Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Thoughty2"
channel.
-
6
-
There’s plenty of examples of objects in the distance reaching a point where no amount of zoom brings the haul back into focus. The vanishing point is a real thing that occurs, but we’re not talking about the vanishing point…eventually, things begin to sink into horizon, and it won’t matter how powerful your telescope is, you won’t be able to bring it back. So perspective doesn’t answer for this observation. And it’s not just that objects become obscured, they are also dropping. In art fundamentals, you learn this about perspective; vanishing point converges AT EYE LEVEL, meaning anything above your eye level can’t go below it, and anything below it can’t go above it, from perspective alone. Yet we observe ships hauls clearly dropping below eye level…perspective can’t do that, you have to ignore that fundamental rule of perspective, if that’s the answer you’re going to go with. 😳 A curvature however, does answer for that observation…so we have really no reason to conclude that’s not what’s happening.
You must have a very low opinion of science, if you honestly believe they never once thought to use a telescopic lens at the beach. Or if you think they never once thought to consider perspective as a cause for this observation. Flat Earthers think they’re on the precipice of something new….dude, you’re about 500 years behind. None of this is new…it’s just new to you. I’m all for people finally taking an interest in science…but please catch up.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
No, the globe has been the widely accepted model for at least 500 years now, even the church agreed to this and it’s well documented in many old scientific and historical texts, that this was true. Just read any old works from famous astronomers like Kepler, Copernicus, or Galileo, or any of their peers, many of them worked directly for the church. It’s geocentrism, the idea that the Earth was centre of the universe and everything revolved around it, that took awhile to be resolved.
However, just because Europe wasn’t on board with it right away, doesn’t mean the rest of the world wasn’t. The Greeks and Mesopotamians both have records indicating they had solved it thousands of years prior, as did the Hindu, who believed it to be an egg shape for thousands of years.
It’s a common misconception, that the globe was a recent development.
4
-
Water doesn’t seek level, it seeks lowest potential energy...just like all matter does. Lowest potential energy is always towards centre of gravity, so water flows toward that centre and amasses around it...just like all matter does. Because of water’s liquid chemical bonding, it also has surface tension, which forces it into the most balanced state possible under all forces acting upon it. This causes it to form an equipotential surface, within the field of force that is gravity. That’s what is meant by the term sea level, level in this context is implying that all points of the surface of the ocean is at equal distance from centre, that’s what an equipotential surface is, a surface that’s level, all points at equal distance from a centre. This forms a sphere. A bubble is an example of an equipotential surface...that’s what happens when water is squeezed towards a centre by a field of force squeezing it equally from all sides.
Water can rest perfectly fine with gravity that pulls to centre. If all parts are at equipotential, then they won’t flow. Water flows from high elevation to low elevation. Elevation on a sphere is measured from centre. Best way to understand this, stick a bunch of 2 inch pins into a ball, each one about 1 inch deep. The elevation of each pin, is now 1 inch from surface...all at the same elevation, even though they’re not tangent to each other, doesn’t matter, their elevation is the same, cause at the same distance from centre. That’s how elevation works on a sphere. Higher elevation is away from centre, lower elevation is towards centre.
Water will only flow, if it comes from a point at higher elevation, than the rest of the water. But a pool, pond, lake, or ocean, is at equipotential, every point at equal distance from centre. So water won’t flow in these examples. A river however, starts at higher elevations, and flows to lower elevations. Where’s it’s really flowing though, is towards centre of gravity...because that’s where lowest potential energy state is.
So your argument is flawed, because you’re just grossly misunderstanding gravity physics. If you’re going to argue against a scientific model, then you better make sure you understand the model first...otherwise you risk reaching a false conclusion, from your own misunderstandings.
I hope this information is helpful. Learn the model you’re arguing against please.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yes, that’s why we time our clocks to a solar day, not a sidereal day. A sidereal day is how long the Earth takes to complete a full 360 degree rotation, takes roughly 23 hours 56 minutes by the current measure of a second. A solar day is a full rotation, plus a little extra rotation so that Earth is back in line with the Sun at noon, that’s what we time our second too, so it makes for a perfect 24 hour day. Doing this ensures noon lines up every day, compensating for the extra rotation required to line up with the Sun.
Leap years are more a problem with aligning the solar day clock, with Earths orbit, which is not a perfect 365 days, it’s off by a quarter day, which is why they remove a day every 4 years...but even that’s not perfect. See something has to give, because Earths rotation and its orbit are not in perfect sync, so the years were chosen, cause it’s far more simple and efficient.
That’s the Julian calendar, but Even that’s not perfect, still requires another day be removed every so often, which is a bit more calculation to keep track of, but it’s the tiny change the Gregorian calendar made to the Julian. Gregorian is what we use currently...and even that’s not entirely perfect. Turns out making calendars is pretty tricky, when rotations don’t line up with orbits perfectly...it’s made even worse in that Earths rotation is also slowing down very very gradually.
Anyway, let me know if that information is helpful.
4
-
4
-
Don’t forget the South rotation, which revolves in the opposite direction, around its own pole star, Sigma Octantis. How does that work exactly on a Flat Earth geometry? Parallax effect more than explains why the stars don’t appear to change (but they do actually, any actual astronomer will tell you that), but how exactly does a flat Earth geometry account for the existence of two hemispheres?
Real science is about falsification, sure...but that goes both ways. The same standards of review and analysis apply to you and the rest dabbling in FE. You have good questions, but they’re easily answered, if you’d just take the time.
Also, learn the difference between a scientific theory and a regular theory please. They’re the not the same thing...scientific theories are basically a collective knowledge of verifiable facts. If you’re going to join the conversation of science...at least learn the basics please, so we’re at least speaking the same language. Here’s a video that can help. https://youtu.be/h0H-amOti_o
4
-
4
-
Ok, here’s some answers to your questions.
Gravity pulls everything to surface, even projectiles fired at incredible velocities, nothing is free from gravity’s influence. From the moment a projectile is fired, gravity is already affecting its trajectory, this causes all projectiles to fire in parabolic arcs. Can’t shoot a straight line through a hill of land…but you sure can shoot over it, then let gravity drop it down to your target…so that’s exactly what artillery gunners have done for centuries now…even rail guns.
Here’s the equation every long range gunner or artillery man uses for parabolic drop charting; sin(2θ)v2/g. Notice the little ‘g’ in the equation? That’s the downward acceleration of gravity, 9.8m/s^2. Snipers also have to account for projectile drop due to force of gravity, if they don’t account for this, then they will miss their target. Get it yet? Gravity helps them fire projectiles at great distances, just aim the projectile slightly up, then let gravity do the rest…it’s pretty simple.
How does a plane land on a spinning surface? Thanks to Relative motion and conservation of momentum…basic physics of motion. Any object moving WITH a system of motion, will maintain and conserve that momentum at all time’s, we call this moving relative to an inertial reference frame of motion…relative motion for short. You have experience with this, we all do. Next time you’re in a moving vehicle, toss something straight up into the air…then watch as it goes straight up, then straight back down into your hand. But wait a second, if you’re moving…how exactly did that object keep pace with the vehicles forward velocity, if all you did was toss it straight up? Conservation of momentum, that’s how, it’s the third law of motion. Anything moving with a system of motion, conserves that motion indefinitely. The same physics applies to a plane, it’s moving relative to Earth’s motions, so it conserves those motions…making landing pretty easy.
It’s just basic physics. I suggest you learn more about the laws of motion and relative motion.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
All good questions, so I don’t mind sharing some information that might help answer them.
The Van Allen radiation belt is really not all that harmful to life, especially with proper shielding, which is achieved pretty easily with simple materials. It presents an increased risk to certain cancers over time, but it’s certainly not as harmful as you’re assuming it to be, it’s not going to kill anyone immediately or even guarantee cancer development later in life. So a crew can pass through this field just fine, it just increases risk a bit, but luckily they don’t have to spend much exposure time here, they can pass through it pretty quickly. The larger problem we face today though, is the harm it does to our more sensitive computing systems today, microchips, magnetic strip data storage, that kind of stuff. See this wasn’t a problem during the Apollo missions, because the systems were all analog, which weren’t damaged by strong electromagnetic fields. So this presented an engineering challenge, because they’re gonna want more advanced systems so they can achieve more on their missions, but they kind of need everything to work without failing, so new computer innovations needed to be developed. Which fun fact is largely why we have better solid state technology today, which currently makes up your phones hard drives.
They didn’t lose all their data, they lost the telemetry data for a few Apollo missions, that’s about it. Telemetry data is really only useful in the moments during a mission, it helps the ground crew keep the astronauts on course, if they veer off for any reason during maneuvering. It’s really not all that useful after the fact, so it didn’t have very high importance for preservation, once those data reels began to deteriorate. It had some uses for learning more about orbital mechanics and improving future missions launch trajectories, but they’ve got so much data now from probes and satellites, it’s really not very useful to keep those old telemetry data reels, so it was likely a budget cut or two that led to those getting scrapped. NASA is a corporation at the end of the day, if their pencil pushers don’t see any need for spending money where it doesn’t need to be spent, then they won’t, so many things get scrapped like that, it’s pretty normal in any big company.
They can go beyond low Earth orbit any time they want and they are, just look up the Artemis program. The confusion here comes from an old documentary on a lunar module they were designing not to long ago, that at the time couldn’t go beyond low Earth orbit. That was because of the engineering hurdles I mentioned above, the microchips and data disks they wanted to put on the systems, were easily damaged in the electromagnetic fields found beyond low Earth orbit. So, what happened was, people took those words out of context and blew it out of proportion, confusing it as somehow meaning NASA has never been past low Earth orbit...so it’s a classic misinterpretation of what was really said. Get that idea rolling around enough conspiracy networks, all of a sudden it’s remembered as “NASA said it can’t go past low Earth orbit”, see how that works? It’s like a rumour mill, grossly misrepresenting the actual facts, by repeating a misunderstanding enough times, until it becomes truth to many people.
Anyway, let me know if that information helps answer some questions. If there’s anything else you’d like to know, feel free to ask, I might be able to provide more insight.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Flat Earth didn’t create that map, it is a globe projection map, a globe flattened from a reference point, in this case from North pole. Flat Earth just hijacked it and called it theirs, cause they don’t have a working model of their own. The UN uses that projection cause it has the most balanced composition and it doesn’t favour any one nation, it’s centred on a neutral point, the Arctic circle, so it was likely a design choice. The UN represents every nation on Earth...little hard to represent every nation of a 3D globe, on a flat 2D flag, so a map projection has to be used, if you’re going to represent every nation, which is what they wanted.
Flat Earth likely took that map for the same reason the UN did, because out of all the Globe projection maps, that one is the most pleasing to the eye, it has the best balance...humans are naturally drawn to balance and pleasing composition, even when they’re not aware of these things. As an illustrator for a living, I’ve done lots of logo design, that map has the best composition, so if I was to design their flag, I’d probably use the AE projection as well, it’s a no brainer.
Here’s a simple video that helps visualize how they create projection maps https://youtu.be/9Wq3GiJT2wQ.
3
-
3
-
3
-
At least the rising Earth hypothesis makes an attempt at accounting for the accelerating motion observed and measured from falling objects...the density argument makes no attempt at all to explain anything, just asserts it’s correct and calls it a day. Do you really think that’s how science should be conducted? I don’t think you quite understand just how useful the current understanding of gravity has been and is for much of modern society. And it’s very ignorant to claim it’s “never been proven”, it’s one of the most rigorously tested concepts in all of physics, and it proves itself accurate every time we use the constant of gravity in equations to make predictions in the real world, everything from orbital mechanics, to rocket science, to flight aeronautics, or even buoyancy equations used in the engineering and mechanics of submarines. You’d have to ignore a LOT of modern engineering and exploration, to conclude gravity has never been proven.
