|
I prove the Moon is a close and small object by detailing its direct measurement thus, debunking the claim by an absolutely corrupt government and the organized crime cabal that rules over us that, homosexual men from a secret society travelled to and walked on, a Moon that's a giant solid rotating sphere.
|
|
|
|
^^^ Ninety (90) degrees with respect to the horizon level; we're physically measuring the angle above the horizon with a sextant. To simply dismiss "flat earth" as being false is to violate the very objectivity of the scientific proccess itself. You've forced the assumption of a globe then come at me with non-sequitors about the measurement process itself. It's not on me that you feign some misunderstanding the objects being measured. I can't prove you feign something, it doesn't follow that nor is it proof that you're not playing the fool. Either you're a fool or you're playing the fool, in which case you're a liar.  Image source: https://www.pinterest.ca/texasdiva74/mr-t-fool/edit: Since the refraction can be calculated, any single reading of the solar diameter between zero and the sextants maximum inscribed value can be used to obtain an approximate value. With more stringent (scientific) methods, measuring the diameter at 90 degrees simply minizes the margin of error and, measuring it at zero proves that refraction is present. |
|
|
|
"...So what exactly are you arguing here?..."
^^^ I'm arguing that the vanishing line known as the horizon is caused by the angular resolution limit of the eye. The globe model creates a hard physical barrier in place of the vanishing line and doesn't address angular size limits.
You also refuse to address the subject and change the topic to Santa flying over the north pole.
The ratio of one (1) directly, empirically, physically measured minute to one (1) nautical mile created by the angular resolution limit of the human eye applies to the direct, empirical, physical measurement of the Moon's diameter at 32 minutes.
The Moon is measured to be about 36.8 statute miles or 59.2 kilometres wide. NASA claims the Moon is 2,158.8 statute miles or 3,474.2 kilometres wide and this number is provably wrong and they are liars.
^^^ Except that your stuff doesn't work. Why not? If a guy is standing directly under the center of the moon overhead, and another guy is standing exactly 18.4 miles west of the first guy, and a third guy is standing exactly 18.4 miles east of the first guy, and all of them are looking straight up... ... on a FE, the first guy would be looking at the center of the moon, and the other two guys would be looking at opposite edges of the moon. But this isn't what happens. What happens is that all 3 guys are looking somewhere near the center of the moon. Even if they use very accurate transits, they still see nearly the exact center of the moon. This proves that the earth is not flat, or even near so. It also shows that the moon is far wider than 36.8 miles. Remember. Atmospheric distortion would be the same for all 3 guys on a flat earth. When you see the stars twinkle at night, the atmospheric distortion is shown to be a very small amount. This amount is far less than would have to exist to suggest that distortion is what causes all 3 guys to see the center of the moon, especially if they had very good telescopes on their transits.  ^^^ The guy in the middle is looking up at 90 degrees with zero refraction and the other two guys are seeing an amount of refraction that can be calculated. You're a liar (or confused) and I prove it by showing the ratio for measured objects above the surface of Earth is, 1 nautical mile per 1 minute through calculating the distance to the horizon based on the angular resolution limit of the human eye †, then using that distance to measure the diameter of the Moon; 32 minutes. † Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. p. 54. ISBN 978-0444511416. |
|
|
|
|
^^^ I'm arguing that the vanishing line known as the horizon is caused by the angular resolution limit of the eye. The globe model creates a hard physical barrier in place of the vanishing line and doesn't address angular size limits.
You also refuse to address the subject and change the topic to Santa flying over the north pole.
The ratio of one (1) directly, empirically, physically measured minute to one (1) nautical mile created by the angular resolution limit of the human eye applies to the direct, empirical, physical measurement of the Moon's diameter at 32 minutes.
The Moon is measured to be about 36.8 statute miles or 59.2 kilometres wide. NASA claims the Moon is 2,158.8 statute miles or 3,474.2 kilometres wide and this number is provably wrong and they are liars.
|
|
|
|
^^^ 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. There's an atmospheric jet-stream moving at unknown hundreds of MPH and the aircraft is flying in, riding this stream, and you want to use flight times across the axis of rotation of a theoretical spinning sphere while riding a jet-stream as some kind of proof that debunks, angular resolution limits? The eye has an angular resolution limit of 1 minute thus, a 1 foot object can be seen at a maximum distance of 1/2 nautical miles before it's too small to resolve. I'm measuring the Moon's diameter directly using the distance to a horizon vanishing line formed by the 1 minute resolution limit of the human eye; the Moon is ~32 nautical miles in diameter. This direct measurement conflicts with the story that NASA landed man on a ~1876 nautical mile wide sphere, and you're telling me stories ABOUT FUCKING SANTA CLAUSE!!! |
|
|
|
|
^^^ 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.
|
|
|
|
|
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 flew north of 78 degrees latitude thus the Earth is a globe.  |
|
|
|
^^^ Modern "satellite" dishes use what's called troposcatter technology developed by the US military; a signal is transmitted from radio towers then bounced off of the troposphereic plane and received by the dish antenna.
"Moon bounce" (Moon not actually required) is when a signal (usually laser light) is bounced off of the dome (firmament).
Except that there is no need for troposcatter on a FE. It was developed to get around the curvature. Fuck off with your strawman argument, there's a radio horizon on a plain. Mommy set the table for supper, so the earth is flat? Troposcatter doesn't have anything to do with the shape of the earth. That's where you're wrong, the radio signal is bounced off of the troposphereic plane; plane trigonometry doesn't do spheres.  Image source: Fading Correlation Analysis in MIMO-OFDM Troposcatter Communications: Space, Frequency, Angle and Space-Frequency Diversity | https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7000551edit: The atmospheric planes, with the troposhphere being one plane in a multitude of planes, a plane being, in both a mathematical and physical sense that which goes over a plain, it forms a refractive layer and that layer, a plane surface together with the multitude of planes form a hemesphere above the plain. Think of a bubble sticking to a surface full of layers of different coloured gasses. Some planes have the property of being a liquid crystal and display the Sun, Moon and stars. An electromagnetic signal is projected off of the mirrored nickel-iron oxide exterior (micro) of the firmament's concave surface (macro) to achieve this plasma effect. edit2: The rain falls mostly on the plain in Spain. |
|
|
|
|
you guys are having a race to the bottom, now you're all complaining BADecker is cheating.
muh lady.
|
|
|
|
^^^ Modern "satellite" dishes use what's called troposcatter technology developed by the US military; a signal is transmitted from radio towers then bounced off of the troposphereic plane and received by the dish antenna.
"Moon bounce" (Moon not actually required) is when a signal (usually laser light) is bounced off of the dome (firmament).
Except that there is no need for troposcatter on a FE. It was developed to get around the curvature. Fuck off with your strawman argument, there's a radio horizon on a plain.
....
I never picked up the Bible once in my life except to toss a copy in the trash. ....
...The Bible describes the construction of a dome (firmament) over Earth by giants (Titans). Science has lead me to God.
...
Jeezus dude, if ya gonna be a lying sack of shit, at least try to cover your tracks a little better... You've got two quotes with no context other that it relates to the bible all while screaming I'm a liar. Go curl up in a gas oven if you don't have point to make. "... I never picked up the Bible once in my life except to toss a copy in the trash. This was before I discovered the firmament (dome) and the inconsolable fact that somebody had to have built it. ..."
See once what I said is put into the context it was written in, you look like the "lying sack of shit". Did I mention that you should go crawl into a gas oven? |
|
|
|
^^^ 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 |
|
|
|
|
^^^ 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.
|
|
|
|
^^^ You'll note that two (2) measurements are required for calculating distance and measuring size along with, the eye's angular resolution limit and viewing height. One reading (with a sextant) is taken at the horizon (0 degrees) when refraction is at a maximum and, one reading is taken at 90 degrees when refraction is at a minimum (zero refraction). All you give me to work with is fantasy art made in Photoshop, and an arbitrarily decided apparent size for an imaginary object in an imaginary unbounded space. |
|
|
|
 Image source: https://www.xyz.net.au/vatican-council-ii-communist-revolution-acceding-power-catholic-church-1963/"... STOP IT, YOU ARE DOING SOME REAL RESEARCH, HOW DARE YOU? He often does that or miss-quotes people or simply doesn't understand the quotes, like the famous quote he keeps posting about that guy who said they had to Photoshop images of the earth, the idiot doesn't realize that he said that because most images from space are small areas of the earth. I showed him a full image of earth by the russian ''nasa'' and he still denied it."
 Image source: http://www.therealnewsonline.com/our-blogs/category/feYou're leaving off the really good part of the intro text to the video - The ABC has been unable to confirm Mr Foster’s identity beyond the entry in the production notebook from 1965: “People – Int Tasmanian Professor (FOSTER)”.
We have also been unable to find any documentation of his work.So you're saying it's Fake News from 1965 made by "Paid anti-American propagandists", damn those those Australian shitposters!  Image source: https://www.4chan.org/ |
|
|
|
Uhh nice, a youtube video, what a surprise, your favorite source of research. "The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is Australia's national broadcaster founded in 1929. It is currently principally funded by the direct grants from the Australian government, but is expressly independent of government and partisan politics. The ABC plays a leading role in journalistic independence and is fundamental in the history of broadcasting in Australia. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_CorporationABC News (Australia) -- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVgO39Bk5sMo66-6o6Spn6Q |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
