I think it would be best for all the sane people who know the Earth curves to abandon the thread. Sure, the eighth grade flat-earthers will act like they won, but obviously there is no getting through to these loonies. At the end of the day, just remember they will go through life telling people the Earth is freaking flat (if they aren't just trolls, which is very likely.)
Mir wrote:
Can we talk about satellites and the International Space Station? What do they do up there? Do the swirl aimlessly, go in a big circle like the moon and sun or does NASA have controllers that make them appear to orbit across the sky?
What keeps them up there?
They go around the ROUND Earth, just like the sun does.
As I keep explaining, the answer is always gravity. Earth, sun, the moon, and everything else is falling toward the bottom of the universe. This gravitational pull can only be counteracted by a greater gravitational force. So if you send a satellite high enough it won't fall back down, just kind of float around.
Because the bottom of the universe exerts the most overall gravity, there is no such thing as a true orbit. For example go north of the Arctic Circle in summer, and you will see the sun going around and around in little circles without setting. It is not really orbiting Earth at that point, just lazily drifting around a bit.
feel the beeeern wrote:
give it up wrote:BOOM!!!!!!!!!
Drops the mic and walks off stage.
Ok so that video doesn't explain why when I throw a ball in the sky it hits the earth.
But the moon and sun don't hit the earth despite being big balls in the sky.
Does the flat earth theory only attract tiny balls?
" give it up" would certainly be the guy to ask. He's probably doing the splits right now.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Mir wrote:Can we talk about satellites and the International Space Station? What do they do up there? Do the swirl aimlessly, go in a big circle like the moon and sun or does NASA have controllers that make them appear to orbit across the sky?
What keeps them up there?
They go around the ROUND Earth, just like the sun does.
As I keep explaining, the answer is always gravity. Earth, sun, the moon, and everything else is falling toward the bottom of the universe. This gravitational pull can only be counteracted by a greater gravitational force. So if you send a satellite high enough it won't fall back down, just kind of float around.
Because the bottom of the universe exerts the most overall gravity, there is no such thing as a true orbit. For example go north of the Arctic Circle in summer, and you will see the sun going around and around in little circles without setting. It is not really orbiting Earth at that point, just lazily drifting around a bit.
You are joking right?
I can't even tell anymore. This is what conspiracy theorists do to you.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Mir wrote:Can we talk about satellites and the International Space Station? What do they do up there? Do the swirl aimlessly, go in a big circle like the moon and sun or does NASA have controllers that make them appear to orbit across the sky?
What keeps them up there?
They go around the ROUND Earth, just like the sun does.
As I keep explaining, the answer is always gravity. Earth, sun, the moon, and everything else is falling toward the bottom of the universe. This gravitational pull can only be counteracted by a greater gravitational force. So if you send a satellite high enough it won't fall back down, just kind of float around.
Because the bottom of the universe exerts the most overall gravity, there is no such thing as a true orbit. For example go north of the Arctic Circle in summer, and you will see the sun going around and around in little circles without setting. It is not really orbiting Earth at that point, just lazily drifting around a bit.
It goes in smaller circles in the Arctic Summer? Won't that be noticed elsewhere?
Legit question wrote:
Water will always find its flatness. Water doesn't curve, except for waves in the ocean but that water is seeking flatness. Right?
Legitimately curious here, but have you ever thought about checking your ludicrous ideas with actual physics or using real observations and logic.
Are you flat-earthers nonbelievers in science?
You can stand anywhere on Earth, and if you drop something, it will fall straight "down". This is due to a gravitational force, which suggests that massive objects (like the Earth) attract other, less massive objects toward it's center of mass. Since objects accelerate towards the ground everywhere on earth, it proves that the Earth is a sphere (or very nearly a sphere), with its center of mass at the center of that sphere.
Typical LRC poster wrote:
Legit question wrote:Water will always find its flatness. Water doesn't curve, except for waves in the ocean but that water is seeking flatness. Right?
Legitimately curious here, but have you ever thought about checking your ludicrous ideas with actual physics or using real observations and logic.
Are you flat-earthers nonbelievers in science?
I just took a leak off the back porch and I can assure you that water curves.
Mir wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:there is no such thing as a true orbit.... For example go north of the Arctic Circle in summer, and you will see the sun going around and around in little circles without setting. It is not really orbiting Earth at that point, just lazily drifting around a bit.
It goes in smaller circles in the Arctic Summer? Won't that be noticed elsewhere?
Of course. At the same time, south of the Antarctic Circle they won't see the sun at all. Proof positive that it's not going completely around the Earth, just moving in circles above a small portion of it.
Flat Earthers might claim this supports their theory but they are dead wrong. The sun is so high up that you could see it from either everywhere or nowhere on a flat Earth. You can perform this experiment with a mirror and a light bulb.
As was posted back on page 19.
"Gravity is simply density and buoyancy.
People argue that things with different densities fall at the same rate through air. However, that is because both items have reached critical density in relation to its medium: air.
If you were to change the medium from air to say, water or liquid mercury, the critical density to achieve the same rate of falling would increase significantly.
Critical density is directly proportional to the medium density. Thus the denser the medium... The denser the objects would have to be in order to achieve the same rate of falling.
A basketball and a rock might fall at the same speed in air. However... Drop them in a thicker medium like water... And they will not fall at the same rate. That is because critical density has not been achieved by both the rock and the basketball, in water as its medium.
In a vacuum... Critical density is zero and is the reason why objects of any density fall at exactly the same rate. Any medium denser than a vacuum has a greater critical density than zero... Thus the reason why objects that haven't attained critical density fall slower in certain mediums.
Critical density variation is "gravity."
Coriolis effect debunked.
Pick up your mic.
Mark Sargent interviewed a US Navy Missile Instructor this past September. He is an expert in the Sea Sparrow missile system which uses an 8 missile launch. A couple of items from the Navy man:
- fire control radar uses 2 degree pencil beam direct line of sight
- it paints targets up to 50 nautical miles away. No wait, how can that be on a curved earth????? Oh dear globalists, ponder that.
- No Coriolis effect either
If you want to call this Navy guy a "flat tard". Think again.
Listen to video between 5 min- 20 min.
Keep holding the mic. Your turn.
This is not, I repeat NOT, excellent trolling. This is the 'shitty song that gets 1,534,678 youtube hits' of trolling. Assuming that's a lot of hits.I did enjoy when BW disputed LQs arguments, since they were both actually on the same side, Trolling for Flat Earth. Like heel tag-team wrestlers turning on each other.Otherwise, nothing to see here.
Wow, just wow wrote:
I'm aware this entire thread is an excellent troll, but there are very serious flat earth groups out there. They claim there's never been a picture of earth taken from space with anything other than a fisheye lense. Not sure how they know that, but fine. My big question is why would the entire world be in on a cover up? Who the hell cares if the earth is flat or round? Second, why wouldn't a flat earth group find a way to raise money and get up high enough to take real photos of our flat earth? I don't care how much it costs, that proof would pretty much allow you to write your own to let. The entire world would be turned on its ear, an intelligent person could really capitalize on that. Forget all the science, that is my proof that we still live on a sphere.
Legit question wrote:
Mark Sargent interviewed a US Navy Missile Instructor this past September. He is an expert in the Sea Sparrow missile system which uses an 8 missile launch. A couple of items from the Navy man:
- fire control radar uses 2 degree pencil beam direct line of sight
- it paints targets up to 50 nautical miles away. No wait, how can that be on a curved earth????? Oh dear globalists, ponder that.
- No Coriolis effect either
If you want to call this Navy guy a "flat tard". Think again.
Listen to video between 5 min- 20 min.
http://youtu.be/xJOB0vcZ4NIKeep holding the mic. Your turn.
Did you know that your LOS range increases the higher up you go? At least that is what I thought.
Man it would be SO much easier if we just used LOS for all our comms... if the earth is flat then LOS can be used for everything!!!
So we could have been painting targets anywhere on the flat planet this entire time?
OMG HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND?????
We are all gonna die now folks. I am pretty sure North Korea trolls these boards and man we will be screwed when they read this!
- ExGlobefag
How hot is the surface of the sun legit question?
Did I miss the responses to the north pole being in constant daylight in Summer and darkness in Winter?
I saw the youtube clip, to confirm, flat earthers either believe that the sun is 3000 miles away from the earth, or that there are 2 suns?!
We can see the effects of the sun on the moon, how would that fit with the 2 suns model? The moon is also round, it could be a circle, rather than a sphere, but then the phases of the moon wouldn't make sense. Is the moon round but earth flat?
Which is the "real" one?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_12#/media/File:Apollo12Visor.jpg
Legit question wrote:
Look at this one picture that utterly destroys NASA's credibility. From Apollo 12 there is a picture of Pete Conrad standing on the moon. Look at the reflection from his helmet. It shows 2 astronauts. How is that possible? Apollo 12 had 2 astronauts that landed in the lunar module (Conrad and Alan Bean). and one astronaut orbiting the moon (Richard Gordon) the entire time who never landed. Busted!!!! We never landed on the moon. NASA lied. We been duped. Scroll down to see Pete Conrad pic.
http://shatteringthematrix.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2127676%3ABlogPost%3A700730&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post#.Vq-QMvA8KrV
these guys ... wrote:
I did enjoy when BW disputed LQs arguments, since they were both actually on the same side, Trolling for Flat Earth.
How many times do I have to say it's ROUND dammit
Isn't it more of a cake pan shape with the ice wall?
I'm trying to figure out how the wall formed before all the water ran off the edges.
I'm surprised that a more detailed discussion of satellites, or links to youtube professors, haven't come up sooner. Forget the low orbiting space station. Forget natural satellites like the moon. Man-made satellites are possible thanks to, and their mission success re-confirms, Newtons laws and formulas, and a model of the earth as a massive "near" sphere, illuminated by a sun predicted to be very far away. I'd like to see a flat earth explanation take into account the orbits of geo-synchronous satellites and polar orbiting satellites without bending the known laws of physics even further.GEO:As an aside, I can't believe that in order to buy into flat-earth, we have to dismiss gravity as a myth. This should be the only red flag necessary. I can't decide if I'm more surprised that someone past the 20th century proposed it, or that others believed it based on the "evidence" and "arguments" presented. While the videos and websites said the words, none of the "youtube" videos, or websites came up with physical real world scenarios, and an associated analytical analysis, that showed a contradiction of any of Newton's formulas. The only real scientific contradictions to date to Newton's laws are 1) Einstein's theory of relativity, and this only becomes significant when things get really fast, or near large massive objects, or 2) quantum physics, when things get really small.But regardless whether it's due to gravity or electricity, Newton's formulas predicting measurable forces and accelerations have proven quite accurate for real world observations for centuries.Besides Newton's formulas being confirmed and re-confirmed in everyday mundane physical observations for several centuries, geo-synchronous satellites have been put into orbit using a geodetic world model (a pear shaped earth), and using Newton's laws of gravity, and the associated formulas based on Newton's gravitational model.Using the same triangulation technique that flat-earth offered to show that the sun is around 3000 miles from the earth, geo-synchronous satellites are placed in a circular orbit about 22000 miles from the equator. Geo-synchronous satellites also have solar panels which need to be pointed at the sun, while it's payload antennas are pointed at the earth. Based on the known positions of the antennas and solar panels, every geo satellite operator can confirm to you that, from the vantage point of these satellites, the sun is nowhere near the earth, and very often not in the same direction. And every satellite TV consumer, with a fixed antenna for reception, able to watch "Big Bang Theory", is confirmation that the geodetical world model and Newton's gravitational model and laws work with remarkable accuracy.In fact, every spring, and every fall, for about six weeks, the earth gets directly in between the sun, and a geo satellite, for a limited time each day, casting a shadow on the solar panels. I cannot picture how that is even possible, with a sun 3000 miles from a flat earth, and a satellite that is 22000 miles from the equator (as measured by the same triangulation technique). How is it possible that man-made geo satellites, at a height of 22000 miles, pass into earth's shadow daily, for six weeks, using a flat earth model.Furthermore, we can measure the reception patterns of satellite transmissions, and we use, gasp, a geodetic world model to predict how the signal will fall off at the edge of it's beam.We can also see directly that a geo satellite will have no line of sight to half of the earth's surface. This is easily explained when the earth is seen as a globe, and satellite cannot illuminate the opposite side.I await the flat-earth explanation that accomodates how geo-synchronous satellites have had so much success these past few decades.Polar orbiting satellites:Forget airplanes. Many polar satellites have been launched that measure the earth's weather, as well as spy satellites. Not only by NASA, but by Germany, China, and Japan, and India. The advantage of polar orbits is complete, or near complete coverage of the planet. We used similar orbits to map Venus (e.g. Magellan) which, I guess for this discussion, is undisputedly spherical.How do their orbits look on a flat-earth map? These satellites speed down to the "south pole" and back up the other side many times per day. On the flat earth map frequently presented here, that looks odd that it races towards the Antarctic ice-wall, then races around to nearly 180 deg, to come back up the other side toward the north pole. I look forward to the flat-earth accomodation that explains polar orbits, and the physics explaining the apparent acceleration and deceleration required to trace the observed orbital path of the satellites.After all, this isn't rocket science. Oh, actually it is.
Mir wrote:
Can we talk about satellites and the International Space Station? What do they do up there? Do the swirl aimlessly, go in a big circle like the moon and sun or does NASA have controllers that make them appear to orbit across the sky?
What keeps them up there?
This will sometimes lead to funny artifacts where the small error comes into play when to plane surveying areas meet. The below link shows the point where two county lines meet. Because they each used their own plan surveying, the two roads to meet at the exact point. This requires the road to put in a little correction curve right at the county line.https://www.google.com/maps/place/100+County+Rd+900+N,+Sandoval,+IL+62882/@38.605469,-89.1425918,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x88769eff2972f26b:0x7293134c815aba28
This guy wrote:
A lesson in surveying.
In the 80's I attended a school that specialized in land surveying. I was in a different course but living in a house with surveyors for a year I got to know a little about the science behind it as you spent time chatting about what you are doing.
There are two types of surveying: plane surveying and geodetic surveying.
Plane surveying is used for areas up to about a hundred square miles and for projects that are primarily linear. Geodetic surveying is used once the project area exceeds about a hundred square miles and when exact precision is needed.
Plane surveying doesn't explicitly account for curvature of the Earth's surface while geodetic does. Plane surveying is the most common since most projects are small and level is the primary concern over spatial accuracy. It's also simpler and allows for simpler equipment. The curvature of the Earth is inherently accounted for in plane surveying by the technique used in leveling point to point, visualized and explained here:
http://ecoursesonline.iasri.res.in/mod/page/view.php?id=128291The technique has limitations but allows the surveyors to consider the area 'flat'.
The key is to mark level by positioning the leveling scope exactly midway between the points and not from one of the points. You'll see how it's done in the link above. If you simply marked level from one point the next, it wouldn't work because you would gradually rise upwards from 'level' because you would be progressing in a tangent from the starting point. By marking level from in between the two points, each segment connects to the previous one at a very slight angle that progressively follows the curve of the Earth and avoids the tangent. This is why plane surveying, the most common form used, doesn't require accommodating the curve of Earth since the technique takes care of it for you.
Geodetic surveying is truly spatial and necessary once large areas of land need to be surveyed since accumulated areas become impossible to reconcile. Geodetic is rooted in math and physics since precision is the key requirement.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2017 World 800 champ Pierre-Ambroise Bosse banned 1 year for whereabouts failures
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
