Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by HonestlyNow »

I'm sorry, but the image and video you provided looks like a mirage to me. I suppose you're saying that the mirage effect is proof of concavity.

What else have you got up your sleeve for the layperson to experiment?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by simonshack »

*

BELIEVING MY OWN EYES

At this juncture, I feel compelled to put 'straight' (pun intended) one little, yet fundamental point regarding the much debated 'curvature of the earth' - as seen from my personal perspective and visual, empirical experience. Please understand that my point here is in no way meant to be 'my definitive / to-end-all-debates proof that the earth is a round ball' . However, I have to say it constitutes an undeniable visual fact which anyone can easily (given an appropriate location similar to the one illustrated below) verify for themselves and, thus, one that must be accounted for - at all times - whenever discussing / debating the shape of this earth. So here goes.

Last summer, I found myself in Palermo Airport (Punta Raisi) which is located on northern Sicily's seafront. The arrivals-departure drive is parallel to the seafront and has a very long railing running along all of its length. Here's just to give you an idea of where I was, as I crouched to visually line up the top of the railing with the distant sea horizon:

Image

Now, here's the thing - and something which needs to be fully understood before I get on: as much as I would have liked to photograph the entire length of my 180°-or-so panoramic view*, there simply is - to my knowledge - NO existing camera which will capture 100% faithfully (i.e. with 0% distortion) such a view. Therefore, the only way I can possibly try and share with you my horizon observation at Palermo Airport is with the below graphic which is, of course, just a rough / yet honest approximation of what I remember to have observed. For now, you will just have to take my word for it - until you verify this for yourself at any seaside location of your choice - featuring a very long railing parallel to the sea shore:

Image

As you can see - what my own eyes tell me is that an-ever-so-slight (convex) curvature of the sea horizon can indeed - verifiably and unquestionably so - be observed. Hence, any given alternative / non-spherical earth-shape theory has to take this unavoidable, empirically observable fact into account - and provide an explanation for it. I believe that this is a reasonable requirement of mine. Thanks to everyone for... observing it - at all times.

***************
* The below example of a 180° panoramic photograph shows how utterly useless such a camera would be to try and 'prove the curvature of earth' : Image
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140717 ... 180-degree
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Simon, a few points here. This is an illustration, not a photograph. That's cheating, even if you are right. No observable curvature can be found from land or from air, and you've eliminated all Earthly barriers. This is a well-documented phenomenon. Hence, you would be the first person ever to observe curvature of the Earth from Earth. You must rule out optical illusions.

1. A human being cannot observe that whole length of fence in detail at once. To get the entire length you have depicted here

Image
one would have to be standing several meters from the fence line, roughly perpendicular to it. Therefore, you should describe whether you rotated your eyes or your whole head to get the entire length.

2. You didn't measure the straightness of the fence scientifically. You don't know if it sinks slightly or wavers slightly. You didn't say that you traveled crab-like along the fence to check the "bulge" in the middle and watch it "follow" you like the Moon. If the bulge "follows" you, what does that say about your observation? It says it is a quality of your eye determining what you see, not the physical shape of Earth. Even more disturbingly, if it doesn't follow you, what does it say about what's going on out there at that particular point in the sea? If you can see a single place where a bulge occurs, we need to get some ships out there to study it. :P

3. Haziness of the horizon is not accounted for in your explanation, and you must accept that the edges of your vision are passing through less "haze" than what is directly in front of your vision. You are at a sea side. Therefore, the delicate horizon is defined by the merging of water and air. Simple trigonometry tells us the front of your body is "closest" to the water surface. Might this not magnify some portion of your vision?

I think if you returned to take a straight edge ruler to that "bulge" the vision you observed would be roundly :P defeated. You would have to show this not to be the case.

If the curvature you observed were a physically true depiction of Earth's shape around you, then the horizon behind your vision should sink well below your line of sight and be a "dip" rather than a "bulge". This would indicate you've got sea legs or were intoxicated by lovely fresh sea air, but not that the Earth is actually curved in such an absurd way.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

No, those experiments are imperfect because they do not fully account for the curvature or bending of light. Photography is an imperfect medium for proving enormous shapes. One must also make repeated measurements at different times of day under different conditions and then analyze each of those conditions to see how the bending of light as effected/affected at different times.

