Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Joe Rogan | How Much Does Eddie Bravo Believe?" video.
-
10
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dazzadazza5255 - You said "why over vast distances of water can we see buildings/ land marks that mathematically and scientifically we shouldn't be able to see."
Because it has nothing to do with mathematics or science and everything to do with their lack of understanding, as I will explain and I will give you the opportunity to prove me wrong :-)
Firstly, in practically EVERY flat Earth distance claim, they say the curvature of the Earth is 8 inches per mile squared. WRONG. That's an approximation which is good enough for distances visible by eye, but it's not the equation for a circle!
Secondly, notice how in EVERY buildings/landmark claim we never see it all the way down to the ground, only the top part of the building/landmark is seen. Why do you think that is if there's no curvature? Shouldn't we see it ALL on a flat Earth?
Thirdly, they NEVER take into account the height of the observer, where if you're at sea level you'll see to a specific distance, at 10 feet above sea level you'll see further, at 100 feet above sea level you'll see even further, and so on.
To prove my point, please give me THREE flat Earth distance claims to buildings/landmarks or whatever, and I'll show you how they're wrong.
In the meantime, have a look at this GIF file debunking the Toronto flat Earth distance claim;
http://stupidconspiracies.org/misc/toronto.gif
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SlobosReality - The problem is, videos at altitude claiming to show curvature or flatness are invalid tests unless people take into account the distortion caused by the field of view of the lens, and I've never seen anyone do that on either side of the argument.
For example, look carefully at videos making such claims and you'll notice that the higher the horizon is above the center of the screen, then the greater the curvature of the Earth. But the lower the horizon is below the center of the screen, then the more the Earth appears concave!
For example, go to timestamp 20:25 in the video I provided and watch it for about 30 seconds.
Look how the horizon goes from being a convex curve (round) to a flat horizon and then to a concave horizon (bowl) and so on.
And notice that there's a 'sweet spot' near the center of the screen where the earth appears to be flat.
This change in the shape of the Earth depending on where the horizon is in relation to the center of the screen is due to the distortion caused by the lens used. Not fish eye, often just a normal wide angle to capture a decent view of the Earth.
Many videos like to choose a time when the camera is stable and the horizon appears curved or flat, and so then they say "Look at this, proof the shape of the Earth is X", but again, without taking the distortion into account they are not proving anything.
I hope that helps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@notallowed337 - Think of it in this way.
When scientists talk about the shape of the universe/space, they are talking about how space could be distorted (curved) or not distorted (flat). It's confusing because they are not talking about a surface when they say flat, only about distortion of space.
For example, if you take a piece of paper (flat surface) and drew two parallel lines on that paper, then the lines would never meet, no matter how large the sheet of paper.
If you take a ball (curved surface), draw a line for the equator and then drew lines that are parallel at the equator, then those lines will meet at the poles.
The angles of a triangle on a flat sheet of paper adds up to 180 degrees.
The angles of a triangle on a ball adds up to more than 180 degrees.
We know this works on the small scale, but does it work on the scale of the universe?
If space is flat, then parallel lines on a flat sheet of paper would still be parallel even if that paper was the size of the universe, and the angles of a triangle drawn on that same flat sheet of paper would add up to 180 degrees even if the triangle filled that universe size sheet of paper.
So far, scientists haven't found any evidence of distortion in space that would cause infinitely long parallel lines to meet (or move apart) or for the angles of an infinitely large triangle to add up to more or less than 180 degrees, and therefore they conclude that space is flat.
Like I said, it's a bit confusing, but when you hear or read "space is flat" translate that to "space is not distorted" and it may start to make sense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 - You said "lso clips of contradictory astronaut testimonials of visibility of stars."
Nope: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnLHEpwQjM&t=277
Feel free to watch that video from the beginning.
You said "Pettis also says he'd go the moon in a nanosecond but the problem is we destroyed the technology and its a painful process to build it back again. What a joke"
Don Pettit saying he would go back to the moon in a nanosecond but we've lost/destroyed that technology, means we no longer have a Saturn V rocket in SERVICE TODAY to get us there, because the Saturn V rocket is retired.
The USA were not able to send people up to the ISS from 2011 to late 2020 because they lost/destroyed that technology, i.e. they no longer had a Space Shuttle to get them there, the Space Shuttle is retired. Finally they have that technology back with Space X rockets.
The world hasn't been able to send 100 people across the Atlantic at supersonic speed since 2003 because we have lost/destroyed that technology, i.e. we no longer have a supersonic passenger plane, Concorde is retired.
Understand it now? Destroyed or lost doesn't mean EVERYTHING is destroyed/lost, it means we don't have it in SERVICE TODAY, i.e. it's gone, lost, destroyed, never to come back.
The Saturn V rocket and the Space Shuttle and Concorde will never go into service again, that technology is lost/destroyed (i.e. the infrastructure and services that built, maintained, launched/flew them are all gone).
If we want that technology back, then we will rebuild it using MODERN technology and MODERN techniques.
Hence we will soon have the SLS rocket, due to launch this year, which is as large and slightly more powerful than the Saturn V rocket it replaces, and the Orion space capsule which is larger and more sophisticated than the Apollo Command Module it replaces.
On its debut launch this year, the MASSIVE SLS rocket will take the Orion space capsule around the moon and back to Earth for its second test in space. And assuming all goes well, then in 2024 the SLS rocket will again take Orion to the moon but this time with astronauts inside.
Those are examples of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost/destroyed, i.e. taken out of service, and hence in 2024 people will return to the moon.
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 - Your video actually supports my point, since there's a simplistic idea among the makers of such videos that stars should either be visible in space or they shouldn't, where they fail to understand that it's not a black and white issue.
Here's a few quotes about when we can and cannot see stars, from Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins' 1974 book "Carry the Fire: An Astronaut's Journey" -
In orbit around the earth, quote:
"...Out from behind the shadow of the earth, we are into the constant sunlight...Towards the sun, nothing can be seen but its blinding disk, whereas down-sun there is simply a bl@ck void. The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil. No, to see the stars, the pupil must be allowed to relax, to open wide enough to let the starlight form a visible image on the retina, and that can be done only by blocking out the sunlight...".
In the shadow of the Earth during his Gemini mission, quote:
"My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different; this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human has ever had... My only complaint is that the protective coatings of my visor do not allow an even more spectacular look at the stars."
When entering the shadow of the moon, quote:
"...To add to the dramatic effect, we find we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the moon now, in darkness for the first time in three days, and the elusive stars have reappeared as if called especially for this occasion...".
With Neil and Buzz on the surface and whilst in the shadow of the moon, quote:
"...Outside my window I can see stars - and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a bl@ck void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars".
That is consistent with everything we've heard from Neil and Buzz and other astronauts (including your video) ever since people first went into space.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 - So let me complete the job and address your remaining claims from that block of text.
Quote: "The onboard computer was way less powerful than our phones."
Before the Apollo missions, BOTH the USA and USSR landed several craft on the surface of the moon using even less computing power than that available to the Apollo missions.
In 1970, 1972 and 1976, the USSR landed sample return craft (that stood around 12 feet high and weighed about 6 tons) on the moon, called Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24. Each craft collected a tiny sample of moon dust and then returned that sample back to Earth for analysis.
Therefore the calculations required to travel to the moon, then land on the moon and then return to Earth doesn't change just because we stuff people inside the craft, the calculations are exactly the same!
So if it was possible for unmanned craft to land on the moon (and some returned) with less computing power than Apollo, then it was more than possible for men to land on the moon using the superior computing power available to the Apollo missions.
But of course, as a flat Earth believer, you think none of that happened for manned or unmanned spacecraft.
2
-
@bronneberg315 - You said "NASA openly admits they need to figure out how to safely get through the van Allen belts before they can go beyond low earth orbit. But they weren't a problem in the 60's. Weird."
For exposures lasting a few hours, the electrons in Van Allen belt radiation is a problem to electronics, not to people.
The electronics used during the Apollo missions consisted of circuits and wires big enough to be seen with the naked eye, hence they were not effected by the electrons in Van Allen belt radiation.
In contrast, today's electronics consists of circuits that are so tiny that we need very powerful microscopes to see them.
The smaller the circuits/components then the more sensitive they are to radiation, and hence as microprocessors got more powerful over the years by packing more and smaller components into each chip, they became more and more sensitive to radiation in space, especially the Van Allen belts, and so modern electronics need to be radiation hardened and/or properly shielded to protect them.
Simply put, take an early 70s electronic calculator into the Van Allen belts and it would work without problems, whereas your smartphone would crash within seconds.
So the radiation was not a problem for the Apollo spacecraft, but it is a problem for modern spacecraft with their modern electronics, and therefore modern manned spacecraft must be tested in space FIRST to make sure the electronics has been properly protected against the radiation before they risk putting people inside (since their lives will DEPEND upon the electronics working).
Any questions?
2
-
@bronneberg315 - You said "Have you seen the lunar lander? It looks like something to crackheads made in one night with duct tape and gold foil."
The LM was a very strong and sturdy spacecraft, and so to judge it by outside appearance alone is a shortsighted view often seen from those who know nothing about engineering.
Here's a photo of the LM's crew cabin framework during construction, and remember there's the rest of the craft to be built around this;
airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/images/stories/LTAInspect.jpg
Here it is today: www.americanspacecraft.com/images/lunarmod/kcsc/engmod/IMG_2308.jpg
So how is that a tin can or tin foil? That cabin alone is very solid and well constructed.
Now lets add a little more;
airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lunar-module-test-article-lta-1a11d
And lets add even more with many more photos to be found here: goo.gl/e9xT8G
The point is, the LM was a very solid and well constructed craft, where like so many spacecraft it needed additional protection on the outside, such as from the sun and micrometeorites.
Hence it wasn't about how it looks, it was all about what it DOES. The gold foil (mylar + kapton film) reflected away all the heat from the sun, as did the panels of mylar which also acted as micrometeorite shields, where they didn't need to be airtight or aerodynamic because the LM was designed for the vacuum of space, not the dense atmosphere of Earth.
They were not interested in making the LM look great, they were only interested in making sure it WORKED.
If they wanted to fake it, then with YEARS to prepare and a MASSIVE budget, don't you think they would have made the sleekest, most elegant looking, beautifully finished Lunar lander you could imagine, where it would have met all the expectations of an audience used to watching sci-fi films? :-)
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=so3QJLfwRgw
tinyurl.com/qgfw8xy6
tinyurl.com/yutcpl4i
So, all talking about people not being able to see stars at night in airplanes, with the SAME explanations I've given regarding space, where in airplanes there's no light source as bright as the sun to cope with at night and yet many people still have problems.
But search around and you'll find people who, due to conditions in the plane and/or carrying out some of the suggestions mentioned in the links above, were able to see stars during a night flight.
Well gee, so many contradictions, right? :-|
After all, shouldn't EVERYONE be able to see stars on a clear night in an airplane ALL THE TIME?
Why should the lighting inside the airplane (cabin lights), lighting outside the airplane (moon) and other factors effect when we can and cannot see the stars. That shouldn't happen in your opinion, right?
So if we read one person saying he could see stars at night on his flight from Paris to New York, and another person saying he couldn't see stars at night on his flight from Paris to New York, then that's a contradiction that means one or both of them are lying and so they probably never went on that flight. Right? :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bronneberg315 - No contradiction, you're just taking descriptive statements with no context, i.e. where on the ISS (which windows), in the sun during the 90 minutes or in the shadow of Earth for 90 minutes, looking towards the sun or away from the sun, ISS light on or off, hands up against the ISS windows or not, etc.
Nothing is known other than brief general descriptions without details, just your bias and ignorant assumptions.
Hence for ALL those people who couldn't see stars on an airplane, by cupping their hands into a cylinder and using that to block out surrounding light, then as long as the moon wasn't in there eyes then they would see stars.
If you want to point out contradictions, then give me two astronauts who describe the same viewing conditions and positions in the ISS (including the location of the sun) but what they saw is different.
If you can't do that, then you have no argument kid.
You said "And I CAN poke holes in a theory without being required to come up with a replacement theory"
No, you claim the Earth is flat, so that's your stated your theory, that's your stated belief, so if you can't explain your theory then that means it is null and void and therefore you're in no position to claim any others are wrong.
So again, present hard evidence of the ISS being a hoax, not your weak "he said she said they said" nonsense, since that is not evidence.
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
-
@shaman3069 - Then just reject science and all the 'evil' that science has created and live a simpler life without science... starting by rejecting the very same technology that you're using right now to send your replies ;-)
A knife is a great tool, a vital tool, where as a species we wouldn't be where we are today without it, but a knife is also a weapon, one which has killed countless people throughout history.
Hence weapons are power, and there isn't a single example of power that isn't abused in by certain people, whether that power comes in the form of weapons, money, science, religion, government, laws, status, resources etc, it's easier for people to just demonise power than it is to focus on the actual abusers of that power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markisokawa2067 - Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity;
youtu.be/Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is - it doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - You said "Eddie is like me in the sense of not believing everything they are told, he always questions the truth."
And 99.999% of people who claim that are lying to themselves :-) Because they (you) don't question everything you're told, you ONLY question everything that official authorities say (governments, scientists, teachers, doctors, etc).
In other words, you only question ONE-SIDE, which is not being open minded as you claim, but is in fact the complete opposite.
So if you question everything, please list 3 claims that you question from those who say the Earth is not a globe please, and explain why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - Men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972, those are the fact my friend.
But we can't just make up our own versions of space and expect it to be taken seriously.
For example, you said "I believe that the earth is round, yes, and that man can only be in orbit, and cannot go beyond van allen belt, and that most theories of various universes, nebulae, space travel, aliens are all fantasies"
So please say who you trust for the information that you believe please (trusted sources), making sure those sources have actual experience.
For example, how do you know the Van Allen belts even exist? Who told you?
Remember, the Van Allen radiation belts are COMPLETELY INVISIBLE and hence can't be seen or detected from Earth's surface, which is why they were not discovered until 1958 when rockets with radiation detectors flew into them.
Therefore the ONLY people we can fully trust about the Van Allen belts are those who have built rockets/spacecraft that have flown into the belts to measure the radiation.
So if you trust those sources when they say there are INVISIBLE belts of radiation around the Earth, then you must also trust those sources when they say the radiation is not a problem for people to pass through in just a few hours.
But if you're saying the radiation in the belts is fatal no matter what and so we can't pass through them, then those same sources must be lying about the radiation and therefore we can't trust them about there being any radiation belts at all!
So which is it? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - You said " you have every right to believe, but at least don't block comments, because you have videos that don't make sense like the shadows one, what do you mean with that video?"
Because I'm not trying to grow my channel by attracting people there just to get clicks/views, I simply upload videos for use in discussions, like the one we're having here :-)
There are far more videos uploaded than the ones you're seeing, where I make some public when it makes sense.
As for the video with the shadows, that was to debunk a claim within the SAME DOCUMENTARY that your wires video comes from, called "What Happened on the Moon", where David Percy was making claims that shadows seen in certain Apollo footage was impossible in the sun and therefore proves they used artificial lights.
My shadows video matches the angle and shadow lengths seen in the Apollo video, proving we see the same changes in shadow size here on Earth in the sun as we saw in the Apollo footage, proving the SUN cast those shadows and not an artificial light.
So yes, it doesn't make sense on it's own (I intended to use it in a video that debunks that hoax claim) but never go around to it.
But again, that's because I'm not trying to grow my channel, I'm only using it to hold information for debates :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - You said "can u see the wires? =P"
That's a rather silly argument which is not comparable.
Have a look further into the effects of "2001" since YOU brought it up.
Watch the following two part video (10 minutes each) that lists ALL the problems with the "2001" moon scenes;
YouTube Title: Kubrick, 2001, and Apollo (pt 1)
YouTube Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNbeN_V_NNw
YouTube Title: Kubrick, 2001, and Apollo (pt 2)
YouTube Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK3Jnl6Zyhk
In the scenes shown in part 2 in particular, notice that no attempt is ever made to simulate 1/6 gravity for 'astronauts' on the lunar surface. Instead, they are made to walk slowly with precise steps, with ZERO signs of 1/6th gravity throughout.
To this day, no science fiction film or any sci-fi series worldwide has recreated the perfect 1/6th gravity seen in hour upon hour of uncut Apollo footage (where even the kicked up dust falls at 1/6 gravity). Not even the world's best special effects experts have been able to recreate perfect 1/6th gravity without CGI (which they didn't have during Apollo), and even today, CGI still doesn't look quite right.
Moon hoax believers typically claim slow motion and/or wires was used to fake the Apollo footage in 1969-1972. But if that was the case, then the best special effects experts would have matched and then surpassed the 1/6th gravity seen in Apollo within a few years of the moon landings using slow motion and wires!
So the reason it hasn't been matched is because it's impossible to create perfect 1/6th gravity in a studio here on Earth.
1
-
@Th3GuyWithPants - You said "but again, I don't want to argue with anyone, let alone an American patriot"
Except I'm not American, so nice try but you missed the target :-)
There's no evidence of NASA lying, but countless examples of conspiracy theorists lying.
You said "...and you may have noticed that I'm using the translator to explain what I mean, and I can't always do it in a better way"
Well done :-)
You said " Therefore, we stop here, you believe but I do not, and we are all well, because I am no longer unhappy or happy believing what I believe. this subject adds nothing to my life."
That's fine, I wish you well.
But I would say that although it adds nothing to your life, I always believe that facts are worth defending and truth is worth defending, whether it matters to some people or not :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donalddunston7964 - And for others reading this thread (since I expect this will go over your head too);
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donalddunston7964 - Great, so others reading this thread can see the stupidity of someone who accepts that magnetism, light and gravity are real, but thinks theories of magnetism, light and gravity are just guesses.
As stated multiple times already, theories in science are not guesses, they are not about what something is in the natural world (although some may), theories are about explaining what we observe in the natural world, explaining the observed facts, hence allowing us to understand what we observe and even predict how a specific phenomena will behave under certain circumstances.
Hence using theories of gravity to accurately predict the path of a spacecraft travelling in space and accurately calculating how that spacecraft will be effected by the gravitational pull of the planets and their moons are NOT guesses. The theories work and hence the theories are proven.
You said "You've never been to space".
Which is ignorant beyond belief, since going into space doesn't suddenly make someone an expert on space, just as seeing light doesn't make someone an expert on light, just as owning a magnet doesn't make someone an expert on magnetism.
So go ahead, be loud and proud of your ignorance son, but it doesn't impress anyone except yourself.
End of story and discussion :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@captainsalty5688 - You said "Plus the radiation is way too intense past low orbit. Throw in the power of the sun and the radiation being thrown off that. It's impossible with humans."
Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions;
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
Next? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@opxchaos5757 - I don't automatically bash conspiracy theories, if I choose to debate them then I prefer to research them first so that I know exactly what the conspiracy believers are talking about.
Hence for the flat Earth, I went in search for an accurate (and hence undistorted) flat map of a flat Earth, and therefore I acquired and read ALL the following flat Earth books (instead of just watching FE videos);
Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter
Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason
Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship
Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott
The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay
200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook)
The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie
To cut a long story short, no such accurate map exists, for which there's NO excuse if the Earth really is flat.
There are also multiple versions of a flat Earth across those books (and in videos and websites), hence I like to ask flat Earth believers which version they believe, for example dome or no dome, edge or no edge or infinite plane, gravity or no gravity, globe sun/moon or flat sun/moon?... etc
I hope that explains where I'm coming from on this topic :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But before leaving you to your own ignorance, I must address this perfect example (that caught my eye) of your ignorance and your gullibility and your lack of research when you parroted without thinking;
Quote: "NASA means deception in Hebrew."
NASA does NOT mean deception or deceive in Hebrew, that's a lie from those who distort the Bible. The Hebrew word meaning deceive is NASHA, pronounced as "Na-shar" (you can HEAR it here);
www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h5377
NASA in Hebrew, pronounced as "Na-Sar" or "Naw-Saw", means to lift, bear up, carry, or take.
www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Word_of_the_Week/Archived/Nasa/nasa.html
Quote: "The Hebrew word of the week is nasa ("to lift up, take up, carry")"
Here's a few more links;
bibleapps.com/hebrew/5375.htm
www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H5375/nasa.htm
www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/nasa.html
messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-hebrew-H5375-nasa-page-2.html
studybible.info/strongs/H5375
hebrewwordlessons.com/2019/01/20/nasa-lift-carry-and-bear-the-weight
Therefore the fact that you believed the flat Earth theorist claim about what NASA means in Hebrew proves just how easy it is for flat Earth theorists to manipulate you, hence proving the ignorance of your comments in this thread.
Simply put: If after reading the above you still think NAShA is the same as NASA, then your opinion on this subject is clearly a load of SHIrT ;-)
Bye :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bronneberg315 - You said "Censorship is very real. You can't even search for exact title of some of the popular videos without scrolling through pages and pages of debunking videos"
Which means the "shoe is on the other foot" now, as I will explain :-)
Not long ago, Google/YouTube changed the search algorithm to prevent conspiracy links/videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for several years!
In other words, if a few years ago I searched Google/YouTube for "Apollo moon landings", then instead of a list mostly about the Apollo moon landings, that list would be completely dominated by Apollo HOAX videos, which is unacceptable!
Following the changes however, such a search is now dominated by links/videos about the Apollo moon landings, as requested.
That's how it should be!
So now if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, flat Earth, ISS hoax, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, which is not that difficult (you just need to be smarter in your search).
That's also how it should be and hence Google/YouTube have simply redressed the balance. (i.e. you have to wade through pages of debunking videos now as I had to wade through pages of conspiracy videos back then).
Therefore it's not censorship since nothing has been deleted, it's just not as easy for you as it was before.
Whether it's gone too far depends on your conspiracy point of view of course, but the videos and links are all still there, but you just have to work harder and smarter to find them compared to a few years ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bronneberg315 - If it makes no sense to you, then that's how it will remain, since I've explained it already.
I've also been an amateur astronomer for over 30 years, that's just one of my passions, and hence over those years it's the space related conspiracy theories that have caught my attention and interest.
As for hitting an easy target, how can they be 'easy' if they're suppose to be right and I'm suppose to be wrong? :-)
I could also ask - why are you spending so much time day after day having debates with people you don't know online like myself? So were you bullied at school and now need to take it out on strangers online? Is this your job now? ;-)
Of course I'm not being serious in my last paragraph above but you can't pretend that if you told all your family and friends about this thread and the discussions you've had with me (a stranger) over the last 4 days that they would all be impressed. You can't pretend that none of them would see your presence here in a negative light (even if they don't say it to your face).
Still, whatever you reply next, I think I prefer to end this here. Despite the insults that crept in (you really can't help yourself it seems :-)), I actually enjoyed the discussion we've had over the last several replies and so I prefer to leave on that 'relatively' more positive note.
(Btw, there is a partial solution that conspiracy believers can use on YouTube for getting around the low priority in searches, which still surprises me that no-one has thought of it as yet... but that's a discussion for another time).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abrahamspies7611 - We don't feel speed, we only feel CHANGES in speed, a simple concept that flat Earth believers still don't understand for some reason :-)
For example;
If you woke up blindfolded in a passenger plane, or woke up blindfolded in an aircraft simulator, you wouldn't know what speed you were travelling at, and yet inside the passenger plane you may be cruising at 550 mph, whereas inside the simulator you are not travelling anywhere, your speed is effectively zero!
So you wouldn't know the difference until you took your blindfold off!
Hence we don't feel speed, we only feel changes in speed, i.e. acceleration and deceleration, and last time I checked the Earth is not accelerating or decelerating at a rate that the human body could detect :-)
1
-
1
-
@The1Mustache3 - WRONG. Gravity is a proven FACT.
Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE
The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)).
Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity.
Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses.
Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart.
If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries.
So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results.
Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
Any questions? :-)
1
-
@The1Mustache3 - You said "A fact is a fact. A theory is NOT a fact"
Which proves you don't understand the difference between "theory" in science and "theory" in common language use.
Again, gravity is a fact, proven by experiments. What exactly gravity is however is theory. Same with magnetism. Same with light.
Scientists don't know what magnetism is, but we know magnetism exists from the evidence, and therefore they created theories of magnetism to explain and PREDICT how magnetism interacts with matter.
Scientists don't know what light is, but we know light exists from the evidence, and therefore they created theories of light that explains and predicts how light interacts with matter.
Likewise, scientists don't know what gravity is, but we know gravity exists from the evidence, and therefore they created theories of gravity that explains and predicts how gravity interacts with matter.
I provided you with two experiments that proves the existence of gravity, address them please :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The1Mustache3 - You said "It could have been suicide, thank you for proving my point, that a fact is a absolute truth."
Which is why I said and I quote " It would be fair to assume it was 'probably' murder. Right?"
Which part of the word probably' did you not understand?
Suicide would be one of many theories, hence again proving my point.
And don't copy and paste what you don't understand. please;
https://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html
Quote: "A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them."
Which part of the above do you STILL not understand? :-)
1
-
@The1Mustache3 - You said "If Venus is in a goldie locks gravitational zone, why then does mercury exist? If the heliocentric model is correct and gravity is as you stated it to be. It should be pulled into to sun."
Firstly, the goldilocks zone is the distance from a star (in our case the sun) for which the conditions are considered to be ideal for life, or more specifically, the right temperature and conditions for liquid water to exist.
It has nothing to do with gravity, so why do you keep saying "goldie locks gravitational zone"?
Secondly, Venus and Mercury and all the other planets would be pulled into the sun due to gravity if they were not ORBITING the sun.
For example, if you were to attach an elastic string to an object and swing it around in circles over your head, why doesn't it just fly away? Because the tension of the string holds it in place (like gravity). Why isn't it pulled into your body? Because you put the object into motion and so it goes around you in circles. Stop that motion and it will rest against your body. But cut the string, or if the string breaks, then that object will fly away from you. FACT.
Therefore for you to claim that Mercury and Venus should be pulled into the sun despite being in ORBIT around the sun only proves you don't understand the science that you're talking about :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "Every flat earth video that brings the globe theory to its knees is gone from the internet"
Untrue my friend, and hence that explains why you're so easily taken in by conspiracy theorists :-|
None of the flat Earth videos have been deleted, unless by the user or through the channel being deleted (by the user or for breaking the rules).
Any deleted videos would appear as blanks in every playlist that it was added, and yet where's the outcry from FE believers who say all the FE videos have vanished from their playlists?
Here are the facts ...
Google/YouTube changed the search algorithm to prevent conspiracy videos from completely dominating search lists as they were for several years!
In other words, if a few years ago I searched Google/YouTube for "Apollo moon landings", then instead of a list mostly about the Apollo moon landings, that list would be completely dominated by Apollo HOAX videos, which is unacceptable!
Following the changes however, such a search is now dominated by links/videos about the Apollo moon landings, as requested.
That's how it should be!
So now if you want to find conspiracy videos (moon landings, flat Earth, ISS hoax, etc) then you have to be more specific in your search, which is not difficult (you just need to be smarter in your search).
That's also how it should be and hence Google/YouTube have simply redressed the balance.
Whether it's gone too far depends on your conspiracy point of view, but the videos and links are still there, you just have to work harder and smarter to find them :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Daggz90 - But that's the problem right there my friend, because nothing you've mentioned here is about dishonesty or deceit from NASA, it's about people not understanding the technology and hence jumping to conclusions and twisting it into something it's not :-|
To this day, all the digital sensors in all our phones and cameras and satellites and space probes etc only record in BLACK AND WHITE, and so color has to be reconstructed using various methods.
Your phone will use a filter with a grid of colors (eg Bayer filter) over the black and white digital sensor, where a mathematical algorithm will then convert the pattern of colors to work out the most likely color of each pixel. The resulting photos and videos are not 100% color perfect but to our eyes it looks perfect.
For science the images represents data and so it has to be 100% color perfect, so for photos that are pleasing to our eyes spacecraft will take multiple photos with different filters (eg, red then green then blue) and combine those photos to get the final image.
However, the levels of red and green and blue are open to interpretation, and so may be adjusted until they 'feel right' to those looking at the photos.
For science the black and white photo taken through the red filter contains important accurate information, same for the photos through the green filter and the blue filter, but for images close to what our eyes would have seen they combine the 3 photos to create a color photo.
So when they did that for the Mars photos the scientists thought it looked off, that it wasn't red enough because the sky looked more blue than red, so they assumed the color balance wasn't right and adjusted it so that the sky appeared more red as expected.
Can you understand how and why conspiracy theorists jumped to false conclusions and turned that into a claim that NASA were purposely |ying? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
You said "If Gravity, then wouldn't the forces of gravity required to hold the oceans/depths in place crush any life form on the planet."
That's a typical misunderstanding of gravity, which is why so many flat Earth believers can't (or won't) understand it :-)
I don't have time right now but will come back later, but in the meantime, see if you can work it out from the fact that gravity is NOT just about the Earth attracting matter towards it, gravity is about ALL matter attracting other matter.
In other words, the gravity of the Earth attracts you, your gravity attracts the Earth, hence the Earth and you attract each other. The gravity of the Earth attracts the oceans, the gravity of the oceans attract the Earth, hence the Earth and oceans attract each other...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1