The Earth Is Flat

[peepnklown]

What is the Matrix?

 

[MaxR1996]

What facts?

Any of them

 

[bhsmte]

Any of them

Go on...........

 

[SnowyMacie]

Yes, the timezone that Australia (the part the moon is over) is in 18 time zones to the East of Nevada, but it's only 6 time zones to the West. When the rocket is facing the moon, the camera is facing West, which is why it can see it and why there's no hint of the sun's location in the picture, as the sun at 9:30 AM is still significantly in an eastward direction.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yes, the timezone that Australia (the part the moon is over) is in 18 time zones to the East of Nevada, but it's only 6 time zones to the West. When the rocket is facing the moon, the camera is facing West, which is why it can see it and why there's no hint of the sun's location in the picture, as the sun at 9:30 AM is still significantly in an eastward direction.

So, I'm pretty sure the OP is a troll but, if some of you may have gathered, I like geometry. So I'll explain this anyway.

TX_Matt, I'm not sure the timezones matter. The shortest distance from Australia to Nevada is about 8300 miles (westward over the Pacific). This implies that if the moon is directly overhead in Australia, a rocket in Nevada needs to be about 672 miles above the surface to see the moon.

Here S = 8300 miles (the arclength between Nevada and Australia) and S = S1 + S2. D = 238,000 miles (distance from Earth to moon) and R = 3959 miles (radius of Earth). The goal is to find H, the height of the rocket at which point it will see the moon.

Trigonometry tells us via the arclength formula:

and therefore

(1)

and from Pythagoras and trig:

Plug in to Equation (1) and you get

Now, from Pythagoras we also know that

and therefore

.

As per usual, this DOES NOT at all prove the Earth is flat.

Why?

Because the moon is not directly overhead in Australia.

On July 14, 2014, the moon would have been about 60 degrees above the horizon at 3 am. This changes the geometry considerably as shown in this diagram:

The geometry and maths get ridiculously complex at this point and I haven't had time to work it out. Here, α = 60 degrees is the angle the moon is above the horizon. Just by looking at the diagram, it is obvious that H is significantly smaller when the moon is not directly overhead in Australia. Here S =S1+S2+S3.

The stupidest thing about all the flat Earth arguments is they always neglect some obvious fact of reality. In this case, they assume the moon is directly overhead in Australia, which it is not.

Cheers,


LRLRL


****Edit: I have solved the geometry problem in the above diagram. Props to anyone who actually reads this*****

From the above diagram, we first know that

which is the distance to the moon. Substituting variables in using trigonometric relationships:

.

Now, we also know that the sum of the angles in a polygon must equal 360 degrees (or 2*pi radians) and therefore:

.

We also know two other facts about the angles:

So, using the above angle relationships and the arc length formula, we can arrive at an equation for D called Equation (A):

The final thing we need is the relationship for H which we will call Equation (B):

.

Now, unfortunately, using Equation (A) and Equation (B), we can not solve for H analytically. We will have to solve it numerically. I have taken values for H from 0.1 miles to 1000 miles in 0.1 mile increments and solved for D. Then I found the value for H which resulted in D being closest to 238,000 miles.

The final result?

.

Crazy, right? In this model, you would only need to go up about 1.4 miles in order to see the moon on the horizon on July 14, 2014 at 9:30 am in Nevada. This actually makes sense too because the moonset for that day in Las Vegas was at 8:16 AM. This means that at 9:30 AM, the moon would have just set about an hour prior so would only be just below the horizon.

I'm actually shocked at how well my simple geometric model is confirmed by the observations. It also explains how the moon can be so far above the horizon for a rocket which is 73 miles up. I thought there would be a variety of errors because I was assuming a 2D diagram and did not account for the 3D nature of the problem.


***End Edits: Props if you read all that***

 

[tulc]

Math is hard, making baseless assertions is much easier.
tulc(gave up on math when letters and words got involved)

 

[SnowyMacie]

Math is hard, making baseless assertions is much easier.
tulc(gave up on math when letters and words got involved)

I personally was done when imaginary numbers got involved.

 

[brocke]

I don't know which is worse that I will never get the 2:34 minutes back to my live wasted watching that video or the time someone took to make it. But without even going into the math to argue your trollishness. It's funny that the video distorts the curvature of the earth in some pictures and neglects to correct the image of the curvature of the earth in others. LOL

Second, why would the rocket have to go up that high to spot the Moon on a flat earth in the first place. If the earth was flat and the moon was up there. You would be able to see it from Nevada without the rocket or any altitude gain. As there would be no curvature to block the view of the moon.

Go away or I will taunt you some more.

 

[jenniTexan]

Oh, my head hurts when I see stuff like this. I always hope it's someone having a good laugh, but when the Flat Earth Society is in existence, I know that the sad alternative is still there.

 

[Nithavela]

*Snip*

In the time you did this, OP has had time for 20 more fraudulent posts, so you loose and the earth is flat, because lies will always triumph.

Just look at his posts. While you were busy trying to disproove his allegations, he had time to claim that psychatry is sorcery and that the sky being round and the ground being flat is evidence for a flat earth. You are well and truly defeated.