-2) If it is flat, there is no dip. However 770 feet out of 34 miles can't just be eyeballed! (see diagram No 1338e-2) No 1339) Summary of Solar Eclipse: A solar eclipse can't happen on a flat Earth, for the following reasons. I will be discussing the solar eclipse of Aug. 21, 2017 specifically. - In general, an umbra is from 70 miles to 160 miles in diameter, the one on Aug. 21, 2017 was about 68 miles in diameter. No 1339a) The shadow is twice as wide as the moon! That doesn't make sense for an umbra! (See diagram No 1339a) No 1339b) The umbra was 68 miles across. The penumbra spread out over 3,000 miles across. Here is an image from my solar box, on Aug. 21, 2017 around 2 PM, in Toronto, an hour into the solar eclipse. We had 75 percent coverage that day. (See picture No 1339b) No 1339c) The entire continent darkened, for 2 1/2 hours, during a clear sunny afternoon! It was like a cloudy day, but with blue sky! *** That is a penumbra, that is fact! No 1339d) 1) The umbra has to be smaller than the moon's diameter, otherwise it would just be a shadow. 2) There wouldn't be an umbra and penumbra unless the sun is bigger than the moon! Here is a picture illustrating that light from every spot of the sun goes in every direction (Let's say 180 degrees). (See illustration No 1339d) No 1339e) 1) The light being blocked by the moon, is the reason for the umbra. 2) The light being partially blocked by the moon, is the reason for the penumbra. (See illustration No 1339e) No 1339f) Because the sun and moon are the same size on the flat Earth; 1) The umbra can't be smaller than the size of the moon. The umbra can't be smaller than 32 miles. However, in real life, the umbra was 70 miles across. 2) It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a 70 mile shadow with smaller light source, but then there is no penumbra! -------------- *** The eclipse is impossible on a flat Earth! *** (See illustration No 1339f) No 1339g) Scale size of the sun, moon and Earth. (See illustration No 1339g) No 1339h) 1) The moon travels about 2288 mph as it orbits the Earth, so it's shadow crosses the Earth at 2288 mph, eastward. *** INDEPENDENTLY of the Earth's rotation! *** 2) The Earth, at the equator is going about 1,039 mph. In North America, the surface is going at about 700 mph, eastward. 3) The net effect is a shadow, crossing about 1588 mph, eastward, during the eclipse. ---------------------- *** The entire solar eclipse proves the Earth, sun, moon model is correct! (See diagram No 1339h) No 1339i) There wasn't just an umbra, but a huge penumbra that crossed North america at the same time. Here is the pattern of the umbra AND penumbra. (See illustration No 1339i) No 1339j) Here is the path of the penumbra and umbra. (See illustration No 1339j) No 1339k) This is the eclipse taken from the DISCOVER:EPIC satellite 909,000 miles away. (See picture No 1339k) No 1339l) James Edward Angeles Does not make sense on flat earth map (See meme No 1339l) No 1340) If the Earth is the center of the universe, not in a solar system on the outskirts of the a galaxy, then why do we only see the Milky Way on one side of the night sky? Why isn't the Milky Way all around us, as it would be, if we were at the center? (See picture No 1340) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155677237781795/ No 1341) Routes to the south pole converge: If the south pole is an ice wall, how do people start off from different points and end up at the south pole? On a flat Earth map, south is going away from each other, yet they meet at the same spot! (See map No 1341a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155677842361795/ No 1341b) Here is the location of Ross Island and the Bay of Whales on the entire map of Antarctica. (See Map No 1341b) No 1341c) Here is the location of the Ross ice sheet with respect to the globe. It is south of and just east of New Zealand. (See picture No 1341c) No 1341d) When we super-impose the routes onto a flat Earth, north pole centered, azimuthal map, we see the directions don't lead to the same location! (See diagram No 1341d) -------- References and examples; Comparison of the Amundsen and Scott Expeditions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Amundsen_and_Scott_Expeditions McMurdo–South Pole Highway, is an approximately 995-mile-long: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole_Traverse Route to the south pole: http://www.shackletoncentenary.org/about/the-route-to-the-south-pole.php 7 ways to Antarctica: https://www.wanderlust.co.uk/content/how-to-get-to-antarctica/ No 1342) Another meteor shower this month! (April 2018) *** Because we are in a solar system! *** ------------------------- Ever wonder what might be visible in the night sky? We can tell you! In April, the Moon, Mars and Saturn form a pretty triangle, Jupiter's cloud belts and Great Red Spot will be easy to see, plus the Lyrid meteors peak on the 22nd. More: https://www.facebook.com/groups/astronomyandcosmology/permalink/204030590196150/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155677257736795/ 1343) A combination of facts that support the Earth's surface curving: 1) If I analyze the horizon; - the measurements for it dip from eye level, - the distance to the horizon can be calculated from a given eye level and curvature calculations, - the fact that it is always a 360 degree circular patch of Earth. - small boats are visible BEFORE the horizon, WITH water rising after it and large ships are visible AFTER the horizon but partly hidden below the horizon, 2) then add in the path of the stars and sun; - going from horizon to horizon - UNDER the Earth and back up the other side the next morning/evening - this being observable for the same star or sun, in two different longitudes SIMULTANEOUSLY and - these two simultaneous paths having totally different angles, AT THE SAME TIME 3) Actual geodetix surveying that measured the angles and curve of the Earth directly across 20 to 60 miles at a time. 4) Experiments directly measuring the curve of the water 5) video of the sun rising and setting ... that can ONLY be explained by a curved surface! How can anyone deny this FACT? --------- ALL the evidence combined; - rules out flat Earth and - PROVES the Earth is spherical. (See pictures No 1343a to j, in no particular order) No 1344) Tests and proofs you can perform yourself: Here is a list of tests and proofs that you can perform or observe. In my arrogance, I have names quite a few and called them "Proofs". (I'm sure they have been thought up and done throughout the ages already, but I can still dream.) If you have any questions or wish to discuss any of them, just ask! ------------------- I've named several effects/tests; No 286a) The Zooming Effect No 448) The Polaris Effect No 660) The 3 sticks test No 681) The Tangent Effect No 690) The Cloud Horizon Effect! No 717) The Half Moon Terminator Proof No 736) The Solar Radiation Effect/Proof No 833) The Twighlight Zone: - Clarification No 909) The looming effect No 914) The flat Earth rocket thrust conundrum (Bruce Ing 2017-08-20) No 915) The Umbra Conundrum (Bruce Ing, 2017-08-20) No 1020) The Solar Winds and Comet Proof: No 1027) The Equatorial Mount Proof: No 1048) The cloud on horizon proof: No 1085) Parallel lines never meet - Parallel line proof: No 1086) Area of the Earth proof: No 1199) The Celestial Planes Proof: (The Sun-wood slat demonstration) No 1237) The Constant Angle Proof: And made up 2 laws; Bruce's Laws of Rocketry (No 721) Bruce's Law of Vacuums (No 722) See diagrams and pictures No 1344a to p) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155517065936795/ No 1345) All the physical characteristics of the horizon/curve that we see: We have shown that; 1) the horizon dips from level. (MEASURABLE) 2) things drop down from that downward angle AFTER the horizon and CAN'T be brought back into focus (e.g. large ships, NOT small boats) 3) the horizon is always the same distance away, on water, 360 degrees around the observer. 4) everything BEFORE the horizon is 100 percent visible with water rising after the object 5) everything ON/AT the horizon is 100% visible with NO flat Earth water rising to eye level 6) Things AFTER the horizon start dropping at 8 inches per mile squared. 7) None of the vast ocean after the horizon, 3 miles away is EVER visible, no matter how much we zoom in! 8) As we go up, we see a circular section of Earth and/or WATER! Beyond the horizon, no flat Earth visible, EVERY! 9) The distance to the horizon is estimated by curvature calculations on a spherical Earth! What could this fit, other than a curved surface? - See measurements of the dip, (Picture No 430d) - See curved surface, (Diagram No 1076) - See flat Surface, (Diagram No 13) - See image from high altitude balloon - no flat Earth "rising to eye level" (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155651852811795/ No 1346) DeSam Sts "If the Earth is spinning at 1,000 mph, why aren't we being flung around like rag-dolls?" If you're a Flat Earther who's ever (mockingly) asked this question, or some variation of it. I have 2 questions for you: This car is going between 45-50 mph...How fast is the smoke traveling? (and) How is it keeping up with this car without being slammed against the back window due to the cars speed? https://www.facebook.com/desam.sts.7/videos/140528670118530/ (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155673989481795/ No 1347) Nathan Grieg - Two new proofs for Bruce Ing that I haven't seen before. No 1347a) 1. Variation on a theme, but slightly different. If one were to travel from Finland to Madagascar on December 21st, one would be 5800 miles closer to the sun... yet the size of the sun doesn't change. Only the length of daylight and the strength of the sunlight No 1347b) 2. Solar panel energy production is predicated on a mirror image world. The tables for solar energy production would show the same amount of energy production via equivalent solar panels at the same latitudes in the north and the southern hemispheres. I got the idea for these from a retard Flat earther who works for a solar energy company and obviously has no idea about how his own industry works. I doubt that the solar energy for his home (Calgary) would get ANY solar energy production past the equinox because the sun angles would be too long and the sun would be too far away. Nathan shared 8 recent posts in this group. Learn more about (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155678274206795/ No 1348) How does a vacuum drag/move or in any way, affect an air molecule in the atmosphere? Please tell me SPECIFICALLY! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155678264526795/ No 1348b) A vacuum is nothing. How does nothing influence the speed, direction etc of an air molecule in our atmosphere? No 1348c) If flat Earthers insist the immense speed of the Earth, through the vacuum of space should cause some drag on our atmosphere. i.e. The atmosphere should be standing still and the Earth moving under it, thereby causing 1,039 mph winds at the equator. *** The, SPECIFICALLY, how does this vacuum, drag/hold the atmosphere back? *** No 1349) Things that can't work or can't be explained on a flat Earth: - Star trails - South polar axis of rotation - the sun and moon rising and setting - the horizon dropping according to curvature - flying disances south of the equator - satellites and the ISS in ORBIT - the sun and moon "hovering" 3,000 miles above the Earth - How or why the sun and moon orbit around the north pole - The Coriolis effect - The placement of the equator off,center, on the flat Earth. (Unless it is in the center, in which case, it's circumference is much bigger than it is in real life) - Why "down" is down on a flat Earth - The Eötvös effect (You weigh 1% less, flying east than going west, due to centripetal force) - GPS and satellites - Satellite communication - Telecasting from remote locations What else? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155678599346795/ Kyree Vlade - How tectonic plates work on a flat earth - Also their movements: Amir Adanan + seasons No 1350) Flat Earth Cherry Picking Off the top of my head; - Ignore how gravity explains everything, but instead claim that if gravity pulls oceans down then birds and planes shouldn't be able to fly, and clouds should not be able to stay up. Don't apply the same criteria to flat Earths' explanation, density. Allow density to let things fly, float and be carried by the wind. - Claim since boats work in water, planes work in air and we only see rockets work in air, that things have to push off a medium. e.g. boats push off of water, planes push off of air and rockets push off of air, therefore, rockets can not work in a vacuum. - Deny any test that show otherwise or explanations for how thrust works. - Ignore the fact that after thousands of years, flat Earth doesn't have a single measurement of the flat Earth. - Choose vague references to voyages to Antarctica in the 1800's and the ships log referring to a vast land beyond Antarctica. Ignore all travel, trips, races, flights etc. in modern times that contradict the voyage. - Choose pictures of small boats BEFORE or AT/ON the horizon and zoom in on them as proof that things only disappear due to "perspective" and "vanishing point", ignore or deny large ships AFTER the horizon that permanently drop behind the horizon. If they persist, change the subject to looking along the horizon and insist we don't see a curve. - Ignore all curvature calculations that prove the world is spherical - ignore the fact that all horizon distances are calculated with the observer's eye elevation and curvature calculations - Ignore the fact that the flat Earth sun and moon can't be anywhere close the horizon, (as they always have to be up somewhere on the flat Earth.) - Ignore how the great variation in heating and sun strength from different distances across the flat Earth, AT THE SAME Vikram Time - Ignore that we only see the vacuum of space, and no stars, due to camera exposure form high altitude balloons pictures and video. Don't apply this same criteria to NASA/space pics when criticizing the fact that there are no stars during daytime conditions, on their pics. - ignore the fact that there is no explanation for how a flat Earth sun and moon, just "hover" 3,000 miles above the Earth, in a continuous circle, going from 700 mph at the tropic of Cancer to 1,300 mph at the tropic of Capricorn. - Claim everything under the sun can't work on a globe, and ignore the fact that those same issues apply to a flat Earth. (Also, ignore the fact that there actually are explanations for everything on a globe!) - Ignore that looking ACROSS a horizon, (at things dropping), is much easier than looking ALONG a horizon, (left to right), to try to see curvature. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155678600046795/ No 1351) Here's a list of what you have to deny, off the top of my head; - that the flat Earth map is only an arbitrary projection of the globe onto a flat Surface - Gravity doesn't exist - Any and all pictures from space are fake - Fusion doesn't exist in the sun (it would blow up) - The moon is not solid, not spherical, not reflecting sun light - Seismology is wrong (Therefore deny that we can understand anything below 9 miles, thanks to seismology.) - oceanography is wrong - plate tectonics is wrong - volcanism is wrong - geodetic surveying (surveying large distance and the curve of the Earth), is wrong - Satellites don't exist - GPS is weather balloons, not satellites - the ISS isn't real - No one has ever gone to space - We can't go to space - Stars aren't far - planets are only points of light (remember deny all images from NASA) - everything we ever learned from astronomy that shows the Earth isn't the center of the universe is wrong - deny comets - deny meteorites - deny any test we can show you that proves the Earth is spherical and rotating - deny ships going over the horizon - Deny physics and astrophysics - Deny solar observations - deny any picture taken that shows curvature - deny any amateur picture showing the ISS or satellites against the sun or moon - deny solar and lunar eclipses - deny the scientific history of the Earth's formation - deny pilots fly using a spherical Earth. - Deny distances sailed and traveled in the southern hemisphere are shorter than at the equator - deny the south pole is an actual polar axis of rotation - deny the southern constellations - deny that anyone from Australia, South America or southern Africa has seen southern constellations or the south pole - Deny the significance of star trails in two hemispheres - deny that star maps in the two hemispheres are the same size - deny flights can fly from one continent to another in the southern hemisphere - deny all the information a $4 globe, from the dollar store, can demonstrate - deny that Antarctica is a continent at the south pole - Deny the south pole is an actual pole, (but is instead the outer edge of a circle about 50,000 miles in circumference.) - deny anything that can't work on a flat Earth. - Deny that there is nor force or reason for down on a flat Earth and that density can't replace gravity - Deny all the people that would have to be in on it and lie to us about the Earth being flat - deny that the Greeks knew the globe was spherical over 2300 years ago - deny that rockets go to space - deny that rockets can work in a vacuum - deny the significance of air getting thinner as we go up That's all I can think of for now... (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155678600696795/ No 1352) NOTHING on a flat Earth should ever be over the horizon! ---------------- If the Earth is in fact flat, then nothing should even reach the horizon! If we zoom in enough, we should always see horizon after any object. *** So, question, how does everything sink below the horizon, if the Earth is so flat? -------------- Not only that, they start sinking only 3 miles out, well within visual capability of binoculars, telescopes etc. to see more horizon "rising to eye level" after any object! (See picture No 1352) No 1352b) Peter Yingling - On a flat Earth there would be no clearly defined horizon like what we see in reality. The land or water would just fade into a haze in the distance. No 1353) Staring down the axis of rotation: (Star trails re-visited.) In order to produce this image the starts must be rotating around the axis of rotation that we are staring directly along! So, how can stars be rotating in a sky almost perpendicular to the ground? (See picture No 1353a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155680584506795/ No 1353b) They would have to be rotating at different angles in every latitude AT THE SAME TIME! (See diagram No 1353b-1) No 1353b-2) What we should see, as we go farther south. (See diagram No 1353b-2) No 1353c) This is impossible, however, if the Earth were a sphere, rotating, then everyone one would just have to look north! Then we are all looking down the axis of rotation. Voila, star trails that are always circular! *** The Earth is rotating, and the stars stay still! *** (See Collage No 1353c) No 1353d) Why do we always see stars rotating around the north pole in perfect circles? If we were standing at the north pole LOOKING STRAIGHT UP, sure, we should see stars rotating in a circle around the pole. (See picture No 1353d-1) No 1353d-2) However, if we go farther and farther away from the north pole, we should see the circle of stars overhead, AT AN ANGLE! It should look like a dinner plate at an angle! (See picture No 1353d-2) No 1353d-3) Instead, when we walk away from the north pole and look at it, the stars always seem to be rotating around the north pole, as if we are still looking straight up at the north pole. Like looking at a dinner plate flat on. (See picture No 1353d-3) How is this possible on a flat Earth? No 1353e) Isaac Kane Dahlvang (See meme No 1353e) No 1354) The energy blocked by a flat Earth moon: With the amount of energy absorbed/blocked by the flat Earth moon, during a solar eclipse, is staggering! *** It's surface should be a molten mass after a solar eclipse! *** If you have ever seen a Fresnel lens used to burn things and melt rock you will understand how impossible that is. (See picture No 1354) The moon blocks 8,789 times the area of light as on the ground. (3,000 mile diameter vs 32 mile diameter. 1,500^2/16^2*1000 watts/m^2=8,789,000 Watts per meter squared.) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155682647741795/ No 1354b) On a globe Earther, the 2,149 mile diameter moon makes a shadow about 3,000 miles in diameter, with a shadow coverage going from 100% (in the umbra), down to zero % at the edges. So, the exact same amount of sunlight is blocked that is missing in the umbra and penumbra! No 1355) Why, when people say there is never a curve, they DON'T show any pictures standing on one end of the bridge and ZOOMING in on someone/thing on the other end/horizon? It's always a high altitude shot (bridges) or a regular picture (lake beds) that doesn't actually show you can see the entire distance FROM THE GROUND! For example, this picture with a caption saying there is no curve, that you can't actually see the end of is suppose to prove, you can see to the end! (See picture No 1355) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155682488981795/ No 1355b) Salt flats; - there is an obvious horizon - the horizon certainly isn't hundreds of miles away (still 3 miles or so) - the mountains on the right side are dropping BELOW THE HORIZON! (See picture No 1355b) No 1355c) Horizon about 3 miles away. *** Why don't they ever zoom in to the horizon? (See picture No 1355c) No 1355d) Looking up flat Earth long bridges, there's an explanation right under the picture! "... building something a set height from a curved surface, it will automatically curve" (See picture No 1355d) No 1355e) Claiming to be able to tell a 6,990.5 foot (1.32 mile) drop across 102.4 mile (540,672 feet), from a photo or by eye balling it, is just dishonest! (See picture No 1355e) No 1356) Why can't you see any water more than three miles away, when standing on a beach, no matter how much you zoom in? Seriously, if the Earth is flat, an entire ocean hidden by what? ... NOTHING! (See pictures No 1356a-1 to a-3) No 1356b) Laurent Besson https://youtu.be/-BVgKOvECJw No 1357) James Edward Angeles STAR TRAILS Tested star trails on the globe in correct scale (including rotation and revolution) in simulation, camera set on Manila, PH (14.5995° N, 120.9842° E). North-East-West-South Camera Views - FOV 38° 15'25.4" (0.53x). At 0:40 and 0:53 I started moving the camera views, the star trails and the "apparent" motion of stars remain in the same orientation as if unaffected. •Observable Results: -No observable change in the background/stars bitmap -Opposite Rotation of the Sky for Northern and Southern Hemisphere -Star Trails form circles from the North and South Celestial Poles (Refraction index not considered) -Brightness and Light pollution hide the stars during the day •Orbital Parameters (estimated): -Semimajor Axis: 149600000 km -Sidereal Orbital Period: 365.256 earth days -Tropical Orbital Period: 365.242 earth days -Perihelion: 147090000 km -Aphelion: 152100000 km -Mean Orbital Velocity: 29.78 km/s -Max Orbital Velocity: 30.29 km/s -Min Orbital Velocity: 29.29 km/s -Orbit Inclination: 0.000 degrees -Orbital Eccentricity: 0.0167 -Sidereal Rotation Period: 23.9345 hours -Length of Day: 24.0 hours -Obliquity to Orbit: 23.44 degrees -Inclination of Equator: 23.44 degrees •Supported by: -StarGen: Solar System generator for Windows and Mac OS -XYZ Finder: From Selden's site: an e-mail based tool to request xyz coordinates from Horizons. -Lua Edu Tools 1.2: multilingual coder -The GIMP imaging software: Open source imaging -The nvDXT library: Nvidia DDX texture utilities -Blender: Open source 3D software -Meshwork: 3D mesh builder OS X Program used: Celestia Project Music used: Nazareth - Hair Of The Dog (See video No 1357) https://www.facebook.com/odditiescelestial/videos/2008174955863356/ (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155677681551795/ No 1358) Observations, characteristics and measurements of the sun compared to the flat Earth: Of we look at conditions for the sun, ALL the conditions for; - the Earth's exposure to the sun (See No 736 for original discussion), - the sun's direction in general during the day, - the sun rising in the east and setting in the west during the spring and fall equinox's, (See No 390 for original discussion) - the strength of the sun's intensity, - it's constant output throughout the day and year, - it's size variation during the day (See No 1325b for original discussion), - direction of sun rising and setting, - seasonal variations (See No 2b), - angle of radiance etc. ... are NEVER ALL met at the same time. In fact there is rarely a SINGLE POINT on that list that is ever met on any given day! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155689310441795/ No 1359) Further info on Earth's mantle and core: The Mantle is a solid at very high temperatures and pressures, that flow very slowly. So, it transmits seismic waves. (See picture No 1359a) The outer iron core is a liquid, so doesn't propagate P waves. (See video No 1359b) See time 4:17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6wuh0NRG1s (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155690450601795/ No 1359c) Roberto Wajszcuk - This drives flerfs nuts; I’m like have you heard of Sonar? Same concept. And it’s how we figured out how the moon’s inner structure looks like. (See diagram no 1359c) No 1360) Surveying videos: No 1360a) Chicago skyline https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCo6aKkl9F8 No 1360b) 1 mile across a pond https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A90FfiLqEOo No 1360c) Ramped Perspective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKFKWVZbpyM No 1360d) Land Ho: Analysis of FE long distance observations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zugpfih9uRc&feature=youtu.be https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155690652546795/ No 1361) Other videos and sites: No 1361a) Coriolis Effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs No 1361b) Cavendish Experiment - proving gravity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOZ2wf9Tiok NO 1361c) Horizon drop as Quad copter climbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXdDXou4XXM No 1361d) The ISS Live Feed http://www.n2yo.com/space-station/ No 1361e) Phases of the moon explained https://youtu.be/wz01pTvuMa0 No 1361f) Salt flats: Mountains rising as one goes across the salt flats https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2rIK_wbvsg No 1361g) Scale of solar system if the moon were 1 pixel http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html No 1361g) Solar and Lunar Eclipse Explained http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/workx/eclipses/Eclipses.html No 1361h) Moon lunar eclipse; August 7, 2007 No 1361h-1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLBMZ51m7PE No 1361h-2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy6v8BJouyU No 1361i) Understanding East and West; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5RLL78qz_g (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155690658036795/ No 1362) Tools: No 1362a) Curvature Calculator https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial No 1362b) Horizontal Calculator - for radar and Visual http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm No 1362c) Right angle triangle Calculator http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm No 1362d) Centripetal Force Calculator: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf http://calculator.tutorvista.com/physics/533/centripetal-force-calculator.html No 1362e) Curvature simulator: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Curvature%20App%3A%20Simulation%20of%20Globe-Earth%20and%20Flat-Earth (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155690660146795/ No 1363) The atmosphere's change in pressure proves gravity is real: Gravity is a constant force. This constant force causes; 1) things to accelerate down at 9.81 m/s^2 2) acceleration or air being pulled down constantly causes differential pressure in a gas 3) Differential pressure causes more pressure on the bottom of an object than on the top 4) This difference in pressure causes a net upward force 5) If something is less dense that it's surroundings, then the gravitational force on it is less. We end up with a net upwards force on the object. i.e. buoyancy. *** There would be no differential pressure without gravity or the Earth accelerating. - The Earth accelerating would require the Earths weight in fuel every few seconds, we would quickly run out of fuel and have violated the speed of light within a year. The only reasonable explanation left is gravity! Q.E.D. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155695655621795/ No 1364) Richard Gray - The basic problem underlying the FE assertions about density are all very fine and wonderful; but mathematically they don't stand up. Density is a property of matter and doesn't have a time element in it. Gravity, on the other hand, has a time element in it because it's an acceleration, and it allows things to change with respect to time. Density is an invariant property of matter and doesn't explain anything in terms of time. When someone from FE comes up with a way of *mathematically* explaining such as the attached video, then you have something useful to say. The video is slightly more than two minutes of your precious day, so have a look. (See video No 1364) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9LTCwtncDE (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155697566771795/ NO 1365) Laurent Besson Velocity of an object constantly accelerate : a Never speed will exceed the speed of light! (See equation No 1365) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155696564536795/ No 1366) Laurent Besson - One thing is wrong..... "have violated the speed of light within a year." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_relativiste#%C3%89quations_en_fonction_de_t Velocity has a limit and it's what experiment of Michelson Morley show.... c is the fastest velocity in vacuum for every object! The special relativity is like Galilean change of repositories.... Bur with the obligation c=cte It gives Lorentz transformation..... And in these repositories having a constant acceleration is possible for ever... But doesn't mean that you pass through the velocity c. Look at linear accelerator ,which accelerate (eg) electron F=qE constantly to put it at 0.9999999% of speed of light (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155697568946795/ No 1367) I don't know if I've ever heard the term "forced perspective" before, it sounds familiar... https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=vid&ei=tYrTWt-mNoed_QbC3buADA&q=perspecrive+and+optical+illusions&oq=perspecrive+and+optical+illusions&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..30i10k1.1485.12102.0.12415.34.32.0.2.2.0.315.5951.0j22j9j1.32.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..0.34.6042.3..0j41j0i131k1j0i3k1j0i10k1j0i13k1j0i8i13i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.0.wp258Wx3EeA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPwF2cYhULs No 1367b) Peter Yingling - It's called Forced Perspective. It's the technique used by Peter Jackson in "The Lord Of The Rings" to make the hobbits look small. No 1368) Mehdi Belhous - Question : How do Flat Earthers explain the experiment of Foucault's Pendulum ? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155704103761795/ No 1369) DeSam Sts I've taken the PROVEN orbital path of the ISS and placed it over a Flat Earth map...This post is mostly due to the few Flat Earthers that were honest enough to actually watch the ISS in orbit (at 17,000 mph), but wanted to know if it could still work on a Flat Earth circle/disk map....Judge for yourself which one makes physical sense. • Pic 1: The actual ISS tracker orbit, on a flat rectangle projection map, alongside the orbit on a globe. • Pic 2: The SAME (proven) orbital path of the ISS, but drawn out on a Flat Earth circle disk. (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155703804436795/ No 1370) If they sent you up to the ISS and you changed your mind and you believed the world is a globe, how would you convince other flat Earthers of the truth? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155703834821795/ No 1370b) Ian Dela Cerna - But the thing is.. There hasn't been any live uncut video of astroNOTS from ground, then flew to the rocket then enter the ISS through the hatch.. ----------- Bruce Ing Is there uncut footage of anyone doing anything time consuming? Entering a submarine and diving? Going on a commercial passenger plane from start to finish? Boarding a aircraft carrier then taking off? -------------- If it takes takes 6 hours to two days to rendezvous how can you possibly expect uncut footage from launch to entry? No 1371) Christopher Brandon Photo of our earth taken 30 minutes ago. Debunking flat earth and the Australian conspiracy all in one. Take that flat earthers! (See picture No 1371) No 1372) How distance across the universe is measured: The distances to galaxies are measured by the brightness of galaxies, near them, which have had Type 1a supernova explosions. (See reference No 1372a) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155708404221795/ No 1372b) Such an explosion happens once every hundred or 200 years in a galaxy. --------- A white dwarf is stable until about 1.44 solar masses. In binary systems, a white dwarf steals material from the companion star. When it reaches a critical mass of about 1.44 solar masses, on it's surface, the hydrogen fuses and a cascade reaction happens across it's surface within seconds, thus a super nova explosion of known mass and intensity. (See picture No 1372b-1) (See reference No 1372b-2) https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9601024 No 1372c) Since we know the total brightness if the explosion and we can measure the brightness of the blast we observe, we can work backwards and estimate the how far away the explosion was. (See picture No 1372c-1) (See reference No 1372c-2) https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.eagleseye.me.uk/Guides/SupernovaDistance.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjS69OWtcDaAhVKc98KHe9-CxAQFjAKegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2_DNeI_MKtYH91j8mMWkgz No 1372d) These distances are an incredible number of meters away, and it isn't easy to grasp such large numbers, so we state them in large units, such as the distance to the sun, (Astronomical Unit); e.g. 1 Astronomical Unit, "AU", about 93 million miles or how far light travels in a year, a "light year". No 1372e) It is easier to say the nearest star is 4.26 light years away than 25,000,000,000,000,000 miles! (25 trillion miles!) The nearest galaxy is 2.537 million light years away, instead of 14,891,055,697,152,000,000 miles! (14.891 septillion miles!) Light years is just a convenient unit of measure and makes the numbers much more comprehensible than using miles, feet etc. No 1372f) Although a supernova explosion is rare, analyzing a patch of sky for an entire night or several nights in a row, hundreds or thousands of galaxies, will allow a few supernova to be observed and measured. (See picture No 1372f-1) Repeat this night after night and we have a catalogue of thousands of explosions and thousands of distances. (See reference No 1372f-2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supernova_observation No 1373) Karol Masztalerz and Pawel Pleskaczynski Derivation of mean orbital altitude of a spacecraft by use of optical imaging techniques: *** These guys measured how high the ISS is! *** (See document No 1373a) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZdpZD8fZujOkXCSNNYw4lvM0KbX_jrqc/view No 1373b) See example of measurement: measuring the height of the ISS. (See pages 6 and 7) No 1373c) Source code, courtesy of Pawel Pleskaczynski https://github.com/PawelPleskaczynski/Orbit_Calc/releases/tag/1.0 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155708405346795/ No 1374) How does a flat Earth that is 25,000 miles across, cast a roughly 100 mile shadow on a 32 mile diameter moon, only 3,000 miles away? (See diagram No 1374) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155708894446795/ No 1375) Jonathan Slater Density = Amount of Mass per unit of volume, that is thee definition of density, it depends on mass and volume, so if gravity is explained by density it is explained by mass and volume. You can eliminate the dependency on volume by use of a scale, place a large block of plastic on the scale that weighs 1kg, then place a 1kg smaller block of metal. They will give the same reading despite the fact they have different volumes. From this you can see that volume does not affect the downwards force of an object (gravity), so if it’s not volume, it cannot be density, because density depends on mass AND volume! (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155710639276795/ No 1376) Gerry Haines Just want to pin these up, share them with my Fellow Heliocentrists , and ask Flatties everywhere how they explain this repeatable, demonstratable experiment. It is a fact that the effect was first noted in the 1900s on ships doing 10 to 15 knots in the Black Sea and other relatively calm bodies of water. A calibrated weight on a sensitive scale would detect weight loss when moving with Earth’s spin , but an increase when going against the spin . Moreover, the effect increases as you get towards the equator - its as if we were on a spinning globe !!! So how does the FE model explain this? (See diagram No 1376) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/266270063883533/permalink/354525041724701/ No 1377) Bryce Wheeler How do flat earth enthusiasts believe a compass works? How do they account for magnetic declination? On a flat earth model a compass wouldn't work properly.. Bryce shared a recent p (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/266665527141135/permalink/388465924961094/ No 1377b) Leo Nel - You need a hole in the middle of this non existing FE to have a North and South pole. THINK.. You must be an IDIOT thinking you will find any sort of magnetic pole in the middle of a body.. All you FE have is a geographic South and North Pole.. (MAP) a Compass aligns with the magnetic field of the earth.. No fucking wonder you are all bloody lost.. (See diagram No 1377b) No 1377c) Leo Nel - Your FE does not work .. The earth is a globe moron .. Deal with it .. (See meme No 1377c) No 1378) New Orleans from an elevator: Nathan Grieg Yet... you can't even explain how DAYLIGHT HOURS would work on a flat earth... because..it's... impossible. But here's some curvature of the earth for your contemplation. (See video No 1378) https://www.facebook.com/kerri.voluntaryist.5/videos/796680663864624/ NO 1378b) Nathan Grieg - You're literally watching the city disappear behind the bulge of the curvature of the earth. The fact you THOUGHT it was a hill should be proof enough to you that the earth is not flat and that water is curved and creates a bulge in the earth that hides entire cities and ships. Because that is observable reality. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155712198111795/ No 1379) Nathan Grieg - Trip across Lake Michigan and Chicago sky line analysis: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155712207536795/ No 1379a) Nathan Grieg - Rob Skiba's trip across Lake Michigan. (See collage No 1379a) No 1379b) Nathan Grieg - And those missing parts of the buildings plotted onto a graph. (See chart No 1379b) No 1379c) Nathan Grieg - And a close up of one of the buildings in case you aren't clear. (See picture No 1379c) Mp 1379d) Nathan Grieg - Here's the entire video. (See video No 1379d) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-_U5Yhlcck&t=24s No 1380) DeSam Sts A full trip around the world in about 1 min.....Looks curved in my opinion. 90 min timelapse of the SpaceX Dragon (space craft) CRS-14 captured by the Canada Arm 2 of the ISS (April 4, 2018.) #LaunchSomethingOrSTFU (See video No 1380) https://www.facebook.com/desam.sts.7/videos/144705823034148/ (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155708913591795/ No 1380b) DeSam Sts - This is a SpaceX Dragon in route to the ISS (just like in my OP video) about 20 mins after being seperated from the rocket a few years ago Baldagai Kotch and Rachel Halin....All you need to do is record it wwith a powerful camera or a tracking telescope. You could do the same with this, or any public pre-announced launch. Why haven't either of you attempted this? (See video No 1380b) https://www.facebook.com/desam.sts.7/videos/151784288992968/ No 1381) Smoke in a vacuum. Instead of drifting and "defying gravity" as flat Earthers always claim, smoke in a vacuum, falls back down! See the video from The King of Random: Time: 1:58 (See video No 1381) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb2YuC7UbwI (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155714424076795/ No 1381b) Notice that the smoke doesn't rush out into the vacuum and fill the jar! Vacuums don't suck! No 1382) If the horizon isn't all the same distance away, that is, if it isn't a circle, then the edges of our view must be farther away than the horizon in front of us! (I use to have a meme for this, but I can't find it, so, I made this one) (See diagram No 1382) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155715249876795/ No 1382b) The distance to the edge, on a hypothetical flat horizon, would be the horizon distance and half the degrees of the field of view. (See diagram No 1382b) No 1382c) From our perspective/our field of view (FOV), which is about 114 degrees for human vision, the distance to the far edges of a flat horizon would be 1.54 times farther than the distance to the horizon in the center of our vision. We don't see such an obvious change in distance, because we are looking at a equal distance horizon, in a circle around us! (See diagram No 1382c) No 1382d) Is the horizon a flat projection in front of you OR is it part of a curved circle? (See diagram No 1382d) No 1382e) If we look out at a horizon with a 90 degree field of view (FOV), how far away are the edges. Say, we are looking out from; - a beach, at a horizon 3 miles out. Is the horizon at the edges, 3 miles away or 4.23 miles away? - the top of a mountain, with a horizon 210 miles away. Is the horizon at the edges, 210 miles away or 29 miles away? (See diagram No 1382e) No 1382f) If we look out from the beach, we see a horizon about 3 miles out. If we look diagnonally, we see LESS water, and more beach. Why? ... because the horizon is still only 3 miles out. it isn't a straight line in front of you, but a curve of a circle! (See diagram No 1382f) No 1382g) Here is a picture of a long stretch of beach. Notice, the amount of beach, vs the amount of land gets smaller. This is because the horizon is the same distance 360 degrees around you. It is NOT a straight line, but a circle! See picture and link courtesy of Laurent Besson (See link No 1382g-1) https://www.longislandpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/The-City-of-Long-Beach-is-among-Long-Islands-most-popular-oceanfronts-come-summer..jpg (See picture No 1382g-2) No 1382h) When we are looking at a horizon, is it an arc or a straight line, away from you? See overhead diagram. (See diagram No 1382h) No 1383) Centripetal force, counteracting a central pull explains why things orbit. However, on a flat Earth. 1) What is pulling the sun and moon towards the north polar axis? 2) What is keeping the sun and moon from falling out of the sky? (See diagram No 1383) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155715506266795/ No 1383b) Zack Pretorius - Magnetic fields. Do some research on magnetic lavetation from nicholas tesla. Figure it out you are the scientist No 1383b-2) James Edward Angeles - I've said it already but I'll say it again. Likewise, do some "research" on EM levitation before throwing it into discussion like a deliberate "scientist" Quantum or EM locking/levitation requires a magnetic track and superconductors at a certain very low temperature and vortices that will create currents to counter magnetic fields. By that logic we are supposed to easily detect the currents "between" the surface of the flat earth and the local sun and moon. Also if the moon and the sun have an electromagnetic effect, it will have a more pronounced effects on ferromagnetic objects than non ferromagnetic ones, but in reality it does not. There is a limit as to how far above the "magnetic" track the superconductor can be pushed to levitate, since the power of the magnetic repulsion has to counteract its weight. If the flux is so strong then it won't just lift your local sun and moon, probably all superconductors in the surface of earth. To demonstrate the meissner effect, the material will levitate only when it tries to avoid containment of the magnetic fields - repulsion. In a sense you need a concave/bowl-shaped magnetic track for it to be stable. No 1383b-3) PLUS; - What powers it? - What prevents it from heating up and loosing it's superconductivity? - There isn't a noticeably large enough magnetic field from the Earth to interact with the flat Earth sun or moon. - What kind of interaction would there be between the sun and the moon? How could they cross each other, once every 27.34 days? (i.e. the lunar cycle.) No 1383b-4) Gravity and orbits are self balancing and due to the vacuum of space, can go on virtually indefinitely. Magnetic fields, need constant input of power, and some active mechanism to keep them stable. No 1384) Joe Haley - What if there were no moon. (See video No 1384) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155714520116795/ (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155714520116795/ No 1384b) This means, the wind speeds we have now, are what is balanced and reasonable for the current rotation of our Earth. *** Again, we are in a BALANCED system! *** ----------- *** Having wind speeds the same as the rotation of the planet is NOT a balanced condition. *** - We would never have 1,039 mph winds, even if the Earth rotated 3 times faster! No 1385) What powers the flat Earth sun? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155715600006795/ No 1385a) Here is my backyard. Two days ago, it had two inches of slush and ice. After two days of sun, it is bone dry. (Around April 25, 2018) (See picture No 1385a-1) Here's my gate. (See picture No 1385a-2) Behind the gate, with no sun, the ice is still there! (See picture No 1385a-3) No 1385a-4) There is a lot of energy coming from the sun! 1,000 Watts per meter squared during the summer. Probably 2/3rds of that much power now that the sun is still low in the spring sky. No way a 32 mile diameter sun could generate that, let alone contain it! No 1385b) Calculation for the amount of energy given off by the flat Earth sun. Let's assume that half the Earth is lit at any given time and that all this energy comes from about half the sun. i.e. the side facing us. Lets also assume; - The diameter of the flat Earth is 25,000 miles - the diameter of the flat Earth sun is 32 miles No 1385b-1) Then, Half the flat Earth has an area of; = 1/2 of Pi*r^2 = 0.5*Pi*(6250^2) = 61359231.51 miles squared. Converting this to meters we get, the area of half the Earth = 61359231.51*(5,280 feet per mile)^2*(0.3048 meters per foot)^2 = 158,919,680,084,306.4148 meters squared. No 1385b-2) The area of half the sun is; = 1/2*4*Pi*r^2 = 0.5*4*Pi*(16^2) = 1608.4954 square miles Converting this, we get, area of the sun of; = 4,165,984,061.6020 square meters. No 1385b-3) The ratio between half the area of the Earth and half the flat earth sun, is; = 158,919,680,084,306.4148/4,165,984,061.6020 = 1:38,146.9688 Therefore, the wattage coming off of every square meter of the sun is; = 38,146.96878*1,000 watts per square meter = 38,146,968.75 Watts per meter squared! How does a flat Earth sun produce 38.147 million watts per square meter? No 1385b-4) looking up the exact value for 38.14697 million watts per meter squared. The surface temperature is about 5,092.7 degrees Kelvin. (See screen shot No 1385b-4) http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php No 1386) The sun's shadow is NOT caused by a glass half sphere! ------------- Kemo Sabee - This is one of the more viable visual representations that I have seen for the answer you seek. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTE4WbJvn3I (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155728215821795/ No 1386a) During Equinox, the shadow line is lined up, north south, so anyone LOOKING east, from sunrise, is always looking east. (See picture No 1386a) It has NOTHING to do with tracing along the line of latitude! No 1386b) When we look at the globe in December, the shadow line happens at different angles due to the curved surface of the Earth! (See picture No 1386b) No 1386c) The sun coming in from different directions, other than east, on the flat Earth model, in the horizontal direction, when when look at it horizontally, from above. (See diagram No 1386c) No 1386d) In real life the sun rises AT THE HORIZON! So, when we look at the sun in the vertical direction, the sun is way to high on the flat Earth model. Even if we take a glass half sphere, the light from it MUST be coming in from a high angle to create a straight shadow line! (See diagram No 1386d)" No 1386e) the sun is NOT a spotlight or flashlight. It is a ball that sheds light in all directions. This can be seen with a solar filter and a telesccope! (See screenshot No 1386e) No 1387) It is the total force on an organism that limits it's size and height! If gravity doesn't work, doesn't pull every Kg, at sea level, down with about 9.81 newtons of force, then why do animals, plants and insects have size limits based on their mass and height? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155726016191795/ No 1388) Claims that parallax proves that stars are close: e.g. Jason Comeaux //......... BUT I'M MORE INTERESTED IN THE PARALLAX WHY CAN'T YOU BOYS EXPLAIN TO ME WHY WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF PARALLAX ANYWHERE DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT PARALLAX IS????// No 1388a) The first successful use of parallax was in 1838" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155728236276795/ No 1389) Joe Haley For those who blather on about "nasa lost the technology to go to the moon", here, I'll put it into the simplest terms that even you idiots might comprehend. I wanted to pick up an atari 2600, because I played one as a kid. It was a great game for its time so I really want one. I called up the Atari 2600 assembly line and said "make me one of these, because it was awesome and I have alot of money." "Sorry, Mr. Haley, but the components used to make that fine machine no longer exist" I SLAMMED DOWN THE PHONE WHILE SCREAMING ATARI LIES, THE ATARI 2600 NEVER EXISTED(even though I played it as a kid) Yes flerfers, you are THAT stupid. (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155727137476795/ No 1390) Kim Matthijssen The sun as seen from Mars. But wait, isn't the sun supposed to be a local, 3000 mile high, light source? Does that mean that Mars has its own sun? Why have we never noticed this looking through our telescopes? Can a flat earther explain this conundrum? Let your answer of this poll depend on the explanation from the flat earthers in the comments :-) https://www.nasa.gov/mu…/imagegallery/image_feature_347.html (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155724483051795/ No 1391) Geoff Broad Flermin claimed in FES that we can't see satellites. Quick Google, five sites telling you how to spot them. Flattards don't research. (See meme No 1391a) No 1391b) Geoff Broad Admin · Yesterday at 4:59am Flermin halfwit claimed, in FES, you can't see satellites. Strange I could just Google five sites in seconds that tell you how to. Guess they don't research after all. (See meme No 1391b) No 1391c) James William Kaler Jesse hits the nail on the head. (See screen shot No 1391c) No 1392) Todd Moore https://m.facebook.com/groups/2205176794?view=permalink&id=10155724197861795&ref=m_notif¬if_t=group_comment No 1393) Jakub Andrzej Bojanowski Hello Ladies and Gentleman Can somebody answer me one question What the f is Iridium Flares ? How this exist on Flat Earth Model ? Photo taken by amateur in 1998 by normal camera We have thousands of pictures taken by amatuers I will wait for the answer (See picture No 1393a) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155728221466795/ No 1393b) 2 Iridium flares in one picture (See picture No 1393b) No 1393c) https://www.wikihow.com/Find-an-Iridium-Flare "However, you don't have to depend on sheer luck to see an Iridium flare. With data giving the location of the satellites around the Earth, a program can easily calculate the time at which an observer will see the sun's reflection on the antennas." We can predict when sunlight shines off of the antenna of an iridium satellite! Wow! No 1394) Gravity, potential energy, kinetic energy and fusion in stars: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155728499801795/ 1394a) When things fall together, they release energy, in the form of kinetic energy. When two objects gravitationally attract each other, they accelerate towards each other, speeding up. When they collide, they release energy as heat. That means that when two objects are attracted together by gravity, they are at a lower energy state, THEY ARE MORE STABLE. When a large amount of stellar gas collapses together, it releases tremendous amounts of heat. We end up with a huge ball of hot gas. At the core, hot enough to fuse hydrogen to helium. 1394b) Normally on Earth, it would take a lot of energy to compress or keep hot plasma together to cause fusion. So it is a net energy loss. However, gases pulled together in a star, *** don't require any more energy to stay together. *** The gases are hot, they are compressed so; *** Fusion in a star, doesn't require any more energy input, just time! *** - Fusing 4 hydrogen atoms together is a rare occurrence, but in a star, it has all the time in the world and collisions are happening constantly! 1394c) The added energy from the star, keeps the plasma hot and bouncing around and prevents the star from collapsing further. 1394d) The original energy from gravity, all this potential energy of material spread apart, came from the big bang, or subsequently re-released from supernova explosions (which also created heavier elements.) ------------ 1394e) *** As usual with gravity, a star is a self balancing system! - An important thing to note is that gravitational potential energy is a way to store energy indefinitely! Energy from the formation of the universe has been conserved until today, in the form of gravitational potential energy! References: Gravitational potential energy; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHfn_r-nwvk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62LKnm1PmIc https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/work-and-energy/work-and-energy-tutorial/a/what-is-gravitational-potential-energy Kinetic Energy; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDcf7eEaP0M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy Kinetic masterpieces; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CNU3DQclGs Solar fusion; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZQ4JBv3-Y https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion Nuclear fusion in stars, how elements are produced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtIeozyQ3Is No 1395) The 9 forms of energy: - Nuclear energy - Thermal energy (heat energy) - Light Energy - Sound Energy - Electrical Energy - Gravitational Potential Energy - Kinetic Energy - Chemical Energy - Elastic Potential Energy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4b3oxO0WqE (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155728502036795/ No 1396) 25 facts about gravity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypNpvYU1Ugk How flames burn in space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zdD7lfB0Fs (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155728502391795/ No 1397) If stars don't fuse material and go supernova where do all the heavy elements come from? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155728506906795/ No 1397b) The second source of heavy elements is neutron star collisions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6qWhOtRxtU No 1397c) Gravity pulling gas together, nuclear fusion in stars, neutrino pressure causing type II super nova, the fusing of heavier elements in the explosion, these are all naturally occurring, self sufficient processes. They don't need any intervention. They can be explained by nature and time! Reference; Nuclear fusion in stars, how elements are produced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtIeozyQ3Is How Elements are made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irc7NZA6SQI No 1398) LIGO detector are the newest tool, we can use to further understand the universe around us. With the detection of neutron star collisions, we now have a new understanding of a second process that can produce heavy elements, along with supernova explosions. *** How can gravity not exist, if we can use a tool, to measure minute fluctuations in distances due to gravity waves? *** References: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzZgFKoIfQI https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155728538531795/ No 1399) If the world is electric, how does the sun fuse elements. The energy and pressure needed to fuse hydrogen into helium is far more than can be provided by any electrical force! How does fusion happen without gravity? How do stars work without gravity and fusion? ------------- An electric universe is simply nonsense! Reference: How elements are made; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irc7NZA6SQI (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155728664576795/ No 1400) Does the geocentric model explain how the planets move? The globe model explains and predicts; - solar and lunar eclipses - seasons - the size and distance of the sun during the year (use a solar filter or smoked glass) - planet movements, against the background of stars - Retrograde motion of the planets - the northern and southern hemisphere of stars - the north and south polar axis of rotation - Lunar phases - star trails - The north star dropping below the horizon, when we cross the equator etc. It does it simply with the Earth rotating, with an axial tilt, the moon going around the Earth and the Earth and moon orbiting the sun. -------------- *** How are all these explained on a geocentric model? Is there one specific geocentric, flat Earth model that explains all of this? *** See VoysovReason - Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 2 - The Stars (See video No 1400) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGZEXkSX9wI (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155730107271795/ No 1400b) Notice in the video, how the Milky Way rotates. It shows we are not lined up with the direction of travel around our galaxy, but that the solar system is tilted at an angle to the plane of the galaxy. Not evidence, but an interesting fact! :) (See screen capture No 1400b) No 1401) VoysovReason videos: Flat Earth Falsities - Gravity, Density, and Buoyancy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSxryGwsUQ4 Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 2 - The Stars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGZEXkSX9wI Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 3 - The Moon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTBaOmJEQg0 Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 4 - Easy Experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFU1A88N_6I Flat Earth Falsities - "Flat Earth in 5 Minutes" Debunked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbVmM9ymjxA (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155730129251795/ No 1402) Crossing the equator... How does one explain these phenomena, on a flat Earth? - star trails, - stars turning in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemisphere, - Polaris dropping below the horizon when we cross the equator, - the southern hemisphere of stars being the same size as the northern hemisphere, - hurricanes turning counter-clockwise, in the northern hemisphere and counter clockwise in the southern hemisphere - the sun's daylight hours increasing in the south, until it is 24 hours days, in December, in symmetry to the northern hemisphere, in June, (See star chart No 1402) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155730134606795/ No 1403) The Milky way going through the northern and southern hemisphere: Notice how the milky way traverses the northern and southern hemispheres It literally connects the two and proves that it is one continuous 3D sphere of stars! (See star chart No 1403a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155730136056795/ No 1403b) We can also look at the constellation and how they are connected. Again, they only make sense on a rotating globe. (See picture No 1403b) No 1403c) "In the northern hemisphere, the galactic center is visible in the southern half of the sky while in the southern hemisphere, it can be positioned directly overhead, particularly in the peak of the “Milky Way Season” around the time of the June Solstice." Mar 28, 2015 (See screenshot No 1403c-1) (See link No1403c-2) https://www.space.com/16417-milky-way-galaxy-july-night-sky.html No 1404) Magnetic lensing or optical effects causing the flat Earth lunar eclipse? If a lunar eclipse is caused by some sort of magnetic lensing, going through the north pole, then there are a few issues with that. 1) The moon is visible on the night side of the flat Earth, BUT the sun is not visible, even though it is lighting up the moon ,farther into the darkness 2) We never see this red light scattering from sunlight going through the magnetic north pole 3) Why can we sometimes see the lunar eclipse, while we still see the sun, and are on the daylight side of the Earth, YET we can't see the nighttime side of the Earth at the same time? (See diagram No 1404) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155731784091795/ No 1405) Physics, astrophysics and astronomy explain where all the elements in our body come from. Note, they are explanations. What we know so far. We are always welcome to question the validity of any scientific explanation, however, there is just no alternative explanation that EXPLAINS things as well. (See video No 1405) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6qWhOtRxtU (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155731799591795/ No 1406) *** It is just backwards to say that things we know and have tested for hundreds of years, are invalid because of things we can't explain yet! *** No 1407) Here is a nice video demonstrating how centripetal force and centrifugal force work for the Earth/moon system and their orbit around the sun. (See video No 1407) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0sixWxcmBg (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155733134466795/ No 1408) The flat Earth sun is like a giant 32 mile diameter, 4750 degree kelvin nuclear explosion. *** So, why don't we hear it? *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155735191811795/ No 1409) //Brandon Madill - I'm not saying they ain't far but it's hard to get evidence that they are billions of light years away and yet when I view my telescope I don't get any new stars the longer I watch one spot. Yet it does with our eyes....// ----------- The fact is, we see stars and galaxies red shifted. That means they are going away from us at very high speed. This can't work, if they are close. They literally have to be billions of light years apart, in order for near by galaxies to be going away from us slowly and very distant objects, right up to the microwave background radiation, red shifted so much, that we know they are receding at nearly the speed of light! ---------------- If we do some calculation; Some facts to do our calculations with; - Speed increases by about 71 km/second per megaparsec - a Parsec is about 3.26 light years - The andromeda galaxy, the nearest one to us is 2.537 million light years away We see that; - the nearest galaxy, say 10 million light years away, recede at = 217.8 km/second - medium distance galaxy, say 500 million light years away, = 10,889.6 km/second - far off object, say 13 billion light years away, = 283,128.8 km/second - the Edge of the universe, 13.78 billion light years away, = 300,116.6 km/second roughly, (the speed of light) (See diagram No 1409) Reference: https://phys.org/news/2015-10-galaxies-faster.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155738249511795/ No 1410) David Allsop For all you flermin that just don't get it. Here you go. The horizon is a big circle around you about 3 miles away at sea level... dependant on your height. (See picture No 1410) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155739588401795/ No 1411) Another day, another example of clouds as a natural solar filter! The sun is about the size of a pea in a outstretched arm, (0.5 degrees). - Note the dime, about twice the diameter of a pea. (See pictures No 1411a and 1411b) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155732863826795/ No 1411c) When I came back out of the store, the moon had, came out, on the other side of the sky. (See picture No 1411c) No 1411d) Unfortunately, I didn't get a great shot, with the dime in it. However, as you can see, the sun and moon are the same size. (Correction: The same apparent diameter) (See picture No 1411d) No 1411e) Here's the sun and dime, close up (for size comparison purposes). (See picture No 1411e) No 1411f) Here's the moon and dime, close up. (See picture No 1411f) No 1411g) James Edward Angeles - And the average size of the earth's umbral shadow at moon distance is about 1.3 degrees (2.6x of the moon), slight variation when the eclipsed moon is at perigee/apogee (See diagram No 1411g) No 1411h) Moon size at perigee/apogee, courtesy of James Edward Angeles (See pictures No 1411h) No 1411i) Sun size at perigee/apogee, courtesy of James Edward Angeles (See pictures No 1411i) No 1411j) James Edward Angeles They tell you these two move parallel to the surface but the angular size varies over the year (sun) and month (moon) No 1412) If an astronaut is on the ISS, which is going about 17,000 mph, throws a tennis ball down towards the Earth, as fast as he can. Will it reach the Earth? (See screen capture for poll questions No 1412) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155734806861795/ No 1412b) Kail Weathers - Great question Bruce. And I assume you already know the answer. It would not reach Earth - boomerang effect. :) Technically there would be a decaying orbit and it would burn up before hitting earth. but its ride would take it along a similar path as the iss - first toward the earth, then away. --not sure if this is the original article I read a while back. But it is the one which comes up now. (See article No 1412b) Kail Weathers great question Bruce. And I assume you already know the answer. It would not reach Earth - boomerang effect. :) Technically there would be a decaying orbit and it would burn up before hitting earth. but its ride would take it along a similar path as the iss - first toward the earth, then away. --not sure if this is the original article I read a while back. But it is the one which comes up now. No 1412c) Here is a diagram. When the ball is through, it still has a very high orbital velocity (17,000 mph), so, it gets closer to the Earth, but 46 minutes later, (in it's 93 minute orbit), it is going back up towards the ISS) It's orbit has been changed to an elliptical orbit. (See diagram No 1412c) No 1412d) De Sam Cosmonauts deploy Nanosatellites from outside the International Space Station by hand. (See video No 1412d) https://www.facebook.com/desammz/videos/932436330246951/ No 1412e) Larry Bennett III (Thank you!) - Variations in the ISS's altitude. (See chart No 1412e) No 1412f) Video explanation of why you can't throw a ball back to Earth. From Scott Manley video; (See video No 1412f) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxNJoaBLLNM Apparently you have to throw an object at about 300 Kph to get it far enough into the atmosphere to de-orbit in one orbit. No 1413) Processing photos of Earth Karol Masztalerz - live stream Today I'd like to show you how I process photos of Earth taken by spacecrafts: Behind the scenes look into work of imaging scientist.. (Excuse the screeching noise in background, that's my 3D printer working) (See live stream No 1413) https://www.facebook.com/KarolAstro/videos/2117657788463955/ No 1414) DeSam Sts is with De Sam. Blue Origin's (New Shepard (spacecraft)) Crew Capsule reaches an Apogee of 351,000 Ft. (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155740394261795/ No 1415) Laurent Besson shared a post. Planet Mars to some weeks of opposition C8+ Barlow 2 X F / D= 20 Qhy5 L II C 29-04-18 Mornag Tunisia (See picture No 1415) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155742441766795/ No 1416) James Edward - Angeles And they need to stop using curvature drop formula as a "multiple" or even when looking for the amount of height obscured by the horizon... (See meme No 1416) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155744072401795/ No 1417) When we are looking at the horizon, e.g. from the shore, 3 miles out. *** Is it like looking at a "projection screen"? *** That is, are the edges, to the left and right, farther away than the middle? Why or why not? (See diagram No 1417 - from No 1382e) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155743935221795/ No 1418) *** Where is the rest of the THE ENTIRE PLANET, after the horizon? *** ----------- - Vast oceans are hidden by water, 3 miles out? - Snow fields and mountains hide from view, at 30,000 feet, by a horizon 212 miles away? *** What is this magical horizon that blocks the light from even the biggest features of the planet? (See diagram No 1418 - from No 1191b) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155743992936795/ No 1419) I have noticed that a lot of flat Earthers are very self sufficient. Carpenters, hunters, built their own house etc. I wonder if that translates to a bit of arrogance or unwillingness to trust the opinions of others/the establishment. An us vs them attitude. --------- Basically, why would you mistrust what the government or education is telling us. It isn't as direct, but someone put a lot of time and effort into putting up satellites and surveying the Earth, too. You don't have to verify everything personally, for it to be correct. There are others out there who have done a good job, have integrity and yes, have proven the world is spherical! -------- Could this be an extension of the jock vs nerd ? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155744044431795/ No 1420) Luis Purcell What do you think is this light in my night sky? (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155743190046795/ No 1421) Courtesy Steve Markiewicz How field of view and altitude change the apparent size of continents (With atmosphere) Synopsis: When looking at an image of the Earth, the distance of the camera and its field of view angle can have a huge impact on the apparent size of the land masses. (See video No 1421) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH3TMkYFUx4&feature=youtu.be (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155748521031795/ No 1422) Courtesy Toni Milner Analysis of flat Earth video: Globe Earth Mathematically Debunked (See video No 1422) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bol8vZ7pcu8 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155748556766795/ No 1422a) Atmospheric refraction - makes things look higher in the sky than they actually are. (See illustration No 1422a) Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction No 1422b) They used a concave lens. It makes things spread out. So, from the ground, the sun looks ... LOWER, than it actually is! (See illustration No 1422b - concave lens from video) No 1422c) Here is a side by side comparison of what the experiment did and what happens in real life. (See diagram No 1422c) Reference illustrations for refraction: https://www.google.ca/search?q=refraction+through+the+atmosphere&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA710&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9kr7X4-naAhVGrVkKHYDdCQ0Q_AUICigB&biw=1137&bih=644#imgrc=_ No 1422d) When light from the sun, comes down through the atmosphere, it is going from less dense air to more dense air. Therefore it bends, as it goes through the atmosphere. However, it doesn't bend upwards, as the video indicates, it bends downwards. An example of this is light going from air to water. In the illustration, light bends downwards and we think we see the fish higher than it is. *** If we are the fish (e.g. on the ground), then the person (or sun), would appear higher than it actually is. *** (See diagram No 1422d) No 1422e) If we use the proper lens (a convex lens), then the sun appears higher than it actually is. That means for people in different locations and distances, the sun appears in different places. *** The sun's position, diverges, instead of converging! (See diagram No 1422e) No 1423) Different versions of "down". Steinar Bremnes April 26 at 9:42pm (Since I couldn't find a way to post two drawings together in a sub-post, I have made this an OP to respond to Eric Duhamel's post of six hours ago.) Eric Duhamel The claim you make in the following statement is demonstrably untrue: “While its true the Sun appears to be ‘down’ from certain points on Earth th is leads to very confusing three-dimensional terminology because it confuses two different definitions of the word ‘down’”. I understand that it can be very confusing terminology to a person unable or unwilling to step away from the flat earth model long enough to actually see what a globe model is telling us. Nevertheless, on Earth, there is only one "down", and that is toward its center. As you rightfully point out, “ the Sun is above one point on Earth no matter where the observer is”. On a flat earth model, any person looking at the sun would need to look up to see it. On a globe, the sun actually is “down” for some while it is up to others. The simple drawings that follow show that, with almost no effort at all, anyone can understand why. And anyone who has a globe at hand should have no trouble understanding how this applies on Earth. For instance, if Person B is in Brazil with the sun directly overhead and Person A is in the Philippines at the exact opposite point on the globe, I can draw a straight line that connects all three ( the sun, Person A, and Person B). Both Person A and Person B would need to be looking in exactly the same direction to be looking to where the sun is located. Since, on a globe, down is always in the direction of its center (due to the fact that the pull of gravity is always toward the center of mass), we observe Person A looking down when looking in the direction of the sun while Person B is looking up. This should not be confusing to anyone. In the first drawing, I lay this out in all its simplicity while in the second I add further detail. (See diagram No 1423a and 1423b) From original - Flat Earth - Serious Research & Discussion Only https://www.facebook.com/groups/143752942921617/permalink/186789378617973/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155749341271795/ No 1424) Dave Greg April 25 at 9:03pm Check out the research about the ships in the comments under the video. Published on 21 Mar 2018 Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible. Unless they're deploying cargo submarines these days.... (See video No 1424) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8zjQt3Tcaw From original - Flat Earth - Serious Research & Discussion Only https://www.facebook.com/groups/143752942921617/permalink/186531691977075/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155749364336795/ No 1425) James Edward Angeles Solar Noon Analemma Variation of Earth Orbit and Solar Day Lengths - The Equation of Time. This is the fastest approach to explain the apparent position of the sun in the sky every 24 hours clock time... (See original OP video No 1425) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155749787761795/ (Original Video https://drive.google.com/file/d/19vj1lokXpSwLj_DPSM_HWZ0fFadDCdlw/view No 1426) As you go up, you start looking down, more and more, to see the horizon. No 1426a) There is no explanation for this, for the flat Earth. You should always look the same angle away. Your vanishing point, should always be the same angle, otherwise, things are just getting bigger when they vanish! (See diagram No 1426a-1) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155752274046795/ No 1426a-2) Calculations for diagram No 1426a-1: (See screen capture No 1426a-2) Distances used. Elevation Distance to Horizon Pixels: Vertical Horizontal 6 feet 3 miles (person on shore) 1/6 (549/31) 1730 feet 50 miles 7/100 (543/125) (Sears tower observation deck) 30,000 feet 212 miles 120/414 (430/439) (commercial airplane ride) 124,000 miles 431 miles (Red bull jump) 496/862 (54/887) Scale Vertical: 1 pixel to 250 feet Horizontal: 2 pixels per mile (See data No 1426a-2) No 1426b) This makes sense though, when you plot them on a globe, where the drop to the horizon is about twice your eye level (as has been calculated and measured). The horizon follows a curved surface! If we plot the horizon distance with globe drops, then they make more sense. The horizon distances match what we would expect on a spherical Earth! (See diagram No 1426b-1) No 1426b-2) Calculations for diagram No 1426b-1: (See screen capture No 1426b-2) Globe elevations Elevation Drop Distance to Pixels: Vertical/ Horizon Horizontal/drop 6 feet 12 feet 3 miles 1/6/-1 (299/31/301) (person on shore) 1730 feet 2,460 feet 50 miles 4/100/-4 (296/125/304) (Sears tower observation deck) 30,000 feet 60,000 feet 212 miles 60/414/-60 (240/439/360) (commercial airplane ride) 124,000 miles 248,000 feet 431 miles 248/862/-248 (52/887/548) (Red bull jump) Scale Vertical: 1 pixel to 500 feet Horizontal: 2 pixels per mile (See data plot No 1426b-2) No 1426c1) Combined diagrams. No 1427) Paul Reilly - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2UsFFJo680 Dawkins Concedes Intelligent Design..... yet references a self replicating molecule which could have been created so long as it wasn't created by God... http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/688840.pdf No 1427a) From time stamp 3:45 Richard Dawkins said that an intelligent designer could be possible, BUT that intelligent designer would have come about by Darwinian means. i.e. It's just moving the goal post. One would have to have a MORE advanced civilization, that could then travel across the stars, to seed other planets! Of course, if you ask someone if something is possible, they may entertain the idea, it doesn't mean they believe it and Richard Dawkins did not offer the proposal in the first place. Just responded to someone else's suggestion of intelligent design! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155752471951795/ No 1428) Shaun LaFleur - You can only zoom into a boat and bring it back into view when it is >out of your range of perception but not yet over the horizon<. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings by flerfs and is the reason why they don't believe that boats go over the horizon. Here is an example of a boat that is actually over the horizon. (See video No 1428) https://youtu.be/P8U5aYH1yhk Edit: Also, the sun can not set due to perspective in the way that we see it set in reality. Perception will never cut an object in half. It will simply shrink until you can no longer see it. No 1429) How we can see the moon during the day, on a globe. Keith Hoover - Look at that, the moon is out and it is daytime. (See picture No 1429a) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155746604036795/ No 1429a) Larry Bennett III (See illustration No 1429b) This is an illustration of where one would be, to see the sun and moon during the daytime. No 1430) Making a rainbow indoors. Some flat Earthers claim that not being able to make rainbows indoors proves that we need a dome to make rainbows. However, there is no direct link or cause explained for how or why this is the case. At the end, all we need is a light source from behind and slightly above and raindrops to make rainbows. ----------- An important thing to note is, don't let flat Earthers move the goal post or insist that you have to prove or demonstrate that indoor rainbows are possible. What mechanism or reason is there for a dome? None! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155752896836795/ Indoor Rainbow, Flat Earth Debunk, Take 3 (See video No 1430a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3yIqfa5TQo Indoor Rainbow, Flat Earth Debunk, Take 4 (See video No 1430b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QNw_8HLqhc No 1430c) A rainbow is an entire circle. How would a half dome make a full circle rainbow? (See video No 1430c) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-RVg0yzUN4 No 1430d) A particular rain drop, coming down a particular spot, would reflect and refract a particular colour. - A little below that, it would reflect a different colour of the rainbow. (Hence the different colours) - to the right of that, it would reflect at a slightly different angle, to your eyes. (Hence the arch.) *** The fact that raindrops are basically circular, explains why we see a rainbow as an arch, and from high enough, an entire circle. *** No 1430e) A prism spreads light, at different angles, depending on the wavelength/colour. Julio R Laredo (See diagram No 1430e) No 1430f) Light from a rainbow is reflected form 40 to 42 degrees, that is why you see the rainbow, from top to bottom. (See diagram No 1430f-1) No 1430f-2) By KES47 - Own work, Public Domain, (See link No 1430f-2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10636870 No 1430f-3) When we talk about spherical rain drops, the angle is from 40 to 42 degrees, for the various colours! That is why you get a rainbow. 1) You see different colours at different angles. 2) The fact that rain drops are spherical, means you see the light from different angles, from different rain drops, thereby creating a arc! *** The spherical raindrop explains it all! *** (See link No 1430f-3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow No 1430g) Light of different colours/wavelengths refracts at slightly different angles. That is why it spreads out into different colours. So, you see red on the top and violet on the bottom, going from 42 degrees of refraction to 40 degrees of refraction. (See diagram No 1430g-1) No 1430g-2) As well, there is a location, around the observer, where this 40 to 42 degrees is met, 360 degrees around one's eyes. Hence a rainbow is a circle around the observer. The bottom part of the rainbow, isn't visible, because it's angle takes it below ground level. (See diagram No 1430g-2) No 1430g-3) If you are up high enough, e.g. helicopter, you can see the full circle of the rainbow. How does a dome make a rainbow who's bottom part is shining up at you? (See picture No 1430g-3) No 1430g-4) *** The spherical raindrop explains it all! *** 1) The reason for the different colours refracting at different angles. 2) The reason for the circular shape of the rainbow. *** It is a circle, from 40 to 42 degrees, around your eyes! *** No 1430h) Lucas Sheard - What do think principles and characteristics means, (See link No 1430h-1) http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/16823-s16/www/pdfs/appearance-modeling-15.pdf (See PDF No 1430h-2) No 1430i) What makes more sense. No 1430i-a) Rainbows caused by reflection and refraction in water droplets? - reflecting from 42 to 40 degrees making red to violet light, as droplets drop- Making a circular pattern around the observer, in that same 42 to 40 degree angle - Light source always from the back - rainbows are fainter than the original source, so a bright source of light is needed to see a rainbow (e.g. the sun or a bright indoor light bulb) (See diagram No 1430i-1) OR OR No 1430i-b) Rainbows are caused by an invisible dome, the glass casing for a bulb or a pan of water/mirror on the floor? - water refracting/reflecting off of rain drops is secondary - dome somehow causes rainbows from 3,000 miles away - light bulb casing causes rainbow, because of .... ? (unknown) - pan of water, sloshing around, causes steady rainbow because of reflection due to the pan and refraction off the SLOSHING water! (See diagram No 1430i-2) No 1430j) Light has to be parallel to form a rainbow. The bottom of this rainbow is usually blocked by the ground, but in the air we can see a complete circle. (See diagram No 1430j) No 1430k) The secondary reflection inside a rain drop causes a secondary, rainbow, which is fainter and reversed. (See picture No 1430k-1) No 1430k-2) See confirmation by experiment. (See picture No 1430k-2) No 1430l-1) Enlarged picture of raindrop and primary rainbow. (See diagram No 1430l-1) No 1430l-2) Enlarged picture of the raindrop and the secondary rainbow. (See diagram No 1430l-2) *** Note: every raindrop has light going in and out of it in every direction, all at the same instant. *** - So the same raindrop will have light for a primary and secondary rainbow coming and leaving at the same time, in every direction. - There would literally be a ring of light going in from the sun and forming a rainbow in all directions. - However, you only see it when it is at the right angle and that angle is a circular rainbow around the observer! No 1430l-3) Light from a drop shines every colour at the same time, but at a particular angle. So you see specific colours, as it falls, and it is at the right place. (See diagram No 1430l-3) No 1430l-4) Here is an example of rain drops in the right position to shine each colour. Notice each rainbow shines all the colours at the same time. However, they have to be in the right position to shine a specific colour. *** The rainbow is stationary but each raindrop falls through the correct zone! (See diagram No 1430l-4) No 1430m) Simple explanation of prisms and rainbows: (See video No 1430m) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGqsi_LDUn0&feature=youtu.be No 1430n) There are a set of rain drops on top reflecting the rainbow and an opposite set on the bottom, and a set to the left and right and everywhere around the circle! (See diagram No 1430n) No 1430o) Why is it darker above a rainbow: More information on how and why rainbows form: *** IT IS DARKER ABOVE A RAINBOW. *** Why? ... because 42 degrees s the maximum angle for the primary reflection/refraction. (See video No 1430o) https://www.youtube.com/watch… Thanks to Physics Girl and physics in general. Real science and understanding! No 1430p) Other links to explanations on rainbows: Refracted light making a rainbow: http://www.rebeccapaton.net/rainbows/formatn.htm Partial reflection of light: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-light-get-reflected-after-refraction-in-the-case-of-a-raindrop-during-rainbow-formation-but-not-in-the-case-of-a-prism Total internal reflection in a raindrop and rainbows: https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/How-total-internal-reflection-takes-place-in-rain-drops/Refraction-of-Light-at-Plane-Surfaces/94909.htm Primary and secondary rainbows: http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Reflection-refraction-and-diffraction.html Refraction and reflection in raindrops: http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter19/indrop.html Why rainbows are bent: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=51 http://www.pmoylan.org/pages/articles/rainbows/Refraction%20by%20a%20raindrop.html https://www.atoptics.co.uk/rainbows/primrays.htm No 1430q) Supernumerary Rainbows: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html No 1431) The Straight Beach View Test: If we have a long beach, that we know is relatively straight, then looking ahead, we should be able to see things a certain distance away from the beach, that we can't see to the side, the same distance from the beach. Why? Because from our point of view, that object is actually farther away, than when we look straight out, perpendicular to the beach. Therefore there is MORE water, and MORE CURVE between us and that object! (See diagram No 1431) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155752964651795/ No 1431b) Notice how you see more beach and less water to the left and right of the image, in this 180 degree panoramic? That's because the horizon is a set distance away, 3 miles for a 6 foot observer. So, you see more beach, and less water! (See 180 degree panoramic No 1431b - courtesy Jon Coxon) No 1431c) We see more beach to the left and right, because, the horizon is the same distance away, to the left and right of our field of view, BUT the distance out perpendicular from the shore is less. i.e. We see 3 miles out, but part of that is beach and part of it is water. *** It ISN'T 3 miles of water, out from shore anymore! *** (See diagram No 1431c) No 1431d) *** When we look left and right, we don't see the beach stretch along for a hundred miles. The water is hidden by the beach 3 miles away. Why? *** Because the water and beach have curved below the horizon! ----------- The same goes for a long straight river. Our view is a circle! (See diagram No 1431d) No 1432) How to calculate the radius of the Earth, using the moon. This video gives us several pieces of information. 1) The moon is at different distances from us and therefore it's diameter varies during or rotation 2) That the moon is orbiting the Earth 3) The Earth's radius Courtesy of Thomas Scheer (Thank you!) Another informative video from Action Lab! (See video No 1432) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKpogjo2fFI&feature=youtu.be (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155753258411795/ No 1433) How to find a curve in a picture, with a fish eye lens: (revisited) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155753286276795/ No 1433a) Here is a video, mocking globers and using a fish eye lense. (See video No 1433a) https://www.facebook.com/100010828746542/videos/543415419362745/ No 1433b) Notice, when the lens goes across the middle of the door frame, that the door frame appears straight. (See screen capture No 1433b) No 1433c) Objects, such as a horizon, in a picture with a fish eye lens will appear more curved as you go away from the center. However, if you find a part of a video where the horizon goes through the middle of the picture, then that horizon will be a true straight line or a true curve. Why, because if something is straight and it goes through the middle of the picture, it will appear straight. Therefore anything that goes through the middle of a picture, and appears curved, is actually curved! If you take a screen capture, and draw two diagonal lines, from corner to corner and the horizon passes through those "cross hairs", it is going through the middle of the lens and you can see if the horizon has a curve. (Hint: Yes it does!) (See picture No 1433c) Reference video (Courtesy Franko Lambeth - 2018-03-15) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv4Hwk17F8Y&feature=youtu.be NO 1433d) Laurent Besson And if your video is flimed with a type of gopro with a lens : GoPro studio can corrected the image https://gopro.com/help/articles/How_To/How-to-Install-GoPro-Studio-in-Windows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DbMnhUmfQw No 1434) The tides don't come in and out, we rotate into it. - Sydogy - Neap tide - tidal locking work - The effect of tides on our rotation Courtesy Thomas Scheer; (See video No 1434) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBwNadry-TU&feature=youtu.be (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155753295591795/ No 1435) Pictures from space: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155753372686795/ No 1435a) Before digital; - V2 rocket pictures No 1435b) Pictures and video from the ISS France (See Picture No 1435b-1) North Korea (See Picture No 1435b-2) Earth and Soyuz space craft: (See Picture No 1435b-3) ISS live Feed; (See Link No 1435b-4) http://www.n2yo.com/space-station/ No 1435c) Pictures of whole Earth from satellites: - DSCOVER:EPIC at lagrange 1 South America, the atlantic Ocean and Africa - Dec. 28, 2017. (See picture No 1435c-1) Collage of pictures for Dec. 28, 2017 - 1 of 2 (See collage No 1435c-2) Collage of pictures for Dec. 28, 2017 - 2 of 2 (See collage No 1435c-3) No 1435d) Unaltered original pictures. No 1435d-1) Apollo 11: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html Picture pulled from website - original 1.9 MB TIF converted to jpg. (See picture No 1435d-1) (See website No 1435d-2) No 1435d-2) SDSS: http://www.sdss.org/dr14/ No 1435e) Other interesting finds; No 1435e-1) https://www.cnet.com/pictures/10-space-images-that-look-fake-but-are-actually-real-pictures/ No 1435e-2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2883739/The-GREY-planet-True-colour-image-reveals-Earth-really-looks-like-space-without-filters-editing.html No 1436) Neil deGrasse Tyson - Going Nuclear - history of radioactivity - nuclear fission "Keep looking up!" (See video No 1436) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X49o8x0WM4w (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155753476851795/ No 1437) More from Neil deGrasse Tyson The top elements in our body are hydrogen, Oxygen, carbon, and Nitrogen. The top chemically active elements in the universe are hydrogen, Oxygen, carbon, and Nitrogen. "We are special because we are the same" (as the universe). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da8-QfGemgo (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155753477621795/ No 1438) Neil deGrasse Tyson - Stand Up - Ignorance - What concerns me, is the level of scientific illiteracy "NASA actually doesn't get much money" - One half of one percent. (See video No 1438) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htofffMQzls No 1439) RE: 06/05/2018 POR MUSICOLORISTA: Proofs that disprove the globe List (See website No 1439) https://watcherofthetimes.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/proofs-that-disprove-the-globe/ Let's look at this silly list and get it over with! *** Don't we have a discussion of this on a post somewhere already? *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155754002206795/ No 1440) How far away is the sun when it sets on a flat Earth? How can the sun set 4,618 miles away and 13,300 miles away at the same time? (See illustration No 1440) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155756472171795/ No 1440b) Notice the sun never sets at the north pole and is 12 hours of day and night at the southern rim, on a flat Earth, during the equinox's. This isn't what happens in real life. On a spherical Earth, the sun is going around the horizon, at the north AND south poles. How can that happen on a flat Earth? IT CAN'T! Video of the equinox sun at the south pole. (See video No 1440b) https://vimeo.com/136274402 No 1441) What is electro-magnetism? Don't tell me what it does, tell me what it is! How does an electric current make a magnetic field? What SPECIFICALLY is a magnetic field? (See screen shot on "What is gravity?") -------------- -------------- The point is, gravity is just as valid, as well understood and as much a mystery as electro-magnetism. - We use both gravity and electro-magnetism every day! - The effects of both can be measured and are well understood. To say gravity isn't proven and ignore all the vast experience we all have, showing that it is there, it works and it is constantly in our lives, is self ignorance! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155756579976795/ No 1442) Joe Haley - The Hubble Ultra Deep Field observation: (See video No 1442) https://www.facebook.com/SciTechUniversedotcom/videos/1978062762459853/ (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155757209221795/ Another reason why we aren't a small, world, and everything can't possibly be rotating around us! (See pictures No 1442-1) (NASA link No 1442-2) https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_142.html No 1443) Not being able to see satellites, revisited: Da L VeeCe May 7, 2018 at 4:40am They got thousands of pictures of the Earth and not one of them got some satellite in it now ain't that amazing ?? (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155755896471795/ No 1443a) Size, distance and speed of satellites: David Allsop - Not really when you consider the size of an average satellite is about the size of a bus and the distances involved are measured in thousands of kilometres or more. OP, your ignorance is showing... please put it away... It's embarrassing. ----------- Chris Brandon - Some satellites are the size of footballs lol ----------- David Simons - Not at all when you consider the size of the earth and miniscule size of satellites ----------- Bruce Ing OP, That would be exactly what we should see in picture of the Earth. Unless satellites are 100 miles across, there is no way we would ever see one, viewing a large section of Earth. ----------- Carlos Castañeda Can you see a car? Can you see a truck? Can you see a cargo ship? Can you see a plane? Can you see a city? (Dubai is right there) Can you see Egypt's pyramids? Even some countries are too small to be seen. Don't be ridiculous. (See picture No 1443a-1) No 1443b) Size comparison to every day life and photography: Gary Ahearne - Using your logic, I have an insect free garden!! Whoop! (See picture No 1443b-1) ----------- Bruce Ing - Gary Ahearne made a valid point. Insects are far larger in that picture than a satellite would be in a picture of Earth. So why would you expect to see satellites? *** In fact a satellite compared to a picture of you or me, is smaller than a bacteria! *** ----------- Chris Brandon Research camera exposure, see where that leads you buddy. ----------- Lancer Gonzales Thousands of swamp pictures.. but not a single mosquito or any insects in it hahaha (See picture No 1443b-2) Chris Brandon - They must not exist ----------- Jack Reynolds - Do you know how big satellites are compared to the earth? A sattelite could be twenty feet long, and the earth is 1,300,000 feet wide. Could you see a tiny spot 3 microns wide on a football? I don’t think so. ----------- Grothos Malakias - They say there are thousands of people in cities with thousands of cars! Don’t believe them! Cities are fake! (See picture No 1443b-3) ----------- Aidan Hughes - Satellites size (See meme No 1443b-4) ----------- Elizabeth Hasselbeck - Imagine that there were only as many cars on earth as there are satellites in the sky. So imagine there are only a couple thousand cars on all of earth. How often would you see 2 cars in the same place? ----------- Luis Purcell - Da L VeeCe can you spot iss in this picture taken from a satellite 200 miles above it? (See picture No 1443b-5) Luis Purcell - Da L VeeCe can you see ISS in this picture or not, it shouldnt be hard. Top right is what its suppose to look like. Lmk ----------- Kathleen Trebilcock - I love it. Flerfs always yells the "do your research" to globers. Yet if the OP had bothered to do his research, he would know it's a camera exposure thing as to why he can't see the satellites. Actually if he had done some research, he would also know that moons are also referred to as satellites. So his satellite claim is false in that aspect as well ----------- James Brotherton - Not really once you take into consideration the size of most sattelites and the vast area they are in. Think about it. How many people can you see on the ground from a plane cruising at 35000 ft? Yet theres over 7 billion of them in an area much smaller than the area you expect to see one of a few thousand sattelites. Get real. ----------- Tobias Juul Jakobsen - Would you be able to see a 1 cm (in diameter) circle from 10-20 kilometers away? ----------- Larry Bennett III - Millions of cars on the surface of the Earth and not a single one can be seen in those pictures (duh!) ----------- Joe Stewart - There are an average to 2-3 million boats on the ocean every day, why can't I see any in this photo? (See picture No 1443b-6) ----------- Serge Gostoli-Georges - got countless high altitude pictures of the ground but we never have any where we can see ants.... ants are fake ----------- Grothos Malakias - They told me there’s many million people in New York, and it’s famous for the yellow cabs. They lied! Probably New York doesn’t even exist! Must be CGi. Never seen it with my own eyes! (See picture No 1443b-7) ----------- Roberto WajszcukRoberto - Look at all these planes in the sky? Why doesn’t this block out the sky? Learn scale you m@ron. (See illustration No 1443b-8) No 1443c) Seeing satellites: Chris Brandon - They must not exist Da L VeeCe - Looking at it with your own eyes is totally different from looking at an app on your phone none of your little raggedy arguments makes any sense Luis Purcell He means get an app that will track satellites so when theyre above you you can look for them.. Cris Bedsole - Da L VeeCe - Personal incredulity foul (See meme No 1443c-1) ----------- Steve Scobie Crewe - Satellite Tracker App (See screenshot No 1443c-2) ----------- Chris Brandon - I track and spot satellites all the time. In fact I’m due to spot the ISS shortly (See screenshot No 1443c-3) No 1443d) How much effort should be put into convincing flat Earthers: Ilya Glukhov - So austronauts should go out in open space where if something goes wrong they die horrible death just to take a picture and show it to some people that had slightly bad education? Bruce Ing - Worse, show it to people who don't believe they are actually in space! ----------- Michael Wakefield - They expect you to be able to see 1000s of tiny satellites from 1000s or 100s of miles away but say you can't see past a 3 mile horizon because "perspective". No 1443e) Pictures of satellites: Mikey MacKinven - I’ve got heaps of photos of satellites, they’re so damn annoying! ----------- Da L VeeCe Every last one of y'all got a comment but ain't none of y'all ever seen the damn satellite in real life (30 Smiley faces!) no proof Chris Brandon - Wrong. I’ve seen one. And have proof. (See picture No 1443e-1) ---------- Luis Purcell (See picture No 1443e-2) ----------- Luis Purcell (See picture No 1443e-3) ----------- Chris Brandon Took this tonight. (See picture No 1443e-4) ----------- Chris Brandon Spotted just now. Sorry for crap pic but..... checkmate (See picture No 1443e-5) ----------- Dave Edsall (See picture No 1443e-6) ----------- Kim MatthijssenKim and 5 others manage the membership and posts for Flat Earth Society. here you go (See link No 1443e-7) https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/spacesuits/historygallery/shuttle-nov84a.html ----------- Matthew Hall - It should be a gif. (See picture No 1443e-8) ----------- Geoff Broad (See picture No 1443e-9) ----------- Geoff Broad (See picture No 1443e-10) ----------- Geoff Broad (See picture No 1443e-11) No 1443f) Personal Incredulity, moving the goal post. Want's more than one satellites at a time: Da L VeeCe - What took a picture of a satellite so what you want me to believe is satellites take pictures of satellites but only one at a time never too satellites in one picture but there's thousands of them up in the sky Aidan Hughes - Heres two satellites in one picture (See picture No 1443f-1) ----------- Da L VeeCe How can anything take a picture of something moving 17,000 miles per hour? GTFOH with that garbage... Aidan Hughes - They are moving at the same speed. You are so retarded Luis Purcell - Because it is moving just as fast relatively. This is like saying you cant keep up with a car going 60 while being in a car able to reach 60 Chris Brandon - That’s like asking how can anyone take a photo of a car moving at freeway speed ----------- Da L VeeCe - Still when it comes to Logic.. Yaw dumb downed.. maybe instead of trying to defend shit that y'all can barely understand maybe you need to do some research because no matter how much you try to make an excuse for it don't make it a fact or true ----------- Jicho Fauziya Fikira - Never seen two or three satellites in one photo despite there being over a thousand currently operating in orbit. Larry Bennett III - And I've never seen any cars in any of the pictures from space, either Shaun LaFleur - There's about 1500 in space. Imagine spreading 1500 satellites at ground level across the ENTIRE planet. Doesn't seem like a whole lot now, does it? ----------- Joe Haley - Two satellites, one photo. You were saying? (See picture No 1443f-2) No 1444) They have satellites using two cameras and parallax that can measure angles to an accuracy of 7 micro arc seconds. So to those people who say we can't measure stars with parallax ... BULL! To those who say we don't know if stars are far away ... BULL! (See screen shot No 1444a-1) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155762055551795/ Reference: Scott Manley: Space Talk -Gaia Data & SpaxeX's NASA Funding. (See video No 1444a-2) See time 0:28 to 0:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEJWuHxUyrk ------------ No 1444b) There are three different private launch companies competing for NASA funding. Why have such competition and spend MORE on rocketry if NASA is supposedly stealing tax payers money? No 1445) Launching into a polar orbit in the spring gains speed from the Earth's rotation: Mars Insight was launched into a polar trajectory from Califoria's Vandenberg launch site. (See screen shot No 1445a-1) Scott Manley: Why the Mars Insight Launched From California?: (See video No 1445a-2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5FIhHm47Cc (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155762419966795/ ------------ No 1445b) In the spring, when the north pole is tilted towards the sun, polar orbit satellites gain speed, with a delta-v from Earth's rotation, in the direction of the north pole, while launching from California's Vandenberg base. In the fall, the Earth is tilted the other way, so rocket launches in a polar orbit don't have that advantage. (See screen shot No 1445b) No 1446) Hawaii; Seismology, hot spot on the Earth and satellite radar analysis of Hawaii: (See screen shot No 1446a-1) Scott Manley: Kilauea - The World's Most Active Volcano: (See video No 1446a-2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OcfhEy2VTw (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155762456041795/ ----------- No 1446b) The first topic, is that Scott Manley mentioned analysis of the Hawaian volcanic system with seismology. Meaning they figured out what was under the ground, without having to see it with their own eyes. Seismology to map the volcano and it's activities proves seismology works *** How does a flat Earth deny that seismology can and does tell us what is inside the Earth? ----------- No 1446c) The other question is, how and why there would be a magma hot spot on a flat Earth, that has been there for millions of years. The island chains are formed of loose lava and rubble, and they have been forming for millions of years. As the crust moves north, the old island erodes away and crumbles back into the ocean. New islands form, to the south and the whole process starts over again. *** How does a hot spot form on a flat Earth? ----------- No 1446d) Satellite radar, used to measure changes in elevation of Hawaii. Radar pictures from space show that satellites are real. *** How does a flat Earth explain the use of satellites and satellite radar for land mapping? No 1447) Analysis of the atmosphere and the ground: If the air were perfectly still and the Earth started rotating under it, then; - the air at the surface would bump into things, grass, hills, mountains, even waves on the ocean. So the air at the ground would start moving with the Earth. - The air above that, would be pulled by the air below it, so eventually all the air would be moving, to some extent, with the ground. (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155766305351795/ No 1447b) Movement by friction alone. One may argue that no forces can be translated by friction alone, as the air acts like a liquid or gas. There is no shear strength. However, we know this isn't true. Put water in a blender, and turn on the blender. - Does the water at the surface stay still, OR - does the water start moving with the rest of the water under it? No 1447b-2) Obviously the water starts moving with the rest of the water. - Biblically speaking, Earth has had 6,000 years to reach equilibrium and it would only have taken a few days at most to reach equilibrium. - In terms of science, Earth and it's atmosphere where always rotating together, since it's formation. No 1447c) Storms, current etc. Of course, the atmosphere isn't perfectly smooth, there are currents, there are things like the jet stream, however, closer to the ground, it is calmer, because that is where the most force is put into the atmosphere to drag it along with the ground! (See diagram No 1447c) No 1447d) The atmosphere is a very thin layer on the surface of our planet: We have to remember how huge the Earth is and how small the atmosphere is. So, for such a large mass to rotate such a thin layer of atmosphere with it isn't unreasonable. The Earth's diameter is 7,917.5 miles. The atmosphere is only about 10 miles thick, at it's densest. So, on this picture, the atmosphere is less than a pixel thick! (See picture No 1447d) No 1448) Condensation, Fuel dumping and contrails: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155773641576795/ No 1448a) Condensation: Air flowing over the wing, over a curved surface, goes farther than air below it, so it spread out. Therefore, the air pressure on the top of the wing, is reduced. If there is enough reduction in air pressure, you can get condensation, streaming off the back of the wing. (See screen shot No 1448a-1) From Mentour Pilot (See video No 1448a-2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEpKymtUUdM No 1448b) Fuel Dumpting: I have heard some things about contrails from airplanes. If you are on an airplane and see a spray from the wings before landing, this is may be dumping fuel, to make the airplane lighter, before landing. This is especially true during emergency landings, when the plane has to arrive Early and therefore hasn't burned all it's fuel. (See screen shot No 1448b) No 1448c) Contrails: The only place we actually see "contrails" is from the exhaust of the engines, well after the airplane, when the water vapour condenses from the exhaust. (See picture No 1448c-1 (See definition No 1448c-2) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contrail No 1449) Pendulums revisited: Flat Earthers will argue that a pendulum swings because of initial conditions and not the Earths rotation. However, if you swing a pendulum, it ONLY goes back and forth. If it had some initial "rotation" then you would get an oval orbit, not swinging back and forth in a rotating circle! (See diagram No 1449) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155774513011795/ No 1449b) 1) Why does the speed of rotation depend on one's latitude? 2) Why does the pendulum still rotate, even when we eliminate initial input errors? 3) Why does the pendulum always rotate clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counter clockwise in the southern hemisphere? ----------- If the Earth weren't rotating, we wouldn't get all these effects! No 1450) The atmosphere getting thinner is proof of gravity and a globe. If there were no steady force, pulling on the atoms in the atmosphere 24/7, there would be no differential pressure! ----------- Think about it, the air to the left and right of you is the same pressure. The air 100 feet away from you is the same pressure. However, the air on the ground, is higher than the air a foot up! (See picture No 1450) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155774596531795/ No 1451) Scale flying model of the flat Earth: From wolfie6020 (See video No 1451) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0ayJ2ccTTc (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155777134506795/ No 1452) Falcon Heavy's central core lost: For those of you who want to know more. Falcon heavies come in at an angle, and only straighten out, the last minute, if all indications are good. In this case, the center core of the falcon heavy needed 3 engines lit to decelerate and only the central engine lit, because there wasn't enough ignition fluid. As you can see, in the video, the falcon, continued on it's diagonal trajectory, missing the platform and falling into the ocean, (as it was designed to do if approach wasn't correct.) It hit the water going 300 Kpm about 100 meters off the platform. (See video No 1452a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXd5UHFuZVI (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155777830051795/ No 1452b) Falcon Heavy double landings: Sonic booms: (See video No 1452b-1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBlIvghQTlI Double landing: (See video No 1452b-2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5I8jaMsHYk Sounds of the Falcon Heavy landing. From Smarter Every Day. (See video No 1452b-3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImoQqNyRL8Y No 1453) Just like in flat Earthers high altitude balloon pics and video, there are no stars, due to exposure! When you see the Earth in pictures, it is DURING THE DAY! Bright Earth, bright sun shine, no clouds or shading. *** Why would you expect to take pictures of stars and the bright day time Earth at the same time? *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155775579036795/ No 1453a) Where are the stars? (See picture No 1453a) No 1453b) Where are the stars in this picture? (See picture No 1453b) No 1454) Composites are made from several REAL PICTURES put together! So each one of the 3 or 4 pictures used to make a composite is A REAL PICTURE! *** That means a composite is more evidence of the globe, not less! *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155775579961795/ No 1454a) If this is a composite of 3 REAL PICTURES, then how can it be fake? (See picture No 1454a) Isn't it 3 separate pictures that are proof of the globe on their own? No 1455) Accurate time keeping and SatNav: No 1455a) Here is a video on accurate time pieces that helped changed navigation around the world. (See video No 1455a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-g27KS0yiY Navigation relied on the position of the sun and the Earths rotation! No 1455b) GPS, relies on the position of satellites and very accurate timing (within 1 second in a million years!) GPS triangulates one's position with the known location of 3 GPS satellites. (See link No 1455b) http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=55 No 1456) Time was defined in units of 12, because of the Egyptians: If time was defined, due to the Egyptian's counting system, based on 12, then that precedes Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Our understanding of the world, definitions of days, etc. came about way before Abrahamic religions were a thing! Abrahamic religions are the new kid on the block, claiming "I did that!" for everything! *** So, what does religion have to do with the shape of the Earth? NOTHING! (See video No 1456) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vCtsvlN7Uo (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155778093256795/ No 1457) Can any flat Earther show us a picture of open water with a horizon of water where; *** they can zoom out and see the ocean or more water AFTER the horizon? *** - None of this nonsense about seeing or not seeing things farther than we should. - There is a horizon of water. Period! - No water is visible after that horizon of water. Period! (See pictures No 1457a and 1457b) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155778158546795/ No 1458) How was CGI of a rocket 40 miles above the Earth, possible in 1969? Here is a screenshot from the booster separation of the Saturn V. How could this be CGI, 40 years before CGI existed? (See picture No 1458a-1) See video No 1458a-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drmq9H0w_aw (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155778186451795/ No 1459) Surveyor's level - The horizon does NOT rise to eye level: From Wolfie6020 (See video No 1459) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z23-fu7dTsk No 1460) How can the sun be close, if we see planets transit in front of them? We can see Mercury or Venus transit the sun. Entire planets taking several hours to cross in front of the sun! Withnessable by EVERYONE! Sorry, but the sun is much farther away that you are willing to believe. Incredulity is not proof! (See picture No 1460) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155780156231795/ No 1460a) Laurent Besson - An amateur did it (See video No 1460a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9qCVmHLIYY No 1460b) Laurent Besson - And the next will be like that : (See link No 1460b-1) https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/transit/2019-november-11 (See link No 1460b-2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Mercury#Past_and_future_transits No 1460c) Laurent Besson - From where I live today (See link NO 1460c) https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/france/lyon?iso=20191111 No 1460d) Laurent Besson - Jose Martinez (See link No 1460d) https://www.esa.int/.../Mercury_s_transit_in_front_of_the... ESA + NASA No 1461) The universe is flat: (Local space vs the Universe) (See screenshot No 1461) (See original post) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155781944231795/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155782036871795/ No 1461a) Local Space/Time around any object is curved. If we orbit around the Earth, we are moving through a curved space/time. So, locally the space around the Earth is curved. Reference: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of-freedom/httpblogsscientificamericancomdegrees-of-freedom20110725what-do-you-mean-the-universe-is-flat-part-i/ No 1461b) Large scale/Universal Space/Time. However, if we journey away from the Earth, even away from the solar system, into the emptiness of space, then we can travel a relatively straight path.We say, on average, for the entire universe, space/time is flat. No 1461c) Looking at the overall universe: *** All the little bumps, the planets, stars, galaxies, even out. *** On a large scale, things are evenly distributed. *** That is, ON A LARGE SCALE, SPACE/TIME is flat. ------------ Note: That the only reason why the universe is flat is that things are evenly distributed throughout 3D SPACE! - Saying the universe is flat has nothing to do with it being a flat pancake. *** The only reason the universe is considered flat, is that it is evenly spread out in all directions! *** No 1461d) Notice: Flatness, is about space/time. Flatness is about the average gravity in the universe being evenly spread out! Also, the universe is mostly empty space, so this gravity is spread out over a very large area. *** Saying the universe is flat, is the opposite of a flat Earth! It is saying; 1) Gravity exists (space/time). 2) This gravity is spread out evenly throughout the universe. 3) The universe is VERY, VERY big, possibly infinite. No 1461e) Example: If you look at a galaxy as an atom in the air, it is rough. However, spread 2 trillion atoms throughout the volume of a room, and those atoms are pretty evenly spread out in 3D space. The room ("The Universe") is pretty homogeneous. ^^^ That is what flat means! ^^^ ----------- The universe is so spread out that, gravitationally speaking, it is "smooth" and uniform. Whatever direction you go, you will go straight. There isn't a pull, in one direction, more than another. No 1462) Relativity, the universe and "now": No 1462a) Because light takes a certain amount of time to travel anywhere, "now" is not the same for any person. When you look at someone, it took nanosecods for that light to reach you, so you aren't seeing that person "now" you are seeing him/her a nanosecond ago. This doesn't make much difference on our time scale where human reaction is counted in the hundredths of a second. To us, it is practically instantaneous. However, when we start talking about distant objects, then we are looking at things where they were in the past. If we look at a flat Earth's sun or moon, 3,000 miles away (with a speed of light of 186,000 miles), then we are seeing where they were; 3,000/186,000=0.016129 seconds ago! For the globe moon, it is 238,900 miles away, so we are seeing it; 238,900/186,000=1.2844086 seconds ago! *** Nothing in the world or universe is instant. *** We see everything as it was in the past! No 1462b) This is relevant because we can measure how far away things are. The inner planets, tens of millions of miles away, the outer planets billions of miles away. *** None of this is seen in real time. *** *** We can measure and calculate their distances and we know where they were, so many minutes or hours ago. We can then calculate trajectories based on where the planets were and will be, and send space probes to them! ----------- A full scale model of the Voyager spacecraft. (See pictures No 1462b-1) Blueprints of the Voyager spacecraft. (See diagram No 1462b-2) Illustration of Voyager II passing Neptune. (See illustrations No 1462b-3) The paths of Voyager I and Voyager II across and out of our solar system. (See diagrams No 1462b-4) No 1463) The Practical Guide to the Universe: Something interesting to watch. This may refresh our memories or we may learn something new. Lets see! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN5opjxXtaY (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155782573046795/ No 1463a) What we understand about the universe and the world around us is thanks to physics. Specifically astrophysics. Why do we trust what physics hypothesized and tells us about what happens around us, but some of us are so unwilling to accept what astrophysics has figured out about how stars work and where the elements came from? No 1463b) The sun's surface isn't perfectly smooth. It boils with Earth size bubbles. (See time index 15:15) *** We can see this with telescopes. No 1463c) The Corona is visble during solar eclipses. (See time index 16:03) *** How does flat Earth explain this? No 1463d) Life cycle and death of stars: - White dwarfs, black holes, neutron stars. (See time index 33:30) No 1463e) Dust and gas in the Milky Way. When we look at the Milky Way, we see dark bands that are dust and gas. Stellar nurseries. (See time index 1:03:20) These dark patches block out visible light and prevent us from seeing stars at the center of the Milky Way and beyond. *** How does flat Earth explain this band of dust or the fact that we can see stars and galaxies everywhere else, but not through this band of dust? No 1463f) Black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Since the making of this video we have seen evidence from infra red telescopes of stars orbiting so fast and making so tight a turn around an invisible point at the center of the Milky Way. (See time index 1:09:30) So we have observational evidence of a black hole at the center of the Milky Way, about 4 million times the mass of our sun. (See link No 1463f-1) https://www.space.com/1736-milky-big-black-hole-downsized.html In fact, it is now thought that there are ten thousand black holes in the center of the Milky Way. (See link No 1463f-2a) https://www.space.com/40196-black-hole-swarm-milky-way-heart.html (See link No 1463f-2b) http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/galaxy-centre-black-holes-1.4603464 No 1463g) The formation of galaxies: The initial conditions observed by the microwave background radiation. The formation of clusters. (See time index 1:10:50) No 1463g) Red shifting - Hubbled discovery. Distant galaxies are moving away from us. So, in the past they must have been really close together. Hence inflation or "The Big Bang". (See time index 1:14:00) No 1463h) The probability of life on other planets: - 625 million worlds where life evolved in our galaxy - 625,000 intelligent technical civilizations in our galaxy (See time index 1:32:50) No 1463i) Colonizing other worlds with the incentive of the threat of world wide extinction. (See time index 1:51:30) No 1464) Peter Lennox (See link No 1464) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F0N4ST877_o (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155783335561795/ No 1465) Probability in particle physics: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155783691831795/ No 1465a) The likelyhood of an assumption being correct in science is given by probability. In the case of particle physics, we here about certainties in the order of 99.999997% (See article No 1465a) http://user.pa.msu.edu/linnemann/public/milagro/froedeson.pdf Particle physics predicts what particles we should find and there are PETABYTES of data from particle accelerators to confirm this. In fact most of the data from particle accelerators is thrown out, as there is far too much to save everything collected! (See article No 1465b) - What to record? https://home.cern/about/computing/processing-what-record See References; (See link No 1465c) Data collection and distrubution https://home.cern/about/computing The standard model of Particle physics. (See web page No 1465d) http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-15/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-explained/7670338 (See document No 1465e) https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2009/file_38212.pdf No 1466) Asteroids, meteorites and the threat of extinction: There is evidence of extinction level events in the past, estimated that we are overdue for another event and observatories cataloguing near Earth objects. Ever year or two we find ourselves surprised an object on a near collision course with Earth. *** What do flat Earthers think about the need to prepare for and prevent killer asteroid and meteorites? *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155783741266795/ No 1467) Acceleration/gravitational force vs radius: (Why a few kilometers doesn't make much of a difference to Earth's acceleration.) If we look at gravity, it changes with the inverse of the square of the radius. However, if we drop a few miles/kilometers, then look at the difference in radius. Radius of Earth = 6,371 km = 6,371,000 meters Say we drop from 1 km up, then the difference in radius is 6,372,000 miles to 6,371,000 miles. F=G(m1*m2)/r^2 Where; G=6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 m1=5.972 × 10^24 kg m2=1 Kg r=6,371 km=6,372,000 meters to 6,371,000 meters F=9.8165678547348352746971704912697 to 9.8196497377 (m/s^2)*Kg That is a difference of 0.031% Hardly anything for a 1 Km rise in altitude! ------------------ Because; a) the Earth's radius is so big and b) the mass of the Earth is so big, *** a difference of a few kilometers makes very little difference! *** (See picture No 1467) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155788579601795/ No 1468) Analysis of: Flat Earth - 17 miles curvature test from San Mateo Bridge to Bay Bridge From Geoff Henig - I can say the same to you Bruce. Show me some measurable curvature. Infact, show me some a distance test on water of an object falling below the line of sight due to curvature. There should be hundreds of videos. Show me the opposite of this... (See video No 1468) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RXbEhkLt3U&feature=youtu.be No 1468a) The bridge measurements seem to be correct. No 1468a-1) San Mateo Bridge to Bay Bridge San Mateo Bridge elevation: 134.5 feet (41.0 m) Reference: (See link No 1468a-1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Mateo%E2%80%93Hayward_Bridge No 1468a-2) Bay Bridge elevation: West: 220 feet (67 m) East: 191 feet (58 m) Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%E2%80%93Oakland_Bay_Bridge No 1468b) Hidden Curvatures; My issue with hidden curvature is the height of the observer isn't taken into account: No 1468b-1) San Mateo to Bay Bridge view - *** elevation about 14 feet assumed. Hidden curvature: 102.84 feet hidden ***About half the bridge should be hidden. *** (See screen capture No 1468b-1) No 1468b-2) Bay to San Mateo Bridge - elevation 5 feet. Hidden curvature: 135.7 feet hidden *** All the bridge below the deck should be hidden *** (See screen capture No 1468b-2) No 1468c) Reasons for more being visible that curvature calculations would allow: No 1468c) Refraction can allow more of the bridge to be visible. Refraction Calculator: (See link No 1468c-1) http://wise-obs.tau.ac.il/~eran/Wise/Util/Refraction.html 0 degrees, 15 degrees celcius, 1000 millibars: 33.20833333333333 arcmin (See link No 1468c-2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction *** Refraction calculations would account for more of the bridge being visible. I haven't done this yet and we don't know the conditions enough to put in all the values. No 1168d) Conclusion, there does seem to be less hidden bridge than one would calculate, however, there is, as always still a good section of bridge piers hidden behind the horizon! This is a common theme with flat Earthers, insisting we can see more than we should, but totally ignoring the fact that things have dropped behind the horizon. Totally ignoring the vast amount of objects, oceans, continents that are NOT visible after the horizon! No 1468e) One interesting thing to note is that the horizon is a clearly visible line of water. There is water, even the tops of ripples, and then sky and objects behind it! No blurring, no haze, just a clear cut line of water and drop off! (See screen capture No 1468e) Reference: (see time index 3:58) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RXbEhkLt3U&feature=youtu.be No 1468f) Further analysis of the drop: No 1468f-1) San Mateo Bridge http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SM-Hay/SMfacts.html Vertical clearance 135 feet 453, 221,200 453-221= 232 (135 feet - Given) 221-200=21 (12 feet - Calculated) Total = 453-200=253 (147 feet - Calculated) -------------- San Mateo Location: 10.9 feet above water level. Assuming camera height of 5 feet, total observer height 15.9 feet. Hidden curvature: 105.15 feet San Mateo Location 2: 5 feet above see level Hidden curvature: 144.1383 ----------- Purple: 458, 335, 110 Bottom; 458-335 = 123 (167.28 feet - calculated) (220 feet - given) Top; 335-110 = 225 (Actual 306 feet) Total; 458-110 = 348 (473.28 feet - calculated) (Actual 526 feet) Hidden: 220-167.28 = 52.72 feet *** Hidden: 52.72 feet of hidden curvature *** 52.72 feet = (52.75/306)*225 = 38.76 pixels (See diagram No 1468f-1) No 1468f-2) When we compare the full pier to what we see in the video, again, we see that about 52 feet of pier is hidden. (See picture No 1468f-2) No 1469) Plate Techtonics and the Hawaian islands: The Hawaian island changes is a series of islands formed by volcanic activity over one spot on the Earth. The Earths crust slowly moves, the old volcanoe does and a new volcano forms, forming a new island. (See video No 1469a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0tnqPmwWvk (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155793580296795/ No 1469b) When we look at a map, we can see this row of islands going from north west to south east (Oldest to newest). (See map No 1469b) No 1469c) How would the crust of the Earth moving be explained on a flat Earth? - Where would the crust even move to on a flat Earth? - Movement on a flat Earth must stop at the edges, otherwise, is the shape of the flat Earth changing? Is it not a circle? Flat Earth has ZERO answers for any of this, however, science has explanations for all of it! No 1470) If there is no such thing as gravity, then why do things slow down at 9.81 m/s^2 going up? i.e. things shot up are weightless going up as well as going down! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155791350846795/ No 1471) Analyzing flight data properly: Courtesy of Wolfie6020 (See video No 1471) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=Vss6zPpfHQo&app=desktop (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155793654566795/ No 1472) Carlos Castañeda - How a rocket works (See video No 1472) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQB1Iw3zJbc (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155793693781795/ No 1472b) Rocket Science: (See video No 1472b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HESOat2iPzU&t=1147s No 1472c) The main action/reaction in a rocket motor is in the nozzle. Fuel is allowed to expand and speed up, imparting more force on the side walls of the nozzle. Thus pushing the gas out the back and the nozzles forwards. The action is pushing mass out the back and the reaction is pushing the rocket forwards. (See diagram No 1472c) No 1473) Summary of our analysis of the horizon: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155794902381795/ How do the following conditions happen on a flat Earth? ---------- No 1473a) The horizon appear below eye level. (See picture No 1473a) No 1473b) Things appear to; - rise BEFORE the horizon - be ON the horizon and - drop AFTER the horizon (e.g. large ships, not small boats!) (See diagram No 1473b) No 1473c) The horizon appears as a level "line", the same distance, 360 degrees around the observer. Therefore it is NOT a straight line, but part of an arc, if viewed from above. (See diagram No 1473c-1) (See picture No 1473c-2) No 1473d) The reason this works, is the horizon is a level line, (below eye level), 360 degrees around the observer AND we are looking at the circle from a very shallow angle. Both those combined means we should see a flat horizon, on a spherical Earth! (See diagram No 1473d) No 1473e) How can people PAN AROUND and insist they are seeing a flat line? Ignore the narrator, but he is panning AROUND. *** Around in a circle! Get it? *** (See video No 1473e) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUS_fq1MvX0 No 1473f) Nathan Grieg - That circle on the top is a horizon .it gets larger and larger as you go up in elevation because the Earth is a sphere. (See diagram No 1473f) No 1473g) If one were looking at a circle on a "flat" ocean, one would be able to see the ocean AFTER the circle! (See diagram No 1473g) No 1474) The force of gravity on any object is it's weight: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155798957526795/ "Christopher Notestinne - How much mass does a butterfly have. Compared to I don’t know an ocean?" "John Francis- Christopher Notestine exactly, so tell me how this light object is flying around..... If you actually took time to think about it.... you’d realize that, gravity is holding all this water meaning it’s putting all this force on ALL THIS WATER and let a butterfly’s fly away... unless gravity has a way to make water sick on a ball while letting a bug fly.... Mathematically it’s just not possible" ----------- No 1474a) Mathematically, the force of gravity depends on the mass of BOTH the Earth and the butterfly. f=G(m1*m2)/r^2 EVERYTHING is CONSTANT EXCEPT for the mass m2 (the butterfly, plane etc.) So mathematically, gravity does exactly what we see it doing! What is the weight of the butterfly when it lands? That is the force of gravity on it! No 1475: Sun Halos, revisited: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155799895011795/ No 1475a) The halo is light refracting AT THE SAME ANGLE, off of ice crystal in the air, that is why it is a circle! (See diagram No 1475a-1) It is a similar reason why rainbows are round. Except, in that case it is water droplets and the sun is behind you. (See link No 1475a-2) http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/opt/ice/halo/22.rxml No 1475b) Different effects from different types of ice crystals. (See diagram No 1475b-1) (See link No 1475b-2) https://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/halos/halos.htm No 1475b) Pictures of Sun Halos (See picture No 1475c-1) (See link No 1475c-2) http://earthsky.org/space/what-makes-a-halo-around-the-moon No 1476) Solar Output: No 1476a) Solar output is far more evenly spread across the flat Earth than it should be. How do flat Earthers explain this? No 1476b) In the summer and winter the hours of sunlight and the reduced energy received due to the angle of the sun are consistent with a tilted globe. How is this change in the number of hours of sunlight and change in solar gain explained on a flat Earth? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155806860711795/ No 1477) The distance to the horizon, and objects in space and hidden curvature: Justin Case 238,000 miles away,how many thousands of feet of water curvature should between? Awesome how its a pefectly smooth and a flat line of light on the beautiful gravitymagically curvy water (See picture No 1477a) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/1492918870747528/permalink/1807423382630407/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155807594091795/ ----------- No 1477b) Dave Greg - According to (most) Flat Earthers, the Moon is 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the Flat Earth. Seems we have a problem.... (See picture No 1477b) No 1477c) A few points to note: 1) That picture is taken from about a mile up, on a hillside, (if it is real), so, the horizon is about 89 miles away. 2) Hidden curvature tells us how far the ground/water is dropping at a given distance AFTER the horizon. 3) The curvature of the Earth has NOTHING to do with objects IN SPACE, which are INDEPENDENT of the Earth's surface! (See calculation No 1447c) No 1477d) Justin Case, since the horizon is about 89 miles away, from 1 mile up, then the drop, to the horizon, should be about 2 miles. Hidden curvature has no meaning, because the moon isn't ON THE EARTH, beyond the horizon! (See diagram No 1477d) No 1477e) Since the moon is about 0.5 degrees of the sky, this picture is only about 3 degrees. Meaning someone zoomed in from far away onto a spot on the horizon, about 2 finger widths across. No 1477f) If that moon is several thousand miles away, (it certainly isn't 32 miles across, and right beside the town), then it is 3,000 miles above the ground and several thousand miles away ... doesn't that mean the ground has curved 3,000 miles down behind the horizon? Doesn't the claim of this meme, if it were correct, show that curvature exists? (See diagram No 1477f) No 1478) The moon isn't flat: Donald Tang - posted May 29, 2018 (See meme No 1478a) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/1492918870747528/permalink/1807697059269706/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155808111461795/ ----------- No 1478b) James Edward Angeles - Fake image. They pasted an Apollo 8 earthrise on an extended background. (see picture No 1478b) No 1478c) James Edward Angeles - All they did was tilt the famous Apollo 8 earthrise image slightly to the left and change the color balance slightly. (See picture No 1478c) No 1478d) James Edward Angeles (See link No 1478d) https://www.nasa.gov/content/aldrin-descends-lunar-module-ladder No 1478e) Analysis: 1) The OP picture is probably fake. (Nice lying flat Earthers!) 2) Why do you think that spot is on a flat surface? ----------- Could a flat Earther actually look at a ball, before making up questions they could answer themselves in two seconds? (See diagram No 1478e) No 1479) Richard Gray I found this gorgeous bit of video showing how immiscible liquids behave when there's no gravity around. Notice in particular, there's an air bubble in the container which would ordinarily just float to the top. We do take gravity for granted. This should put a stop to all this density/buoyancy nonsense, but it probably won't! (See video No 1479) https://www.facebook.com/100013931673435/videos/404643376676715/ No 1479b) Richard Gray - I think a useful indicator here is to look at the guy's neck chain. That would be very hard to falsify. No 1479c) See downloaded video file (Video File No 1479c) No 1480) Earth's surface rotational speed: There are two parts to this that flat Earthers don't seem to accept. Part 1) Incredulity that the atmosphere can be moving with the ground, if the Earth is rotating. part 2) A belief that, as soon as an aircraft leaves the ground, they should stop dead, relative to the ground, hence be flying backwards at 1,039 mph (at the equator) *** Neither of these assumptions is supported by observation. - So, my question is, what support do you have for such conclusions? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155809455241795/ No 1481) Can any flat Earther tell us SPECIFICALLY; A) How much tilt we should see for buildings, (say the Chicago skyline 52 miles away.)? b) If these tilts are significant enough to see and why? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155809479296795/ No 1482) The speed of gravity: Courtesy of the Action Lab (See video No 1482) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDZw1By1_Os (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155813120291795/ No 1483) Curvature, vs Hidden Curvature: No 1483a) Most flat Earthers seem to use the 8 inches per mile square rule to figure out what is hidden. This is NOT correct. *** That is what would be hidden, if you put your eyes right on the ground! *** This is a special case, which almost NEVER HAPPENS! *** (See diagram No 1483a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155813211576795/ No 1483b) In most cases, the observer's height is higher than ground/water level, so, the horizon, RECEDES OUTWARDS and the amount of Hidden Curvature IS REDUCED! (See diagram No 1483b) No 1483c-1) We see hidden curvature by what is missing, NOT by what we see! That means that MOST of the world is HIDDEN behind the horizon! *** MOST of the world is hidden behind curvature! *** e.g. 2,005 feet of hidden curvature for the Chicago skyline. (See Picture No 1483c-1) No 1483c-2) One has to ask themselves, "Why can't we see more water/land, when we zoom in to the horizon?" "How can the ENTIRE WORLD, be hidden behind the horizon?" No 1483d-1) Standing on the shore; Elevation 6 feet, horizon distance 3 miles Ratio: 6 to 15840 = 1:2640 No 1483d-2) Drop in elevation from 197 feet, 13 minutes 42 seconds, horizon about 17 miles away. (See picture No 1483d-2) Ratio; 197 feet to 89,760 feet = 1:455.63 No 1483d-3) Horizon drop from 33,000 feet. 2.8 degrees down, horizon about 222 miles away. (See picture No 1483d-3) Ratio 33,000 to 1172160 = 1:35.52 No 1483d-4) Summary; So the ratio goes from; 1:2640 to 1:455 to 1:35! *** It is getting really steep, really fast! *** No 1483d-5) See diagram for flat Earth. Notice the horizon drops at a steeper angle as one goes higher! (See diagram No 1483d-5) No 1483d-6) See diagram for an example of the same elevations plotted on a globe, with proper drop from eye level added in. (See diagram No 1483d-6) No 1483d-7) When we calculate and plot the linear distances, if the Earth were flat, we see that the actual distance vs the flat Earth estimated distance gets more and more erroneous! (See diagram No 1483d-7) No 1484) Sun and height to scale: When we zoom in on the sun, we should see it's diameter to scale with it's height of 3,000 miles. (After all, we see the whole 32 mile diameter of the flat Earth sun!) So we should see a very small sun, with a huge gap between it and the horizon. We don't see that! There is literally 3,000 miles of space missing between the sun and the ground, during a sun set! (See diagram No 1484) No 1485) How much energy does the sun give us? The sun emitts about 3.86 x 10^26 Watts of energy. About 1.74 x 10^17 watts strikes the earth. That's the equivalent of 1.74 x 10^15, hundred watt light bulbs. That's; 1,740,000,000,000,000 light bulbs! *** Can someone tell me how a 32 mile diameter sun produces that much energy? reference: http://www.yourturn.ca/solar/solar-power/how-much-power-does-the-sun-give-us/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155814011556795/ No 1486) Why is the edge of the flat Earth so close? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155815109656795/ No 1486a-1) It is only a few hundred miles away, meaning it is about 4 degrees down from level! - The horizon is dropping faster than one is rising! No 1486a-2) On a flat Earth, at 70,000 feet, with very thin clear atmosphere, they should be able to see about 35,000 MILES! - They can't see as far as they should, if the Earth were flat! No 1486a-3) Instead they see the blackness of space! No flat Earth "rising to eye level". - The horizon doesn't match a flat Earth horizon! No 1486a-4) The horizon is 360 degrees around the observer, so it is a CIRCLE! - What they see is a circular patch of Earth, as would be expected on a spherical Earth! No 1486a-5) There is a small patch of Earth with nothing but the blackness of space around them. There should be flat Earth visible, even if it is blurry, right out to the edge, *** not just black space! *** - What we see, is literally, the opposite of what we should see on a flat Earth! *** Seriously, THE BLACKNESS OF SPACE! ... Think about that... No 1486a-6) Why can't we see to the edge of the flat Earth? - Why, no matter how high and how thin the atmosphere, do we never see farther? *** Only as far as we expect to see on a spherical Earth? *** ------- Regardless of your argument that we can't see the curve, there are so many things that are missing, that we should see, if it were a flat Earth! *** What we see does not match a flat Earth! *** No 1486b) Here is the original video; https://www.facebook.com/desammz/videos/932024166954834/ and here is the original OP: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155802642156795/ No 1486c) When you see a horizon and the blackness of space ... *** there is you curve! *** No 1487) Can people give an example of things that would be impossible on a flat Earth, but happen every day? e.g. - Air travel from one southern continent to another takes a third of the time it would, if the Earth were flat - GPS would be impossible and incredibly expensive to fake - the sun can't set on a flat Earth - the south pole points, compasses point south, n different directions, on every southern continent, at the same time! - Octans points in multiple directions, in multiple places, every night, at the same time! - the Coriolis effect and hurricanes wouldn't happen (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155819979931795/ No 1488) If things fall because of density, and and air is denser closer to the ground, shouldn't things fall up? After all, EVERYTHING experiences buoyancy from the atmosphere. Everything is pushed up by atmospheric buoyancy! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155821476901795/ No 1488b) Richard Gray - At the very least, you would expect things to slow down as they approached the ground, wouldn't we? No 1488c) Richard Gray - My favourite video seems appropriate here too... look what *doesn't* float in zero gravity... not even air! No 1488d) Karsten Sollorz - Air isn’t denser at all it’s just thinner because less atmospheric pressure No 1489) Just like the north pole (and Polaris), are visible from anywhere in the northern hemisphere, Octans (and the south pole) are visible from anywhere in the southern hemisphere. "a part of it is in the sky at all times from any point in the Southern Hemisphere." Reference; https://www.google.ca/search?q=Octan%27s+position+from+different+latitudes&rlz=1CAASUF_enCA788CA788&oq=Octan%27s+position+from+different+latitudes&aqs=chrome..69i57.7204j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155821768241795/ No 1489b) Flat Earthers aren't willing to admit that the north pole and south pole are equivalent. The south pole is visible at the same angle as one's latitude, going south of the equator. reference; https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/latitude/ No 1489c) Why does latitude start at zero, at the equator, and go to 90 degrees, at the south pole? How does that fit a flat Earth map? (See diagram No 1489c) No 1490) All flat Earthers have are; - Exaggeration - Taking things out of context - ignoring scale, size, and context of measurements and numbers - ignoring or denying how physics and geometry work - making up their own rules for how physics works! e.g. Michael Aguilar (See meme No 1490) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155822429881795/ No 1490b) e.g. Michael Aguilar - original post (See link No 1490b) https://www.facebook.com/groups/1492918870747528/permalink/1814100545296024/ No 1491) Watching the sun set and zooming in AFTER is fooling yourself! (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155823306396795/ No 1491a) Your eye can't see far enough! One should take a video of the sun set, ZOOMED IN, while it is setting, until after it has finished setting. ASSUMING it has set and zooming in after, is relying on your eyes, which aren't nearly as sensitive as digital equipment! No 1491b) Video A) This is NOT the sun setting; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oBmNe13AVE Video B) This is the sun setting! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ifijsiwY5I - A) Is fooling yourself! - B) Is actually watching the sun set! No 1492) The Sydney Opera House Illusion: This gives an idea of why the moon and Earth would look different sizes depending on how far away we are from one, the other or both. (See video No 1492) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfVetou0ERY (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155823385006795/ No 1493) Making rainbows with JUSt water and light. Caleb Hubbell - Feddro claims you can't create a rainbow from just light and water indoors. Well, this demonstrates otherwise. (see pictures No 1493-1 to 1493-2) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/1492918870747528/permalink/1812268298812582/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155823786371795/ NO 1493b) Analysis of water reflection and refraction: Here is my analysis of the primary rainbow. (See diagram No 1493b-1) Here is my analysis of the secondary rainbow. (See diagram No 1493b-2) No 1493c) Water reflecting and refracting inside water droplets. (See diagram No 1493c) No 1493d) Primary and secondary rainbows. (See screen capture No 1493d) No 1493e) Making rainbows with a flash light an spray bottle. Courtesy of Christopher Notestine (See video No 1493e-1) https://www.facebook.com/christopher.notestine.1/videos/10156427721642354/ (See video No 1493e-2) https://www.facebook.com/christopher.notestine.1/videos/10156427721867354/ (See video No 1493e-3) https://www.facebook.com/christopher.notestine.1/videos/10156434916377354/ No 1494) The centripetal acceleration, due to Earth's rotation is tiny. Only 0.003 g's! Although 1,039 mph, at the equator sounds fast, the Earth is very big and it takes 24 hours for Earth to rotate the entire 24,901 miles of the Equator's circumference. (See illustration No 1494) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155823984776795/ No 1494b) Flat Earth meme's like this, linking speed to g forces, exaggerate things, don't put things in context and don't understand the difference between speed and acceleration. (See meme No 1494b) No 1494c) Clarification: Nick Murphy - A man who weighs 200lb's at the poles, weighs 199.4lb's at the equator. No 1494d) There is a time when one would move relative to the Earth's frame of reference. Say you are on a plane, and the plane is turning, if you jumped in the air, you would isolate yourself from the plane. The air transfer enough force to keep you moving with the plane, so the plane would move, under your feet, momentarily, while you were in the air. We see this happen in real life. It's called the Coriolis Effect! *** Both relative motion AND Coriolis effect are exactly what we should see, if the Earth and atmosphere are moving together! *** No 1495) Looking at flat Earth misconceptions about the rotating Earth: Troy Steffes Seems they are still in there science books. I don't even understand how this is ever a conversation. (See video No 1495) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iggAsO5YPyU&feature=youtu.be No 1495a) How do airplanes land in any direction? - Since the atmosphere is turning with the ground, there isn't any great difference in speed between the ground and the air. Therefore, there isn't a huge cross wind in any direction (unless there is actual wind that day). - it isn't just the ground travelling at 1600 kph, but the atmosphere AND the plane itself. YES, a plane can be going sideway at 1600 kph, with the atmosphere. It doesn't make a difference, because the ground is going at that same 1600 kph. The NET EFFECT is the ground, atmosphere and plane have a zero speed difference. *** Your speed differnece relative to the ground is zero. For example. If you are on a train, and it is going 500 kph, you can walk in any direction. Why? The air and you are going at that same 500 kph. Your speed relative to the train is zero! No 1495b) "A plane flying from Africa to Australia takes an average of 12 hours, so the plane then would have to fly around the world completely. People on board would experience a day and a night, landing early the next morning, all during a 12 hour period." - I'm not sure what that means? Why do they have the plane doing a full rotation around the Earth? ----------- - In 12 hours they have travelled a quarter of the way around the world (about 10,751 km). (See map No 1495b-1). Therefore they gained 6 hours, due to travelling east. At the same time, the world has rotated half a day, so they lost 12 hours. The total time is 12 hours, but the time zone difference is 6 hours. Say they started at 9 AM African time, and it is 3 AM Australian time, when they land 12 hours later, it is 9 PM African time and 3 PM Australian time. So, they left at 9 AM African time and arrived at 3 PM Australian time. This is what happens IN REAL LIFE! No 1495c) "A plane flying north to south flies the same speed and distance as a plane flying east to west and vica versa." - Since the atmosphere is travlleing WITH THE GROUND, the plane and atmosphere are carried along with the ground and this automatically adds the acceleration needed in the correct direction to keep up with or slow down to the ground speed. (See link No 1492c-1) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/171048/coriolis-force-on-bullet-vs-airplane No 1495c-2) Also, any course corrections far outweight the coriolis effect. e.g. A plane is travelling south at 1000 kpm. So, it travels 1,000 km in 1 hour. That amounts to a difference in rotational surface speed of about 1,600/10=160 kpm. If one were to correct, that is about (160/60=2.66 kph difference every minute. The change in speed is minor compared to the overall speed of the plane! No 1495c-3) They're claim that the plane is "flying sideways" would be unnoticable to anyone, since the air, plane and ground are all moving together. No 1496) If Orion doesn't appear distorted as it sets, why should the sun or moon? Dave Greg Check out these time lapse videos of Orion setting. Is the constellation distorting and the stars changing their apparent positions as Orion sets? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155833713431795/ (See Youtube link No 1496) https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=orion+setting+time+lapse No 1496b) Mark Mathahs - Nope. No distortion. So apparently, the stars are not susceptible to distortion... but the sun and the moon are (they do not appear smaller as they move further away, or larger as they move closer). No 1497) Video of Lake Ontario looking across about 150 degrees of horizon: (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155836271186795/ ----------- No 1497a) Here is a video I took on June 8, 2018. It shows a panoramic of about 150 degrees of horizon, across lake Ontario. (See video No 1497a) https://www.facebook.com/bruce123abc/videos/1754335404626673/ No 1497b-1) Looking at 45 degrees left of center. (See picture No 1497b-1) No 1497b-2) Here is a picture looking forward, so I am seeing a horizon about 3 miles away. (See picture No 1497b-2) No 1497b-3) Here is a third snapshot looking right about 45 degrees. Notice, the shore is at an angle, and there is considerably less water, yet, that horizon should still be 3 miles away. (See snapshot No 1497b-3) No 1497b-4) Looking all the way to the right. (See snapshot No 1497b-4) No 1497c) Here is a collage looking across 150 degrees of horizon. (See collage No 1497c-1) No 1497c-2) If we look at the direction of the waves, we can tell that the photos are changing angles! (See picture No 1497c-2) No 1497d) Summary/Conclusions: So, either the horizon is a straight line and at 45 degrees it is 1.41 times farther away, (the hypotenuse of a 45 degree triangle), or it is part of a circle and is 3 miles away. That means that this view, even when standing on shore is a considerable part of a circle. 150 degrees of circle and we are just seeing a circle from a very shallow angle! No 1497e) Here we have a horizon, it's viewing about 60 degrees. That means it must be 1/6th of a complete circle! That horizon, must be a curved line, in front of us! (See picture No 1497e) No 1498) Summary of characteristics of the horizon: How can the horizon be part of a flat plane, if; 1) the horizon drops below eye level, so our line of sight is looking downwards? 2) Everything; - BEFORE the horizon is visible and there is water rising after it, - AT/ON the horizon is visible and there is no water rising after it, and - AFTER the horizon, things start dropping 3) the edges of our field of view have to be the same distance as the middle and 4) From high altitude balloons, we see the horizon then the blackness of space, no land "rising to eye level" after the horizon? (See collage No 1498) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155845866756795/ No 1499) First ever direct measure of Earth's rotation: (See link No 1499) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111222103114.htm (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155845869081795/ No 1500) Jay Ball - Drone in a moving van (See video No 1500) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAuXwiMq9ts&feature=youtu.be No 1501) APPARENT SIZE vs ACTUAL SIZE when it comes to angular diameter: Andy Lee (From The Real Flat Earth vs Globe Earth) You can measure the suns size with a sextant yourself. If a navigator neglects to apply the sun’s semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles off in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter of the sun is 16 nautical miles, the diameter is of course 32 nautical miles. As such, as measured by the sextant, the sun’s diameter is 32 minutes of arc – that is, 32 nautical miles in diameter… … and 32 nautical miles is….. … 36.8 miles (59.3 km). That measurement is easily provable (if you own a sextant), and it’s some way off the 1.3914 million km diameter we are spoon-fed by NASA, Google, Wikipedia (See meme No 1501) (See original OP for discussion) https://www.facebook.com/groups/1492918870747528/permalink/1827497833956295/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) No 1501a) A few problems with your calculations. 1) We don't know the distance to the sun and you have to assume this distance is an Earth radius to get your answer. 2) Everyone would have to be the same distance from the sun AT THE SAME TIME, as the diameter is the same, not matter where and when you take it. 3) The nautical mile was LITERALLY defined as segments of a polar diameter. - The sextant literally assumes the world is a globe! (See diagram No 1,501a) *** We can't know the actual diameter of something unless we know the distance! *** No 1501b) Alan Ferris - What a load of crock, you clearly have never used a sextant. You are putting the image of the sun next to the image of the horizon, you are setting the bottom edge of the sun on the horizon and do not ever consider the diameter because it never changes, (See diagram No 1501b) No 1502) A PHYSICAL horizon is not possible on a flat Earth: If you are looking out across flat water, from 6 feet up, and see an object, say 12 miles away, with binoculars. If water was truly flat, we should see a mark on that ship, 6 feet up, AT THE SAME height as your eye level! 1) If there was swell or waves in the way, they would appear to rise and fall, and sometimes the ship would be hidden, BUT sometimes it would be visible. 2) If they were small waves 4 inches tall, they would NEVER be able to block our view. 3) Parallel lines always remain parallel, so 6 feet above the water, on a flat Earth, should ALWAYS be 6 feet above the water, and this should be apparent when we zoom in. *** So, how the heck do we have a distinct horizon, that blocks things from view and allows things to drop from view, after the horizon, on a flat Earth? *** A PHYSICAL HORIZON IS NOT POSSIBLE ON A FLAT EARTH! - Sure a blurry horizon, because things are to hazy or to far to see, but not one where we can clearly see objects, partially hidden, bottom first, when we zoom in! (See diagram No 1502a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155854693396795/ No 1502b) How do we have a distinct PHYSICAL horizon, when we zoom in, that doesn't move, that keeps on blocking the objects and water behind it, as we zoom in to objects, behind it, that get bigger and bigger as you zoom in more and more? (See screen captures No 1502b-1a to 1502b-1k) No 1502b-2) Original source video: (See time index 3:36 to 4:04) (See video No 1502b-2) https://youtu.be/8RXbEhkLt3U?t=215 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RXbEhkLt3U&t=249s No 1502b-2b) The horizon line is clearly visible. When the author zoomed in on it, it didn't move, the hidden part of the bridge did not re-appear and it is obvious that the horizon is a PHYSICAL FEATURE of the water! No 1502c) Peter Yingling - Also, if you look at the horizon through binoculars it remains in the same place. If the Earth was flat you would see farther and the horizon would change. In fact, if the Earth was flat there would not be a clearly defined horizon like what we see. No 1502d) I'm coining a new phrase: "Flat Earth Blind Spot"! Why is none of the water, the bottom of the bridge or the beach after the bridge, not visible? (See diagram No 1502d) No 1502e) We can clearly see the land AFTER the bridge BUT, no water and no beach! (See diagram No 1502e) No 1507f) When I say the horizon is a physical barrier, I mean, as we look slightly downward, we look across the curved surface. Where our line of sight is tangent with that surface is the horizon. Things behind the horizon are physically blocked from view; ships dropping after the horizon, the sun setting etc. The argument that the horizon is due to perspective, some sort of limitation of our eyes or due to vanishing point has no merit. (See screen capture No 1502f) No 1503) Things dropping behind the horizon can NOT be zoomed back in: Here is a random video of a ship behind the horizon. (See video No 1503a-1) (See time index 0:37) https://youtu.be/i0ObTd7DLMw?t=37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw (See screenshot No 1503a-2) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155857188926795/ No 1503b) Here are some screen capture from that video. They have been zoomed in from the shore, so; - The horizon 3 miles away is clearly seen as a distinct line of water, then sky. - The ship, farther off, has the entire hull below the horizon, with only the tallest parts of the superstructure visible. Please tell me how we can zoom this in to get the bottom of the ship back, if we are already zooming in to about half of the ship? (See screen capture No 1503b-1 and 1503b-2) No 1503c) One important thing to note is that this horizon is apparent in both flat Earth and globe videos. It is independent of philosophy or motive and most importantly, independent of me! Many flat Earthers use personal experience as proof and for them it trumps any and all evidence, however, they can not show or prove what they saw! *** This is dangerous, because they feel they can not be wrong! One of the greatest strengths of the scientific method that it is repeatable and INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE. *** Personal experience is not independently verifiable! *** No 1504) Here is a second video. This time of a sail boat, which isn't the best, because it is a bit too small to see clearly very far away. However, it can be seen that after about half an hour the hull disappears completely below the horizon. (See video No 1504a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nUFLLUahSI (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155857545096795/ No 1504b-1) Sail boat, initially being video taped, before the horizon. (time stamp 0:27 on video) - Time on video 3:32:28 (See snapshot No 1504b-1) No 1504b-2) Ten minutes later, the hull starts going below the horizon. (See time stamp No 0:46) - Time on video 3:41:55 (See snapshot No 1504b-2) No 1504b-3) Hull completely hidden below horizon. (See time stamp No 1:02) - Time on video 3:53:25 (See snapshot 1504b-3) No 1504b-4) Top of deck barely visible, half an hour later. (See time stamp No 1:18) - Time on video 4:05:29 (See snapshot No 1504b-4) No 1504b-5) Hull and top of deck completely invisible. (See time stamp No 1:41) - Time on video 4:14:27 (See snapshot No 1504b-) No 1504c) Notice that the sailboat takes a very long time before it is hidden. That is because it is essentially starting at zero Hidden Curvature at the horizon and it has to travel about 3 miles before it has 6 feet of hidden curvature. The top of the mast is about 24 feet high, so it would have to go a further 6 miles, or 12 miles in total, from the shore before it disappeared. Obviously, it would not be possible to see it at this distance, as it is already fading out of sight. That is why I always recommend looking at LARGE SHIPS, which can be seen, distinctly (I'm not going to say clearly, as flat Earthers will argue it is blurry!), much farther away. No 1505) RE: Tilt. Can a flat Earther tell me how much a ship or building will tilt, in say 50 miles and 12 miles respectively? Can any flat Earther tell us how much a mountain is tilted, from 100 miles away? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155857599041795/ No 1506) Pie shaped wedge: Every horizon we see a segment of a circle. *** It is pie shaped! *** (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155858968051795/ No 1506a) For example, a camera's field of view is about 60 degrees. That means the horizon at the edges of one's field of view are 30 degrees to either side of a circle. If we are on a beach looking out on the water, then the middle of the picture is 3 miles away, and the edges have curved 30 degrees. *** They are actually perpendicular to a shorter distance on the line looking ahead. (See diagram No 1506a) No 1506b) If we are looking out at the water, as we turn or head, every horizon straight ahead is 3 miles away. *** We are the center of a circle! *** (see diagram No 1506b) No 1506c) EVERY view of the horizon, no matter how flat it looks, is part of an arc, part of a horizon 360 degrees around the observer. (See collage No 1506c) No 1506d) The reason part of an arc would seem perfectly flat, is because we are looking at it from a very shallow angle. (See diagram No 1506d) No 1507) Ryan Healey - You are the man! Have you seen Mick Wests simple pictures for why we can't see the curve across, but we can see it back? (See link No 1507) https://www.metabunk.org/how-to-take-a-photo-of-the-curve-of-the-horizon.t8859/ (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155858984711795/ No 1507b) Lake Pontchartrain: https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/ No 1508) A boat coming in to shore:... If one is on a boat, looking at the shore, does it seem like a straight beach? OR Does do the ends of the beach disappear from view (i.e. below the horizon)? (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155858998956795/ No 1509) Todd Lee O'Brien - "Bruce Ing if the earth spins 1,018 mph why is there dry land along the equator". (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155859717981795/ ----------- Do people understand that gravity and centripetal force act on water AND ROCK? Flat Earther's seem to think water sloshes around everywhere, not influenced by gravity and rock is pulled to the bottom. If there is centripetal force, wouldn't it act on the rock as well. In fact, wouldn't the rock be pulled upwards MORE, at the equator, than the water, by centripetal force, because it is denser? It is an example of cherry picking. - Applying rules to water or rock preferentially! *** Simply put, forces act on EVERYTHING equally! *** (See diagram No 1509) No 1510) The horizon and it's characteristics: 1) The horizon drops from eye level, consistent with curvature 2) What we see BEFORE, ON and AFTER the horizon 3) Things at eye level don't stay at eye level! 4) The fact that our line of sight is looking at a downward angle, past the horizon and yet can't see and land or water after the horizon 5) Large ships dropping AFTER the horizon and the hidden hulls can't be zoomed back in. 6) The horizon is part of a 360 degree circle that appears level 7) The horizon, in any view, picture etc, is a wedge of a pie. i.e. the edge is part of a circle, not a flat line! 8) The distance to the horizon is consistent with curvature and too short for a flat Earth. This starts at 6 feet and 3 miles out and gets worse and worse as one goes up 9) The fact that large ships, cities, the sun and moon, star trails etc. ALL go below the horizon and, if they are on the surface, have Hidden Curvature consistent with a spherical Earth (See diagram No 1510) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155860978126795/ No 1511) Octans STAYS SOUTH; - ALL NIGHT LONG, in any location in the southern hemisphere - right across the entire night time Earth, AT THE SAME TIME! So, what exactly does south mean on a flat Earth? (See screenshot of original post No 1511a) (See original meme No 1511b) No 1512) *** In science , the order we discovered things in, and the way we worked our way out, is the order of validity, not the historical order of things! *** - This isn't a story, or a fairy tale, it's real life and scientific inquiry! - For those of you who need to know the beginning to understand the story, ... you don't understand the story! The story, is the history of scientific discovery and the links that join each discovery to the next! There is no end game. There is no ultimate meaning to life. *** The discoveries themselves are the reason for the journey! *** No 1513) Centripetal Forces: (See video No 1513a) - Thank you James Edward Angeles! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iginxrFn3jg (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155862111106795/ No 1513b-1) Pita Kunevou (See video no 1513b-1) https://www.facebook.com/Hidden.th/videos/2254918011186765/ No 1513b-2) James Edward Angeles - That's not a blue-screen chroma key, it's a reference grid. They use that in measuring distances and trajectories in their small scale experiments inside the ISS For example: Demonstrating Rosetta’s Philae lander on the Space Station (See video No 1513b-2a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gNu85JXX2w Here is another video of the reference grid in use: Experiment is about circular motion Very short video, but the relevant section is from about 20-40 seconds (See video No 1513b-2b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iginxrFn3jg Here is a site with videos of Tim Peake experiments: (See Link No 1513b-2a) http://astroacademy.org.uk/ As for green screen and blue screens, they're usually solid, but not always. But you could see the guy is wearing a dark contrast shirt so when they apply blue screen he will turn invisible. From Wikipeidia: "The principal subject is filmed or photographed against a background consisting of a single color or a relatively narrow range of colors, usually blue or green because these colors are considered to be the furthest away from skin tone.[3] The portions of the video which match the preselected color are replaced by the alternate background video. This process is commonly known as "keying", "keying out" or simply a "key"." (See pictures No 1513b-2d) No 1514) Flat Earth meme "Spherical Geometry" (See meme No 1514a) (See OP if you wish to discuss further) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794/permalink/10155863301106795/ ----------- No 1514b) Spherical geometry says that; 1) the horizon is a circle 360 degrees around us. 2) Also, because we are looking at the horizon from such a shallow angle, so we are looking at the circle practically edge on. 3) This circle is a level line, so it would appear flat and level in front of us and around us, as we turned our heads! 4) Our line of sight is tangent to the horizon, at a downward angle. 5) No land or water would is visible beyond the horizon, since it would curve below one's line of sight! We see EXACTLY what we should see because of "Spherical Geometry"! (See diagram No 1514b) (See Globe illustration No 1514c) No 1516) Erik Yde Lauritsen - Can we find an FE-interpretation with a proposal of an explanation for the following observations? _____ Sunrise and sunset. Boats and buildings disappear from the bottom and up in the horizon (not due to perspective). The sun moves apparently with 15 degrees per hour. Same size of the sun during the day. The horizon doesn’t rise to eye level when we observe from a higher altitude. Why we see further from a higher altitude. Light after sunset – and lighted clouds after sunset. Moon phases. Eclipses – sun and moon. Sundials. The curvature in the horizon. ..And a lot of other observations… ______ Yes. It’s possible – even without a FE-model. It’s actually quite simple. If a model with a globe earth and straight lines of light from the sun can explain all the mentioned observations, then let’s try to find an interpretation of FE and curved lines of light. The challenge: It is a known observation that two observers, who simultaneously measures the angles of elevation to the sun, will find that the ratio of their mutual distance and the difference in the angle of elevation is a constant (if they are on the same line as the point where the sun is in zenith). d/(v(2)-v(1)) = constant, where d is the distance between the observers and the v’s are the angles of elevation measured by each observer. The problem is illustrated in picture 1. ____ The challenge can be solved by the following (picture 2): If the earth is flat, then the light rays from the sun must follow a path described by the mathematical function: h (d) = - 2R/p ln (cos (p/2 (d/R-1))), 0 < d