B.o.B. on one.

[RustyShackleford]

America got control of Japan after WW2, there space program was probably started when America had great influence over the country, that is more NASA propaganda,

Stay woke

 

[Arthur Shelby]

View media item 2449025

 

[RIP sleazyy]

Egyptians believed the earth was flat for a few thousand years. The Chinese believed it was flat until I think the 1600s. The Greeks and Israelites believed it was flat.

Once advances in science, mathematics, and navigation came the game changed.

You have to look at the origins of these ideas for a better understanding of why the beliefs existed. Flat earth belief is akin to creationism IMO. They were trying to explain something the best they could with the knowledge they had.

This is what they believe earth looks like

Time zones wouldn't work with this map since some places would experience the same sun even though in reality they are hours apart.

They believe there is a dip in the middle that accounts for timezones and light schedules. I don't understand how it works but that's what I've seen from their official stuff.

 

[SC kid]

There are simple elementary experiments to show the earth is round.

Place a stick in the ground at noon....measure the shadow.
Go north and do the same thing. The measurement will be different.

Show me an equivalent test to show the earth is flat.

Also

the poles are cold and the equator hot; hurricanes spin clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the southern; the moon and sun are visibly round .. the sun rises 3 hours earlier in New York than L.A..

Etc etc

 

[RustyShackleford]

A video in which scientist explains the complicated lengths they go through to make a accurate representation of the earth, why they do it, some of the challenges they face trying to make a accurate representation, and most important the use tons of accurate data.

And all you pull out of it is "The images are composites"

Yes, the clouds have been Photoshoped to be more transparent, so they can't be trusted

 

[sfc415]

Yeah, no matter what legitimate evidence you provide these illiterate people, they'll just claim it's photoshopped or part of a conspiracy. No point in trying to argue with the mentally ill.

 

[a-friend]

It's poppin' in here

 

[sharpshooter718]

A video in which scientist explains the complicated lengths they go through to make a accurate representation of the earth, why they do it, some of the challenges they face trying to make a accurate representation, and most important the use tons of accurate data.

And all you pull out of it is "The images are composites"

Yes, the clouds have been Photoshoped to be more transparent, so they can't be trusted

they photoshop the entire image. It's not even a debate. There should be a 24 hours live stream of earth from about 60,000 miles away. It would put a end to all of this but they cannot and will not it impossible. These dweebs over at Nasa can't even get pass the van Allen belt in 2017, how the heck did they do it in 1969? Why is north america a different size in each offical photograph? How do they get a accurate representation of Antarctica and the North pole??? Just a few questions

 

[Sir San Diego]

So a disk flying through space being hidden serves what purpose to the people supposedly pushing this lie on the planet?

 

[Nawzlew]

And all you pull out of it is "The images are composites"
There should be a 24 hours live stream of earth from about 60,000 miles away. It would put a end to all of this but they cannot and will not it impossible.

60,000 miles?

The ISS is 250 miles.

 

[RustyShackleford]

2 minutes on Flat earthers favorite source, YouTube and you find this...



I mean it is on the internet, so it must be right

And we don't have manned mission to the moon anymore for political reason. Richard Nixon coming into office, then the oil shocks, then austerity budgets to fuel tax cuts and wars took over. NASA changed its priorities because there was political pressure to do so.

And the video the scientist give reasons why everything is done the way it is done.

But you're right, it is not a debate, a debate requires two logical sides.

 

[frankmatthews]

No one yet has provided any proof
Its just rebuttals. Show me something that is convincing


Ancient egyptians provided proof


After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and…Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface. The farther you go from the equator, the farther the constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not happen if the world was flat

Like i told u previously, that video "200 reasons.." talked about quite a few experiments that have been done. Dont know how valid they are but it made sense. Someone posted a site debunking those 200 reasons but itit was kinda vague but i didnt go thru all of it. If you care to look, there are "scientific proofs" to back this up. People been doing experiments for awhile now.

The main ones that standout to me are the measurements of curvature and how far below the curvature certain objects should be at certain distances based on what is give as the size and shape of the earth. Certain objects are visable at a distance that should be thousands of feet below the horizon from a given perspective/distance.

The other is why cant a helicopter hover in the air to reach its destination if the earth is spinning 1000 mph below it. It'd be faster to hover than speeds of any commercial aircraft. And wouldnt eastbound flights and westbounds flights have different flight times if the earth was spinning 1000 mph beneath them in their respective directions?

Just a couple questions that stood out to me. Perhaps theres logical explanations for it, but i have not seen them.

 

[Nawzlew]

The main ones that standout to me are the measurements of curvature and how far below the curvature certain objects should be at certain distances based on what is give as the size and shape of the earth. Certain objects are visable at a distance that should be thousands of feet below the horizon from a given perspective/distance.

The other is why cant a helicopter hover in the air to reach its destination if the earth is spinning 1000 mph below it. It'd be faster to hover than speeds of any commercial aircraft. And wouldnt eastbound flights and westbounds flights have different flight times if the earth was spinning 1000 mph beneath them in their respective directions?

I don't understand your first question, but I can answer your second.

Newton's first law.

The helicopter is moving at the same speed as the ground. Unless it goes ridiculously high, it remains in an area where air moves at the same speed as the ground.

You can try it with a ball. Walk briskly with a ball, throw it in the air straight up and it'll land in your hand.

Or say you're in the front seat of a car with a ball. If all the above was false and you threw the ball in the air, the ball would fly to the rear seat.

Same thing applies to your airplane question.

 

[Sir San Diego]

/thread

 

[frankmatthews]

The main ones that standout to me are the measurements of curvature and how far below the curvature certain objects should be at certain distances based on what is give as the size and shape of the earth. Certain objects are visable at a distance that should be thousands of feet below the horizon from a given perspective/distance.

The other is why cant a helicopter hover in the air to reach its destination if the earth is spinning 1000 mph below it. It'd be faster to hover than speeds of any commercial aircraft. And wouldnt eastbound flights and westbounds flights have different flight times if the earth was spinning 1000 mph beneath them in their respective directions?

Newton's first law.

The helicopter is moving at the same speed as the ground. Unless it goes ridiculously high, it remains in an area where air moves at the same speed as the ground.

You can try it with a ball. Walk briskly with a ball, throw it in the air straight up and it'll land in your hand.

Or say you're in the front seat of a car with a ball. If all the above was false and you threw the ball in the air, the ball would fly to the rear seat.

So what would happen to a rocket ship moving eastward at 1000 mph with the ground when it breaks into a height where it is no longer moving with the atmosphere.

Theres no wind resistance in a car, if you threw a ball in the air while traveling in a convertible it most definitely wouldnt land in your hand.

 

[a-friend]

 @FrankMatthews    One thing that seemed odd to me was them asking Engineers if they accounted for curvature of the Earth when Building bridges or say Railroad Tracks etc, and they said they did not. 

I mean, they could have been interviewing Actors etc, I didn't dig too far, again I'm mostly just watching and taking in the info, not trying to prove or disprove it so looking that far mattered none to me. 

 

[cashbanks]

So this is all an elaborate effort to validate the Bible?

 

[jayheazy]

there you go. 99% of you dont even hold a degree , let alone a phd

 

[a-friend]

there you go. 99% of you dont even hold a degree , let alone a phd

What is this supposed to be?

You just roll through, drop a couple links and then tell everyone you have a higher Education that them......

Cliff notes for us dummies good sir? 

Or were you waiting for a rep or someone to say "Preach" or to quote you saying "This", in agreement?

I have enough videos to watch, I'm sure not about to watch those based on your post. I have no clue what you are trying to say.

 

[jayheazy]

Well if you watch the video you'll understand . Not that hard to understand . Haa .

 

[Nawzlew]

The main ones that standout to me are the measurements of curvature and how far below the curvature certain objects should be at certain distances based on what is give as the size and shape of the earth. Certain objects are visable at a distance that should be thousands of feet below the horizon from a given perspective/distance.

The other is why cant a helicopter hover in the air to reach its destination if the earth is spinning 1000 mph below it. It'd be faster to hover than speeds of any commercial aircraft. And wouldnt eastbound flights and westbounds flights have different flight times if the earth was spinning 1000 mph beneath them in their respective directions?

Newton's first law.

The helicopter is moving at the same speed as the ground. Unless it goes ridiculously high, it remains in an area where air moves at the same speed as the ground.

You can try it with a ball. Walk briskly with a ball, throw it in the air straight up and it'll land in your hand.

Or say you're in the front seat of a car with a ball. If all the above was false and you threw the ball in the air, the ball would fly to the rear seat.

So what would happen to a rocket ship moving eastward at 1000 mph with the ground when it breaks into a height where it is no longer moving with the atmosphere.

Theres no wind resistance in a car, if you threw a ball in the air while traveling in a convertible it most definitely wouldnt land in your hand.

Well yes, because of Newton's first law.

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

 

[frankmatthews]

Yeah, i get that. But what ur saying is that there is a certain height where that no longer applies. What height is that? Im assuming its gradual or we couldnt fly into outter space. That height and graduation should be common knowledge, no?

 

[Nawzlew]

Couldn't tell you at what height does the atmosphere stop moving with the Earth.

Never got that number from my physics classes.

I'm assuming where the atmosphere ends? Regardless, you can take that out of my original statement, everything else still applies.

 

[frankmatthews]

Couldn't tell you at what height does the atmosphere stop moving with the Earth.

Never got that number from my physics classes.

I'm assuming where the atmosphere ends? Regardless, you can take that out of my original statement, everything else still applies.

That explains the helicopter and flight times, but not rocket ships.

What about objects visable at great distance? Are those measurements completely fabricated?

 

[Nawzlew]

Couldn't tell you at what height does the atmosphere stop moving with the Earth.

Never got that number from my physics classes.

I'm assuming where the atmosphere ends? Regardless, you can take that out of my original statement, everything else still applies.

That explains the helicopter and flight times, but not rocket ships.

What about objects visable at great distance? Are those measurements completely fabricated?

I don't know anything about rocket ships?


Explain the second question?