[MOVED] What happens when a non-NASA astronaut is asked about the shape of the earth?

Brightmoon said:

Five year olds don’t have an education

how about those solar vs sidereal days ? The four extra minutes that appears to move the constellations across the sky . The reason Orion is overhead in winter and sinking in the west in spring. The SCIENTIFIC explanation is that the earth is rotating as well as revolving so it’s not stationary at all. So the earth is moving around the sun and spinning at the same time. So much for your stationary geocentric earth . And no your partially invisible dome doesn’t explain that. The reason that the air doesn’t blow away is that it is part of the earth . It’s the same reason people in a car don’t fall out of the back window if the car is moving steadily .

Click to expand...

It's like you just read a text book and parrot it as though it's the Word of God. You have to prove these things, test the spirits y'know.

If you think that the position of Orion proves the rotation of the Earth, then you're either in for a Nobel Prize, or you're wrong. Because EVERY top physicist agrees at least that the heliocentric and geocentric coordinate systems are equivalent. According to them, you could make a model with Mars at the centre and everything else going around it.

We say great, fine, ok, but only ONE of these is TRUE. So, until you can actually produce some direct and unambiguous physical evidence of earth's motion in space, I'll stick with the reasonable idea that we all rely on day in day out for all practical purposes - that the Earth is stationary, unmoving, and fixed.

Funny, that's just what the Bible says.

Shrewd Manager said:

It's like you just read a text book and parrot it as though it's the Word of God. You have to prove these things, test the spirits y'know.

If you think that the position of Orion proves the rotation of the Earth, then you're either in for a Nobel Prize, or you're wrong. Because EVERY top physicist agrees at least that the heliocentric and geocentric coordinate systems are equivalent. According to them, you could make a model with Mars at the centre and everything else going around it.

We say great, fine, ok, but only ONE of these is TRUE. So, until you can actually produce some direct and unambiguous physical evidence of earth's motion in space, I'll stick with the reasonable idea that we all rely on day in day out for all practical purposes - that the Earth is stationary, unmoving, and fixed.

Funny, that's just what the Bible says.

Click to expand...

Except that it isn't any of those things.

kiwimac said:

Except that it isn't any of those things.

Click to expand...

And the waters are? Flat and level, my man, and calm. No corkscrewing through space on a spinning waterball there lol. Here's your Biblical map:

Except that the 4 minute difference in sidereal and solar days does prove that the earth rotates . Stars aren’t dots painted on a backdrop. They’re hot balls of gas and plasma Some are as big as the solar system . You don’t have to read a textbook you can see this for yourself . It takes about 2 weeks to notice an obvious difference in the night sky. the alternative is that distant stars are traveling around the earth at greater than light speed

1 Corinthians 15:17 said:

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Click to expand...

Note that it doesn't say "if the earth is round, your faith is in vain".

How come this ridiculously impossible conspiracy with unlimited resources and the sole goal of discrediting Christianity never thought of coming up with a fake tomb and a fake body of Jesus?

Brightmoon said:

Except that the 4 minute difference in sidereal and solar days does prove that the earth rotates .

Click to expand...

The sidereal and solar day difference doesn't prove earth's motion, if anything it tends to prove the opposite.

Brightmoon said:

They’re hot balls of gas and plasma Some are as big as the solar system . You don’t have to read a textbook you can see this for yourself .

Click to expand...

Really? You can see the stars are hot plasma balls big as a solar system? Great balls of fire! It'll be a worry when they fall to earth in the end times then, we'll be sucked into the black hole and crushed by a red dwarf smh.

Brightmoon said:

It takes about 2 weeks to notice an obvious difference in the night sky. the alternative is that distant stars are traveling around the earth at greater than light speed

Click to expand...

You're making too many unproven assumptions as to the size of the universe. Why don't you stick to just detecting earth's supposed motion in space? Should be easy.

Since my version of the solar system already has been confirmed the ball is in your court to disprove it .



This should be fun. I like fantasy stories

Shrewd Manager said:

And the waters are? Flat and level, my man, and calm. No corkscrewing through space on a spinning waterball there lol. Here's your Biblical map:

Click to expand...

I don't go to ancient documents to explain science. The Bible is not a science text and the grasp of science shown by it's various authors is what we would expect of the people of the time. We know better.

SeventyOne said:

Too funny. This just came up on my feed. It's the cut-away landing.

Click to expand...

Turns out I was close, but not quite correct with my hypothesis that it's the ionisation from the rocket exhaust plume that interrupts the transmission; it's actually the vibrations due to the rocket exhaust that misalign the transmission to the satellite:

kiwimac said:

I don't go to ancient documents to explain science. The Bible is not a science text and the grasp of science shown by it's various authors is what we would expect of the people of the time. We know better.

Click to expand...

Well you might know better, but the US military hi-tech guys are still hanging out with those, er, bronze age goatherds:

Gov’t Admits FLAT EARTH

SeventyOne said:

The video stated that the problem could be solved with another ship there, but it seems to indicate its value would only be when it's linked directly to the drone ship. That's pure garbage. All it would need is its own camera to capture those live moments the drone ship reportedly cannot. This is something they could easily do, as the SpaceX site itself states:

"OCISLY and the tugboat will leave Port Canaveral up to 7 days in advance of the launch date, with other accompanying support ships leaving later. After traveling to the landing zone the thrusters and other equipment will be engaged. Support vessels and the tugboat will then retreat to a safe distance to observe the landing."

The ships are already there observing. If they wanted a second live feed source, they could easily have one.

Click to expand...

Maybe they just don't think it worth having another satellite link when it's all being recorded anyhow. Missing the odd live drone-ship landing isn't such a big deal, and they get live feed of the side boosters landing.

SeventyOne said:

Sure. When they go out of their way to have massive worldwide live productions of their launches, why worry about things like full coverage. What a silly concept.

Click to expand...

Seriously, you think that because some of the droneship live feed landings are interrupted, the whole enterprise is called into question?

Don't you think that if they were faking it, they could make every landing appear successful on live feed?

If that's not it, what is so significant about the missed landings?

Conspiracy theorists think that if 100% of every space launch/landing is not filmed by 10, live streaming, uninterrupted (non fish-eye lens) cameras that it must therefore mean that someone is lying to them.

However, I suspect that if they actually did that, that instead of acknowledging their folly and admitting that space flight is real, they would say that now they are going to such great lengths to demonstrate it's validity that it must mean it's faked.

Personally, I'm still waiting for a flat earther to do the most obvious thing they should have done years ago - rent a boat and drive up to the ice shelf that encompasses the entirety of the planet. Talk about an easy way to prove a flat earth. If there is literally a giant ice shelf that surrounds the entirety of the planet, it would be absolutely impossible to keep that a secret.

SeventyOne said:

An easier way would just to prove over and over, hundreds and hundreds of times, that the curve we are told exists, doesn't exist, and then wait for the globers to ignore all of it.

Such as ignoring this recent one...

Click to expand...

Or.... the shape of the earth has been proven thousands and thousands of times by the fact that well... we have been to space?

Again, the easiest, and most irrefutable way to prove that the earth is flat is for someone to spend a few thousand dollars, and charter a boat out to the ice shelf that supposed encompasses the entirety of the planet. If that were true, it would be quite impossible to monitor and guard against people approaching the entirety of it. Heck, use one of those nifthy P900 cameras and you don't even have to bump up against it.

Yet... nobody has done that. Nobody.

SeventyOne said:

I don't think your way would convince anybody determined not to be convinced. You'd all claim it was fake and pictures of ice prove nothing.

Click to expand...

No no sir, claiming something is fake is the M.O. of the flat earther. Let's avoid the projection if we can. You can't fake the ice wall that supposedly encompasses the entirety of the planet!

SeventyOne said:

Proving there is no curve has been a simple process, done by many independent people all across the world and documented for at least the last 5 years.

Click to expand...

It's actually never been done.

SeventyOne said:

And... I'm willing to bet you didn't watch the video either.

Click to expand...

I sure did!

Whoops, wrong thread.