Obviously, prehistoric dinosaurs were evolving while still determining if the Earth where they were gonna live for the next several million years was flat or a ball.
"Shit just got real! Meanwhile, what the fuck is blocking the sun?"
Topic: Flat Earth - page 456. (Read 1095196 times)
It had the legs of an animal like a Brontosaurus, the hips of a Stegosaurus, and the arms and body of an animal like Tyrannosaurus rex. Scientists simply did not know where it fitted in the dino family tree.
Obviously, prehistoric dinosaurs were evolving while still determining if the Earth where they were gonna live for the next several million years was flat or a ball.
"Shit just got real! Meanwhile, what the fuck is blocking the sun?"
Obviously, prehistoric dinosaurs were evolving while still determining if the Earth where they were gonna live for the next several million years was flat or a ball.
"Shit just got real! Meanwhile, what the fuck is blocking the sun?"
Had to come here after the Blockstream lies that they are going to beam Bitcoin from satellites. Sad world we live in.
There is a pinch of truth to satellites, but they're high altitude balloons. Google has a lot of resources on the stuff they do with balloons all-be-it with smaller balloons at lower altitudes than the rocket launched mega balloons the military/NASA uses.
When the big rocket launched satellites are done they come down and are picked up by fighter jets with a hook as they fall. This is what a lot a airbases are on standby to do, they wait for the call that a satellite is coming down and they go get it before it hits the ground.
Here's a video clip (2 min) of NASA launching a balloon "satellite". -- https://youtu.be/CzyPN8-AbJQ?t=712
Whenever I bet someone that I can lower their IQ by 50% in just minutes, I send them to this thread and win the bet every time.
Some of you are in terrible need of a formal education, specifically in psychology where you would learn why conspiracy theorists think the way you do, and why it's so flawed.
Some of you are in terrible need of a formal education, specifically in psychology where you would learn why conspiracy theorists think the way you do, and why it's so flawed.
You are in terrible need of a formal education in fuck off.
You're either a troll, or one of the reasons the world is such a foul place. Either way, I pity you.
Likewise, asshole.
Go post your analysis where someone might give a shit.
You fucking goof.
Whenever I bet someone that I can lower their IQ by 50% in just minutes, I send them to this thread and win the bet every time.
Some of you are in terrible need of a formal education, specifically in psychology where you would learn why conspiracy theorists think the way you do, and why it's so flawed.
Some of you are in terrible need of a formal education, specifically in psychology where you would learn why conspiracy theorists think the way you do, and why it's so flawed.
You are in terrible need of a formal education in fuck off.
You're either a troll, or one of the reasons the world is such a foul place. Either way, I pity you.
Whenever I bet someone that I can lower their IQ by 50% in just minutes, I send them to this thread and win the bet every time.
Some of you are in terrible need of a formal education, specifically in psychology where you would learn why conspiracy theorists think the way you do, and why it's so flawed.
Some of you are in terrible need of a formal education, specifically in psychology where you would learn why conspiracy theorists think the way you do, and why it's so flawed.
You are in terrible need of a formal education in fuck off.
Whenever I bet someone that I can lower their IQ by 50% in just minutes, I send them to this thread and win the bet every time.
Some of you are in terrible need of a formal education, specifically in psychology where you would learn why conspiracy theorists think the way you do, and why it's so flawed.
Some of you are in terrible need of a formal education, specifically in psychology where you would learn why conspiracy theorists think the way you do, and why it's so flawed.
Additionally, if from point A to point B is 425 miles there should be over 20 miles of curvature, and from point C to point D (well over 1000 miles) there should be well over 130 miles of curvature.
But there is ZERO CURVATURE.
See also: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22flat+earth%22+no+curvature
PS; Eat shit, BADecker. Thanks for the "ship over-the-horizon" essay, you ignorant fucking tool.
There you go again, explaining stuff in a way that throws the thinking of people off.
If the eye were a point rather than a globe-like object a couple of centimeters in diameter, or whatever...
... and the eye were situated at water level...
... the horizon would be exactly at the eye.
This means that to understand the curvature properly, you would have to start your calculations at the water level rather than 6 feet.
In addition, the explanation you give is too vague to take into account the importance of the "diameter" of the eye.
When you do the experiment properly, you find that the earth is globular.
Of course Earth is flat.
<<<
Speaking of Space X animations...
Gematria tip of the day:
Speaking of Space X animations...
Gematria tip of the day:
I watched that vid earlier today. Nice GIF there, bud. Is that one of yours or gleaned elsewhere?
I found the gif somewhere. I just cropped and resized it.
It's pretty good considering they didn't have CGI in 1959.
Add some CGI waves, smoke, and flame and we're in 2017.
Voila! The Gang of 33 continues to brainwash the masses.
<<<
Speaking of Space X animations...
Gematria tip of the day:
Speaking of Space X animations...
Gematria tip of the day:
I watched that vid earlier today. Nice GIF there, bud. Is that one of yours or gleaned elsewhere?
<<<
Speaking of Space X animations...
Gematria tip of the day:
Speaking of Space X animations...
Gematria tip of the day:
CRS-12 first stage rocket returns to Landing Zone 1 (vicinity from where it blasted off from): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Zone_1
https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Landing_Zone_1¶ms=28.485722_N_-80.542943_E_type:landmark_region:US-FL
Here's the video of it landing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tydpnBwz4do&feature=youtu.be&t=110
In the same video there's an animation of where the stage one rocket lands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Cqhj-HRJg&feature=youtu.be&t=1420
Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but given that the Earth rotates from west to east at a ~1,000 mph, and the Falcon was launched due east (perhaps northeast in this case, but argument remains the same), after traveling 8 minutes, how much extra fuel would there have to be in a rocket so that it could return were it came from a distance away against a site that's moving away from it. Moreover, why does the animation depict the landing site for the stage one rocket in the Atlantic ocean that's not even near Florida? Seriously, the latter simply blows my mind.
That say, you guys are paying for the beer this time. PLEASE!
Bruno
Since CRS-12 is gonna chase the ISS, it's safe to assume it wasn't blasted straight up but at a curved trajectory over the Atlantic Ocean due east/northeast from Florida, ergo ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3_DyJwWp3w
Again, explain to me like I'm a retard how the first stage returned to whence it blasted off from ~8 minutes prior.
Further, where's the live footage for the craft landing depicting on the right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Cqhj-HRJg&feature=youtu.be&t=1420
Additionally, if from point A to point B is 425 miles there should be over 20 miles of curvature, and from point C to point D (well over 1000 miles) there should be well over 130 miles of curvature.
But there is ZERO CURVATURE.
See also: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22flat+earth%22+no+curvature
PS; Eat shit, BADecker. Thanks for the "ship over-the-horizon" essay, you ignorant fucking tool.
@gleb,
The ball Earth model has the atmosphere physically attached to the ground all the way out to where the hard vacuum of outer space meets the pressurized atmosphere. As the Earth rotates the attachment to the ground is so strong it pulls the entire atmosphere and everything in it with it.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
The ball Earth model has the atmosphere physically attached to the ground all the way out to where the hard vacuum of outer space meets the pressurized atmosphere. As the Earth rotates the attachment to the ground is so strong it pulls the entire atmosphere and everything in it with it.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
Now I'm really confused.
Whose camp are you in?How does one explain where the rocket landed and where the animation depicts where the rocket will land? That's two different/distance locales regardless if the Earth is flat or a globe.
Dudes, this beer is getting warm and I can't remember which camp I'm in.
HELP! Meanwhile, I'm gonna fix me up a mess of pancakes for breakfast.
Besides! The whole solar system is zooming through space at about a million miles a minute. So how do any of the rockets even land back on earth?
@gleb,
The ball Earth model has the atmosphere physically attached to the ground all the way out to where the hard vacuum of outer space meets the pressurized atmosphere. As the Earth rotates the attachment to the ground is so strong it pulls the entire atmosphere and everything in it with it.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
The ball Earth model has the atmosphere physically attached to the ground all the way out to where the hard vacuum of outer space meets the pressurized atmosphere. As the Earth rotates the attachment to the ground is so strong it pulls the entire atmosphere and everything in it with it.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
Now I'm really confused.
Whose camp are you in?How does one explain where the rocket landed and where the animation depicts where the rocket will land? That's two different/distance locales regardless if the Earth is flat or a globe.
Dudes, this beer is getting warm and I can't remember which camp I'm in.
HELP! Meanwhile, I'm gonna fix me up a mess of pancakes for breakfast.
The ship over-the-horizon clearly shows globe earth. All the pictures of the horizon that the FE people use, are explained improperly. Here's what I mean.
On a day or location when the sea is perfectly calm, get into the water, and bring the water level up to the center of your eye. At that time, the horizon is at your eye-level. Because your eye actually has size rather than being a simple point, you can see things near you that are both in the water to some extent, and above the water to some extent, as you look through both water and air. But things at a small distance are only seen above the water (if they are high enough, like the mast on a sailboat), because the water is too "murky" to view the things below its surface at a distance.
Now note this. When your eye is centered at the water level, if your eye were a single point, the horizon would be there, at your eye level. But because your eye has size, the horizon lets you see things both above and below. The mast of a sailboat drops below the horizon much faster than if you are on shore, because the part of your retina that is above or below the water is only a few millimeters.
As you slowly rise out of the water, the distance at which you can see the mast increases.
You can do this experiment yourself. None of the FE understanding explains it. You can actually measure the distance that the eye is above the water, and the corresponding distance that the sailboat mast dips below the horizon. The distances measured do not start out in miles. They might only start out in a few dozen feet with a short mast. Only by the time that your eye is a foot or two above the water are miles added to the distance that the mast drops below the horizon.
You can calculate this all out with trigonometry and calculus to show the distances. And, if you take the time, you can calculate a rough diameter for the earth this way. But you will need to know the size of your eye, and the height of the top of the mast above the water level.
You can do this yourself. It works. You only need the math, a small sailboat, 3 or 4 people to make measurements and sail the boat, and the height of the mast above the water.
FE doesn't explain this at all. FE perspective calculations are always based on something distant in the range of miles. They have to be to trick the reader into not understanding correctly.
EDIT: Use a model sailboat that has a mast that is only 2 feet above the water. Have a friend float it over the horizon. Then bring your eye 1 inch out of the water and make the measurements again.
On a day or location when the sea is perfectly calm, get into the water, and bring the water level up to the center of your eye. At that time, the horizon is at your eye-level. Because your eye actually has size rather than being a simple point, you can see things near you that are both in the water to some extent, and above the water to some extent, as you look through both water and air. But things at a small distance are only seen above the water (if they are high enough, like the mast on a sailboat), because the water is too "murky" to view the things below its surface at a distance.
Now note this. When your eye is centered at the water level, if your eye were a single point, the horizon would be there, at your eye level. But because your eye has size, the horizon lets you see things both above and below. The mast of a sailboat drops below the horizon much faster than if you are on shore, because the part of your retina that is above or below the water is only a few millimeters.
As you slowly rise out of the water, the distance at which you can see the mast increases.
You can do this experiment yourself. None of the FE understanding explains it. You can actually measure the distance that the eye is above the water, and the corresponding distance that the sailboat mast dips below the horizon. The distances measured do not start out in miles. They might only start out in a few dozen feet with a short mast. Only by the time that your eye is a foot or two above the water are miles added to the distance that the mast drops below the horizon.
You can calculate this all out with trigonometry and calculus to show the distances. And, if you take the time, you can calculate a rough diameter for the earth this way. But you will need to know the size of your eye, and the height of the top of the mast above the water level.
You can do this yourself. It works. You only need the math, a small sailboat, 3 or 4 people to make measurements and sail the boat, and the height of the mast above the water.
FE doesn't explain this at all. FE perspective calculations are always based on something distant in the range of miles. They have to be to trick the reader into not understanding correctly.
EDIT: Use a model sailboat that has a mast that is only 2 feet above the water. Have a friend float it over the horizon. Then bring your eye 1 inch out of the water and make the measurements again.
@gleb,
The ball Earth model has the atmosphere physically attached to the ground all the way out to where the hard vacuum of outer space meets the pressurized atmosphere. As the Earth rotates the attachment to the ground is so strong it pulls the entire atmosphere and everything in it with it.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
The ball Earth model has the atmosphere physically attached to the ground all the way out to where the hard vacuum of outer space meets the pressurized atmosphere. As the Earth rotates the attachment to the ground is so strong it pulls the entire atmosphere and everything in it with it.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
Had to come here after the Blockstream lies that they are going to beam Bitcoin from satellites. Sad world we live in.
CRS-12 first stage rocket returns to Landing Zone 1 (vicinity from where it blasted off from): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Zone_1
https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Landing_Zone_1¶ms=28.485722_N_-80.542943_E_type:landmark_region:US-FL
Here's the video of it landing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tydpnBwz4do&feature=youtu.be&t=110
In the same video there's an animation of where the stage one rocket lands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Cqhj-HRJg&feature=youtu.be&t=1420
Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but given that the Earth rotates from west to east at a ~1,000 mph, and the Falcon was launched due east (perhaps northeast in this case, but argument remains the same), after traveling 8 minutes, how much extra fuel would there have to be in a rocket so that it could return were it came from a distance away against a site that's moving away from it. Moreover, why does the animation depict the landing site for the stage one rocket in the Atlantic ocean that's not even near Florida? Seriously, the latter simply blows my mind.
That say, you guys are paying for the beer this time. PLEASE!
Bruno
Jump to: