How would that change the amount of daylight? It would change the intensity, not the length of time it's shining.
How would that change the amount of daylight? It would change the intensity, not the length of time it's shining.
obviously it oscillates in radius such that it is closer to the center of the earth disk when the "north" gets more light and further away from the center when the "south" gets more light.
Since the equator is the average between the two, it gets the most consistent light.
Also, don't globefags believe the earth has a elliptical orbit? That means the light is less intense when the earth is at the major axis, allegedly.
Next question?
obviously it oscillates in radius such that it is closer to the center of the earth disk when the "north" gets more light and further away from the center when the "south" gets more light.
Since the equator is the average between the two, it gets the most consistent light.
Also, don't globefags believe the earth has a elliptical orbit? That means the light is less intense when the earth is at the major axis, allegedly.
Next question?
;) wrote:
How would that change the amount of daylight? It would change the intensity, not the length of time it's shining.
I wouldn't worry about it. It's not the flat earthers that are beaming satellite signals to your receiver and your gps devices. I suppose they could if they put their flat heads together. But they're not.
yeah cause geosynchronous satellites are so hard to imagine staying in the SAME PLACE over a flat earth.
snsnsnnsnssn wrote:
yeah cause geosynchronous satellites are so hard to imagine staying in the SAME PLACE over a flat earth.
Yeah, but...they're up there. And, you're down here.
btownrunnin wrote:
Felix Baumgartner, FTW.
https://lockerdome.com/footballfunnys/6170046938490177/8445914138437908
Take with a fisheye lens which distorts the image. No win for you.
http://youtu.be/7f-K-XnHi9INow see footage from a camera inside the Baumgartner's capsule. Take note, the horizon is flat. The exterior camera has a fisheye lens.
This guy wrote:
I'm surprised at the way the flat earth proponents have this hate on for NASA. I assume it's rooted in biblical scripture that reads as a flat Earth and trips on the bible thumpers that must support the word of god no-matter-what. It would make sense that NASA would be the most significant threat to religious dogma given that a) NASA people are mega-schmart b) tax dollars=politics=government=democrats.
Ironically, the flat earthers embrace the very technology they claim is based on lies.
Ya, that's not a thing. The bible says nothing about the earth being flat and religious beliefs typically have nothing to do with why flat earthers believe what they do.
This guy wrote:
snsnsnnsnssn wrote:yeah cause geosynchronous satellites are so hard to imagine staying in the SAME PLACE over a flat earth.
Yeah, but...they're up there. And, you're down here.
uhhhh yeah so are you.
brilliant logic buddy.
snsnsnnsnssn wrote:
This guy wrote:Yeah, but...they're up there. And, you're down here.
uhhhh yeah so are you.
brilliant logic buddy.
Well there ya go.
So, anyway...
Legit question wrote:
btownrunnin wrote:Felix Baumgartner, FTW.
https://lockerdome.com/footballfunnys/6170046938490177/8445914138437908Take with a fisheye lens which distorts the image. No win for you.
http://youtu.be/7f-K-XnHi9INow see footage from a camera inside the Baumgartner's capsule. Take note, the horizon is flat. The exterior camera has a fisheye lens.
No it isn't.,you're just looking a smaller piece of it.
This guy wrote:
snsnsnnsnssn wrote:uhhhh yeah so are you.
brilliant logic buddy.
Well there ya go.
So, anyway...
I'd love to know your technical knowledge base in microwave LOS satcom....
Please tell us .... how much do geosynchronous satellites move with respect to the earth's surface?
snsnsnnsnssn wrote:
I'd love to know your technical knowledge base in microwave LOS satcom....
Please tell us .... how much do geosynchronous satellites move with respect to the earth's surface?
The one's NASA and associated aerospace partners put up there? Those geosynchronous satellites? The actual functioning ones?
so you don't know how they work.
thanks for being honest.
Well, there's about 850 trackable ones up there. You need to be more specific.
How many did the flat earth people manage to launch? Any?
This guy wrote:
I wouldn't worry about it. It's not the flat earthers that are beaming satellite signals to your receiver and your gps devices. I suppose they could if they put their flat heads together. But they're not.
Something tells me you don't do anything related to satcom.
Oh wait. maybe it's because you can't answer how geosynchronous satellites work.
Or maybe it was your earlier answer that: "well they are up there, and you are down here."
Thanks for proving it is not possible that the earth is flat based on your statement: "yeah, but satellites and stuff."
Oh my god! You did it! You won the Internet! Congratuations, I do have to say,
So, anyway,,,
This guy wrote:
Oh my god! You did it! You won the Internet! Congratuations, I do have to say,
So, anyway,,,
NEXT!!!
I don't know about NASA launching GEO satellites -- they seem more in the weather game, and shuttles to the low-earth orbit, and the space station, and planetary missions to neighbouring planets, or outside the solar system. None of these are GEO missions, but they might also have some communication satellites. I do know of many GEO satellites launched by public companies, like Direct TV, Echostar, and International consortiums, like Intelsat, and Eutelsat, not to mention any number of countries including Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Sweden, Indonesia, Australia, India, Japan, and China. Are they all in on the "global myth" game?I guess "Legit question" is finding it hard to find a youtube video or a flat-earth link that describes how a GEO satellite can maintain it's own line-of-site to it's geographically fixed earth based customers, while both the sun and the moon pass behind the earth.What do flat-earthers think the orbit of a geo satellite can be, with respect to the earth, the sun and the moon? Are flat-earthers able to account for more than one observation at a time?
This guy wrote:
snsnsnnsnssn wrote:I'd love to know your technical knowledge base in microwave LOS satcom....
Please tell us .... how much do geosynchronous satellites move with respect to the earth's surface?
The one's NASA and associated aerospace partners put up there? Those geosynchronous satellites? The actual functioning ones?
I don't have nearly enough time to read this whole thread, but forget all this BS about "but water doesn't curve lol!!!" and "I can't see a curve, can you omg wtf!!!" I'm something of an amateur astronomer, and I'll need the flat earthers to explain to me why...
1. ... the stars north of the equator can be seen to "circle around" (actually an effect of our Earth's rotation) the north pole, and those south of the equator can be seen to "circle around" our south pole at the same rates when adjusting for exact latitudes (or declination as it called when you talk about stars). If we were on a disc and "up" was always the same way, they wouldn't change which area they seemed to be circling around...?
2 ... at the equator, the stars appear to burst out of the horizon, take a long arc over the sky, and set again going straight down, while at the poles, they never set but race around the sky in concentric circles - and at middle latitudes, they arc at angles that change in correspondence to where you are - sharper angles nearer the equator, flatter angles nearer the poles. On a flat earth where "up" was always the same way, the paths of the stars wouldn't change, and they especially wouldn't be doing one thing in the center of the disk, be angling for a while and then go straight up and down about a third of the way out from the center of the disk (where our globist "equator" is on the flat map), and then flatten out again at the far, far edge, right?
3. ... on the equinoxes, tall buildings cast no shadows at the equator, but buildings cast increasingly longer shadows the further you get from the equator?
4. ... the sun, at equinoxes, brings daylight "around" the southern hemisphere at the same rate as it does the northern hemisphere while remaining overhead at the equator - if the northern hemisphere was actually the tightly-packed middle of a disc, and the southern hemisphere was actually the far-flung outer parts of a disc, this shouldn't be what we observe.
5 ... the day is the same length at, say, 35 degrees north latitude on the northern summer solstice, as it is at 35 degrees south latitude on the southern summer solstice - and indeed, equivalent N and S latitudes show the same day-lengths for any set of corresponding dates in the same seasons (i.e., dates exactly six months apart). Again, if the "northern latitudes" were the packed inner part of a disc and the "southern latitudes" were the greater, outer parts, this doesn't make sense.
I've made a very long post, I realize, but forget the flat-earthers phony mathematics about water falling and all that, you can disprove these guys by looking at the sun and the stars. By the way, when I last asked these questions of a flat earther, he said the stars do different stuff because there is an invisible mirror-ball in the sky, like a disco ball, that reflects and refracts the star light andt makes it looks like they're "moving" in ways that they aren't. He didn't particularly attempt to answer the sun / daylight questions.