This is not even bringing in traditional discussions of "refraction" which is only our modern science dogma's phrase for, "We are too lazy to analyze the many behaviors of light." And we are joining that laziness by not designing more perfect methods.
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Observer »

Good point Hoi. Yes WildHeritic's 18 pages makes one realize that the old standard assumption of light moving in a straight line, and the assumption that this curving light path moves exactly the same regardless of time, are both unproven assumptions. Have you got any good ideas about the best experiments for CluesForum readers to perform, to confirm more empirically this Concave Earth speculation which I am so confident is true?
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

That is our present task if we are truly interested in knowing; we must work together to design experiments and then conduct them. Perhaps it is too much to ask of our forum; we are busy on many more practical (and arguably more important) things. But one day I hope to really dedicate some time to at least one new experiment of this nature.
scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by scud »

Yes, I’ve thought about this quite a bit over the last year or so.

You’d think it would be a simple task to measure the curvature (one way or the other) or indeed flatness of Earth but once it’s realised that light cannot be a wholly trusted medium to work with then you’ll find yourself going round in circles (no pun intended) always coming back to Teed and Morrow’s rectilineator experiment.

Ingenious in its simplicity. A physical, ‘straight line’ erected over a patch of Earth that must by nature follow the overall ‘planetary’ shape such as Florida’s Naples beach (site of original experiment) or say the Bonneville salt ‘flats’ during winter where the entire 40 odd square mile area is covered with an average of just an inch of water.

Obviously water is the key. Water will follow precisely convex, concave or level plane simply because that is what it does; is what it has to do. However, the ‘straight line’ does not oblige by the same rule because it is solid and will show over a suitable distance a ‘divergence’ from Earth (standard globe that we’re all taught) a ‘convergence’ to Earth (concave) or no change at all...flat earth.

From all that is available, Teed’s original showed a meticulously carried out experiment with many independent adjudicators examining the proceedings. We know what the result was (concave) but to add icing to the cake, also agreed absolutely with the then (and now) acknowledged circumference of Earth.

So yes, I can’t think of anything better or simpler than to repeat the rectillineator yet that is in itself is one hell of a ‘donate button’ as I believe that in today’s money Teed and Morrow spent circa $1,300,000 executing this extended ‘straight and level line’.
In any case, we’re talking a more innocent era. An era (just 80 odd years ago) where it was only the works / words of Copernicus, Galileo, Keplar, Newton, then Einstein that kept everybody believing in a fairground waltzer of a solar system and hence a virtually endless ‘universe’ and all the human / Earth demoting stories that could be bolted to it.

Course, now we have ‘the space industry’. No way on Earth are ‘they’ going to entertain a simple experiment that puts into serious question marks utterly everything from Sputnik to whatever the latest NASA ridiculousness happens to be. No sir, not on your nelly!
Pilgrim
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Pilgrim »

hoi.polloi wrote:No, those experiments are imperfect because they do not fully account for the curvature or bending of light. Photography is an imperfect medium for proving enormous shapes. One must also make repeated measurements at different times of day under different conditions and then analyze each of those conditions to see how the bending of light as effected/affected at different times.

This is not even bringing in traditional discussions of "refraction" which is only our modern science dogma's phrase for, "We are too lazy to analyze the many behaviors of light." And we are joining that laziness by not designing more perfect methods.
Agreed, dinner plates are flat but still show a curve. One of the main arguments for a concave Earth is the fact that the horizon seems to be horizontal and perpendicular, ie 90 degrees to line of sight to level position to Earth, no matter how high you go, at least this my experience from flying at 37,000 feet and climbing mountains. To not take this into account and bending light and the simple fact the horizon must appear to be curved to even have a 360 degree view does not address the issue or prove anything to the contrary. Of course the horizon is curved, otherwise a 360 degree view would not be possible but that fact alone does not prove the World is flat, concave or convex.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by simonshack »

hoi.polloi wrote:Simon, a few points here. This is an illustration, not a photograph. That's cheating, even if you are right.
No, Hoi - I'm not cheating: I am just trying to share with everyone a visual experience which, if you or other people had been there with me - right by my side - you would have seen it too - and no honest person could possibly deny this visual fact, as illustrated in my below graphic. Yes, of course I had to rotate my head to see it all - and that is exactly what I tried to explain when I mentioned how a panoramic camera could NEVER be trusted to document such a view.

Now, whether this phenomenon has to do with 'light refraction / bending' or anything else of that sort - I don't know. But the empirically verifiable fact is that: the sea horizon appears to be slightly (convexely) curved - as observed behind a foreground straight railing. This is my personal experience - period.

Image
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Well, throw it on the pile, then — of verifiable "clues" we have a lot of leads on. If only we had as many well-designed experiments as we did head-scratching, contradicting clues. We can at least hope by compiling these things we may come up with something.
ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by ICfreely »

NASA: LEARNING FROM SATELLITES Imaging the Earth – Navigation and Mapping
Who knew the Earth was round and when did they know it?
People knew the Earth was round 2500 years ago. They just forgot.

http://octopus.gma.org/surfing/imaging/nav_map.html


I’m still unsure about the shape of the Earth & the nature of our Universe. I guess, like many of you, I’ll always have more questions than answers. The more I look into it, the harder it becomes for me to believe we live on a ball whizzing through “The ‘cold’ of space and our Universe that isn’t.” It takes a whole lot of faith to believe the sky stories of our gods of Ψ-ence. Anyhow, I thought it’d be a good idea to post a top 10 list from my favorite source for mis/disinformation.


Summary of evidence for a spherical earth – wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_ ... ical_earth

These are given in an order which approximates how they were observed historically:

1. When at sea it is possible to see high mountains or elevated lights in the distance before lower-lying ground and the mast of a boat before the hull. It is also possible to see further by climbing higher in the ship, or, when on land, on high cliffs.


In the words of D.H. Lawrence, “What the eye doesn't see and the mind doesn't know, doesn't exist.”

Zetetic Astronomy - Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham) [1881]
To argue, for instance, that because the lower part of an outward-bound vessel disappears before the mast-head, the water must be round, is to assume that a round surface only can produce such an effect. But if it can be shown that a simple law of perspective in connection with a plane surface necessarily produces this appearance, the assumption of rotundity is not required, and all the misleading fallacies and confusion involved in or mixed up with it may be avoided.

"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."

The theory which affirms that all parallel lines converge to one and the same point on the eye-line, is an error. It is true only of lines equi-distant from the eye-line; lines more or less apart meet the eye-line at different distances, and the point at which they meet is that only where each forms the angle of one minute of a degree, or such other angular measure as may be decided upon as the vanishing point. This is the true law of perspective as shown by nature herself; any idea to the contrary is fallacious, and will deceive whoever may hold and apply it to practice.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/

Terra Firma by David Wardlaw Scott (1901)
This law of Perspective meets us on every hand; and cannot be gainsaid. If, in a straight line, we look at a frozen lake from a certain distance, we shall observe people who appear to be skating on their knees, but, if we approach sufficiently near, we shall see them performing graceful motions on their feet. Farther, if we look through a straight tunnel, we shall notice that the roof and the roadway below converge to a point of light at the end. It is the same law which makes the hills sink, to the horizon, as the observer recedes, which explains how the ship's hull disappears in the offing. I would also remark that when the sea is undisturbed by waves, the hull can be restored to sight by the aid of a good telescope long after it has disappeared from the naked eye, thus proving that the ship had not gone down behind the watery hill of a convex globe, but is still sailing on the level of a Plane sea.
https://ia600409.us.archive.org/25/item ... 764594.pdf

Zetetic Astronomy by Lady Blount and Albert Smith (1904)
But though they have no proof that there was any correction needed, they seem to think that the possibility of such is enough without any evidence and so they sit still and cry out “Refraction”! It is amusing. But when the ship disappears at sea, that is not caused by refraction but “curvature”! But when the ship is shown through a good glass or a signal close to the water's edge six miles away, they then again shout “Refraction”! Thus, like the man in Aesop’s Fables, they can blow both hot and cold. But we must leave dishonest critics to their delusions, and try as best we can to help true enquirers.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/libr ... Smith).pdf


This makes sense to me. However, I know next to nothing in regards to art/photography/videography. So I'm more interested in the opinions of CF's resident CGI, video & faux-tography analysts regarding the 'law of perspective' mentioned above.


2. The sun is lower in the sky as you travel away from the tropics. For example, when traveling northward, stars such as Polaris, the north star, are higher in the sky, whereas other bright stars such as Canopus, visible in Egypt, disappear from the sky.


I honestly don’t see how these phenomena are evidence for a spherical Earth.

On a flat Earth map, for instance, the ‘North Pole’ is the ‘Center Point’ (of the circle), The ‘South Pole’ is an ‘Outer Ring’ (the circumference of the circle) rather than a center point. The equator is the radial midpoint between the center point and circumference of the circular flat Earth. The Sun’s circular path across the sky alternates between the Tropic of Cancer (located at 23.5° north of the equator) and the Tropic of Capricorn (located at 23.5° south of the equator). The area between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn is the ‘middle ring’ so to speak.

This explains lengths of day and night being equal every day of the year on the equator. It also explains the seasonal changes and varying lengths of day and night in both directions beyond the equator. It stands to reason that the Sun would appear lower in the sky as you travel away from the tropics just as the tip of a flagpole will appear lower in the sky as you travel away from it. On a horizontal circular Earth encompassed by a dome shaped ‘shell of stars’ one would expect Polaris (situated at the center and peak of the dome) to appear higher as one travels northward (toward the center) and Canopus to gradually disappear into the southern horizon.


3. The length of daylight varies more between summer and winter the farther you are from the equator.


Well, thank you Captain Obvious! Of course it does. But how is this evidence for a spherical Earth?


4. The earth throws a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.


No Earth model that I’m aware of adequately explains solar/lunar eclipses and the phases of the moon. These phenomena still remain inexplicable to me.

According to Eric Dubay:

“As early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.” McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.” Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.” The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day.”
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014 ... iracy.html

If this is true and we witness such an event (provided our line-of-sight isn’t obscured by chemtrails) in our lifetime, then Lucy (in the sky...) will have some ‘splainin’ to do!

Kings Dethroned by Gerrard Hickson (1922)
The shadow on the moon at the lunar eclipse is said to be the shadow of the earth, but this theory received a rude shock on February 27th, 1877, for it is recorded in M. Camille Flammarion’s “Popular Astronomy” that an eclipse of the moon was observed at Paris on that date in these circumstances: "the moon rose at 5.29, the sun set at 5.39, and the total eclipse of the moon began before the sun had set.”

The reader will perceive that as the sun and moon were both visible above the horizon at the same time for ten minutes before sunset, the shadow on the moon could not be cast by the earth. (See diagram 31.) Camille Flammarion, however, offers the following explanation: He says, “This is an appearance merely due to refraction. The sun, already below the horizon, is raised by refraction, and remains visible to us. It is the same with the moon, which has not yet really risen when it seems to have already done so.”

Here is a case where modern astronomy expects us to discredit the evidence of our own senses, but to believe instead their impossible theories... This Atmospheric Refraction is supposed to work both ways, and defy all laws. It is supposed to throw up an image of the sun in the west— where the atmosphere is warm, and at the same time to throw up an image of the moon in the east— where it is cool! It is absurd.

https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7153513 ... _dethroned



Zetetic Astronomy - Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham) [1881]
If the moon is a reflector of the sun's light, she could not radiate or throw down upon the earth any other light than such as she first receives from the sun. No difference could exist in the quality or character of the light; and it could not possibly differ in any other respect than that of intensity or quantity.

The sun's light is warm, drying, and preservative, or antiseptic; animal and vegetable substances exposed to it soon dry, coagulate, shrink, and lose their tendency to decompose and become putrid.

The light of the moon is damp, cold, and powerfully septic; and animal and nitrogenous vegetable substances exposed to it soon show symptoms of putrefaction.

In sun-light a thermometer stands higher than a similar thermometer placed in the shade. In the full moon-light, a thermometer stands lower than a similar instrument in the shade.

The sun's light, when concentrated by a number of plane or concave mirrors throwing the light to the same point; or by a large burning lens, produces a black or non-luminous focus, in which the heat is so intense that metallic and alkaline substances are quickly fused; earthy and mineral compounds almost immediately vitrified; and all animal and vegetable structures in a few seconds decomposed, burned up and destroyed.

The moon's light concentrated in the above manner produces a focus so brilliant and luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; yet there is no increase of temperature. In the focus of sun-light there is great heat but no light. In that of the moon's light there is great light but no heat.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/


We’ve all taken refuge from direct sunlight to cool off. This is confirmed by our senses. However, I never considered that direct moonlight might be cooler than moon shade. This seems like a practical experiment anyone can perform (preferably in a rural setting).


5. The times reported for lunar eclipses (which are seen simultaneously) are many hours later in the east (e.g. India) than in the west (e.g. Europe). Local times are confirmed later by travel using chronometers and telegraphic communication.


I’m not exactly sure what to make of this statement. Seeing as the Sun travels east to west, isn’t it always simultaneously later in the east than in the west? What do local time confirmations of lunar eclipses using chronometers and telegraphic communication have to do with anything? How exactly is this evidence for a spherical Earth?


6. When you travel far south, to Ethiopia or India, the sun throws a shadow south at certain times of the year. Even farther (e.g. Argentina) and the shadow is always in the south.


True, but how does this prove the Earth is spherical or any other shape for that matter?


7. It is possible to circumnavigate the world; that is, to travel around the world and return to where you started.


This neither proves nor disproves a spherical Earth. Drawing a circle on a plate doesn’t prove the plate is ball and drawing a circle on a ball doesn’t prove the ball is plate. This is the most often used and most asinine ‘proof’ of a spherical Earth:

“… Magellan's voyage around the world in 1543 AD established beyond a doubt that people live all around the spherical Earth.”
http://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/timeline/1610

To be precise, according to the official story, Magellan technically never circumnavigated the world seeing as he was killed in the Philippines. There’s no doubt that people live all around the world, but how does this (or any other circumnavigation) establish ‘beyond a doubt’ that the Earth is spherical?

Portuguese exploration of Africa and Asia, Columbus's voyage to the Americas (1492) and finally Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (1519–21) provided the final, practical proofs for the global shape of the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth ... iddle_Ages

Christopher Columbus' voyage in 1492 confirmed that the Earth was round. Magellan's crew proved the fact definitively by circling the globe on a three-year voyage from 1519-1522. Map making joined hand in hand with the Age of Discovery.
http://octopus.gma.org/surfing/imaging/nav_map.html

According to Carnegie ‘holotype’ Science, tricky wiki and NASA; C-dub & Mags, whom ironically never circumnavigated the world themselves, definitively provided the final and practical proofs that WE BALLIN’! The psi-ence is settled. Might as well lock this thread & move on. After all, if we don’t live on a sphere is it turtles all the way down?

Well, according to wiki:

The Kola Superdeep Borehole is the result of a scientific drilling project of the Soviet Union.... The project attempted to drill as deep as possible into the Earth's crust.

In terms of true depth, it is the deepest borehole in the world.

The hole reached 12,262 m (40,230 ft) in 1989. In that year, the hole depth was expected to reach 13,500 m (44,300 ft) by the end of 1990 and 15,000 m (49,000 ft) by 1993. However, because of higher-than-expected temperatures at this depth and location, 180 °C (356 °F) instead of expected 100 °C (212 °F), drilling deeper was deemed unfeasible and the drilling was stopped in 1992.[4] With the projected further increase in temperature with increasing depth, drilling to 15,000 m (49,000 ft) would have meant working at a temperature of 300 °C (570 °F), where the drill bit would no longer work.

To scientists, one of the more fascinating findings to emerge from this well is that no transition from granite to basalt was found at the depth of about 7 km, where the velocity of seismic waves has a discontinuity. Instead the change in the seismic wave velocity is caused by a metamorphic transition in the granite rock. In addition, the rock at that depth had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, which was surprising. This water, unlike surface water, must have come from deep-crust minerals and had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole


Speaking of ‘It’s turtles all the way down,’ Carnegie Ψ-ence offers us this little gem:


There are many versions of the “turtle” story. Here is one of the best known:

William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. "But, my dear lady", Professor James asked, as politely as possible, "what holds up the turtle?" "Ah", she said, "that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle." "Oh, I see", said Professor James, still being polite. "But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle?" "It's no use, Professor", said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. "It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way!”

— from Wilson, R.A. (1983, 1997) Prometheus Rising. Phoenix, AZ: New Falcon Publishers, 1983.

http://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/ti ... e-way-down


So we have the well-to-do padre of American Ψ-chology, who hobnobbed with the literary and intellectual elites of his day, to thank for this enduring snide pejoration. Imo, ‘China Syndrome’ sounds as silly, if not sillier than, ‘It’s turtles all the way down’:


the "China syndrome", a nuclear meltdown scenario so named as (in theory, but not reality) there would be nothing to stop the meltdown tunneling its way to the other side of the world ("China").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Syndrome


8. Travelers who circumnavigate the earth observe the gain or loss of a day relative to those who did not. See also International Date Line.


Thanks again Captain O. Travelers who circumnavigate the Earth (thereby crossing the International Date Line) west to east gain time and east to west lose time. How is this evidence for a spherical Earth?


9. An artificial satellite can circle the earth continuously and even be geostationary.


Simon recently stated, “Well you see, as their [Fetzer & VD] 'reasoning' goes, since I dont' believe in NASA's exploits - I therefore must believe that the world is flat...” (http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... t#p2395303).

This was in response to:

They appear to be denying the existence of satellites as satellites can be used to prove the Earth is round. Cartesian has an excellent post in the Flat Earth Discussion Boards:

Flat Earthers don’t believe in satellites as the existence of satellites can be used to disprove that the earth is flat. Satellites can take pictures of a round earth and Flat Earthers don’t like to see them. For Flat Earthers, those pictures are fabricated. Geostationary satellites are even worse. In order for an object to be geostationary, the object must orbit around the earth at the same angular velocity as earth’s rotation and at a certain altitude above the equator such that the centrifugal force due to the orbital movement is equal to the gravitational force.
An object cannot orbit a flat earth while remaining stationary above it. Furthermore, geostationary orbit is at 22,000 miles from earth, way above the Flat Earth sun. So satellite existence simply doesn’t fit into Flat Earth model.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18 ... stractors/

First of all, a simple search of CF will reveal that neither Simon nor any other contributor has denied the existence of satellites to satiate his/her belief in the flat Earth model. Second of all, the overwhelming evidence (not beliefs) compiled on this forum casting doubt on the existence of satellites on a spherical heliocentric Earth speaks for itself. Finally, I find it interesting that NASA, Fetzer, VD and wiki are using the purported existence of satellites as ‘proof’ of a spherical heliocentric Earth!

Nice try Jimbo! Anyone who automatically takes your word for it, without personally investigating CF, isn’t CF material to begin with. As they say, “Condemnation without investigation is the epitome of ignorance.” Take your straw man horseshit & your sacrosanct faith in the all-seeing lies in the sky to Saint Elsewhere.


10. The earth appears as a disc on photographs taken from space, regardless of the vantage point.


This one takes the cake! What photographs of Earth taken from space is wiki referring to? Surely not this one: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 9&start=15


Several of these arguments have alternative explanations by themselves. e.g. the shadow thrown by a lunar eclipse could be caused by a disk-shaped earth. Similarly the north-south movement of stars in the sky with travel could mean they are much closer to earth. However, the arguments strengthen each together.


In other words, even if the world is disk-shaped we’re still insignificant dust in the wind, aimlessly wandering through the cold dark void of space. Wiki’s ‘evidence’ for a spherical Earth has been weighed, measured and (Imo) been found wanting. Of course that’s not to say the Earth isn’t spherical. Just that the ‘evidence’ is very weak.

That’s it for now folks. I’m currently focused on our square-circling (curvature) light-bending (refraction) padres of pseudoscience, our reclusive Aunt ‘hole in the Ozone’ Arctica (the ice princess that she is), Geoffrey Ingram Taylor and the Titanic psy-opera (thanks to Thinktwice’s recent post) in relation to the shape of the Earth.


P.S. scud, your brilliant posts can never be too long.

“Shifting of the visible light spectra...‘redshift’ equals going away and ‘blueshift’ the opposite. Like a highly irritating cop siren, compression and subsequent elongation of sound waves explains the difference in pitch and frequency that we experience when ambling along the pavement and since it’s reckoned that light behaves no differently (though we’ve yet to explain categorically what ‘light‘ actually is) we can determine via an objects ‘shift‘ in the visible spectrum its velocity...apparently.” - scud
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... t#p2379832
tak47
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:27 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by tak47 »

hoi.polloi wrote:Simon, a few points here. This is an illustration, not a photograph. That's cheating, even if you are right. No observable curvature can be found from land or from air, and you've eliminated all Earthly barriers. This is a well-documented phenomenon. Hence, you would be the first person ever to observe curvature of the Earth from Earth.
well, you definitely can see ships sink/disappear on the horizon from earth. that's a way to observe earth's curvature, wouldn't you agree? :unsure:
Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Critical Mass »

well, you definitely can see ships sink/disappear on the horizon from earth. that's a way to observe earth's curvature, wouldn't you agree?
I strongly suspect that there's truth with the round, spinning Earth concept... if only for two reasons.

(i) Prediction (as far as I'm aware there's no other supposed 'model' that allows you to predict things like transits & eclipses to the second).

(ii) Two 'celestial poles' one in the Northern hemisphere & one in the Southern hemisphere... I have observed these with my own eyes. I grant that some 'star trail' photos are fake... but not all.


However tak47 it is bad form to post a question such as yours... 'alternative earth shapers' suggest that 'ships sinking beneath the horizon' is a visual trick caused by the bending of light.

You should be aware of this if you had read the thread, heck it appears (in some detail) only on the previous page.
rusty
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by rusty »

Critical Mass wrote: I strongly suspect that there's truth with the round, spinning Earth concept... if only for two reasons.

(i) Prediction (as far as I'm aware there's no other supposed 'model' that allows you to predict things like transits & eclipses to the second).

(ii) Two 'celestial poles' one in the Northern hemisphere & one in the Southern hemisphere... I have observed these with my own eyes. I grant that some 'star trail' photos are fake... but not all.
This would work the same way in a concave, inverse universe scenario, I think.

The only minor issues I currently have with the concave model are planets (their paths look a bit odd in the inverse model) and the always (?) perfectly round appearance of the sun and the moon (I'd expect some distortion).
Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Farcevalue »

Critical Mass wrote:
well, you definitely can see ships sink/disappear on the horizon from earth. that's a way to observe earth's curvature, wouldn't you agree?
I strongly suspect that there's truth with the round, spinning Earth concept... if only for two reasons.

(i) Prediction (as far as I'm aware there's no other supposed 'model' that allows you to predict things like transits & eclipses to the second).

(ii) Two 'celestial poles' one in the Northern hemisphere & one in the Southern hemisphere... I have observed these with my own eyes. I grant that some 'star trail' photos are fake... but not all.


However tak47 it is bad form to post a question such as yours... 'alternative earth shapers' suggest that 'ships sinking beneath the horizon' is a visual trick caused by the bending of light.

You should be aware of this if you had read the thread heck it appears (in some detail) only on the previous page.
The poles and star trails are compelling. The fact that the star trails move in opposite directions at the poles indicates an axis, but is not conclusive of whether the earth or the stars are rotating.

The phenomenon that has not been adequately explained to my understanding is how water can adhere to a sphere. Water will seek its own level, yet the surface of a sphere cannot be "level", regardless of the size of the radius. There will be a gradation, causing the water to pool at the lower points and drain from the apex.

I imagine the text book explanation(s) would be gravity or centrifugal force, but "magic" would be as valid.
Post Reply