Pages:
Author

Topic: Did we actually really land on moon? - page 24. (Read 7512 times)

legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
July 13, 2019, 04:12:09 PM
^^^ How the hell do you land a plane on ball spinning a ~1,000 MPH below it, you fucking idiot?....
Pilots do it all the time. Just like birds. You know bugs do it also. Is it spinning at 1000 mph? I didn't say that. I was asking only about geometry of a dog leg flight path on StupidFlatEarth versus great circle flight path on a round globe.

Now answer the question, you fucking idiot.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 13, 2019, 03:02:15 PM
^^^ How the hell do you land a plane on ball spinning a ~1,000 MPH below it, you fucking idiot? I say the horizon is not a physical object and you respond with some non-sequitur about Santa flying over the north pole, you're dumber than a sack of hammers m8.

Address my fucking point instead of changing the subject or I'm just going to keep ridiculing you.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
July 13, 2019, 07:20:59 AM
The predictions for a globe and thus the Copernican model break down when accounting for angular resolution limits. The horizon is provably not the physical object predicted by the globe.

The Moon's diameter can be measured directly and it's 32 nautical miles across, this is the end of the bullshit claims made by our absolutely corrupt government who say they put men on what is only a small plasma light.


I'm waiting for your response on my flying over the N Pole USA--> Asia.
In your flat world this would have been a much longer flight, taking 25-30 hours instead of 15.

But the pilot chose that route because it was shorter, given the winds on that day. That's obvious, if the origin and destination are pretty much on opposite sides of the globe, then the pilot can go any which way he chooses.

DIRECT -  9724 miles
VIA North Pole - 9174 miles at 500 mph 18 hours.

But in StupidFlatEarth, he'd be making a big dogleg.
How far? 15,000 miles? At 500 mph that's 30 hours.

The trip didn't take 30 hours. It took 18.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
July 12, 2019, 09:54:12 PM
many observers examine the earth, the moon, and some planets bundle and surround the earth the results of the study reveal the earth is not moving but the moving objects or planets around the earth (round earth conclusions)

Well, you and those many observers be right on one of those objects.

Like a broken clock!

Right twice a day!
copper member
Activity: 346
Merit: 100
July 12, 2019, 09:08:25 PM
many observers examine the earth, the moon, and some planets bundle and surround the earth the results of the study reveal the earth is not moving but the moving objects or planets around the earth (round earth conclusions)
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 12, 2019, 03:24:44 AM
The predictions for a globe and thus the Copernican model break down when accounting for angular resolution limits. The horizon is provably not the physical object predicted by the globe.

The Moon's diameter can be measured directly and it's 32 nautical miles across, this is the end of the bullshit claims made by our absolutely corrupt government who say they put men on what is only a small plasma light.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 11, 2019, 09:08:07 PM
^^^ Will flying over the Pole get you any closer to the moon?

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
July 11, 2019, 07:52:36 PM
^^^

Quote
I flew north of 78 degrees latitude thus the Earth is a globe.
...

Now, now, please remember to attribute your sources. I think this forum rule does apply even to worthless sources, which is indeed curious.

Actually, you do have a problem with FlatEarthery coexisting with my flying over the N Pole, because it was a subsonic regular commercial jet.

I know how long it took and how far it was, and for the plane to have done this on a in the world of StupidFlat it would have had to be supersonic.

legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 11, 2019, 07:24:46 PM
^^^

Quote
I flew north of 78 degrees latitude thus the Earth is a globe.


legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
July 11, 2019, 05:02:24 PM

^^^ The 8,000 mile globe only works when hijacking the math for the angular limit of the human eye i.e. 1 minute to 1 nautical mile....

I recently went from the USA to Asia over the North Pole.

Now how could that be if the Earth was flat?

newbie
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
July 11, 2019, 04:40:53 PM
There are some skeptics thinks that we don't actually landed on the moon.  ....
Paid anti-American propagandists.

...In 1969, technology was not that advance yet and nowadays, many attempts were failed....
1969 pressurized jet aircraft were flying passengers around the world just like today.

1969 technology was perfectly fine for the Moon missions. This is demonstratedly true.

If you think somehow 1969 tech wasn't capable, be my guest; show how it was not adequate.


And street cars were much faster and more powerful back then, right out of the factory.

Cool

The fuel, chemical reaction is the same. The main difference with the cars are areal dynamics, and something else about the way it manages fuel, so it last longer. With Rocket, you really are not going to improve in areal dynamics. And the fuel has to burn at maximum capacity. So rocket technology is pretty much the same as back in the 60s.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 10, 2019, 09:44:08 PM
^^^ The 8,000 mile globe only works when hijacking the math for the angular limit of the human eye i.e. 1 minute to 1 nautical mile. If you use a Nikon P900 the you've changed that ratio and it no longer works and the globe, thus the Copernican model are falsified.

You can't win this argument, the P900 is a consumer grade camera and anybody can go out and film this shit and prove it. The horizon is 1 nautical mile away at a 1 foot camera height on a globe, but the P900's angular resolution limit is far beyond the human eye and the horizon is tens of miles away at 1 foot.


Simple Flat Earth Distance to the Horizon Test - Part 2 - Retest and Confirmation -- https://youtu.be/GAdd4aidDbg

Winning doesn't have anything to do with it. The moon is a globe. Tons of scientific proofs all over the place.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
July 10, 2019, 09:23:16 PM
^^^ I've already pulled the rug out from under you even before the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile is proven, before the un-refracted size of the Sun/Moon is measured and its distance calculated.

Do you realize where you are?

You came into the FE thread and agreed that 1 degree is ~60 nautical miles, do you not realize that fact has be covered up and you need to back peddle or the Copernican model dies from a direct measurement of the Sun/Moon's diameter?

Well it matters not because I've already trashed the Copernican model with the angular size limit of the human eye, the horizon has to be a physical barrier in your falsified Copernican model. BADecker made a point that the distance to the horizon changes with a change in the limit from a zoom lens, this is not possible if the horizon is a physical barrier.





No formulas exist based on your beliefs which will predict the positions of the sun, or the moon in the future.
No formulas exist based on your beliefs which will predict eclipses, either solar or lunar.

The solution to these issues came with the discovery that the celestial bodies move in elliptical orbits, eg Kepler's three laws of motion.

So I, and people that have studied this math, can predict the future paths of the celestial bodies.

Your beliefs do not provide a way for you to do this. That is called being wrong.

*** BONUS ***

https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 10, 2019, 05:03:02 PM


Red Bull calls BULL on NASA! -- https://youtu.be/cGRfbPMn0x0
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 10, 2019, 05:18:42 AM
^^^ Cameras don't have anything to do with it. Transit or telescope show us far better than eye, camera, or sextant, except when the sextant is mounted with a telescope.

At one foot, the horizon is much closer than 6 feet. You can easily test this on flat land. Try one inch. Try laying the telescope on the ground on flat land. The horizon almost pops right into telescope because it is so close.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 10, 2019, 02:53:48 AM
^^^ The 8,000 mile globe only works when hijacking the math for the angular limit of the human eye i.e. 1 minute to 1 nautical mile. If you use a Nikon P900 the you've changed that ratio and it no longer works and the globe, thus the Copernican model are falsified.

You can't win this argument, the P900 is a consumer grade camera and anybody can go out and film this shit and prove it. The horizon is 1 nautical mile away at a 1 foot camera height on a globe, but the P900's angular resolution limit is far beyond the human eye and the horizon is tens of miles away at 1 foot.


Simple Flat Earth Distance to the Horizon Test - Part 2 - Retest and Confirmation -- https://youtu.be/GAdd4aidDbg
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 09, 2019, 11:50:29 PM
^^^ Why do you think there are rugs on the launch pad?

One minute to one nautical mile only works on a globe.

Globe Earth at 8,000 miles in diameter proves that the farther away from the earth you go, the greater becomes the width of what is a nautical mile on the earth, if you use the same 1 minute.

So far, all you have done is to trash your calc.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 09, 2019, 09:43:20 PM
^^^ I've already pulled the rug out from under you even before the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile is proven, before the un-refracted size of the Sun/Moon is measured and its distance calculated.

Do you realize where you are?

You came into the FE thread and agreed that 1 degree is ~60 nautical miles, do you not realize that fact has be covered up and you need to back peddle or the Copernican model dies from a direct measurement of the Sun/Moon's diameter?

Well it matters not because I've already trashed the Copernican model with the angular size limit of the human eye, the horizon has to be a physical barrier in your falsified Copernican model. BADecker made a point that the distance to the horizon changes with a change in the limit from a zoom lens, this is not possible if the horizon is a physical barrier.



Pages:
Jump to: