The shape of Earth

[polymath257]

It's an absolute wonder that all of those faked satellite images just so happen to coincide with the actual state of affairs on the ground to the point that they can be used to direct successful artillery.  As if a map of mordor was a perfect fit for some actual ao.

Who told you that?

I've heard some people, who can actually put lead on a dinner plate at distances exceeding a mile, that they need to factor in the rotation of the Earth, I've also heard that some snipers say it has a negligible effect.

I'm not necessarily claiming that I know anything, but what I do know is that people are quick to defend the sphere which supposedly rotates, but we don't feel it. Even when we fly from the equator to the North Pole (change in speed) while our plane is attached to the outer sphere by the magic of air, which, as far as I know; has never been proven as a great way to attach one physical object to another.

And what about the vaccume of space which we hurle ourselves through at >66,000 MPH? I find that people are far more reluctant to defend the motion of earth than they are it's supposed curve.

What about our newly discovered a-centric model which features a Galaxy that move at about 1/1300th the speed of light? Such that we are now more than 2 light-years away from where we still obeserve constellations which were documented more than 2600 years ago?

Nasa claims that all of our constellations were replaced with new fully identical ones. They also claim that we cannot go back to the moon and that their technology (and telemetry) hase gone backwards. Hopefully we will make it out of low-earth orbit soon.

So, are you on a spinning sphere where up could be down based on relativity? Or are you on a plane, with a functioning gyroscope, where up really is up?

Well, it is far easier to verify the shape of the Earth than it is to verify its motion. part of the reason for this is called relativity: motion is always relative, not absolute.

No, we don't feel it. The coriolis and centrifugal forces are small compared to the force of gravity. The effects are easy to calculate and the centrifugal force is part of why the Earth is oblate as opposed to a perfect sphere.

I'm not sure what your point is about flying from the north pole to the equator. Yes, airplanes stay above the ground using the motion of the air past the wings of the aircraft.

Up and down are defined by the direction of the gravitational force. On Earth, that is always towards the center of the Earth. Relativity has nothing to do with it.

I am not sure what you mean by your statement about some galaxy. it is very confused. The Earth moves around the sun at approximately 18 miles a second. But we no more directly detect that motion than you do when in an airplane going at 600 miles per hour. That is what relativity is all about. the sun, in turn, orbits the center of the galaxy at about 220 kilometers a second (which is about 1/1360 the speed of light). of course, stars close by are *also* orbiting at about the same speed, so the relative positions stay very similar.

In other words, the sun and planets may have moved a few light years during recorded history, but so have the nearby stars. So the basic configuration of the constellations would be very similar. That said, we *do* detect relative motions of the nearby stars: Barnard's Star is a very good example, being one of the fastest moving stars in the sky. But others do move.

We can't go back to the moon because we decided to fund the space shuttle (a low earth vehicle) and not the heavy lifters like the Saturn V. To go back now would require rebuilding the infrastructure to build such engines. Given the changes in technology, it is far better to redesign, which is actually happening currently. The main question is still funding.

We do make it out of low earth orbit with some probes, but the rockets used do not have enough power to carry everything needed to keep humans alive for the journey 9and bring them back).

[polymath257]

Did you feel any of that spinning, eliptical, motion at all? Or did an oblate wizard tell you what to think and you just gobbled it up wholsale without ever looking through his telescope or zooming in on a single star?

Yes, I have looked through telescopes. I have even looked through research telescopes (Yerkes observatory's 40 inch refractor).

We feel acceleration, not velocity. And while the velocities are large(ish), the accelerations are small. They can, however, be detected if you do the right measurements.

Oblate wizard? Do you even know what it means to be oblate as opposed to prolate? these are legitimate mathematical terms that describe the shapes of objects that are close to being spherical.

[polymath257]

How do flat Earthers explain the time difference between the UK and Australia?

The sun is much smaller and much closer to Earth than in your model.

Imagine a Dinner-plate with the center as the magnetic North pole, now imagine a glowing airplane about 5,000 mile up that constantly travels west ward, spiraling either upwards or downwards in-between the tropics.

The light from the Sun is localized (as you can see in high-altitude footage) obscured by both air particles as well as our perspective.



Also, quick question, have any one of you ever observed a full moon at midnight?

The distance to the sun is easy enough to verify by measurements of the other planets. The distance to Venus is very helpful for finding out the size of the solar system.

Have you ever looked at Venus through a telescope over time? Looked at its phases and size and compared them?

Your model of the obscuring of the sun simply doesn't work to ex[lain why it is sunny in America when it is dark in China. And why the sun rises in the East and sets in the West for every location on Earth. or why Norway can have a 'midnight sun' in July but no sun at all in December.

Yes, I have observed a full moon at midnight. So? Are you having trouble with 3d geometry? Maybe a little bit of orbital mechanics? Do you know what the nodal line is and why it is relevant to lunar eclipses?

[zebo-the-fat]

Some people just love to display their ignorance of basic schoolboy science.

[zebo-the-fat]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think keeps the Moon in the sky?
(We know it's about 245,000 miles away, it's been measured by the laser reflectometers on the surface to a fraction of a centimeter, and I have personally bounced radio signals off it (at 1296 Mhz) and timed the echo, the result agreed with the agreed distance to within the limits I could measure)

[Deesse23]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think keeps the Moon in the sky?
(We know it's about 245,000 miles away, it's been measured by the laser reflectometers on the surface to a fraction of a centimeter, and I have personally bounced radio signals off it (at 1296 Mhz) and timed the echo, the result agreed with the agreed distance to within the limits I could measure)

How much did "they" pay you?

[zebo-the-fat]

Not enough!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@h311inac311

  

Nasa uses Helium to keep those satillites up, 

Whut?

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

Have you ever used a telescope to bring that ship back into view? Plenty of people have and they've caught it on video.

Did you also catch Mount Everest with the telescope? Considering that it is the highest mountain in the world it should be seen everywhere, but it's not because the Earth is round.

Eric Dubay has already done most of the ground work and so far you guys haven't been able to suprise me with anything new.

Did he explain why people in Australia or anyone south of the equator can not ever see Polaris while people north of the equator can?

the air surrounding your spinning globe can't velcrow a helicopter, drone, weather ballon or airplain to the outside of a spinning, orbiting, helix-spyraling Earth 

That's because it doesn't. Helicopters don't use velcro to fly.

Or, you know, you could just go outside with a telescope and perhaps try to make your own observations. My favorite is zooming in on those little underwater disco-balls you guys call "stars" that hover over our heads at night. I'm sure you'll be surprised when you see one for the first time as they look nothing like their CGI counter parts.

Yeah, like watching Jupiter and seeing its satellites going around it and thus proving that Bible is wrong when it says that Earth is at the center of the universe.

[zebo-the-fat]

Have you ever used a telescope to bring that ship back into view? Plenty of people have and they've caught it on video.

Did you also catch Mount Everest with the telescope? Considering that it is the highest mountain in the world it should be seen everywhere, but it's not because the Earth is round.

Eric Dubay has already done most of the ground work and so far you guys haven't been able to suprise me with anything new.

Did he explain why people in Australia or anyone south of the equator can not ever see Polaris while people north of the equator can?

the air surrounding your spinning globe can't velcrow a helicopter, drone, weather ballon or airplain to the outside of a spinning, orbiting, helix-spyraling Earth 

That's because it doesn't. Helicopters don't use velcro to fly.

Or, you know, you could just go outside with a telescope and perhaps try to make your own observations. My favorite is zooming in on those little underwater disco-balls you guys call "stars" that hover over our heads at night. I'm sure you'll be surprised when you see one for the first time as they look nothing like their CGI counter parts.

Yeah, like watching Jupiter and seeing its satellites going around it and thus proving that Bible is wrong when it says that Earth is at the center of the universe.

You don't even need a telescope, a good pair of binoculars are enough to see thargest of Juoters moons