The big problem with the density argument is this, it does nothing to explain how or why matter falls at all, or why it’s always in the same vector direction, always at the same rate of acceleration? It’s best answer is “it just does”, and I’m sorry...but science can’t really do much with “it just does”. So basically, the density argument stops short, it just takes gravity theory and chops out the bits it doesn’t like...which is just extremely bias and ridiculous, it’s lazy science and it’s ignorant.
What it’s ignoring is that falling is a motion, when something is dropped, it is then put into an accelerating motion, that is free from any other influence. Which makes it a physical phenomenon of nature...which is what science is for, figuring out how physical reality works. It’s the motion that matters here, what is putting matter into motion? The first law of motion states, that nothing is put into motion without a force first acting upon it. So it’s pretty simple, forces are required to put matter into motion, dropped matter is put into an accelerating motion, so doesn’t take much to deduce that a force of some kind is present that is causing this.
Density is not a force, it just a property of matter, it has no means for putting matter into motion, and certainly not in any specific direction. So the density argument doesn’t answer anything, it just stops short. But understand that gravity wasn’t the top contender right away, it took awhile to reach that conclusion for certain. There were many other hypothesized answers before gravity was ever considered, like electromagnetism, static attractions, air pressure, etc, but the only one that held up was gravity under the idea that mass attracts other mass, through a yet to be determined mechanism (we understand it to be the bending of space time today). The experiment that first verified mass attracting mass was the Cavendish experiment, which has been recreated many times over the last couple centuries. Here’s a really great demonstration of the experiment https://youtu.be/VYf-Glwtr68.
So it’s not as simple as you seem to think it is and it’s a bit ignorant to claim that gravity “has never been proven”. I think the confusion here stems from the language that’s used, you probably think that because gravity is a theory, it must mean it’s never been proven. To which I think you could really benefit from learning the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory https://youtu.be/h0H-amOti_o, they’re not the same thing. Scientific theory’s are basically proven concepts, nothing graduates to a theory of science, until it’s been rigorously tested and is the only model left standing after the process of falsification concludes.
3
-
They do not use the word theory in the same way layman do. In science, hypothesis takes the place of theory in the regular use of the word, and theory becomes a collective knowledge of verifiable facts and understandings of reality. Nothing graduates past hypothesis until it has been verified in experimentation and then rigorously peer reviewed, only then does something move on to become either a Law of science or a scientific theory.
People also wrongly assume a law of science is more important or more factual than theories of science, but that’s simply not true either. Laws only describe WHAT is happening, they do not attempt to explain HOW or WHY a phenomenon of nature behaves the way it does, that’s what theories are for. For example, there is the Law of universal gravitation, describing what occurs with gravity....but it’s the theory of gravity, that delves into HOW it works. Since being able to explain how something operates has the most use in applied science, a theory of science actually holds a higher standing, and thus has more importance.
So, nothing really goes beyond theory in science. It is the highest position any concept of science can achieve. They are basically certainties, having the most evidence supporting them.
They chose to call these conclusions theories for a good reason though...because we do not know everything and we likely never will. There’s just too much to learn, to many unknown variables, that can effect outcomes. So for this reason, old information always has the potential to change, as new information is acquired, that’s just the reality of our situation, there’s really no way around that. So they called them theory, because we do not know everything, sometimes we learn new things that completely change the outcomes of some prior knowledge. So calling them theories, gives them room to change, as new information and data is acquired. The theory of gravity again fir example, has changed many times over the centuries.
Many layman see these as errors that should mean we can’t trust them...but that’s ignorant to the reality of science. It’s a long, never ending process of refinement. Science is about refining information, that takes time to do. Scientists are actually pretty happy when they’re wrong about something, it means they have a chance to find something new...and that’s where careers in science are made. You think Einstein is famous today for toeing the line? Hardly...he challenged the work of Newton, and pretty much rewrote the science of gravity. That’s why he’s famous.
As for the letters that represent numbers they can’t prove, go ahead and show me one equation, that is used in applied science today, that makes use of a variable that’s not known or measured. These equations only work, because these variables are accurate. If they weren’t...then they would not work, when applied, it’s really that simple.
So it’s fine to have an opinion, just know that it’s an ignorant opinion.
3
-
3
-
It’s not exact, it fluctuates a lot actually and it can even have the opposite effect, bending light upwards…it’s just something that can’t be ignored, because it is a real thing that occurs in our atmosphere, it’s more than confirmed at this point. Here’s a pretty clear demonstration https://youtu.be/IRywj88MsjA, pay attention to how much the horizon rises up, as refraction increases throughout the day.
Science has to remain objective, that means factoring every known variable. Refraction is a very well understood phenomenon in physics, verified and rigorously tested and observed. It would only seem convenient to a Flat Earther pissed off that it’s something they overlooked in their research…meanwhile it’s common knowledge among scientists, and they’re just being objective…cause that’s how you conduct good science practices. Ignoring variables because they’re inconvenient for a bias you’re trying to confirm…that’s bad science, it’s confirmation bias.
3
-
3
-
3
-
No, ONE GUY who worked on the blue marble composite of 2002, told an interviewer how THAT particular image was made. Then conspiracy nuts took his words and blew them out of proportion, spinning a lie that all of NASA admitted they don’t have real images of Earth. That’s not the complete truth of things, that’s cherry picking and taking things out of context to confirm a bias, so pay attention.
SOME of the images of Earth are created by composite, stitching thousands of images together to create one single complete image. They are still real images, but you require a photo editing software to merge them together to create a single image. This a small drop in the bucket to the sort of photos NASA releases though, the original blue marble photo from 1972, was taken during Apollo 17, at roughly 18,000 miles away, using a regular old camera, capturing the Earth in a single shot.
Here’s an archive where you can find hundreds more like that photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums from various other Apollo missions.
Aside from those photos, there has been many geostationary satellites put into orbit (that’s satellites at roughly 25,000 miles altitude and further, that are in sync with Earths rotation), that take round the clock photos of the Earth. Most famous one currently being the DSCOVRY satellite, but there are many others, like Himawari 8 or the GOES satellites to name a few. Here’s a group of hobbyists, who build their own radio telescopes out of spare parts and cheap supplies, who then use these radio receivers to pull data from these geostationary weather satellites https://youtu.be/jGWFg7EDnyY.
Flat Earth likes to ignore the details and spin lies from cherry picked information they take out of context...that should be your first sign, that these people don’t really give a fuck about what’s true.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well, you could only apply it for about 100 miles or so, before it became pretty much useless. Because that’s a parabola equation, not a spherical equation, so it’s eventually going to stop curving and just drop straight down. But aside from it being the wrong math, your reasoning is flawed either way, because it misunderstands how elevation is measured on a sphere. It’s ignorant to how geodetic surveyors interpret elevation.
As I’m sure you’re aware, elevations are measured from sea level. Our ocean is an equipotential surface, meaning a surface at equal distance from a centre…that’s how level is used in that context. A spherical surface is level, in that every point of its surface is equal distance from centre, a bubble for example, is another example of an equipotential surface. So if the ocean is at equipotential, then if we’re measuring land elevation from that reference, then we’re really measuring land elevation from centre of Earth.
So a good way to understand it better, imagine a perfect spherical ball in your hand, now stick a bunch of 2 inch pins all along the surface of that ball, exactly 1 inch deep for each pin. Now what is the elevation of each pin from surface of the ball (sea level), to the top of the pins (land elevation)? Exactly 1 inch elevation. Even though every pin is dropping away from each other, relative to each other, the elevation from surface for each, is still 1 inch from surface, for every single pin. Land elevation works the same way. If an area of land has the same elevation for several miles, it doesn’t mean it’s “flat” in a geometric sense, it just means it’s all equal distance from centre.
That’s how elevation works on a sphere…and that’s how topography data is recorded and interpreted.
3
-
3
-
Oh boy 🤦♂️...you should really take your own advice. Here’s the facts FE intentionally ignores. There are several Blue Marble images, the very first was taken in 1972, during the Apollo 17 mission, and was taken on a regular camera, in one shot, on film. This was long before both digital rendering software and satellites were even produced, to make a composite possible. Hundreds of photos were taken of Earth during the various Apollo missions, you can find them all very easily, with just a short google search...they’re very well archived. I remember many of those photos from back before digital rendering software or the internet, so no...they’re not all “CGI”, that’s an ignorant claim, made by people who have no idea what they’re talking about.
The NASA employee who worked on the 2002 Blue Marble composite, wasn’t making a statement that EVERY photo of Earth is composite...he was just explaining THAT ONE PHOTO and how IT was made. Composites are just one of many ways NASA photographs the Earth, composites require a photo editing software like photoshop, because they’re made by stitching together thousands of real smaller photos...can’t do that without software. But they’re still real photos, your phones panoramic feature does that too, stitching together several small photos, to create a larger image.
So the basic fact is, that FE took ONE guys words out of context, then made a false claim that he was talking about EVERY photo NASA has ever taken...a claim which is simply not true and is super easy to falsify, with just a tiny bit more research beyond what FE provides for you.
It’s a classic example of cherry picking, to confirm bias...and it’s really easy to see that. Why anyone would blindly trust a group after that, without question, is beyond me.
3
-
Because the surface of the sea is all equal distance from centre of gravity, at the same LEVEL from centre, so it’s the perfect baseline to measure elevation from. Elevation is technically measured from centre, but since the sea is all equal distance from that centre, it creates an easier surface to work from. Now figuring out the elevation of surface features on Mars…that’d be a real bitch, because where would you start from? Where’s zero elevation start from on Mars? On Earth, we start at sea level, that’s where we’ve put zero elevation, and it’s because the sea is all at the same level from centre. That’s known as an equipotential surface.
The Earth is only about 4x’s larger than the Moon, so it’s like comparing a dime to a silver dollar. It’s the exact same distance in either direction, and the Earth really isn’t much larger…so why would you assume it would fill the sky? I think people been watching too many sci-fi movies that depict things wrong, they’ve never really thought about it much beyond that.
I’ve looked over the modules engineering specs and I understand the physics involved, and yes, they were more than capable. Space is difficult to travel, sure, but it’s actually harder to travel to the depths of our oceans, than it is space. The tricky part is getting into space, but once that’s done, it’s actually simpler than you’d think, cause we do gain a few advantages once we’re out of Earths atmosphere. No drag force in space, so motion can remain constant with very little energy required, and velocity can be increased almost indefinitely, so travel time can be reduced with little energy. Earth’s gravity well can be used almost like a slingshot to increase velocity without wasting energy, and the Moons gravity well can be used like a catchers mit or funnel to reduce it without spending energy. Much easier to escape the Moons surface because of weaker gravity and zero atmosphere. Moon is actually pretty close still (compared to everything else in our solar system), so don’t require a whole lot of supplies or energy.
It’s difficult to engineer and plan such a trip down to every detail required, I’m certainly not trying to undermine its difficulties, but with even just a basic knowledge of physics, and you can understand that’s it’s very much within the realm of plausible. It’s true we can only really speculate, unless we were directly involved, but the physics and engineering does check out.
3
-
3
-
3
-
So you think it’s NASA who solved Earths geometry? 🧐 If so, then I think you could use a science history lesson my dude.
But of course you’ll always get a seemingly better case, from a group forged from confirmation bias, they’re more invested…the rest of us could give a fuck. Seriously, the fact they even call themselves “flat Earthers”, is your first red flag they might have a bit of a biased opinion on things. Do you see scientists calling themselves “globe Earthers”? No, they’re just scientists, cause they couldn’t give a fuck what shape the Earth is, they just reach conclusions from all the evidence they have, rather than seek the evidence that support the conclusions they want.
Just cause the bullshit is consistent, doesn’t change the fact that it’s still bullshit.
3
-
@tubamirum007 So we’re just gonna ignore the fact that you lied about what year the Van Allen Belt was discovered? Alright then...but it does point out the kind of person I’m dealing with, so it’s noted. Here’s the problem as I see it, you’re not really forming conclusions around solid evidence, you’re finding a million and one things you can speculate on, that all add for you to confirm your bias, twisting a few details here and there to make things appear fishier, all under the guise of “just asking questions”. But when you really analyze everything you’re claiming, you find there’s logical answers for all of it and you’re just building a case on pure speculation and paranoia. It’s all flimsy bullshit, it’s gish gallop, nothing more. That’s the truth of your arguments. I won’t leave you hanging though, you’re here to argue, so I’ll take some time to provide some of those logical answers.
Telemetry data isn’t very useful...when you already know how to get to the Moon. It’s right there, it’s not going anywhere, we know where it is and how to get back, so why would we need to keep telemetry data? In the grand scheme of things, we don’t, it would have some historical value to the nerds and scientists who care, but that’s about it. The data was stored on reels of old magnetic strip tapes, that eventually erode over time, requiring that they be transferred onto new tape or other data storage systems...which costs money and time. So, the higher ups likely made a call to not waste money on something that didn’t really have very high importance on the scale of things. Only the scientists would really cars about that data...but they don’t run NASA, your typical money crunchers and pencil pushers do. That data isn’t as important as the modules, the space suites, the physical gear they can hang up in a museum...telemetry data though, where’s the marketable value in that? Waste of costs, waste of time, waste of storage, it’s going to eventually get the cut.
The UN flag was likely a design choice. As an illustrator for a living, I’ve done lots of logo design, the AE map has a nice pleasing composition, it forms a balanced triad composition, which is pretty common in logo design. It’s likely for the same reason flat Earth chose it as their map, it’s pleasing to the eye...humans are like that naturally, we’re drawn to balance and symmetry. Also, it fits well with what the UN stands for, which is to represent every nation. You can’t display the entirety of a 3D globe, on a flat 2D surface, so a projection map of the Globe must be used, if you’re going to represent every nation on a flag. It works even better, having that flag not favour any particular nation, having it centred in a neutral zone, like the Arctic circle. So it just ticks every box design wise, if I was tasked to design that flag and asked to include a map, that’s likely the projection map I’d use as well.
See I can go through every claim you make, and provide a logical answer...but in the end it’s just pointless, cause all we’re both doing is speculating. I don’t really know what went down and neither do you...so all we’re doing is speculating endlessly, it’s fucking pointless. Do you like chasing endless speculations? I sure don’t. Evidence is what I care about...not gish gallop.
This is how con men think...stirring doubt, and feeding your fears. It’s brainwashing 101, robbing you of your ability to spot the difference between speculation and evidence.
You don’t need NASA to verify the shape of the planet, you can do it for yourself, with some very simple first hand observations and some common sense. Focus more on the ground beneath your feet, you can test its geometry whenever you like, free from anything NASA or government.
3
-
Well, considering this geo corona of hydrogen gas, that has been discovered to extend past the Moon, is like 10 molecules within every mile, it’s still basically empty space. Technically, space officially starts at the Karman line, which is 100 miles elevation, far more molecules of gas are found at this elevation, but it’s still basically a vacuum for all intents and purposes, so it’s space. Though technically...everything is in space, so you could say we’re in space right now even. 😋
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3