Comments by "Flook D" (@flookd5516) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
1a: Explain why you think 1970 technology, materials, computers etc are compatible with those of 2020.
1b: Explain why you think the Mars Rovers would require human life support.
2a. Because the stars are distant, generally in the 10-1000 light years away, and moving in the same direction as the sun.
2b. Explain why you think 10,000 years worth of change would be apparent from day to day.
3. Explain why parallel train tracks shouldn't appear to diverge as they approach you.
4a. For the stated purpose of avoiding military competition in an inhospitable climate.
4b. It's readily downloadable. Specify which clause supposedly forbids travel to Antarctica.
5a. By dividing circumference by time as anybody can do.
5b. Explain where you think arithmetic should change with time.
6. It isn't and they don't.
7a. Explain how you think a prominent white grid on said screen would not interfere with it being a blue screen.
7b. If you it wouldn't, then explain why studios all use blue-only screens.
8a. Blue Marble (1972) and Earthrise were taken in single frame shots on an analogue camera.
8b. Himawari-8, Elektro-L and EPIC collectively produce multiple full hemisphere shots per hour. Explain why you think they would need to use a wide angle shots from their orbital distances.
9. How much curvature would you expect to see from a globe on the inside camera at that altitude and why?
10. The atmosphere alters the light as it enters it; it's how we get a blue sky during the day time.
11a. Provide an example of such editing.
11b. Explain why you you think video compression errors wouldn't occur.
12. Free-fall, lasting about 30 sec. Explain how you think it is possible to shoot a 30min video in 30 sec.
13a. The rocket slowed and stopped when the engines shut off as programmed.
13b. Explain why you think a camera impacting a dome at a few hundred miles an hour wouldn't even be jarred.
14a. It's the International Space Station, not National. That is why it is referred to as the ISS, not the NSS.
14b. Explain where you saw a can of tuna on the ISS.
These are the obvious questions that FE'es are never able to answer. Prove me wrong.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@StephenJelinek "refraction bends the subject image around the curve into our view"
It bends the light coming form the object.
Refraction occurs with atmospheric density decreasing with altitude. Mirages arise when there are abrupt change in density between different layers, ie., the weather a cold wet layer in. How a mirage appears depends on the exact layering at that moment; since there is movement of air in the atmosphere (winds) the image wobbles.
"5 x 5 =25 x .6667 = 16.6667' of curvature"
It really passed you by, didn't it?
Quote:
How far you can see is determined by curvature, elevation & refraction. All factors have to be accounted for in calculations. You can't ignore factors and expect to be using the right equation. You can't ignore elevation & refraction and expect to get an accurate prediction of where the horizon is. "I'm only interested in curvature" is not going to magically nullify the effects of elevation & refraction. Making a prediction requires that you use all relevant factors. Devising an experiment means you need to take into account all factors. You can't make testable predictions by ignoring key factors. If you want to test how gar you cases then you need to make accurate calculations for your predictions. Elevation & refraction have to be included - is that clear? Do I need to say it again and in how many different ways?
"Go ahead trust NASA and all the CGI they feed us"
NASA is not the only space agency. Blue Marble (1972) was shot on a single frame of film, long before CGI; just how difficult is it for you to check that? None of you seem to understand what CGI actually is and none of you have been able to say what your technique is for identifying. Why don't you try?
"If the earth spins at 1000 mph?"
Measurably so.
"Orbits the sun at 66,000 mph?"
Measurably so.
"speeds that are beyond our comprehension"
Certainly yours....
"we do not experience a single one of these motions"
Because the body is sensitive to acceleration, not motion. We deduce motion from what we observe around us, not directly sense it.
"You think we could hang a plumb bob over a mark on the floor, put a 24/7 camera on it and measure some kind of motion."
Foucult's pendulum. Not surprisingly, you underestimate that factors need to be taken into account.
You are not a Great Witness. Your thoughts & observations are not the definitive factors determining reality, just your self-centredness.
Why would an omnipotent Dei require a Servus exactly?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Van Allan radiation belts"
With adequate shielding and passing through the weak periphery at speed; the astronauts radiation exposure was the equivalent to a couple of X-rays.
"the immensely low pressures of space"
"How did the space craft not get ripped apart due to the low pressure of space"
The difference between 1 atm pressure and vacuum is 1 atm pressure, a paltry amount; planes handle about 20% that and gas cylinders contain about 100 atm pressure. Not a problem .
"How did they land on the moon without causing a massive crater"
The bulk of the deceleration was done at high altitude, the landing modules ran at about 1/4 power until prior to landing and shut off immediately prior to touchdown. You're assuming the reverse of a Saturn V take-off that starts from stationary and has to produce the power to accelerate a huge mass upwards against Earth's gravity. The landing modules were already moving slowly, had very little mass compared to a Saturn V and were in lunar gravity.
"what battery technology did they have to run their life support systems"
Hydrogen fuel cells for most things, silver oxide-zinc batteries for the Landing Module.
"How did they cause the camera film not to be destroyed by radiation."
Lead-lined containers.
"earths curvature can not be measured, observed or detected"
And yet is routinely measured, observed and detected. That FE'ers turn a blind eye to how this is done does not magically make it impossible.
"no mathematical equations are conducted to facilitate for earth’s curvature"
A 25,000 mile circumference means 360/25000 = 0.0144 degrees/mile. Each individual section is set for level at that locality; the angle difference between sections is less than the corrections needed for the terrain.
"The 8 miles ^2 by the distance is totally disregarded"
Given that it is not for calculating curvature one would hope it is ignored.
"Please look into this further. "
Why don't you? None of the above answers are secret or rely on arcane mystical knowledge so why don't you know them?
"one always observes the same Stella Constellation throughout the year"
No, one does not. That is how the zodiac system comes to have 12 constellations that indicate how their presence changes.
"want is occurring is due to electromagnetism, pressure and buoyancy."
A Faraday cage has no effect so it isn't EM, buoyancy is dependent on gravity so it isn't that and air pressure is due to gravity, i.e., no gravity, no pressure difference.
"second law of thermodynamics explains a pressurised system cannot be next to a vacuum without a Barrier"
No, it does not. A pressure gradient can be maintained by a force countering the expansion due to pressure, e.g., gravity. FE'ers have yet to explain why there is decreasing pressure with increasing altitude when they're claiming equal pressure throughout their dome (of which they have no evidence itself).
Why don't you try learning something instead of ignorantly parroting stuff?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@yestervue4697 "Then I was shown transcontinental flight maps/routes, all these curves in odd directions seeming to avoid the ocean"
You're prepared to believe in a millenia-long, extremely expensive and totally pointless conspiracy but it didn't cross your mind that someone could cherry-pick flights for their demonstration? Direct flights between the southern continents cross Pacific & Atlantic oceans (and, no, the existence of indirect routes does not preclude the existence of direct routes not does the current limitations due to Covid mean the direct flights never existed). Also, what would be a straight line on a globe appears as a curve when projected onto a flat surface.
"They are straight on there!"
Somebody draws a straight line between two points, tells you that's where the plane goes and you believe because you are gullible. Doesn't occur to you that they cherry-pick the locations and flights? You don't ask what about the flights in the southern hemisphere that would be beyond the flight range of aircraft on a FE map?
"I investigated MUCH deeper for a year and found no proof for globe earth"
Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris, two celestial poles: you can check all for yourself. Try actually doing it rather than listening to FE ignorance & incredulity. The curvature is measurable with a land surveyor's theodolite though I imagine you will claim they are rigged by the <insert bogeymen>. I know you will deny photographs, preferring to believe single-frame shots taken with an analogue must have been done with CGI several decades before CGI existed, and will ignore the ISS passing over head, preferring to believe it a balloon that has somehow remained aloft for 20 years while unaffected by ambient weather. So, be novel and try explaining how the FE fits to observations: how does the sun a constant angular diameter and angular velocity when the FE predicts they vary; how does the sun rise & set; why is there a horizon when the FE predicts several hundred miles vision that disappears in a haze; how are there two celestials poles when FE says there is only one; why are different constellations visible in the southern hemisphere; why does the angle to Polaris disagree with that predicted by the FE; why can't any of you produce accurate maps when you now accurate distance?
The moon does not have to outrun the Earth's rotation for a solar eclipse to work. You're thinking the of the change in angle when the key is the speed with which the moon moves out of alignment. Do you really think that only FE'ers think about these things?
"the model failures in action"
That is the inability of the author to get his head around diagrams. Given the relative sizes sun, moon & Earth and the distances separating them it isn't practical to produce a to scale model: distance to the sun 93 million miles, umbra 166 miles.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@clintonhart2652 I know where it comes from and what it can be used for; I'm curious if you know or you are just assuming that it will accurately calculate curvature and how far you can see. Evidently you are just quoting it as another FE canard.
Lake Baikal is crescent shaped and surrounded by sheer mountains; nobody can see the length of it. (You did say "do the research", remember?)
Salt Flats lack variation in elevation, not in curvature. Conflating elevation & curvature is another FE canard, essentially because your minds can't think beyond a flat baseline as a starting point.
That you can see the ground that is close to you at the Salt Flats and can see the mountains at the edge of the Flats does not mean you can see all the Flats between you & the mountains. We are discussing a 25,000 mile circumference, not the 25-250 miles that you are envisaging; you will be able to see ground for far further than you think on a 25,000 mile circumference sphere.
Motion of the sun, horizons, two celestial poles, angle to Polaris matching latitude (below the horizon when in the southern hemisphere), constellations changing with latitude; all indicative of a globe, all testable by any Tom, Dick or Harry, all incompatible with a FE. Still waiting on any FE'er to explain how they could be compatible with a FE (you refused to answer, remember?).
If I take a picture of a basketball, does the basketball appearing round mean I must be using a fisheye lens?
Does the existence of NASA preclude the existence of other space agencies?
Does the ability to fake a photo mean all photos are fake? What's your technique for identifying fake photos?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@robertfish4734 Explain how you conclude that the length of your air passage is the same distance as the that from ground to space (not a minor point). I just pointed out to you that gravity has to counter the drop in pressure over a set distance, that your air passage is short and that your inhalation produces a steeper drop in pressure over distance than the slow decline in pressure from ground to space.
"'Boyle's law always works and never fails, ever, every time these conditions occur."
Unless the factors change, e.g., a force present and there is not container.
The reason we have a higher pressure at sea level and a low pressure at higher levels happens exactly because we have an atmosphere"
You mean the Law of Just Does? That nothing actually causes it, that's just how it is? You are also saying that Boyles Law would cause an even distribution of pressure so why the exception for atmosphere (not a minor point)?
"Water weighs .578 ounces per square inch"
How do you think water (mass) has weight when you claim there is no gravity to give it weight (not a minor point)? Where does this weight come from? We need to as certain this before we continue.
"if you can prove Boyle's law to be in anyway inconsistent,"
Boyles Law is specific to the behaviour of an ideal gas in an ideal container. An atmosphere has neither container nor ideal conditions; you still haven't provided any evidence of your dome (not a minor point) nor explained what forces are acting on the gas and how (not a minor point). If you thikn there isn't another factor involved then you need to explain how Boyles Law leads to a pressure gradient in your container (not a minor point), an explanation that is more convincing that the Law of Just Does.
You're the one making the claims; you need to provide the evidence. Just gotta be and just does are not evidence. Produce your evidence of the dome, of electrostatic attraction of uncharged matter, that density acts as a force, how you get a pressure gradient in a container in contradiction of Boyle's Law etc
You provide the evidence of a 250mph network of crosswinds (not a minor point) and then I'll continue watching the videos. "They just gotta exist" is not evidence.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brentwebster3751
Serah Lewin's article on Space website:
"those precise eclipse shapes only made sense if he scaled up the sun's radius by a few hundred kilometers"
Daisy Dunne's article in Daily Mail (largely copied from the above):
"only if he scaled by the sun's radius by a few hundred kilometres"
Neither articles says anything of 250 times larger or further away, just a modest increase in measurement of the radius.
"how far the atmosphere goes"
The minute traces of hydrogen & helium as distant as the moon were found to be a few particles higher per volume; there's no breathable atmosphere out there.
"how rockets work in space"
The same way they have always worked: Third Law of Motion. Only ignormi have ever claimed that you need at atmosphere to push off.
"the shape of the earth from ball to oblate spheriod"
That you hadn't heard of the <0.1% oblation does not make it new or immense.
"pear shaped"
A deviation even smaller than the oblation.
How high you need to be to see a curved horizon depends on how wide an angle of view you have. An airplane cockpit can have nearly 180 degrees, a camera <50 degrees.
Kaku's actual quote:
"In cosmology, the cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density (the small value of the cosmological constant) and theoretical large value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory.
Depending on the Planck energy cutoff and other factors, the discrepancy is as high as 120 orders of magnitude, a state of affairs described by physicists as "the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of science" and "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."
"Michio Kaku "i don't know anyone who even uses the scientific method.""
An incomplete and out of context quote that changes the meaning of what he said. He was referring specifically to string theory, which is his field, that is totally mathematically based.
"Which they can't even measure [lightyears] correctly"
Example?
With regards to Eratosthenes, since the Earth was already known to be spherical he only used two locations to estimate the size of Earth. Take in isolation, two locations would not distinguish between sphere and flat earth; at least three locations are required, something which has been done repeatedly with the same results - the Earth is a sphere.
You realise that there is no obligation to post videos on Youtube? Since Google bought YT you need a YT account to pass comments and that account comes with a channel whether you wish to use it or not.
2
-
2
-
@brentwebster3751 "nothing i have posted has been a lie"
That you believe it does not make it true nor mean the person who told you wasn't lying.
The P900 does not have infinite powers. Trying to film a planet is beyond its operating range in terms of required magnification & light intensity. Your camera's limitations are why the images look different to those from telescope-mounted cameras. You realise that anybody can use a telescope? That people have been looking at the surface feature son Mars for centuries?
The parachute was deployed after Perseverance had been slowed, not before.
"A star on orions belt stays on the equator all 365 days of the year"
None of them do.
Einstein was specifically referring to relativity and the effect on light hence his explicit use of "optical" in his statement. He was not saying it was impossble to demonstrate motion.
The Michaelson-Morley experiment was using the known motion of the Earth to look for evidence of the entirely hypothetical luminiferous aether. They found no evidence of aether. Difficult as it is for some people to comprehend, no evidence does not equal proof. Only if aether existed would the absence of motion through it be evidence that Earth was stationary.
They had calendars back then. 1 year is long enough to travel 500 stadia. It is also quite possible for there to be more than observer but I know FE'ers cant comprehend the notion. As the sun moves the length of the shadow would change; it would be shortest at noon when the sun would be highest so a series of measurements arond that time would determine the shortest length.
The moonlight you're reading by is reflected from the full facing surface of the moon, not just the tiny area the Apollo craft landed on. The visors in the spacesuits were heavily shaded.
Nobody taking correct measurements and using the correct maths has found any sign of missing curvature.
"All amature Ballon footage of 100,000 feet or more shows a flat eart"
Anything that actually reaches that altitude would see a curve though you would need to apply a ruler to the image for it to be apparent to the eye. People need to provide evidence the balloon was indeed that high and that the shot was taken at that altitude; a shot with the altimeter reading 60,000ft is not a shot taken at 100,000ft even if the balloon subsequently reached there.
The Red Bull jump was from 120,000ft and neither camera was suitable for determining curvature of the horizon.
Scale, a really difficult concept for FE'ers. The stars are very, very distant and moving in the same general direction of the sun; it would take 10,000's of years for changes in position to be readily apparent to the eye, not a few days. As it is star charts still need adjusting periodically for the tiny changes that are measurable.
What a mystery. Just why would a pioneer in space exploration have a quote about stars on his grave? What possible connection could there be?
And yet the tide prediction is infallibly accurate....
Multiple forces can act simultaneously, another concept FE'ers have great difficulty grasping.
Everything you've posted is wrong and reliant on personal ignorance & incredulity. Do you not think to actually check anything before regurgitating it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SuperMoshady "where does the closed ecosystem part end and the open system part begin? "
You can't still can't figure out the difference between system and ecosystem?
"If there is no surface for the gas particles to collide with, then there is no pressure"
And yet a pressure gauge will indicate that there is.
"as there is nothing for the gas particles to press upon"
So? Lack of a pressure gauge is not going to change the concentration of the particles.
"So, we agree gas goes up, good"
It also goes down, sideways and round & round.
"Wherever there is gas concentration, there is also gas pressure"
For any concentration of gas there is only pressure if you provide a surface (like that on a pressure gauge). The concentration of gas declines with increasing altitude and a pressure gauge will detect declining pressure.
"space cannot exist as there is no surface at the top of the atmosohere"
You're presuming the need for a physical barrier; gravity is sufficient.
"Which means we must logically conclude"
There's no logic to your conclusion, just wishful thinking.
"because if not, the gas would fill the space vacuum"
Unless held back by a force, e.g., gravity.
"I think we are getting somewhere"
Not really. You won't acknowledge that gravity exists and insist that there must be an unnecessary, undetectable barrier. You can't or won't understand what is being said to you but regard yourself as superlative thinker. This is a pointless conversation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hershelpogue1745 "Not my concern."
It is when you're underlying presumptions (whether you acknowledge them or not) affect your conclusions.
A shadow is caused by the occlusion of light. A shadow is always directly away from the light source that is being occluded. The end of the shadow and the top of the object are always in line with the sun. If you have evidence otherwise then produce it.
"the shadow from said object to shift opposite of placement of your pole"
What is that supposed to mean?
"By all accounts our sun shouldn't be over our head, according to the solar system charts in existence."
Unless you are between the tropics of Cancer & Capricorn, the sun never is over your head. This what I mean about you presuming a shape to the Earth; you are assuming longitude to be perpendicular to the direction of the sun.
"according to the solar system charts in existence. None show an above view of our sun,"
You referring to 2D representations of a 3D layout. You need to acknowledge the existence of 3D representations showing Earth's inclined axis and the declined orbit of the moon.
"All angles times and positions speed changes"
What speed changes? Both the sun & moon have constant angular velocities.
"Their range an distance varies. "
How would you calculate that from one observation point?
"The sun the moon within each other earth proximity "
Only in your imagination; eyeballing is not an accurate form of measurement.
"uniquely different arrangements happening at the same time"
Again, only in your imagination.
"Where our earth hosting two celestial objects in the day sky, and the moon remains at night."
The sun & moon can be up to 180 degrees apart in teh day time sky; why the hell would you think they would set together?
"Moving extremely slow"
The Earth rotates once per day; how fast do you think it should be going?
" and can be seen 90 miles away."
The moon is 239,000 miles way (measurable & measured) and hte sun is 93,000,000 miles away (measurable & measured).
"Of course the angles depending on altitude."
Latitude and that is what you expect from Earth being a sphere with an inclined axis, the moon orbiting the Earth in a declined orbit and the Earth orbiting the sun, ie., the current model works just fine for predicting their motion.
"No one yet has ever explain anything that I consider conclusive. "
What would you consider conclusive when you can't get your head around the existing model?
"Even if it's full of flaws."
Such as what because you have yet to describe any?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thomasspeed3390 Both Matuse & I score 4 on this subject; most FE'ers fall into 2 while professing 4.
"Your naked eye CANNOT see the earth's arc"
You can see the effect of the arc, e.g., the sun rising & setting. According to FE predictions it won't come within 10-20 degrees of the horizon, would show highly variable size through the course of the day and would always be visible. A globe predicts a constant angular diameter & velocity and rising & setting which is what we observe. FE'ers claim clouds reducing glare is the sun shrinking though they can't explain why it only happens when the sun passes behind clouds. They claim perspective mysteriously squashes objects at the horizon and only at the horizon though they can't explain how this would be or how the FE sun would get near the horizon. The FE sun would never be far enough away to be not seen and there is no evidence that light spontaneously stops at any distance, never mind the highly variable one claimed by FE'ers. FE'ers keep claiming they have the knowledge to explain it all but none are willing to divulge it (not even their gurus) despite apparently wanting everybody to be persuaded by it. This is what we mean about their ignorance & stupidity.
"the bend is not significant but it is there"
It gets increasingly significant with distance, the sunlight having to travel through an increasing amount of curvature in the atmosphere between the source (emitted or reflected) & observer. It has to be taken into account when calculating where the observer's horizon will be. It would not give the illusion of the Earth being flat.
"Your steadfast approach to given knowledge..."
As I pointed out earlier, it isn't possible for someone to test everything personally. When similar data is collected by multiple sources it is unlikely I would get something different if I did try; I can accept the conclusions made by others as accurate. In this instance, a massive and totally pointless conspiracy running undiscovered for 2500 years is not a plausible alternative.
Motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, two celestial poles & constellations changing with latitude indicate the Earth is a globe; that they can be observed disproves a FE. The curvature can be measured with as little as sticks & shadows. The ISS passes overhead on a rigid schedule; with a good telescope its outline is clearly visible. You can get on a plane on one continent and fly to directly to an airport on another; that isn't possible without accurate maps. We all see the same face of the moon, not the different angles predicted by FE.
You're making a philosophical argument that the limit of current knowledge leaves alternative open. However that only means you can't prove something absolutely; it doesn't prevent something from being disproven. When FE claims don't match observable reality then they are not and never will be a valid explanation for that observable reality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"are established falsehoods, and dangerous ones at that"
Research doesn't stand still; something wasn't realised to be dangerous at the time rather than people were misled.
Milk is healthy for most people, fluoride in low doses is good for you, how dangerous hexachlorophene is depends on the dosage, DDT is not safe as an aerosol but topical contact is OK, triethyl lead does improve the combustion process but the resulting aerosol product was found not to be safe, CFCs were good refrigerants but their eventual release in to the environment wasn't, lung cancer from smoking was not apparent when people were dying much earlier in their lives to begin with, no evidence yet that GMO's are dangerous, Trump is not a scientist or a product of science, mercury fulminate is an explosive not an insecticide (do you mean mercury bromide?), dark matter is regarded as hypothetical not factual.
"we don't actually know how something as obvious as gravity really works"
You don't need to know how gravity works to be aware that it exists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eyestoseefe7618 "If you walk an a moving Surface yes, you must move at the speed of the Surface"
You would move at the speed of the surface simply by standing still; an escalator demonstrates that. The bionic man running at 60mph on a treadmill was moving at 60mph relative to the surface, 0 mph relative the mechanism as a whole.
"You say relative to the Earth as if that means anything"
It's called frame of reference. If you are driving a car and the odometer says 30mph then you are moving at 30mph relative to the ground but also 0mph relative to the car, 20mph relative to the cyclist you overtook and -50mph relative to the sports car that overtook you. You're trying to declare Earth as providing an absolute frame of reference, which it isn't.
"why doesn't this exert force on you?"
If gravity didn't exert force then I wouldn't remain attached to the surface. The force is towards the centre of the Earth, not in any compass direction; it's not going to move me eastwards, westwards, northwards or southwards, just pull me towards the centre of the Earth. In the absence of any force trying to move me eastwards, westwards, northwards or southwards, inertia means I continue move according to the speed & direction of my momentum; that is conservation of momentum.
"it spins 1000mph under your feet"
If it was spinning under my feet then I would be moving westwards relative to the Earth, not stationary relative to the Earth. Since me, Earth & the atmosphere are all moving eastwards at the same speed then the Earth does not appear to move under my feet nor does wind blow my head off.
"walking East and West miraculously takes the same amount of steps or the same mph to travel the same distance in any direction"
When my momentum carries me eastwards at the same speed as Earth & atmosphere, my walking simply modifies that momentum slightly so that I move a little slower or faster than Earth.
"The ground acts as if a surface that's Stationary because it is Stationary "
It appears stationary because you, me, the atmosphere and everything on the ground is moving eastwards at a similar speed.
As I said, you are having a problem understanding frames of reference. There is no absolute frame of reference; tryign to declare the Earth has an absolute frame will not make it so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FEers don't have a model per se and can't agree on anything other than it is flat, e.g., it does/doesn't have an edge, there is/isn't a dome, is/isn't an icewall, there's one/two poles, the sun & moon are inside/outside/embedded in the dome that does/doesn't exist. "Density force" has largely displaced upwards acceleration (which in turn displaced upwards motion) but none of them can explain how density can have a vector nor why there should be a universal down. Some favour magnetism as a cause though they decline to explain why there should be attraction regardless of material or the lack of repulsion. Most favour the sun & moon moving in a horizontal circle above the FE though some still support the above & below approach; none can explain how their ideas could match what we observe.
Are they stupid? Most seem to be lacking intelligence and all seem willfully ignorant. They generally have poor spatial reasoning (can't understand the relevance of which stars are visible according to where you are on a globe), insist of using a horizontal baseline (eg, elevation & curvature are the same thing) though seem unaware that they are doing so, are easily confused by large numbers, can't envisage more than two relevant factors (many only one factor), don't see any need for consistency between explanations, can't grasp the necessity of prediction, place greatly prefer intuitive thinking over contemplative and general view maths as a distraction. I really would like to know how they handle money.
Some are reasonably intelligent but seem to be quite selective in what they are prepared to actually consider; they have to reach a predetermined conclusion. Granted it's something that everybody can be prone to but generally most don't contradict what is readily observable.
Hossenfelder is saying that asking questions and attempting to reason something for yourself is not stupid even though you can be wrong. Unfortunately we're talking about people who start on the premise that the consensus must be wrong are unwilling to ask questions that would challenge that presumption.
"either model leads to the same observational results"
The ancient Greeks deduced it from the motion of the sun, horizons, angle to Polaris matching latitude, constellations changing with latitude & season, two celestial poles and lunar eclipses having a circular shadow - FE'ers can't produce any explanation for each phenomena.
"unless you're appealing to space agencies"
FEers see eyeballing as the only form of measurement (or at least in this context - I can't get anybody to say if they know what the markings on a ruler are for); they can't figure out the shape is quite determinable & measurable at ground level. They have an obsession with Nasa and many seem unaware that it is neither the first nor only space agency in the world.
Blue Marble 2012 is a composite of LEO shots. The original Blue Marble (1972) was a single-frame shot on film. Currently Himwari-8, Elektro-L & EPIC are collectively taking multiple single-frame shots every hour.
Nasa did not destroy anything. The Saturn V & Apollo were single-use and used. Some tapes were re-used once the data had been processed; the data remains in paper/pdf form. Tapes were eventually replaced as they wore out or the equipment itself became outdated; that's the origin of the assertion for Nasa destroying tapes. Much of the work was done by contractors; with the cancellation of the Apollo programme workshops were repurposed for the next contract and eventually decades-old records were slung out. In both Nasa & contractors, people with first-hand experience aged, retired & died while technology became outdated. Nasa's information & data were all retained.
"the proponents were making legitimate arguments that weren't things that could be brushed aside"
Such as? FEers keep alluding to this Real Evidence but never produce it. All they do produce are the same smoke & mirrors from their gurus that rely on their ignorance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mooners40 Train tracks don't appear parallel either; do they meet up in the distance?
What determines the length and direction of a stick's shadow if not the position of the sun? How can the FE sun be at multiple heights simultaneously? How can a heat source produce and not produce heat simultaneously? You're the man with the answers so produce them.
"did you not grasp ANYTHING from that video ?"
Eratosthenes measured the curvature of the Earth c. 300BC; it has been deduced to be a sphere 200 years earlier from the motion of the sun, horizons and the angle to Polaris matching latitude. Still waiting on the FE answers for those.
The Coriolis effect is an apparent force, not a fictitious force, as is centrifugal force. It's due to inertia and the tangential velocity changing with latitude, not unexplained. Still waiting on the FE explanations for hurricanes rotating anti-clockwise in the northern hemisphere, clockwise in the southern hemisphere.
Rotation has been demonstrated repeatedly with gyroscopes & pendulums. Still waiting for FE explanations for the phenomena.
The Sagnac is explicable by aether and relativity; all other attempts to find aether have failed, e.g., Airy's Failure, Michaelson-Morley & Michaelson-Gale-Pearson experiments. Relativity's existence has been demonstrated repeatedly. Still waiting on the FE explanation for why absence of evidence is proof.
Einstein the motion of Earth could not be measured *WITH LIGHT*, not that there was no motion to measure. He was referring to the effect of relativity.
The lack of an absolute frame of reference is not evidence that the Earth isn't moving or that it can't be demonstrated to move.
The angle of light reaching Arctic & Antartica changes in the degree of obliqueness; with a 23.4 degree axial tilt it is always going to be oblique in the polar regions, never directly facing the sun.
Plus/minus 1 million miles of 93 million miles is 1.08% difference; the varying distance to the sun is not a significant effect because 1% it too small a difference to have any substantial effect.
Positioning of the continents affects weather patterns. Particularly good example is the Arctic Ocean being water and Antartica being a continent resulting in lower temperatures in Antarctica.
You wouldn't bother constructing a globe unless you knew what to put on it otherwise you are left writing "here be dragons" over most of the surface. Most of the exploration & mapping had been done by the 18th century.
What Jeranism said is preying on your ignorance & incredulity. It doesn't take much effort or that to question what he tells you.
1