Globe Earth debunked

A theory must account for all know observable evidence, Flat earth can't even explain basic day light hours for all inhabited places on earth for all 365 days of the year.

No flat earth model can even explain 17+ hours of day light on December 22 in Rio Grande, Argentina. You continue to ignore this.

Flat earth is a long abandoned medieval myth along with wizards and fire breathing dragons. It is a cult culture of ignorance of basic physical principles which NO reputable/researchable scientist or engineer will support. To say they are all brainwashed or have to feed their families is an absolute paranoid delusion.

Last Edited by Remedial_Rebel on 03/15/2019 07:23 AM

The globe Earth theory is nonsense.

The men that dreamed up the spinning ball Earth theory were not very learned, it just does not work as they laid it out, that is why the theory has to change all the time trying to force a fit, fail.

Globe theory, using assumption to construct a belief.

The men that dreamed up the globe cult were religious retards with devious minds.

Every single video showing that rocket works in space is faked and full of lies. The lies have been fully explained. Now tell me, are there a bunch of metal frames in space for the rocket to push off of?

I am sure that you can quantify mathematically the force due to the "pushing off that metal frame", btw. not a frame but a wire with a diameter of about 1mm.

I am also sure that you can explain, why the acceleration in the second experiment, with the same setup but the tube under atmospheric pressure, is the same though the rocket is, in addition to the "frame", "pushing" against the air.

.

So why only a picture from the passenger in awe?

Nice curvature at 1:20.

.

He means the metal frame on the outside of the box. He does not believe the box accurately simulates "the vacuum of Space".

I have two questions which I would like members of the Flat Earth Club to answer about the International Space Station.

The reason I am asking this is to see if you understand what the claims of space scientists, which you try to dispute, actually are. Otherwise you are trying to debate something that your opponents do not even claim, which is a waste of time.

I would like you to answer according to the standard story (as you have heard from NASA, etc), not according to your personal beliefs. OK?

Question 1:
Why do astronauts in the ISS float around?
A) Because they are in orbit.
B) Because they are in Space.
C) Both.
D) Neither.

Question 2:
The ISS is moving at 17000 miles/hour. If it wasn't moving, would it:
A) Fall crashing to the ground.
B) Float around in Space.
C) Neither

Then we can discuss the results. Thank you.

They can't even agree amongst themselves. There are some that claim it is flat with the South pole at the center (to solve the southern hemisphere navigation problems but push the problem to the North which they promptly ignore), others that claim there are both North and South center areas with some kind of aether teleportation from one to the other at the equator. I've also seen a highly distorted map with both North and South poles with a highly distorted Pacific ocean they call the bipolar map. Last I've seen is a claim that it is flat with North in the center but somehow non-euclidean so all measurements make it look round.

Of course my assertion is supported....you think not, prove it.
Prove it..go on prove me wrong by showing me a contradiction.....not imagine this, presuppose that, this indicates that and therefore the earth is a ball.

Tangible proofs like I asked for at the very start.

You assertion is incorrect. Every video has not been faked, you (or others) merely handwave them away, finding the proof "unacceptable" for fairly nonspecific reasons. That behavior is the reason I kept asking what proof *would* be acceptable, in advance, which has been met with naught but silence. For there is *no* convincing the true believer whatsoever. QED.

Exactly, I started posting to this thread with the empirical evidence of 17+ hours of daylight in Rio, Grande Argentina on December 22, which NO FE theory(so called) or model explains it. Even today, March 15, FE can not explain daylight hours for any place in the southern most parts of the earth.

Not one FEer has responded, despite posting it repeatedly. In other threads where I've made similar posts, FE either ignores it or denies it. Even when a GLP member from Argentina is confirming it.

So what is the real intentions of the FE propaganda???

Travistock institute material?

No I explained exactly why they are are false. Does a rocket in space push off a bullet or a metalframe?

No metal frame, no apparatus at all, just a rocket working in space:

Measurements made from the video indicate that the booster is above the Karman line and in space during the boostback burn. My telescope has an altitude dial on the side which was previously recorded using a gopro during launch. From my launch viewing site, the telescope is angled up about 40 degrees above the horizon during the boostback burn. This sped-up video is zoomed in the altitude dial, apologies the resolution isn't good enough to read the numbers but you can see where the numbers are marked and they're in 10 degree increments, the video starts at launch (0 degrees) and ends at the end of the boostback burn (40 degrees):
[link to drive.google.com (secure)]
At launch the Falcon boosters are about 22 pixels wide in my camera:
[link to drive.google.com (secure)]
I'm 21.1 km from the launch site and the boosters are each 3.7 meters wide, so that corresponds to an angular size of 0.01 degrees. By the end of the boostback they're only about 3.2 pixels wide:
[link to drive.google.com (secure)]
Given that we know from the launch that a 3.7 meter wide booster is 22 pixels wide in the view from 21.1 km, that means a pixel size of 3.2 pixels corresponds to an angular size of about 0.00146 degrees. The range between my telescope and the booster is therefore about 145 km at that time. Given that it's about 40 degrees above the horizon, then even if we assume a flat earth the altitude above the ground of the booster was roughly 122 km. Let's be generous here and say I could be about 5 degrees off on either side of that 40 degree measurement. Even at 35 degrees above the horizon the altitude (even assuming a flat earth) would be 102 km. At 45 degrees it would of course be 145 km above the earth. So it was somewhere between about 102 - 145 km in altitude, above the Karman line and in space. My video indicates it had no trouble reversing course to come back and land near the launch site. Please show your evidence that the video indicates it was not in space.

Last Edited by Astromut on 03/15/2019 01:03 PM

To say rocket thrust is from pushing off air is a complete fallacy. Even if it were true, forward air resistance would cancel it out. You ignored this.

You also ignored the fact that water has 100 times the mass in the garden hose example. The water pushing off air is immaterial.

Ignore and deny is your favorite debate tactics apparently.

Star trails

FlaDERP debunked

Just provide one uncut video from launch to payload delivery or docking with the ISS. There are camera's mounted on the rockets FFS! I wonder if one could get the raw video from a single camera through a FOIA request? It should be something that is readily available.

The force pushes off the mass of the rocket. Put it this way. If it wasn't a gas, if it was, say, a cannon throwing rock after rock after rock off the back of the spacecraft, would THAT work for thrust in your version of physics?

You know very well that were such a video provided, it would merely be described as "fake!" and be summarily dismissed.

Nice!

The problem with Flat Earthers is quite simple.
They have NO COMMON SENSE!!
You flunkies should go back to school

Last Edited by CUB4DK on 03/15/2019 01:22 PM

So no such video exists because Flat Earthers would cry fake? What about everyone else who would like to see the voyage of a rocket from Earth to the ISS uncut from a single camera. A camera that is already mounted on the rocket for crying out loud. It has to exist, right? So why is it not available for public consumption? It's public tax dollars that funded the entire thing.

Such a camera would be seeing nothing but black for most of the journey, a long journey generally lasting over a day. So what reasonable person would waste the power, the bandwidth and the storage space to mount a camera to collect useless black images for over a day straight so that you could come along and cry "fake?" Even a GoPro isn't going to get the job done, the battery will last a couple hours at best while recording, so you're going to need a custom hardware solution. The rocket isn't going to the space station, just the capsule, so the rocket cams aren't going to help you. And the live cameras they show don't have constant connectivity to the ground, there are dead zones between TDRS satellites where no data will be received. So it won't meet your goalpost even if they aim one at the ISS and stream it. No, your arbitrary goalpost is not reasonable and would do nothing to change your beliefs (not that you're honest enough to admit that) even if it existed. Meanwhile we have footage of rockets actually working in space that you are gleefully ignoring.

SpaceX wasn't funded by tax dollars -- though they get paid when they haul government cargoes.

And cameras are mounted, but it isn't for entertainment, it's for analysis. Weight is $$. We have *IMAX* films, for crying out loud, of the interior of the ISS and Shuttle and spacewalks, in *3D,* no less. Those aren't enough. The "uncut" footage of Tesla's car-in-space aren't enough. I dispute that *any* 'uncut' footage would do the trick.

Why don't you verify the existence of the ISS yourself????

Get a high power set of binoculars 30-50 times magnification.

Then type your zip code into this website and find a good fly over time and SEE the ISS for yourself!!!!!!!!!!

[link to spotthestation.nasa.gov (secure)]

I have seen it multiple times and could see the fuselage and solar panels.

No matter what spin you put on it, any FEer who doesn't do this is a disingenuous shill.

More good points.

You are ignorant of common senses in favour of the word of Man. Idealism over realism? Fuck off

So the cameras are mounted, but the public can't have access to the raw footage from them because it's not for entertainment? I don't care if it's mostly just the blackness of space and takes a day to dock. Maybe we would see one of the thousands of satellites or the moon a few times in the footage. It's 2019 and people can literally sit for days on end watching and waiting for a Panda Bear in China to give birth on their computer screen. And LOL at uncut footage of a Tesla in space.

Do you not know how to read?


A) Doesn't matter if you care or not, it still impacts the battery life requirements that rule out off the shelf cameras.
B) You would care, you'd claim they could have added cuts or edits in there since it's just black most of the time.

The moon maybe, other satellites besides ISS? No. It's same with the no-stars argument, you people don't understand basic photography principles. Satellites are dim, so are stars, you will not see them in short exposure video from a camera that is designed for daylight videography. You will only see other low orbit satellites in long exposure images looking towards the terminator when on the night side of earth, I've shown a number of such satellites in time lapse footage from ISS before.

And there you go essentially admitting you would just call it fake anyway, just as you do with the Tesla even though we have independent amateur confirmation that mission was real as well.

So ironic, that the FE believer will state they will believe the camera, and then dismisses camera footage *in the very same paragraph.*

Deliciously funny.

Last Edited by 74444 on 03/15/2019 03:14 PM