A question for flat earth people

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I think that the only people who would know for sure would be the few people who have been to low earth orbit...

I have seen too many evidences for both models, by people that have been no higher than an air liner... that are good arguments for both models.

Here is a challenge.. Prove the globe without using NASA, the Military or your government.

SO we set up a foucault pendulem in the northern hemisphere. Which way does it rotate? We set up a foucault pendulem in the southern hemisphere. Which way does it rotate? Please explain the flat earth physics involved. We all know the global physics involved.

 

[Dirk1540]

I just had a thought, if Earth is flat shouldn’t we be able to dig a thin hole deep enough to poke through it?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Actually, your stereoscopic vision is excellent out to 400.2 meters and then slowly loses accuracy.. Visual phenomenon that are past this distance are not deduced by the brain but by proximity to other distant objects.

Proximity to other distant objects cannot deduce anything. Brains deduce things, using proximity to other distant objects as one clue. There are other clues.

In all reality, the idea of this being perspective is a cop out of the scientific community to explain away a fact that defies the model that they are presenting us with.

Here, check out this image of skyscrapers:

Notice how the vertical lines all appear to radiate from a single point, when we know that, in fact, they are all parallel. That's what the sun's rays do as well, they come in parallel and appear, like the vertical sides of the skyscrapers, to all diverge from a single point.

 

[A_Thinker]

Here, check out this image of skyscrapers:

Pictures are still not coming through.

Videos work though ...

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Pictures are still not coming through.

Videos work though ...

What's odd is, I go to edit the post, and in the edit mode I can SEE the picture! grumble gripe

 

[JacksBratt]

Why would you think the only people who would know for sure would be people who have been to low earth orbit? Every single FE proponent I hear discredits 100% of every camera shot we have from space and low earth orbit as being shot with a fish-eye lens. This is obviously intentional and deceptive. Hearing you say that only those few people are the ones who know is honestly nothing short of disingenuous.

Why? because they are the only ones who have been high enough to actually see..

Every FE proponent discredits those shots for the absolute right reason...

Ask yourself... why would NASA always use a fish eye lens?

Name one person, other than those who have been to low earth orbit, or close to it, in a military air craft, that can attest to the shape of the earth from high enough above.

All the other people are just like you and me... going by what we are told and what we cannot prove for ourselves and what we have been taught since we could not even walk.

PS: One person who has been to 10 miles up and described what he saw, was Auguste Piccard, in 1930 and he described it as a "flat disk with upturned edges". That's interesting.

This was before all the crap hit the fan when Admiral Byrd went to Antarctica and found out something that rushed him home early and had Russia and the US firing high altitude nukes into the upper atmosphere and ... a little known fact... they started a competition as to who could drill the deepest hole into the earth...

What would you do if you woke up and found that you were in a room with a dome over top... sitting on a flat raised platform?

Would you not try to break the dome overhead (Nukes to the upper atmosphere) and dig a hole (competition to drill the deepest into the earth) to see if you could get out?

This is all true... fiction is never this good.

If the earth is actually flat, then there is a worldwide, massive cover up going on.

You are absolutely right.

Which is really absurd and pointless.

Well if it is.. there are hundreds of thousands of people who think the world is flat and that number is growing exponentially.

And with regards to your challenge, that's super easy:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/10/science/An-Image-of-Earth-Every-Ten-Minutes.html

I cannot view this now.. I will do so later

 

[SeventyOne]

SO we set up a foucault pendulem in the northern hemisphere. Which way does it rotate? We set up a foucault pendulem in the southern hemisphere. Which way does it rotate? Please explain the flat earth physics involved. We all know the global physics involved.

The same pendulum that claims to move independently on the earth while remaining attached to it? The same pendulum that sometimes reverses direction during solar eclipses (Allais effect)? I assume that would mean the earth changes directions in that paradigm. The same pendulum that sometimes stops and has to be manually restarted the various places where they are housed? I'll try to find the video of the tour guide at the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles who was explaining how they had to add a small motor to the top area of the pendulum to keep it in motion because the thing just kept stopping.

That's the pendulum that proves constant rotation?

 

[SeventyOne]

The same pendulum that claims to move independently on the earth while remaining attached to it? The same pendulum that sometimes reverses direction during solar eclipses (Allais effect)? I assume that would mean the earth changes directions in that paradigm. The same pendulum that sometimes stops and has to be manually restarted the various places where they are housed? I'll try to find the video of the tour guide at the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles who was explaining how they had to add a small motor to the top area of the pendulum to keep it in motion because the thing just kept stopping.

That's the pendulum that proves constant rotation?

Here it is. At least the portion I'm referencing starts at around 7:14 in the video. The tour guide at the Griffith Observatory is explaining how an electromagnet (not a motor) had to be added to keep the pendulum from stopping every few hours.

 

[Aldebaran]

Name one person, other than those who have been to low earth orbit, or close to it, in a military air craft, that can attest to the shape of the earth from high enough above.

Felix Baumgartner.

 

[Aldebaran]

I have seen too many evidences for both models, by people that have been no higher than an air liner... that are good arguments for both models.

Then why don't you ever acknowledge any of the good arguments for the globe earth model?

 

[SPF]

Ask yourself... why would NASA always use a fish eye lens?

The problem is it's more than just NASA at this point. It's every single country that has launched a satellite into space. It's Elon Musk and Tesla, it's Richard Branson, it's weather channels, heck, it's even RedBull at this point with sky diver Felix Baumgardner, not to mention the Mythbusters must be in on it too! Oh, and James May from Top Gear must be in on it too because he was up in a U2 plane and claims to have seen the curvature. The claim must now extend to all of them, saying that 100% of them are in on it and they all secretly use fish-eye lenses to make sure that everyone else stays in the dark.

For me though, I have a good friend who pilots U2 planes and he has a good laugh at the FE people and has said it's too bad he can't take them up with him, because it's obvious the earth is not flat.

Again I ask - why?! What's the point of this massive, expensive, worldwide cover up? What is it accomplishing?

 

[A_Thinker]

PS: One person who has been to 10 miles up and described what he saw, was Auguste Piccard, in 1930 and he described it as a "flat disk with upturned edges". That's interesting.

Why would we make the observations of this one guy the basis for our beliefs about the nature of the earth ... and ignore all of those who say they saw a globe ?

Also, ... why are there NO PICTURES of the flat Earth ...

 

[Aldebaran]

Ask yourself... why would NASA always use a fish eye lens?

For the same reason many others do. To capture more image. A fish eye lens isn't always used though, but when it is, it's to be able to capture as large of an area as they can when the camera is pointing in the desired direction.

 

[SeventyOne]

The problem is it's more than just NASA at this point. It's every single country that has launched a satellite into space. It's Elon Musk and Tesla, it's Richard Branson, it's weather channels, heck, it's even RedBull at this point with sky diver Felix Baumgardner, not to mention the Mythbusters must be in on it too! Oh, and James May from Top Gear must be in on it too because he was up in a U2 plane and claims to have seen the curvature. The claim must now extend to all of them, saying that 100% of them are in on it and they all secretly use fish-eye lenses to make sure that everyone else stays in the dark.

For me though, I have a good friend who pilots U2 planes and he has a good laugh at the FE people and has said it's too bad he can't take them up with him, because it's obvious the earth is not flat.

Again I ask - why?! What's the point of this massive, expensive, worldwide cover up? What is it accomplishing?

You'd have to ask them why. This is the same as when the Mythbusters went up in a plane and showed the 'curve', only to be outed by their own footage as the cockpit camera was not a fish-eye lens and showed a completely flat horizon. Why did they lie? Good question. I don't know.

Even in this video, if you look at the curvature displayed at the 1:50 mark and again at the 2:04 mark, you can visibly see the curve has changed. In fact, if you watch continuously from 1:50 to 2:10, you can see the curve fluctuating.

As for Felix Baumgardner, try watching the raw footage from both the helmet cam and from the rocket after the jump. The horizon does twists and turns, and even inverts, like you wouldn't believe. This is a characteristic indicative of a fish-eye lens.

As for your U2 friends, not sure why they are feeding you that line. Check out the balloon camera footage that doesn't use such a lens and goes 30k to 40k feet higher. Flat as a pancake in all directions.

 

[JacksBratt]

Then why don't you ever acknowledge any of the good arguments for the globe earth model?

Like?

 

[JacksBratt]

The problem is it's more than just NASA at this point. It's every single country that has launched a satellite into space. It's Elon Musk and Tesla, it's Richard Branson, it's weather channels, heck, it's even RedBull at this point with sky diver Felix Baumgardner, not to mention the Mythbusters must be in on it too! Oh, and James May from Top Gear must be in on it too because he was up in a U2 plane and claims to have seen the curvature. The claim must now extend to all of them, saying that 100% of them are in on it and they all secretly use fish-eye lenses to make sure that everyone else stays in the dark.

For me though, I have a good friend who pilots U2 planes and he has a good laugh at the FE people and has said it's too bad he can't take them up with him, because it's obvious the earth is not flat.

Again I ask - why?! What's the point of this massive, expensive, worldwide cover up? What is it accomplishing?

That's a nice video.. thing is, I saw the same thing on Myth Busters... they made the mistake, however, of leaving the camera rolling while they were on the ground.. and... it was a fish eye lens showing just as much curvature at zero feet as it was at 70,000 feet.

So, here's my issue... I have lost all faith in the integrity of the Military in ever presenting the FE.. if it is true.. so.. I am not going to use this one video as proof.. not in the least.. There is no way of proving that it was not shot with a fish eye and that the curve is lens distortion..

And, as I have stated before, I'm not going to take this guy's word for it either.... What do you think would happen if he went on about how breathtaking it was.. but where is the curve? Or "I can't see the curve, how high do we have to go to see the curve?"

So, with the myth busters busted at 70,000 feet, why am I going to take this video as the solid proof that everyone else who has had high altitude balloons and rockets beyond 70,000 feet with normal lenses shows no curve?

 

[JacksBratt]

Why would we make the observations of this one guy the basis for our beliefs about the nature of the earth ... and ignore all of those who say they saw a globe ?

Also, ... why are there NO PICTURES of the flat Earth ...

First off, I'm not saying that Auguste Piccard's testimony is solid proof.. Or... I would be going around like Mark Sargent and Rob Skiba and speaking at all the flat earth conferences.

What I'm saying is that there are too many conflicting stories to say anything is solid proof.

Second... think of the only ones who can take pictures of the earth from low earth orbit or high altitude and you will find they are either NASA or the military... both of which are not going to run to the media and shout that the earth is flat...

Here is a video by a high altitude balloon, that does NOT have a fish eye lens..
Does this make me a FE'er... no.. I am still not convinced of either..

When I have time I will try to find the video of a rocket launched that shows the moon in it..when the moon is over Australia at the time and the rocket was launched in the US.. An impossibility on the globe model.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

First off, I'm not saying that Auguste Piccard's testimony is solid proof.. Or... I would be going around like Mark Sargent and Rob Skiba and speaking at all the flat earth conferences.

What I'm saying is that there are too many conflicting stories to say anything is solid proof.

Second... think of the only ones who can take pictures of the earth from low earth orbit or high altitude and you will find they are either NASA or the military... both of which are not going to run to the media and shout that the earth is flat...

Here is a video by a high altitude balloon, that does NOT have a fish eye lens..
Does this make me a FE'er... no.. I am still not convinced of either..

When I have time I will try to find the video of a rocket launched that shows the moon in it..when the moon is over Australia at the time and the rocket was launched in the US.. An impossibility on the globe model.

One could take advantage of the fact that triangles on a plane always have the sum of the angles add up to 180 degrees. Now consider the triangle consisting of the country of Equador, the country of Kenya, and the North Pole. What do the angles of that triangle add up to? If the earth is a globe, the sum of the angles will be considerably more than 180 degrees. If the earth is flat, then the angels have to add up to 180 degrees. So which is it?

 

[CatRandy]

The earth is spinning under the bullet, right? So the bullet drifts to the right.
Now, if this were so, the earth would be spinning under the plane, to the extent that when it went to land, the runway would be moving sideways.

Seriously? Dude, we’re talking about a 3 inch drift over 1000 yards, not a 1000 yard drift over 3 inches.

Pilots make course corrections throughout the flight. You’re saying that because they can’t say “this specific nudge takes care of the 3 inch course correction”, that the correction doesn’t exist. Whatever course correction for the Coriolis Effect that comes about during flight would not be noticed over the more major corrections.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Yes, the sun's gravity pulls on the objects on earth. But the force which pulls is almost trivial. But still there is a little force.

The difference might be trivial, but it is large enough to be measured, and it was not.

If we caculate using the equation the that the force between two objects is proportional to result of the multiplication of their mass and disproportional to the squre of the distance between them, the result is 5.2✖10^-11 kg.

I posted the numbers. A 0.6g difference on a 500g object. 5.2✖10^-11 kg has nothing to do with it.

The biggest proof of the answer is the solar tide. The sun pulls the waters of the earth's surface towards it and causes the solar tides.

Somewhat of a contradictory claim, given gravity does not have the same effect on the object subjected to our experiment. The only consistent explanation to this apparent contradiction is that gravity is not responsible for the tides.