[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
You don’t know what an assumption is?They support a globe earth because the math and the mechanics of satellites assumes orbits, which assumes planetary rotation, which assumes a globe rotating in space. That these assumptions are not falsified a posteriori means that they are consistent. And since they are the type of thing that could be falsified in theory because they aren’t
This is your final presentation? You are ready for submission... Final chance to retract.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Talking to Billy is like trying to debug shitty software. You ask him for the shape of something and he goes off on some philosophical tangent, you ask him for the form instead and he answers. If you want any sort of answer out of him you have to find the right combination of inputs when you ask your question, pretty much by elimination. It was a fun game for a little while, but I'm bored of it now. I am sure he also thinks that this sort of semantic skull****ery makes him very smart.
That post has a pretty impressive error : word ratio (the parts of it I found comprehensible, anyway).
I remember watching a documentary about flat earthers. At their annual convention the keynote speaker was to present his findings proving the Great Salt Lake did not have a curve from shore to shore. Unfortunately (for him) his experiments showed the exact opposite. He was at least an honest quack and presented his data. He ended up by saying something like "This one didn't work, but we'll keep trying until we find one that does".
I hope the "horizon measurements of impossible distances" will finally involve our old friend Pythagoras somewhere along the line.
Beyond that, it would give hard proof the wobbly ball model is absolutely true, the radius value is correct, Earth mass is correctly predicted, Earth density and hence Earth composition is given great support, Newton's law of gravity is confirmed. Circumnavigation via the oceans was done with plane geometry, the seas are level. But artificial satellites require a ball to naviga
So again, you don’t have any clue how satellites that are launched in such a way to maintain position in orbit would be possible on a flat earth then? Because it’s not complicated to understand why this would be a problem with you. You seem incredibly scared of this issue that 99% of this post has nothing to so with satellites.
I took his last paragraph to mean that satellites are a hoax or something, but his writing becomes almost inscrutable when he starts trying to act all smart and ****.
I hope the "horizon measurements of impossible distances" will finally involve our old friend Pythagoras somewhere along the line.
Well actually yes you can predict the horizon dip using Pythag but that's YOUR ball, not mine. But we can use 8 inches per mile squared also.
E.g. a target at 6 miles is totally visible along a straight canal, but should be buried beneath 24 feet of earth curve.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So again, you don’t have any clue how satellites that are launched in such a way to maintain position in orbit would be possible on a flat earth then? Because it’s not complicated to understand why this would be a problem with you. You seem incredibly scared of this issue that 99% of this post has nothing to so with satellites.
Who cares? You realise a geostationary satellite (equipment attached to a balloon) is a lot easier to maintain position above a stationary earth than to keep it in tune with non existent earth spin?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I took his last paragraph to mean that satellites are a hoax or something, but his writing becomes almost inscrutable when he starts trying to act all smart and ****.
Satellites are designed, built and maintained. They are hardly a hoax. But they cannot possibly be orbiting a globe of radius 3959 miles.
E.g. lighthouses visible at vast distances ought to be buried beneath hundreds of feet of earth curve and invisible. A lighthouse of height 44 feet is visible by an observer at 24 feet altitude from a distance of 30 miles. The light should be 340 feet below the horizon. The water cannot possibly be curved.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Who cares? You realise a geostationary satellite (equipment attached to a balloon) is a lot easier to maintain position above a stationary earth than to keep it in tune with non existent earth spin?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
There are balloon satellites and there are satellites that are not balloons. For the ones that are not balloons, how exactly do those work on a flat earth? The reason why I find this question relevant is that the globe-heads like myself have a very simple explanation for how it works, namely that there are very straightforward mathematical equations that depend on a certain conception of the shape of the earth and the circular motion of the satellite around it.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/c...
None of this would transfer over to a flat earth model, so you would have to explain what the work is that math is doing in those equations. Either that or you would have to deny that these independently verified over and over again equations are somehow fallacious. Actually you basically just lose access to any theory of gravity that we have in order to remain consistent, because they all assume a certain idea of the shape of the Earth and other celestial bodies.
Satellites are designed, built and maintained. They are hardly a hoax. But they cannot possibly be orbiting a globe of radius 3959 miles.E.g. lighthouses visible at vast distances ought to be buried beneath hundreds of feet of earth curve and invisible. A lighthouse of height 44 feet is visible by an observer at 24 feet altitude from a distance of 30 miles. The light should be
I mean 30 miles is pretty far but I wouldn’t call it a vast distance. Also, closest to the surface, atmospheric refraction is the strongest. Why are we not able to see clear across the planet? We are 30 earths away from the moon and see it just fine, but I can’t see around the world on Mt Everest? The logic isn’t logic-ing.
Well actually yes you can predict the horizon dip using Pythag but that's YOUR ball, not mine. But we can use 8 inches per mile squared also.
E.g. a target at 6 miles is totally visible along a straight canal, but should be buried beneath 24 feet of earth curve.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Please describe your experiment to ascertain the validity of your assertion. How did you control for variations in surface relief?
Billy, everything, and I mean everything you've raised as objections to a curved Earth is debunked within about 2 seconds by typing it into Google. Have you tried this?
I assume that it goes without saying that all the pictures of Earth taken by satellites or descriptions given by astronauts are fake, right?
Please describe your experiment to ascertain the validity of your assertion. How did you control for variations in surface relief?
A couple of years ago when it dawned on me that it wasn't a joke and people legit thought the earth is flat I had to see what they were talking about.
The only claim that wasn't completely absurd was being able to see objects in the distance that should not be mathematically possible to see based on the curvature of the earth. I'm sure professor Dave explained it to me in one of his videos but it didn't stick.
And what is the reason to hide that the earth is flat? Hundreds of years ago when they knew the earth was flat they needed to come up with this lie that it's a sphere because? Because? Because why?
At least 9/11 you can say they wanted to start a war, make people scared, start a surveillance state, hide trillions of Pentagon money. At least something plausible.
Does flat earth disprove God or something? What's the reason for the conspiracy to Photoshop pictures since before computers existed?
Gotta keep that multi-trillion dollar globe industry going, obvs. Only a chosen few know the real truth that Big Globe has been spending billions to cover up all this time.
Big globe keeping us all down.
Satellites are designed, built and maintained. They are hardly a hoax. But they cannot possibly be orbiting a globe of radius 3959 miles.E.g. lighthouses visible at vast distances ought to be buried beneath hundreds of feet of earth curve and invisible. A lighthouse of height 44 feet is visible by an observer at 24 feet altitude from a distance of 30 miles. The light should be
My God.
So, why is there apparently a conspiracy to make us all think the world is a globe? And who's behind it??
There are balloon satellites and there are satellites that are not balloons. For the ones that are not balloons, how exactly do those work on a flat earth? The reason why I find this question relevant is that the globe-heads like myself have a very simple explanation for how it works, namely that there are very straightforward mathematical equations that depend on a certain con
What the heck brother? GCSE physics homework now? Mechanics is a beautiful thing, it can model and predict real situations very nicely. It can also model phoney situations.
If they are in orbit this depends on a correct Earth radius and all the rest of that garbage. Earth does not have a radius circa 6 Mm because of the reasons above, namely there is no horizon dip.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
