What are
/r/flatearth's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/flatearth:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/flatearth:
Omni Calculator
GeoGebra
Desmos
Shutterstock
Dictionary.com
Stellarium
Indeed
SemanticScholar
Straw Poll
AccuWeather
The Weather Channel
Space Engine
Pexels
Brilliant.org
IPFS
The most popular Android Apps mentioned in /r/flatearth:
GPS Status & Toolbox
Sky Map
ISS Detector Satellite Tracker
SkyView® Free
COSMIC WATCH: Time and Space
Dioptra™ - a camera tool
ISS Live - HD Earth viewing and NASA library
The most popular reviews in /r/flatearth:
It looks like the image was originally from this guys account.
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/anton+balazh
Original is credited here
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/877055/view
Neither appear to have been produced by NASA but may have used NASA data to create.
Another FEer tricked.... You could have spent 5 minutes to reverse search this image and track down the creators.
True. But the psychology in this thing is fascinating. "The scientific method is great, except we only like this one guy who followed it, and not the other. And by the way, we'll just throw in that you're all stupid for trusting epidemiologists and other experts who not only studied pandemics for their whole lives, but actually wrote the book that doctors study from. https://www.amazon.com/Harrisons-Principles-Internal-Medicine-Twentieth/dp/1259644030/ref=mp_s_a_1_7?dchild=1&keywords=author+anthony+fauci&qid=1621992944&sr=8-7
TIL Imgur posts are more credible than the entire scientific community... How's that convex earth video working out for you guys?
Regarding the shark, here is the original source of that claim: https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/MauricioHoyosPadilla/deep-blue-51448755
You can see it's more or less an assumption based on the animal's size. They can't accurately age sharks until they are dead, but the records of dead sharks show that they get bigger as they age. Based on the size of this shark they can estimate age to be >50.
It's not really all that complicated for most people to understand, but then again you are a flat earther, and therefore are less likely to be educated and more likely to be living close to the poverty line. So maybe I take it's simplicity for granted.
8"per mile^2 is an approximation for local distances. That formula results in a parabola, not a circle. Here is a graph illustrating the difference using metric instead of imperial units. The globe theory does not state that the earth is parabola shaped.
The force of gravity on an object is directly proportional to the mass of that object. A butterfly has a very small mass, so it experiences a very small gravitational force. Therefore, it only needs to exert a small force in order to overcome gravity and fly around.
As for the Earth's rotation, we can calculate the centrifugal forces caused by it using this calculator, which shows that any object on Earth experiences 0.03 m/s^(2) of outward acceleration, easily overcome by the 9.8 m/s^(2) downward acceleration due to gravity. The centrifugal acceleration from the Earth's orbit around the Sun is balanced by its gravitational acceleration toward the Sun, which keeps the orbit stable.
This article discusses observing tomorrow's Antares rocket launch.
Please explain why on an alleged flat earth that the rocket can be observed in flight from hundreds of miles away only after it has reached an altitude of many thousands of feet.
> Then get all confused when the math is, 8"pm2 curvature
That formula produces a parabola and not a sphere. There is no possible sphere or subsection of a sphere that can be described by the parabola X miles = 8^2 * Y inches. If you disagree, feel free to graph one such parabola using this online graphing calculator: https://www.desmos.com/calculator
According to this post by Cornell University, Earth's orbital speed varies from 67,779.17 mph to 65,542.233 mph, neither of which has a 666 in it.
The curvature approximation of 8 in/mi^(2) is only accurate out to about 100 miles. A formula without such a distance limit is given at this site, with an explanation of the derivation. Even if we did decide to use the 8 in/mi^(2) approximation, this is not 0.666 ft/mi. Instead, 8 inches is 2/3 of a foot, meaning that you must express it either as a fraction, as 0.666666666666... (with the 6's repeating infinitely), or, if you wish to express it as a finite decimal, the last digit rounds to 7, not 6. Eg: 0.667. Again, we have a complete lack of a 666.
Finally, although Earth's axial tilt is currently about 23.4 degrees, this varies from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees, over a several thousand year cycle. Again, no 666 here.
The viewing deck of the Tower is at 1122 ft, and the antenna goes up to 1,815 ft. You can see about as much of the tower below the antenna as you can see of the antenna, meaning, about 400 something ft or more of the tower is hidden by the horizon. There appears to be very little refraction going on.
According to my Earth Curve calculator over at geogebra.org, accounting for standard refraction (K-factor of 1.17), from a distance of 30 miles, 410 feet should be hidden from view for a person with a viewing height of 6 feet.
Also hidden behind the curve of the Earth is Centre Island, surrounding the waters in front of the CN Tower.
400 feet of the tower is hidden from view, along with all of Centre Island. You have confirmed that the Earth is in fact spherical.
The size of the rotating object does matter, as well as the tangential velocity. The centrifugal force formula is F = mv^(2)/r, where m is the mass of the object on the edge of the spinning object, v is the tangential velocity, and r is the radius of the spinning object. Thus, higher tangential velocity does increase centrifugal force, but larger radius decreases that force. If we plug these values into a centrifugal force calculator, we find that an object on Earth is accelerated outward by centrifugal force at a mere 0.034 m/s^(2).
Apparently, /u/showcdp is now "exposing" all the jesuit priests that are involved in a global conspiracy about science.
Let me save him some time and get the full list. Now he can pick one Jesuit priest every day and create many posts about it ...
Confirmation bias at its best
> 8 inches per mile squared is a figure anyone can go out and see curvature over the horizon and also left to right
Are you considering the height of the observer or the fact that there is terrain such as hills, valleys and mountains? Here try this.
>ships that go out of sight due to perspective easily come back to eyesight zooming in from camera, binoculars etc
Have you tried this or just watched some pro-flat videos?
How about you explain why I know for a fact that the moon will be a waxing crescent on December 31st or why there will be an eclipse on August 21, 2017?
Couldn't resist a quick look.
On your Almost All Purpose Visual Earth Curve Calculator (with refraction option), how did you calculate the effects of refraction? Also, I'm guessing the distances to the horizon and to the object are the straight-line distances from the observer's eye height (using pythagorean theorem) correct? It would be nice to have an option for the distances being the distance along the surface (even though it would be almost the same) since the surface distance is what you would get from Google Earth.
On Lunar Epicycles, is there a specific flat Earther argument that this was made for, or was this more for your own interest?
On 2D Solar Eclipse Visualization it would be nice if you included the penumbra as well. It would also be nice if there was a way to adjust parameters such as moon distance/sun distance. As it is, the umbral lines cross before they reach the Earth, which means it only shows an annular eclipse. I made my own 2D eclipse diagram in Desmos a little while ago if you'd like to check it out here.
I gotta go back to my work, I'll look at the rest later
I made a calculator/visualizer for how much of Earth's surface would be visible for a given altitude for anyone interested.
Calculator 2 UPDATED
Do you consider this to be evidence of the FE conjecture? I guess you wouldn't expect a fisher boat on the ice wall either.
Edit: you also might be interested to learn how the GPS traces are actually matched to the map. TL;DR they don't claim 100% accuracy. Anyway GPS is a one way signal, you can't track ships with GPS in real time
Visibility calculations require atmospheric refraction calculations which are admittedly complex. However, I have seen no math that explains how objects on the horizon, on flat Earth, are cropped on the bottom, sometimes by hundreds of feet.
Follow the daily debug for a whole bunch of high school level math.
One of my personal favorites is this:
https://www.geogebra.org/m/2363491
It was a created with high school level math according to flat Earth specifications. It does not match real world observations.
Another personal favorite is this:
How can the setting sun cast light and shadow onto the bottom of clouds if the sun is always 3000 miles above the Earth?
Vacuum is not synonymous to suction. There is also this thing called gravity which pulls the mass of the atmosphere down to the mass of the earth thereby creating atmospheric pressure. The higher you go the thinner the atmosphere. Some atmosphere does escape but not very much because the pull of gravity is greater than the void of space. Also space has no drag to cause any friction on the atmosphere. Just because you haven't taken any time to understand something doesn't mean it isn't happening....
He confused the night terminator line for being the shadow on the moon. The shadow was the red portion. Edit: Whoops I messed that up but it still doesn't disprove the globe earth! Heres a demonstration of whats happening https://www.desmos.com/calculator/kpxia5wwdw
Throughout this comment, I use this calculator to determine centrifugal force.
Earth spins at 0.0007 rpm, meaning that a one pound mass of water at the equator will experience 0.016 Newtons of force, and accelerate outwards at 0.03 m/s^(2). This is easily overcome by the downwards gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s^(2).
A washing machine, on the other hand, spins at 1200-1800 rpm, depending on model. We will take 1500 rpm for calculation, along with a drum diameter of 2 feet. A one pound mass of water in such a washing machine would experience 3,411 Newtons of force, and be accelerated outward at 7,521 m/s^(2), which easily overcomes the negligible gravitational acceleration pulling it toward the middle.
From this, we can see that your comparison is in no way equivalent. Because the washing machine spins way faster than earth, it also has way more centrifugal force.
Centrifugal force is dependent on rpm and radius.
Using 0.00069 rpm (1 rotation every 24 hr) and the radius of earth you can calculate that at the equator it will be a 0.03326 m/s squared acceleration.
Subtract that from 9.81 per second squared and you get 9.78 per second squared acceleration at the equator.
Linear speed isn't the factor in centrifugal force. And the linear speed is constant.
Here is a calculator and formula:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/centrifugal-force
Demonstration:
It most certainly does. That is literally how it works.
On a planet with oceans, everything on the planet's surface is pulled to the core of the planet. That includes the water. Water clings to the surface of the earth like nuts to a bon bon.
Except on a bon bon, the chocolate is the glue.
And on the earth GRAVITY is the glue. See?
So earlier this year, scientists detected gravity waves for the first time.
Basically the reason we haven't detected them before is because we didn't have sensitive enough instruments.
Original moon tapes got erased according to NASA
https://www.npr.org/2009/07/16/106637066/houston-we-erased-the-apollo-11-tapes
The tapes also contained all the engineering and telemetric data
Now, the 13,000 reels of data are nowhere to be found. In 2006, NASA began a dedicated agency-wide hunt, but to date, the images haven't shown up.
The tapes include biomedical data on astronauts, telemetry and engineering data from the Apollo missions, as well as video footage of the Apollo 11 landing. As NASA begins thinking about future missions to the moon, these 13,000 reels of missing tape would be a critical source of information.
https://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2008-09/brief-history-apollo-hoax
There is actually a formula for centrifugal force using linear speed: F = mv^(2)/r, in which v is the tangential velocity. (Source) Of course, Jolly is completely ignoring the massive difference in size between the Earth and his other examples.
Very glad to help! Geometry is fun 😊
I just made this. My own visualizer for horizon curvature. I'm fairly confident about its accuracy, but I could be wrong. The black dotted circle is the FOV cone. The viewpoint is centered on the nearer endpoint of the sagitta. "a" is the visual angle of the sagitta. "h" is the altitude of the observer in miles. "f" is the field of view. Let me know what you think!
Edit: Updated Visualizer
Edit2: Updated Visualizer again
Why did you bring up evolution?
Keep in mind evolution is a theory, which is still a work in progress. We cannot ever prove a theory, only bolster it or find evidence that disproves it, spurning theorizing for an alternative. Evolution is absolutely the best current model of how we’ve ended up here with the current organisms.
One piece of supporting evidence for the theory of evolution is common bone structures among related species. We can observe this from X-rays and comparing skeletons of current animals. We can see all mammals share these bone structures for example, the forearm-hand bones are very similar across all mammals. From this, we attribute common ancestry, because it’s the best explanation we have. That’s the whole idea of the scientific method, whereby we evaluate theories.
Here’s a visualization: https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/diverzippy/bioknowledgy-51-evidence-for-evolution
I certainly do trust the research of scientists. If you are willing to throw out the entire scientific method, then we cannot really discuss any scientific issues, because we don’t have a common method to establish any knowledge. Doing ones own research contributes to the literature, albeit in an informal setting. The scientific method is a compounding work in progress of many individuals/teams doing their own research and building off accepted conclusions of the past, which have been tested by their peers and competitors in their respective field and accepted as valid. I don’t understand how you see trust in this method blind.
I think the scientific method is the crown jewel of human culture, and collectively is the most significant endeavour humankind has ever undertaken.
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/australia-city-lights-space-night-earth-174127448
Claims it is from NASA , but doesn't provide source. It also says it was edited, but doesn't mention what was edited.
Since we're posting videos without commentary, here is the Mythbusters episode that comprehensively debunked every one of the so-called 'Moon landing hoax evidences'.
> It's not semantics... It's context, and your hypocrisy is showing.
Now read your first reply here. Then read your second reply, if you are not convinced yet.
Edit: before you further humiliate yourself - you say the definition of a word proves your point. Next you claim you are not arguing about semantics (which is the meaning of a word, sentence etc.)
Thanks for proving my point, that you don't understand words.
That's over-simplifying it a bit. The Gilgamesh/Noah story of a great flood is likely based off of a specific flood, not just that floods happen in that region. The details of angry god(s), giant arks, one lucky guy, etc. are where things seem to turn into myth.
>What's the proof of this law?
the cavendish experiment.
>focaults pendulum wouldn't need initial force to start
the movement of the pendulum just makes the observation visible. also how does it work on a flat earth? because it is a way of seeing the Coriolis effect, which only happens on spinning objects.
>and star patterns would change more than what is witnessed when a plane travels north to south and south to north but they don't.
citation needed.
>How so?
no decrease in angular size, no decrease in angular speed and it also goes below the horizon. heres a simulation to show just how much the sunset fails https://www.geogebra.org/m/C9BcVgd4?doneurl=%2Fsearch%2Fperform%2Fsearch%2Fflat%2Bearth
I made an interactive applet that answers your question. A ship on the horizon will tilt 0.04°, and won't be tilted a full degree until it is 69 miles out, but won't be visible behind the horizon.
> I guarantee you've never looked through a telescope
I have. A lot. The stars can't be resolved, obviously, as anything but a point of light. The planets, however, are easily recognized as spheres, because they have a discernible terminator, just like the Moon. Saturn has rings, which you can see going behind it. Jupiter has its weather bands. Venus has a terminator. Speaking of the Moon, it's easy to see that it's a sphere, because you see the shadow of the terminator as an arc. If the Moon is not a sphere, it has to be a hologram of some sorts, which is, quite frankly, madness.
>If you are at a higher altitude, the sun will appear to 'set' later due to perspective
Have you seen this? How can you prove that this model of FE is wrong?
Sure, when earth is at aphelion then the sun will have a smaller angular size compared to when it is at perihelion however in a single day this isn't going to be noticeable. Here is an example showing aphelion in July and perihelion in January. Here is how the sun's angular size would change daily on the flat earth.
The Skyview Free app will tell you exactly where the ISS is at any given moment, allowing you to view it from your own backyard. It also tracks all of the planets in the solar system, tons of constellations and the Hubble! It's pretty nifty.
> What is the Value of Earth's Gravity in Newtons
Check the price here, it's about...
(edited because obvious meme isn't obvious)
Explain why you think it is wrong. I don’t understand your reasoning.
Try graphing your y = -8x on https://www.desmos.com/calculator or similar and you’ll see it is a straight line. (It is literally the classic linear y=mx+c equation with c=0)
Now try graphing y=-8x² and you’ll see it is a curve/parabola.
Meteorological visibility is a very specific definition. It's 6 miles for Tel Aviv right now for example. Here's a picture of Tel Aviv from ~50 miles away on a hazy day.
Original image from Shutterstock by an author with several photoshopped earth/space combo images. Some with curve, some without. The op cherry picked the ones without obviously. https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/high-altitude-view-earth-space-84689548
You can calculate the centrifugal acceleration for an object at the edge of a spinning ball using this calculator. All it takes is knowing the radius of the ball and the speed at which it is spinning (either in angular velocity or tangential velocity). So, let's see what happens to water on a spinning ball.
If we spin a soccer ball (radius 4.331 inches) with a tangential velocity of 1000 mph, anything on the "equator" of the soccer ball is accelerated outward at 1,816,771 m/s^(2). So, if it had been wet before, it would certainly be dry now.
On the other hand, if we spin the Earth (radius 3963 miles) with a tangential velocity of 1000 mph, anything on the equator of Earth is accelerated outward at 0.03133 m/s^(2). So, water is perfectly capable of sticking to Earth, since everything on Earth is accelerated downward at about 9.8 m/s^(2).
You're right, you should. The explanation is that flat earthers have no understanding of geometry and how vision works.
When you're completely ignorant of something, you can make yourself believe anything about that subject. Of course reality may disagree with your beliefs but since you're completely ignorant, you also lack the skills to recognize that your ideas do not match reality. Unskilled and unaware.
You have to learn to check statistics/sources and read them correctly. The 34% includes for example people who are unsure. Only 4% of that age group answered that they had "always believed" that the earth is flat. The survey was apparently created to see if the flat earth had an impact on people on recent times, so it's not a general survey about earth's shape.
For a general survey, see this poll (14% flat earthers at this time): https://www.strawpoll.me/15354003/r
It's interesting that if you look at those statistics on Yougov, the older you are, the more certain you are that the earth is a ball (94% of 55+ year olds have "always believed" that the earth is "round"): https://today.yougov.com/news/2018/04/02/most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious/
I think the "always believed" in the survey is a bit strange, because a newborn baby doesn't come out from the womb and believe the earth is round or flat. Also the word "round" can be interpreted as a pizza, so they should choose their wording more carefully.
https://www.pexels.com/photo/sky-clouds-cloudy-earth-46160/
https://www.pexels.com/photo/blue-cloudy-sky-86695/
Notice how the closer clouds appear at the top, and the further out you go the lower the clouds appear to be? That is the "arching" you're looking for. This is not possible on a flat earth. If the earth were flat they would all appear at relatively the same height and fade off into a vanishing point.
This is a free program that has the predicted path of everything in the sky for the next >5000 years (I have never checked the max, but I haven't reached it yet). We know about the solar system and predictable paths so well that thousands of years ago we built calendars, and lunar calendars with them, then we built clocks, and made them so small you can wear it on your wrist. Your watch is literally a predictor of the solar path. Go download that cool stargazing program.
That is a very good question.
My best read on it is that as social beings, evolution has endowed us with a capacity for moral intuition and moral reasoning.
While I haven't delved deep into this, Jonathan Haidt has: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Moral_Foundations_Theory.html
This seems like a better stab at it than a serpent tricking a woman into eating fruit and forever dooming us to sin and shame.
> Def not giving out my phone number, lol.
WhatsApp doesn't need your phone number. It's a VOIP app, similar to Skype. It's very popular overseas, but not the US for some reason. I use it to talk to my parents and brother in SA for free. You wouldn't have to give out any personal information. You would just create a username (anything you want), and then anyone can contact you by searching for the username. Once we're done, you can just delete the username or the app or both, and no-one would be able to contact you anymore.
No problem:
That's not exactly what I meant. Your argument has a few flaws:
Being on Tik Tok doesn't mean that the video was recorded on a phone. Do you actually believe that some astronaut used a phone to record that video, and then uploaded it to Tik Tok?
Some phones might have built-in fisheye lenses, but even if not, there are adapter fisheye lenses for phones.
So both steps of your argument, "if Tik Tok, therefore phone," and "if phone, therefore no fisheye lens" are wrong. And in addition,
- There is obvious fisheye distortion in the video.
Meaning the entire premise of your argument is also wrong.
No, & I haven't found a globe model either, which aligns with what we observe. I'm still looking.
I'm waiting for my dual-channel 120MHz oscilloscope to arrive off Amazon, along with a bunch of optical detectors off eBay & lasers etc. I need to get the speed of light approximately to have any idea what's going on. My sound card can only really do 48 kHz & my laser shows up simultaneously over a 23m path length, but that could be the LDRs fault. Then there's the strength of gravity, g, which could be anything for waves & at whatever the speed of light is. An ultrasound beam generator might help in figuring out how g varies with speed, like at 350 m/s.
😅😂🤣😂😂😂🤣😅😂😂🤣🤣 Yeaaahhhhh right sparky!!! Here ya go, I think you can get it in paperback!!!! 😅🤣😂
Those dots do represent flat Earthers, but even more disturbing, they only actually represent the idiot's who bought this cobbled together, so called app. You can see their number in the bottom left corner. That number changes as you zoom in on regions. It can be found here:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.flatearthsun
This is being flogged by David Weiss AKA DIRTH, the flerf who had his ass spanked by Professor Dave, a few months ago. Part of the "features" is that you get a free daily link to one of DIRTH'S FE vids. You're paying to give him views, lol.
I did some napkin math to work out earnings for the this dumb app created by a grifter called Dirth. It's a significant amount of money.
> This could be done, but it would take an extraordinarily precise scale,
It has been done many times. The scale needs to be precise to just 0.001 gram (1 milligram). Such scales are readily available and inexpensive.
> I don’t think it could be done.
It HAS been done -- countless times.
As folks who assert the globe Earth, it is important for us to be informed and accurate and not to just pull notions out of our asses.
>She is very religious and believes in these conspiracy theories like the repitillians, "the order", illuminati, etc.
You need a psychologist that specializes in victims of sects. If you can't afford that, read books by Steven Hassan.
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Mind-Helping-Controlling-Beliefs/dp/0967068819
>but winning an argument against someone stupid is impossible
Do not ever argue, every time you prove her wrong, she will become more convinced she is right. If you do it enough times, she will become convinced you are one of "them", and are trying to brainwash or possibly kill her.
Why don’t you Google “Flat Earth Map” and tell me what you see lol. I’m not even a flat earther and know there’s a flat earth map lol. How about this…. look up United Nations Flag and use the Map that’s on that flag as a Flat Earth Map….it’s literally the same thing lol. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004JQPGVO/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_navT_a_2PT0SV0W8QPYFN743WV6
I have an idea, have you ever been south of the equator? Australia, South Africa or South America? If you have did you look at the constellations while you were there? If not get Google Sky Map and look at the constellations below the horizon. The vast majority I can guarantee you have never seen. It would be a completely different set of stars for you. Sometimes text comes across snarky and I just want to say that is not my intention. Just trying to have a good bit of conversation.
Hello, I'm a bot! The movie you linked is called E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, here are some Trailers
A planisphere is a map formed by the projection of a sphere or part of a sphere on a plane.
It's apparently because he believes not a single scientific calculation has undergone scrutiny for thousands of years and are all based on fake math and observations.
A single cloud that I can see from my backyard ? Probably not .
But we are not looking at individual clouds. The cloud formation next to California Coastline is several hundreds miles large. Such a cloud formation won't change much in 6 hours.
I suggest you look at this. You can see clouds above the United States and a small animation that allow you to see the last 3 hours. As you can see there is not so many changes in 3 hours.
You can visit McMurdo station yourself. There are lots of jobs for non-scientists. I know people who have done this. Polar day in Antarctica happens and you needn't trust anyone but yourself to prove it. Go ahead prove me wrong and earn some airline miles in the process.
You won't need a very powerful laser (DEFINITELY don't buy one of the very dangerous ones, like the linked Wicked Lasers one). Those stats are to show how far away you'll be able to see the laser dot.
Even a 1mW red laser is visible to the naked eye at a distance of 12 miles or more (Source: https://kotaku.com/one-mans-quest-to-prove-how-far-laser-pointers-reach-1464275649).
Using the inverse square law, for an equal brightness at 85 miles, you'd need a 50mW red laser, or a green laser of about 12.5 mW.
I'd recommend a 15mW green laser from a reputable manufacturer. No need to go brighter (you're just increasing the risk for no benefit). I'd also advise against a very cheap green laser, as they are usually far more powerful than what they are rated for, and emit harmful levels of invisible IR laser light.
Thats a good point. I would argue thats still possible wthin the pressured dome, but still. I'm about to go but would like to point out two documentaries that led me to my current beliefs. 1 is 'Kubricks Odyssee' from jay weidner. https://trakt.tv/movies/kubrick-s-odyssey-secrets-hidden-in-the-films-of-stanley-kubrick-part-one-kubrick-and-apollo-2011 The documentary shows the filmtechnique that was used in both '2001 a space odysee' and the apollo footage. i cant find a free version but have only looked for 3 minutes. i did find it on piratebay. and two is ' A funny thing happened on the way to the moon' by bart sibrel. It doesnt prove flat earth at all. but it makes a good point about the moonlandings being faked. lastly i would like you to compare the raw footage of the baumgartner jump and see the same curvature of the earth at 120.000 feet as right before he lands at 10 feet. i believe a fishe eyed lens was used. compare it with this ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvhFbvY_99o&app=desktop#fauxfullscreen
LOL Nathan Oakley, the biggest sore loser who will mute and shout insults at anyone who doesn't kiss his ass? Yeah right. You haven't even looked at the link I dropped in my earlier reply, did you. You don't give a shit about factual science, you just want to believe really really hard in your flat earth fantasy.
Here's a whole list of why Nathan is a failed fraud. Don't tell me you're stupid enough to give him money. Are you?
I don't feel like watching a half hour video right now, but I'm guessing his argument revolves around erroneously conflating temperature and heat to say that the ISS should melt due to the temperature of the thermosphere at that altitude. However, heat and temperature are different, though related, things. Heat is simply a measure of thermal energy transfer, whose SI unit is the joule. Temperature is a measure of average molecular kinetic energy, whose SI unit is the kelvin. (Source) The relation between these values is given by a specific heat calculator, which shows that the greater an objects mass, the more energy is needed to raise its temperature by a certain amount. Now, the thermosphere outside the ISS is extremely low density, meaning that it doesn't take much energy to raise its temperature by a significant amount. The ISS itself is much denser and therefore needs a whole lot more energy to raise its temperature by a significant amount.
You can actually illustrate this difference in your own kitchen. When you bake cookies, you reach into the 350ºF air inside the oven, but your exposed arms are still perfectly fine. However, if you were to plunge your arm into a pot of 212ºF boiling water, you would almost instantly receive severe burns. This is because the water is much denser than the air, and therefore has a lot more heat energy, despite being at a lower temperature.
Yes exactly.
When at a constant velocity on a spinning object, you cannot feel the sidewards motion due to a constant velocity. However centrifugal force would be the only thing that would effect use.
Centrifugal force can be calculated using a basic formula.
Here's a calculator for you: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/centrifugal-force#:~:text=Use%20the%20centrifugal%20force%20equation,m%2Fs%C2%B2%20%3D%20125%20N%20.
If you enter about 150 pounds, the RPM of the earth (which is 0.000694), and the radius of earth (3,963 miles at the equator) and you will get a result of 0.033686 m/s squared.
When you consider that things fall at a rate of about 9.81 m/s squared you can understand that you won't be able to tell the difference between 0.03 m/s squared difference at the equator.
The flat earthers cant understand what a constant velocity is so they will keep making stupid memes like this one made by u/WildBeast11 because they do not understand what force there would be when on something that is spinning. Or what constant velocity means.
However we can measure that things weigh slightly less when you get further towards the equator using a good scale:
Hope this is helpful!
I made a calculator/visualizer for how much of Earth's surface would be visible for a given altitude for anyone interested.
Calculator 2 UPDATED
They get a bit of seasons; during northern-hemisphere-summer, the equator is south of directly under the sun (which is the Tropic of Cancer), and in the northern winter it's north of under the sun (Tropic of Capricorn). The sun is straight up at noon on the equator at the equinoxes.
I hadn't thought about this, but that means that, in the tropics, it is warmest around the equinoxes, and coldest around the solstices. Nairobi (a random city I picked, near the equator and far from the ocean) is consistent with this.
Let's say that I agree with you and that it's clear that NASA lied about this event. So NASA is the worst organization in human history, and they lie about everything. Good.
Did you know that NASA claims that Australia exists ? They even have some CGI video to prove that Australia exists. And also some ISS video passing over Sydney.
As the video is CGI and the ISS does not exist, it clearly means that Australia does not exist either, right ? Right ?
> If I traveled north the force from the centripetal force would diminish while the force from gravity would stay the same. If I stood on the North Pole there would be no force from centripetal motion, why do I not get crushed by gravity?
If you calculate the actual centripetal force imparted by the rotation of the earth, you would answer your own question. If you want to save yourself the trouble, though, there's a handy online calculator you can use instead. I'm assuming, for this exercise, that basic algebra isn't a conspiracy created by the Illuminati and NASA. So, here's the formula to calculate centrifugal force:
Force = (mass of object) * (speed of rotation squared / radius)
Let's consider a 200 lb object, 1000 miles an hour of rotation speed (as flat earthers often cite), and a radius of 3963 miles. Normalizing the units, we get this:
Force = 90.7kg * (447 m/s^2 / 6378km )
And solving for Force, we get a whopping:
Force = 2.8 Newtons
So, you think that 2.8 Newtons of force at the equator is the only thing keeping a 200 pound object from being crushed by gravity? I find that odd considering the force being imparted by gravity for that same object is something like 980 Newtons.
Don't believe me? Feel free to check my math.
No. If you increase any radius by 1", the circumference increases by about 6" (2pi).
So regardless of whether the circumference is 1 mile, 100,000 miles, or a million light years, adding 1" in radius would add about 6".
So if the Moon is receding 4cm a year and assuming the moon has a circular orbit (it doesn't), that would add about 2*pi*4cm to the orbit. Which is about 25cm (10 inches) .
You can put in your own numbers here: https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/circumference
For one thing, the mathematics of the curvature of the earth in 7:34 is grossly simplified. You need to know some calculus but here is a good article on this calculation.
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html
> If a 64 inch tall person's eyes are at a height of 60 inches or 5 feet, they might be able to see at night, a flashlight laying on the ground at 1.23 the root of 5 = 2.75 miles. They would also be able to see another like standing person's headlamp twice that distance or at 5.5 miles distance
and
> Disregarding refraction, on a perfectly flat plain like the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah, if one's eyes are 9 inches above the ground, one would be able to see at night a flashlight one mile distant laying on the surface but not if one lowers their eyes to 7 inches.
The video claims that you should be able to see 8 inches of curvature for every mile, but that's 8 square inches, not linear inches, and that's the actual curvature, not what it would look like if you took a ruler to it.
Now, according to this map, you shouldn't be able to see an object that is 40 miles away unless it is at least 1060 feet tall, but the video mentions the lighthouse that is visible from 40 feet away and it's only 180 feet tall. I guess we would have to ask ourselves if we are sure that it's visible from that distance and also rule out the complicated physics of light refraction. This part has me curious still.
Edit: I found this curvature and distance calculator and elevation is a key component in calculating what can be seen from what distance on the round planet: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature
Ich bin müde und ehrlich gesagt gerade zu faul, ich hoff du nimmst es mir nicht übel ;)
https://brilliant.org/wiki/is-there-gravity-in-the-space-station/
hier wird schön erklärt warum die Gravitation praktisch gleich stark auf die ISS wirkt wie auf uns am Boden (es geht wirkich nur um den Abstand vom "Center of gravity" also dem erdmittelpunlt)
In Prinzip erfahren die Astronauten die gleiche Beschleunigung wie wir am boden, ihre relativ Geschwindigkeit ist aber so hoch dass sie an der Erde vorbeifliegen (orbiten)
Ich hab im Bachelor einige physik Vorlesungen besucht, also ich bin weder ein Experte noch ein Physiker aber für alle Fragen zu haben :)
schönen abend noch
This one should do it for you!
https://dochub.com/louis03-hendrich/4DDjZkW/a-geometric-comparison-of-the-spheroidal-pdf?dt=t5ZA8enDZBThzbACLYo-
Here’s a good source for the fossil stuff….but hey, with this dudes background he must be one crazy conspiracy theorist.
https://www.amazon.com/Fossil-Hunters-Guide-Mars/dp/1450720633
“Sir Charles Shults III worked at Martin Marietta Aerospace for 10 years on weapons systems and computer based automated test equipment. He wrote the nuclear EMP test software for the Pershing II missile system, worked on Patriot, the Copperhead tank killer, and Advanced Attack Helicopter systems. Charles has performed research under grant on nuclear fusion, was knighted and received a long term grant for his present research in robotics and artificial intelligence. He has written many technical publications and magazine articles on space, astronomy, the atmosphere, and space resource development. In addition, Charles has also appeared on several TV and radio programs. "
You mean this book:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conspirators-Hierarchy-Story-Committee-300/dp/0922356572
?
Interesting reading some of the reviews there. Not sure I want to potentially waste so much of my time chasing conspiracy claims to fully read it myself, so I have to ask why you are utterly convinced this is fact and not fiction.
Interesting... gravity is described as a UNIVERSAL force, which PREDICTS it would have an effect on anything with mass, but you don't like the fact that reality matches that model.
Yes, IF. The "IF" in any philosophical proof is a given or known fact. Newton used KNOWN, OBSERVED, CONFIRMED observations as a STARTING POINT for his calculations. That's how you do science, and it's also how you do logic. Take a course in symbolic logic, or I'll even mail you my symbolic logic textbook from college if you promise to send it back. Or just get it from Amazon: "The Logic Book". Maybe then you'll get it. Because right now you don't.
The company that made that logo sells shirts and pins and stuff. I got a shirt at an anime convention (of all places), but they are also on amazon now.
>>> think! GPS haha dude everything is ground based! FLAT EARTH, HOW DO YOU THINK THE SIGNALS TRAVEL?
> You live a lie brother! You seem smart dont let it go to waste. Good luck in your Journey!
Proof that GPS is a satellite based system
"So at this point the FEer will say something like "Hog wash, the phone can easily know where to plot the positions of the fake satellites". But here is the problem for that argument. If one looks at their phone, they can see what satellites are tracked and which ones are not. And if one is standing in an open area, pretty much all SVs will be tracked. Then they can walk up to the side of a building and see that they loose tracking of all satellites blocked by the building. There is just no way for the phone to be able to fake that information. The signals are coming from the location predicted by orbital parameters, and there is no way a balloon can make that kind of trajectory with that kind of speed and exact repeatability of the position in the sky from day to day."
The Antarctic Expedition by Adm. Richard E. Byrd was between 1946-1947, not in 1928. It was named: Operation Highjump (commenced 26 August 1946 and ended in late February 1947).
gyroscope works by inertia.
Moving things like to keep moving.
spinning things, if they spin too fast, shatter and fly apart.
Here is an awesome video of the slo-mo guys spinning a CD up to super high speed until it shatters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs7x1Hu29Wc
until the spinning thing hits the breaking point, it wants to keep spinning.
so . . .
If something is spinning very fast, if it twists, the forces at work cause a feed back that push back and try to keep it from twisting, and can cause other weird effects.
we can use this. It will keep pointing in the same direction.
as for magnification
get some decent binoculars. use them around the house and yard so you know they are trustworthy.
maybe like this
https://www.amazon.com/Binoculars-Waterproof-Binocular-Traveling-Sightseeing/dp/B0756BXDTX/
not 5 dollar ones
then go to the beach and see some boats go over the horizon.
Next time your on a flight, have an so like dioptra installed... Really nice way to visually disprove Dubay's second proof.
> You can't even take a photograph of your equipment/software/calculations without showing your coordinates? Editing them out? At the very least, explaining how you reached your conclusions, omitting your location but including everything else? After all these times I've asked for anything, even a trace of substance, even a hint of proof that you've done your experiment? > > > > Yeah right, you're completely full of shit. If I had spent 100 comments claiming I have a cat and a swimming pool, and I was basing my entire point of view on this, and someone was repeatedly demanding proof of this, you'd better believe I would have posted a photo of my cat, near my swimming pool, including my Reddit username for verification, long, long ago. > > > > This is the kind of thing people do when they're not full of shit. > > > > I don't give a shit where you live. Probably some shitty apartment. You think I or someone else is going to waste the time and money to track you down and..... do what exactly? Murder you? For believing in orbiting satellites? > > > > You're stupid as fuck.
This is what the SDR looks like https://www.amazon.com/NooElec-NESDR-SMArTee-Bundle-R820T2-Based/dp/B079C4S2BT/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1537138510&sr=8-5&keywords=software+defined+radio
You also wanted the raw data remember? Given that it is GPS it encodes my location doesn't it?
> No, that’s the problem. I don’t have a camera at all. I only use my phone camera, even for work stuff. Same with my gf (except she doesn’t need a cam for her job, she’s an accountant).
Great! Your phone might suffice. You can use an inexpensive adapter such as this one or you can just put your camera up to the eyepiece and fiddle with the focus.
There is zero evidence that something intelligent (nature, and consciousness) can come from something non-intelligent (the big bang). None. Yet somehow millions have been indoctrinated into such a preposterous belief system. It's because they do not think. They hear that scientists say it's true, and blindly believe it on faith alone! Please understand, scientism is nothing but a religion. It is the antithesis of science.
Scientists are largely controlled by two things - the state, and education (which is largely controlled by the state). Any researchers/scientists/universities who don't stick to the program receive no funding. This is why you must obediently preach the bang theory, Darwinism, Newtonian mechanics, the heliocentric model, etc. Questioning any of these dogmas leads to immediate ridicule and ostracism. Scientists are just people. They want to fit in, and make money. Most are not being deceptive. They've just been duped into thinking that certain things are already settled. When something doesn't fit what is "already settled", they invent complete nonsense (e.g. "dark matter" and "dark energy") to make it fit, rather than to question what is supposedly already settled.
Here's a good book on this from a real scientist. Science Set Free by Rupert Sheldrake: https://www.amazon.com/Science-Set-Free-Paths-Discovery/dp/0770436722
Another good one is Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton: https://www.amazon.com/Shattering-Myths-Darwinism-Richard-Milton/dp/0892818840
> Do you have an actual source of this book? Cuz anyone can write a book, publish a copy online, and claim some dude from the 1800s wrote it. >
I don't know what to give you,but it's in amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Heaven-Earth-Globe/dp/0986130540
>Yes. All azimuthal maps are literally created from the globe map. If you want to know how, here's the math:
So it's confirmed Gleason himself created this map from the globe map,right?
Especially after what he said on his s US Patent application:
""The map is not so extorted as to lose the relative latitude and longitude of any places on the land or sea, but retains all latitudes and longitudes of places agreeing with other recognized authors; and as the proper relations of continents and countries all stand in their relative position to each other, they are thus impressed upon the mind of the student. The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles"