^^^ I'm not sure the exact process involved with the Moon is listed there but it's something to start with in regards to optical cooling effects. They seem to be cooling small samples to extreme temperatures but certainly these efects can be expanded to cool a larger area to less extreme temperatures.
It would be nice if I didn't have to theorize about the nature of the Moon but, what I can say as fact is the Moon's surface is evenly lit and this is not consistent with a solid sphere illuminated by the Sun.
Topic: Flat Earth - page 207. (Read 1095196 times)
Nobatman. I have a question on the moon being a hologram. Hope you don't mind the challenging question.
Moon light is colder than moon shade. I'm sure you already know this. There are many experiments online and I have actually done this myself. Very fascinating.
If the moon is a hologram how could that possibly work?
Moon light is colder than moon shade. I'm sure you already know this. There are many experiments online and I have actually done this myself. Very fascinating.
If the moon is a hologram how could that possibly work?
The dome is a concave mirror and the celestial objects are projected off of the mirror.
3-D Mirascope
I still don't get how the hologram/projection could cause the temperature difference with the moon shade being warmer and the moon light being colder. If it was a simple projection I would think temperature would be unaffected.
Any theories on where the projection is coming from?
Thanks for the 411. I enjoy this thread you have made and have no idea how you have maintained for 3 years.
I suspect the cooling phenomenon if it can be confirmed is much like LASER cooling, as for where it's from I'd theorize somewhere in the north polar region.
Nice one. Checking out laser cooling. Thanks!
Nobatman. I have a question on the moon being a hologram. Hope you don't mind the challenging question.
Moon light is colder than moon shade. I'm sure you already know this. There are many experiments online and I have actually done this myself. Very fascinating.
If the moon is a hologram how could that possibly work?
Moon light is colder than moon shade. I'm sure you already know this. There are many experiments online and I have actually done this myself. Very fascinating.
If the moon is a hologram how could that possibly work?
The dome is a concave mirror and the celestial objects are projected off of the mirror.
3-D Mirascope
I still don't get how the hologram/projection could cause the temperature difference with the moon shade being warmer and the moon light being colder. If it was a simple projection I would think temperature would be unaffected.
Any theories on where the projection is coming from?
Thanks for the 411. I enjoy this thread you have made and have no idea how you have maintained for 3 years.
I suspect the cooling phenomenon if it can be confirmed is much like LASER cooling, as for where it's from I'd theorize somewhere in the north polar region.
Nobatman. I have a question on the moon being a hologram. Hope you don't mind the challenging question.
Moon light is colder than moon shade. I'm sure you already know this. There are many experiments online and I have actually done this myself. Very fascinating.
If the moon is a hologram how could that possibly work?
Moon light is colder than moon shade. I'm sure you already know this. There are many experiments online and I have actually done this myself. Very fascinating.
If the moon is a hologram how could that possibly work?
The dome is a concave mirror and the celestial objects are projected of off the mirror.
3-D Mirascope
I still don't get how the hologram/projection could cause the temperature difference with the moon shade being warmer and the moon light being colder. If it was a simple projection I would think temperature would be unaffected.
Any theories on where the projection is coming from?
Thanks for the 411. I enjoy this thread you have made and have no idea how you have maintained for 3 years.
Nobatman. I have a question on the moon being a hologram. Hope you don't mind the challenging question.
Moon light is colder than moon shade. I'm sure you already know this. There are many experiments online and I have actually done this myself. Very fascinating.
If the moon is a hologram how could that possibly work?
Moon light is colder than moon shade. I'm sure you already know this. There are many experiments online and I have actually done this myself. Very fascinating.
If the moon is a hologram how could that possibly work?
The dome is a concave mirror and the celestial objects are projected off of the mirror.
3-D Mirascope
live-stream their own death. Piano wire, gas oven, sawed-off shotgun, 3L of everclear, it doesn't matter!
You have put some thought into this. Should we be worried about your well-being?
What's the defining characteristic of a "concern troll"?
Engineers don't calculate for Earth's curve ever because it doesn't exist. Go ask a railroad engineer about it, ask him why he never makes allowances for Earth's curvature? I'm not the one living in a fantasy world.
^^^ You're a fucking goof, the ground rises up to block the view when your view is low. Seriously go drink yourself to death, there's no curve.
Don't you even see what you just said?... "the ground rises up." If the earth is flat, the ground doesn't rise up. If the ground DOES rise up on a flat earth, flat isn't flat, but rather it is curved upward. You are redefining the word "flat" to mean curved up.
In addition, suppose you look a few degrees or more above the horizon. Does the ground rise up to there? Of course not. If it did, you could never direct your eyes above the horizon. You could never see the stars. If the ground always rose up, we wouldn't know that there were any stars, a sun, or a moon.
If you don't define your language and your science with themselves, and then stop combining definitions of standard language and science with FE language and science, you are never going to seem to be anything other than goofy.
You jokers should go off and live by yourselves. But you can't, can you? Because your definitions of things leave a lot of stuff out. And, because there are locks on your funny farm doors to keep you in, right?
You're purposely conflating apparent size and position with physical size and position, just fuck off and die already.
All you are trying to say is that big buildings that are measured out with a transit during construction, become rocking buildings once they are built. You know, like a rocking chair.
You really need to separate your FE science from standard, real world science that doesn't produce anything like your mixture of standard science and FE science.
Do they have bed bugs on your FE, or should I say in your FF?
Nobatman. I have a question on the moon being a hologram. Hope you don't mind the challenging question.
Moon light is colder than moon shade. I'm sure you already know this. There are many experiments online and I have actually done this myself. Very fascinating.
If the moon is a hologram how could that possibly work?
Moon light is colder than moon shade. I'm sure you already know this. There are many experiments online and I have actually done this myself. Very fascinating.
If the moon is a hologram how could that possibly work?
Watch a boat sail across the horizon from one side to the other, it doesn't go up and over a curve, it never vanishes from sight. Why is everybody forced to agree with the person watching the ship sail away who claims he witnessed the boat sail up over and behind a giant hump of water, the boat disappeared bottom up he claims. Both witnesses are watching the same boat at the same time yet their perspectives yield radically different observations. The person watching the boat sail away from him only needs a pair of binoculars to bring it back into view and confirm, that the guy watching the boat sail across can still see the boat and that it hasn't moved up or down.
Those who want to claim that I'm lying or don't understand science need to live-stream their own death. Piano wire, gas oven, sawed-off shotgun, 3L of everclear, it doesn't matter!
Those who want to claim that I'm lying or don't understand science need to live-stream their own death. Piano wire, gas oven, sawed-off shotgun, 3L of everclear, it doesn't matter!
I have sat here confused by suchmoon and BADecker not getting this. The fact that they will not concede this very evident point (which proves nothing other than the ship did not go "round the bend" at 3 miles out) baffles me to no end. It's simply the way our eyes work.
No curve at 120,000 feet but yet they see it 3 miles away. Submitting to the fact the ship did not disappear behind the curve in no way shape or form proves or disproves the shape of our earth. It just proves you did not see the ship actually go behind the water curve. Nothing more. Does not mean it does not exist. Just that you cannot see it happening.
I'm not sure suchmoon will be able to get it. I'm very interested in BADecker's view on this as I feel he could be somewhat genuine.
live-stream their own death. Piano wire, gas oven, sawed-off shotgun, 3L of everclear, it doesn't matter!
You have put some thought into this. Should we be worried about your well-being?
Watch a boat sail across the horizon from one side to the other, it doesn't go up and over a curve, it never vanishes from sight. Why is everybody forced to agree with the person watching the ship sail away who claims he witnessed the boat sail up over and behind a giant hump of water, the boat disappeared bottom up he claims. Both witnesses are watching the same boat at the same time yet their perspectives yield radically different observations. The person watching the boat sail away from him only needs a pair of binoculars to bring it back into view and confirm, that the guy watching the boat sail across can still see the boat and that it hasn't moved up or down.
Those who want to claim that I'm lying or don't understand science need to live-stream their own death. Piano wire, gas oven, sawed-off shotgun, 3L of everclear, it doesn't matter!
Those who want to claim that I'm lying or don't understand science need to live-stream their own death. Piano wire, gas oven, sawed-off shotgun, 3L of everclear, it doesn't matter!
^^^ You're a fucking goof, the ground rises up to block the view when your view is low. Seriously go drink yourself to death, there's no curve.
Don't you even see what you just said?... "the ground rises up." If the earth is flat, the ground doesn't rise up. If the ground DOES rise up on a flat earth, flat isn't flat, but rather it is curved upward. You are redefining the word "flat" to mean curved up.
In addition, suppose you look a few degrees or more above the horizon. Does the ground rise up to there? Of course not. If it did, you could never direct your eyes above the horizon. You could never see the stars. If the ground always rose up, we wouldn't know that there were any stars, a sun, or a moon.
If you don't define your language and your science with themselves, and then stop combining definitions of standard language and science with FE language and science, you are never going to seem to be anything other than goofy.
You jokers should go off and live by yourselves. But you can't, can you? Because your definitions of things leave a lot of stuff out. And, because there are locks on your funny farm doors to keep you in, right?
You're purposely conflating apparent size and position with physical size and position, just fuck off and die already.
^^^ You're a fucking goof, the ground rises up to block the view when your view is low. Seriously go drink yourself to death, there's no curve.
Don't you even see what you just said?... "the ground rises up." If the earth is flat, the ground doesn't rise up. If the ground DOES rise up on a flat earth, flat isn't flat, but rather it is curved upward. You are redefining the word "flat" to mean curved up.
In addition, suppose you look a few degrees or more above the horizon. Does the ground rise up to there? Of course not. If it did, you could never direct your eyes above the horizon. You could never see the stars. If the ground always rose up, we wouldn't know that there were any stars, a sun, or a moon.
If you don't define your language and your science with themselves, and then stop combining definitions of standard language and science with FE language and science, you are never going to seem to be anything other than goofy.
You jokers should go off and live by yourselves. But you can't, can you? Because your definitions of things leave a lot of stuff out. And, because there are locks on your funny farm doors to keep you in, right?
Happy debunking (not counting the errors, the principle)
The world is a complex constructed machine Very basic "base64"web page put you get what you pay for (even with globe logo)
The length is 40000 meter / by the 360° is 111.111111111∞ meter per degree, 20k km wide (thickness maybe 300 miles / 500 km).
The Sun is the electric current Northern to Southern Aurora Light, it is stationary, plasma fusion
The "flat" Möbius strip completes one rotation per year and twist's inside-out with right turn once every 24h
The Moon circles in the oblate sphere around poles axis
The Stars are other worlds, impossible to reach in the physical realm as Möbius strip has a bounty.
The Dome, Water. (Anyone ever with an "air-locked" system knows you cant get rid of it unless the closed system is opened somewhere)
A Möbius Strip is a ruled surface with only one side (the ground you stand on).
A Möbius Strip has only one boundary.
A Möbius strip is not orient-able. (This one will give some of you a hard time to get it)
To show 4-dimensional object on a 3-dimensional space on a 2-dimensional screen with my 1-dimensional brain is not doable.
4th dimension can not be shown in 3D physical space. Someone has to "see" it. Once seen it cant be unseen, it is very clear.
Download and enjoy
Supporting reference material:
The infinity symbol ∞!
The UTM grid system and or the Military Grid Reference System (MGRS) is used by NATO militaries for locating points on the earth, accurate to Nano meter and divided it into 60 section, with some exceptions each 6° width gives each a length of 666,∞ km, 8° in height (X=12°).
https://imgur.com/qnh4cSy
Quote
It is translated “borders” in Numbers 15:38. In Ezekiel 7:2 it is translated “four corners” and again in Isaiah 11:12 “four corners.” Job 37:3 and 38:13 as “ends.”
Alternative view and some of the non exist ice removed (because northern summer sun goes past north pole)
https://i.imgur.com/6LwXtb3.jpg
Plain map without orientation points
https://imgur.com/O3v7MAy
The world viewed from "outside"
https://i.imgur.com/EP6Mzkk.png
The Möbius Strip (the first i think wrong rotation (left/right band, the second not a band but better to visulise as it is round not oval like first))
https://i.imgur.com/rCguLcN.gif
https://i.imgur.com/5nntcaC.gif
Box and error can be moved
https://mathinsight.org/moebius_strip_not_orientable
Beautiful to visualize The Sun as the Möbius strip screws into it with right hand turn.
A Winter Day Palmer Station, (64.77°S, 64.05°W) Antarctica-- https://youtu.be/fOnWhOiitCU
Map arranged, Palmer Station Centrist at December 21 (Sun at furthest "south")
At Sunrise Standing at station looking East right hand pointing North.
The Sun right above Tropic of Capricorn at midday.
Continue one until sunset/sunrise position again competing one 24h twist and advancing 1.1,014583∞° on yearly rotation cycle.
https://i.imgur.com/Hy5lN7P.jpg
Observable fact is Suns path over the course of the year. (Because the poles are offset one part is bigger, the offset also creates the seasons)
https://i.imgur.com/bVquoTg.jpg
The World within the universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wbevq1W9l8
Kola Super Deep Bore Hole, interesting geological anomalies were found, Temperatures reached 180 °C (356° F)
Deepest Hole ever drilled by man
Admiral Richard E. Byrd "discovering" Greenland,
an area as big as US
Flight path Sydney to Santiago (Only for visualization as both have wrong direction twisted band, very early work)
https://i.imgur.com/xcl8wJq.png
and Flight path Santiago to Sydney
https://i.imgur.com/0gusJ1e.png
The Egyptians knew it long ago.
https://i.imgur.com/C60BsOd.jpg
and the Romans too
Ancient Roman mosaic depicting a structure similar to Möbius strip.
https://i.imgur.com/qV2qIXJ.jpg
Can you feel the good vibrations
Good Vibrations
What a wonderful world
"Everybody appreciates your honesty until you're honest with them" -- George Carlton
^^^ You're a fucking goof, the ground rises up to block the view when your view is low. Seriously go drink yourself to death, there's no curve.
I've got an entire mountain troll, dinosaurs lovers have a fragment of giant chicken bone and a bullshit story.
What does it have to do with Flat Earth? There are no giant trolls or giant chickens on the globe! The globe is absolute bullshit where actual science goes out the window and an Earth creation story with rocks from space and the magic of gravity forms hot lava that evolves into monkeys and gives birth to man. The reality of the situation is some organic matter becomes fossilized, petrified rocks. This is how maintains are made, piles of mud and flesh and plants turned to stone like concrete does.
What does it have to do with Flat Earth? There are no giant trolls or giant chickens on the globe! The globe is absolute bullshit where actual science goes out the window and an Earth creation story with rocks from space and the magic of gravity forms hot lava that evolves into monkeys and gives birth to man. The reality of the situation is some organic matter becomes fossilized, petrified rocks. This is how maintains are made, piles of mud and flesh and plants turned to stone like concrete does.
That's a nice opinion you have there.
On-land horizon science that anybody can do with a simple camera, proves globe earth. It's simple. Place a camera on the level ground so that the center of the lens is about 2 inches off the ground. Then, use a level, or a transit, to make sure that it is level.
Next, use a level or transit on flat and level ground some distance away from the camera, where a tall pole rises off the ground.
Go back and snap the photo. See how the tall pole is cut off at the bottom, while the top is still showing? And the level said that the ground is flat and level at both places. Yet the bottom of the pole has dipped over the horizon.
The difference between this and a sea horizon observation is, the pole is only a short distance from the camera. This gets rid of atmospheric aberrations and mirages, and brings the whole, level ground into close perspective.
The only way there can be something wrong with this idea is if all of science is wrong, both standard science and flat earth science. But if they are both wrong, who cares? Let's do what works... globe earth... because you just proved it is real with your camera, a level, and a tall pole.
And if you want to get it really exact, simply get a surveyor to help you, with his professional transit. He will show you how to get things down to almost perfect and exact measurements.
What have you just done when you have done this? You have eliminated all the complex science along with the misunderstandings of scientific interpretations that plague all the science in this thread. And you have seen it with your own two eyes. And it is relatively easy. And you have proof.
Horizon proves that the earth is a globe. But if not, that it certainly is not flat.
You're so full of shit, perspective obscures objects bottom up in this case. There's multiple effects that cause bottom up obfuscation.
Go drink until you pass out you fucking goof.
All you are saying that a line of sight curves. If this is the case, when we walk along a line of sight, why don't we bump into "invisible" things along various lines of sight?
The thing that you are saying doesn't work without a whole lot of other science that is needed to understand it. And that's okay. Why? Because an alternate form of science that confirms reality would be a good thing. Where you fail is when you try to combine two different sciences to prove your point. These sciences are incompatible. Combining them won't work.
In other words, if the earth is flat as you suggest your science says it is, stop trying to partially use conventional science to prove it. Rather, develop your form of science "from the ground up," so that everybody can see and show how it works.
If you don't, you will continually be showing yourself to be funny farm material.
I've got an entire mountain troll, dinosaurs lovers have a fragment of giant chicken bone and a bullshit story.
What does it have to do with Flat Earth? There are no giant trolls or giant chickens on the globe! The globe is absolute bullshit where actual science goes out the window and an Earth creation story with rocks from space and the magic of gravity forms hot lava that evolves into monkeys and gives birth to man. The reality of the situation is some organic matter becomes fossilized, petrified rocks. This is how maintains are made, piles of mud and flesh and plants turned to stone like concrete does.
What does it have to do with Flat Earth? There are no giant trolls or giant chickens on the globe! The globe is absolute bullshit where actual science goes out the window and an Earth creation story with rocks from space and the magic of gravity forms hot lava that evolves into monkeys and gives birth to man. The reality of the situation is some organic matter becomes fossilized, petrified rocks. This is how maintains are made, piles of mud and flesh and plants turned to stone like concrete does.
That's a nice opinion you have there.
On-land horizon science that anybody can do with a simple camera, proves globe earth. It's simple. Place a camera on the level ground so that the center of the lens is about 2 inches off the ground. Then, use a level, or a transit, to make sure that it is level.
Next, use a level or transit on flat and level ground some distance away from the camera, where a tall pole rises off the ground.
Go back and snap the photo. See how the tall pole is cut off at the bottom, while the top is still showing? And the level said that the ground is flat and level at both places. Yet the bottom of the pole has dipped over the horizon.
The difference between this and a sea horizon observation is, the pole is only a short distance from the camera. This gets rid of atmospheric aberrations and mirages, and brings the whole, level ground into close perspective.
The only way there can be something wrong with this idea is if all of science is wrong, both standard science and flat earth science. But if they are both wrong, who cares? Let's do what works... globe earth... because you just proved it is real with your camera, a level, and a tall pole.
And if you want to get it really exact, simply get a surveyor to help you, with his professional transit. He will show you how to get things down to almost perfect and exact measurements.
What have you just done when you have done this? You have eliminated all the complex science along with the misunderstandings of scientific interpretations that plague all the science in this thread. And you have seen it with your own two eyes. And it is relatively easy. And you have proof.
Horizon proves that the earth is a globe. But if not, that it certainly is not flat.
You're so full of shit, perspective obscures objects bottom up in this case. There's multiple effects that cause bottom up obfuscation.
Go drink until you pass out you fucking goof.
Well, then how can we explain the live broadcast from the ISS or the launch of the Ilon Mask rocket into orbit against the background of the spherical outlines of the Earth? 
Do you believe that the movie Gravity was real using actual footage from space?
Do you believe in Bigfoot? There are pictures and videos of that as well.
Believing in images and video is not scientific proof. Most of the pictures you see from nasa are composites. Most of the videos you see from the ISS are showing obvious trickery. Scroll back a few pages some examples have been embedded for you.
---
Shit you beat me too it Nobatman.
Looks like Dubay has a professional editor now. Nice short video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mCcxwPnE08
Jump to: