What if the earth was actually flat?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Out of my depth. Good one, coming from you who thinks, no, KNOWS, the Earth is flat.

So how far away is the moon?

Answer the questions put to you.

In that animation NASA put together for Saturday morning indoctrination, how close would you say it was to the earth?
Do you think the Cat in the Moon would feel as though he's being smothered by the earth?

uOriginally posted by FreakyKBH
Answer the questions put to you.

In that animation NASA put together for Saturday morning indoctrination, how close would you say it was to the earth?
Do you think the Cat in the Moon would feel as though he's being smothered by the earth?

Do you ANYTHING about photography? Did you ever bother to learn about it? what does that image say to you in terms of the stated distance? 1 million miles from Earth, 3/4 million miles from the moon so the moon will have a leg up in magnification since it is a quarter million miles closer to the camera than Earth. So the image could be roughly analysed, looks like about 1 degree of the sky as a guess. So that means at 3/4 million miles is a circle roughly 5 million miles in circumference. Follow me so far?

The moon is about 2171 miles in diameter so a 5 million mile circle with the moon on the edge of that circle is about one part in 2300. One part in 360 is one degree so this represents about 0.15 degree in the sky.

A LOT smaller a circle to see than what we see from Earth, the moon covers a full half a degree in the sky seen from Earth so from 3/4 million miles away the moon is about 1/3 the visual size that we would see from Earth.

Yet the image looks like it is covering what, 10 degrees or so, just a guess, but that represents the telescope set to roughly 60 power. That is why the image is not full resolution because it is taxing the optics of the system. I don't know what kind of camera or the size of the mirror used, if I did I could give a more accurate number as to the magnification of the camera but it appears to be using about 60 or so power, a lot more than you would get with a pair of Earhy binoculars where a 20 power is pretty big. In that power, if you were in the spacecraft looking at the moon, it would look through the 20X80 binoculars that I own, about the same size as what we see unaided in the night sky on Earth.

So the gist of it is they used a whopping magnification to get that image and at that kind of mag, the resolution goes down and the amount of time between shots has to go up.

I suppose you don't believe anything I just said but I do know a bit about optics, I had to design an optical objective lens for an optical comparator and I did a nice job on that project, better than original. I actually made an adjustable zoom lens which did not come with the original comparitor. They had bought it on Ebay and when it was opened up it did not have the objective lens so I designed and built one with my own two hands and 4 eyes. It worked really well I might add. I also repair optical and electron microscopes also.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Do you ANYTHING about photography? Did you ever bother to learn about it? what does that image say to you in terms of the stated distance? 1 million miles from Earth, 3/4 million miles from the moon so the moon will have a leg up in magnification since it is a quarter million miles closer to the camera than Earth. So the image could be roughly analysed, loo ...[text shortened]... 4 eyes. It worked really well I might add. I also repair optical and electron microscopes also.

You glued buttons on radios AND you effed up optical devices?
Truly multi-talented, from a terminate-this-turd-as-quickly-as-possible stand-point.
I bet HR loooooved you.
The entire string of spew you just, um, spewed is crap.
You cut and pasted someone else's credentials thinking it would make you appear an authority, but forgot to cut anything having to do with the subject matter.
Makes for great radio, though.
Fills all kinds of dead air otherwise.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Why would anyone "beat people up" on Red Hot Pawn's General Forum?

They're just some silly online threats and bravado by FreakyKBH, that's all Grampy Bobby.

Originally posted by FMF
They're just some silly online threats and bravado by FreakyKBH, that's all Grampy Bobby.

Way to keep people abreast, numbnuts.
😲

I'm surprised you didn't link the thread to this one and invite people to find out for themselves.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You glued buttons on radios AND you effed up optical devices?
Truly multi-talented, from a terminate-this-turd-as-quickly-as-possible stand-point.
I bet HR loooooved you.
The entire string of spew you just, um, spewed is crap.
You cut and pasted someone else's credentials thinking it would make you appear an authority, but forgot to cut anything hav ...[text shortened]... th the subject matter.
Makes for great radio, though.
Fills all kinds of dead air otherwise.

What are you talking about? Glued buttons? The analysis I just did came from me and my trusty casio calculator. I gather you didn't follow what I was saying. Too bad. Let me illustrate it some: If you have two planets X distance apart, you use that distance as a radius for a large circle, in order to calculate the number of degrees a body would cover in the sky, so you end up with a circle and you just compare that circle to the diameter of the body in question. This is my own method, not googled or anything, just a down and dirty way to get how many degrees a body covers in the sky.

In this case at 3/4 million miles or a 1.5 million mile diameter times Pi gives about 4.7 million mile circle then just divide the diameter of the body by the size of the circle and you get one part in 2300 or so. One degree is one part in 360. I would hope you agree with that. So 360 divided by 2300 is about 0.15 degrees which would be the apparent size of the object in the sky. This is not rocket science, just arithmetic.

You need to get off the attack mode and actually go through what I am saying.

BTW right now, my son in law and I are writing a paper on a discovery I made in gravitational lensing, feel free to scoff but you can read all about it when the paper is done. My son in law has a Phd in physics and I have studied gravitational lensing for 25 or more years and came up with a nice formula about it.

So I do have some street creds. Glued buttons on radio's? Are you just throwing at dart boards with random saying on it?

I have come up with useful innovations in just about every company I have ever worked in. If I showed them to you, you would just say I hacked it off the internet, except some of them date back to 1965, just a bit before anyone's internet.

I actually am pretty creative mechanically, electrically, optically and musically. And of course you will just launch another scoff campaign. It changes nothing about my CV.

The thing that continues to surprise me is I am getting more creative at age 74 than I was at 24. And I can prove that but the last few are company confidential so I can't go into much detail about them except to say I am still working in a technical position full time and am doing great work and have earned a few attaboys along the way.

Do you think you will be doing that when YOU are 74?

Originally posted by sonhouse
What are you talking about? Glued buttons? The analysis I just did came from me and my trusty casio calculator. I gather you didn't follow what I was saying. Too bad. Let me illustrate it some: If you have two planets X distance apart, you use that distance as a radius for a large circle, in order to calculate the number of degrees a body would cover in th ...[text shortened]... ally. And of course you will just launch another scoff campaign. It changes nothing about my CV.

Slow clap.

Now, answer the questions put to you, genius.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Slow clap.

Now, answer the questions put to you, genius.

I did answer them but you just don't accept the answer. So tell me how far is the moon?

You want to compare brains, why don't you chal me to a 3/7 game or maybe a blitz here or at chess.com since you are such a brilliant scoffer.

BTW, my circle method is useful if I want to figure out how well telescopes do, for instance the Hubble can resolve about one part in 25 million of a circle so you make that circle say the distance to Alpha centauri, about 4 light years and that is a circle about 7 E 13 miles, 7 with 13 zeros. just divide that by 25 million and you see it cannot make out as a disc anything under a couple million miles wide. So it would have trouble even making a disc out of Alpha Centauri itself which is about the size of our sun, less than a million miles across. So in that sense Hubble is weak. But when it launched nothing on Earth had the capability of resolving one part in 25 million. A good home telescope can resolve maybe one part in 1,296,000 which happens to be one arc second, a decent number for an 8 or 10 inch home scope.

You have anything you want to scoff at there?

BTW, the bit about not seeing over the horizon on an airless body can be seen just by using a decent telescope and looking at the edge of the moon when it goes into its own version of sunrise, which does happen a little bit, the moon doesn't face completely in our direction, it wobbles a bit so we can see a bit of sunrise and sunset, not much but enough to see the effect of horizons because mountains just pop into view when the sun comes up from our angle, the little bit of it that does come up and there is ZERO seeing over that horizon.

Of course I fully expect no counter arguments just more scoffing which is your MO.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I did answer them but you just don't accept the answer. So tell me how far is the moon?

You want to compare brains, why don't you chal me to a 3/7 game or maybe a blitz here or at chess.com since you are such a brilliant scoffer.

BTW, my circle method is useful if I want to figure out how well telescopes do, for instance the Hubble can resolve about o ...[text shortened]... t horizon.

Of course I fully expect no counter arguments just more scoffing which is your MO.

This is not nearly as hard as you make it out to be.
You clearly are able to quote all kinds of numbers, so quote these numbers:
Provide the formula used to predict when a superior mirage will present itself.
For a math genius such as yourself, that should be easy-peasy.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This is not nearly as hard as you make it out to be.
You clearly are able to quote all kinds of numbers, so quote these numbers:
Provide the formula used to predict when a superior mirage will present itself.
For a math genius such as yourself, that should be easy-peasy.

You don't seem to understand the over the horizon thing is 100% due to atmospherics. You also don't seem to be able to even do a thought experiment.

For instance, I said you can see the effect of no atmosphere by just looking at the moon with a telescope the horizon can be seen because the moon wobbles a bit and the horizon can be seen to change but there is no way for anyone to see over that horizon because there is no air to diffract light.

I don't have to provide a formula since there is none. The atmosphere causes mirages but not all the time. That IS the key to the over the horizon vision. That is another concept you refuse to even consider: the fact that the over the horizon mirages are not there all the time. And that would be because it takes a hot air layer near the surface combined with a colder air layer about it to make a lens effect that can guide photons past the curvature of Earth.


If the vision was due to a flat earth, it would be there 24/7, which you cannot wrap your head around either.

Also, you have no answer to the Coriolis effect except more scoffing.

I'll give you a clue: Scoffing is not a good argument to present if you want to try to convince people of your POV.

So show my your Phd analysis of the fakery involved in NASA images.

Do you seriously think rockets are also fake? I assume you have seen them launch from Florida or Russia. Do you think they just get a few miles up and then land somewhere in a forest where nobody can see?

What kind of paranoia is that where everything all the space faring nations do is fake?

No satellites? GPS all from ground stations? Which is interesting since GPS works quite well in the middle of the Pacific ocean a thousand miles from anything.

But that kind of argument doesn't count in your paranoia driven mind does it.

So how far is the moon? That is a key question you refuse to answer.

You also seem to think the speed of light in a vacuum is not 300,000 km per second, so where is your Phd paper proving Einstein was wrong about that?

You can't just spout off these things expecting people to think you have street cred in these issues, and unknown to you, you have to have actual evidence to back up your paranoia ridden world.

So how far is the moon? Simple question, your genius mind should be able to answer that one.

But of course you won't, you will just come up with 'answer my questions first' which I did but you just don't like the answers so in your paranoid mind you are forever correct and we are forever keeping up the vast conspiracy.

How did you know I was being paid by NASA to try to shut you up? They have literally billions of dollars they don't spend on space, they just hire graphics guru's to come up with all those photo's, like the latest ones of Pluto, OBVIOUS fakes.

Do you have any idea how other people here view you when you put up crap like my last sentence?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You don't seem to understand the over the horizon thing is 100% due to atmospherics. You also don't seem to be able to even do a thought experiment.

For instance, I said you can see the effect of no atmosphere by just looking at the moon with a telescope the horizon can be seen because the moon wobbles a bit and the horizon can be seen to change but ther ...[text shortened]...
Do you have any idea how other people here view you when you put up crap like my last sentence?

You don't seem to understand the over the horizon thing is 100% due to atmospherics. You also don't seem to be able to even do a thought experiment.
Yeah, per fesser: let's do a thought experiment.

at·mos·pher·ics
1.electrical disturbances in the atmosphere due to lightning and other phenomena, especially as they interfere with telecommunications.

100%.
Maybe you meant to type atmospheric refraction?

...but there is no way for anyone to see over that horizon because there is no air to diffract light.
So we can't look over the moon's shoulder.
Check.

I don't have to provide a formula since there is none.
Now you're getting closer to the crux of the issue.
We have an accepted figure for the circumference of the earth.
Using Pythagorean's Theorem to determine the rate of curvature, we have an accepted figure for the expected drop from an observer's position in any direction.
But when we are able to see objects which ought to be below the horizon to observer, we're supposed to chalk it up to a mirage--- a word which comes from the Latin word mirus, or wonderful, the same root for miracle.
Do you see the pattern there?
Formula, formula, mirage/miracle.
Hmmmm...

The atmosphere causes mirages but not all the time. That IS the key to the over the horizon vision. That is another concept you refuse to even consider: the fact that the over the horizon mirages are not there all the time.
The reason I refuse to even consider your statement is that it is flat-out, unequivocally wrong.
False, in other words.
As I encouraged you to do previously, do some study on refraction phenomenon to find out the various types and the causes/conditions thereof.
It will be eye-opening, I'm sure of it.

While we're waiting for that, however, let's address your false statement that essentially claims the distant objects cannot be seen all the time on account of lack of mirage.
Any one of the several types of refraction phenomenon are a result of temperature and/or density gradient.
When you actually look into them (since you did invoke them as the explanation for the visibility issue), you'll find each of them pose yet another problem to explain what is observed.
For instance, looming is the term used to describe an object being lifted above the horizon, but it is said to make objects appear closer than they really are to the observer, as well.
But that's not all.
Despite the conditions necessary for an observer to experience any of the refraction phenomenon, it has been repeatedly recorded and observed how distant objects are ALWAYS visible to an observer, regardless of the temperature gradients.
The only obstacle to the view is normal weather-related visibility factors, i.e., smog, fog, mist, rain, etc..

If the vision was due to a flat earth, it would be there 24/7, which you cannot wrap your head around either.
From my vantage point, I can see the entirety of the west side of Cleveland, some twenty miles away--- which ought to be hidden by 217' of loss, but definitely not the case.
I can see further up the North Coast to Euclid and the Lincoln Electric wind tower, a 443' tall structure sitting over twenty miles away and over a mile off the water--- which should leave half of the tower hidden, but nearly the entire structure is visible, blocked only by buildings and foliage in the way.
Too, I can see even further up the coast to the old power plant near Timberlake, a distance in excess of thirty miles with a loss of 561'... and yet the two stacks--- and buildings--- are clearly visible.
In all three situations, these views are present during every season of the year and at all times of the day and night, regardless of the supposed one condition for the possibility, temperature gradient.

Also, you have no answer to the Coriolis effect except more scoffing.
That isn't scoffing, it's just the truth.
You want to use the CE to explain how a bullet falls under the force but don't want the force to be considered when it comes to an airplane.
You can't have it both ways.
If the earth spinning under and away from a bullet can impact where the bullet lands, then the earth spinning under and away from an airplane would make long distances either incredibly fast or impossible for passenger planes.
The only itinerary possible would necessarily require using the spin of the earth, since traveling at 1,007 MPH would simply keep an airplane over the same spot if going against the spin of the earth.

So show my your Phd analysis of the fakery involved in NASA images.
Why would I need a doctorate?
Simply providing a single unaltered picture of the earth blows the argument out of the water.
Just one.

Which is interesting since GPS works quite well in the middle of the Pacific ocean a thousand miles from anything.
It sure does.
That's why ISS is only able to transmit a little bit at a time before blue screening, despite being a portion of the distance from the earth as GPS or GES/GSO satellites are said to orbit.
But it's probably different to be 250 miles away from anything than it is to be a thousand miles away from anything, right?
Oh, wait: if ISS is, indeed, ~250 miles orbiting the earth, wouldn't it necessarily be much, much closer to the thousands of satellites up there?
Kind of weird that GPS works so well (receiving, transmitting) 12,700 miles away from earth while the thousands of other satellites in the same orbiting neighborhood as ISS and the system used by ISS itself can't keep a constant feed.
According to NASA's website, the station must have contact with the ground.
Guess they never fly over the oceans, huh.

You can't just spout off these things expecting people to think you have street cred in these issues, and unknown to you, you have to have actual evidence to back up your paranoia ridden world.
I'm not looking for cred, numbnuts.
If I was, do you think I'd ever broach the topic, knowing how much vitriol it engenders?
I'm asking but two simple questions.
All street cred goes to the person putting them to rest.

Do you have any idea how other people here view you when you put up crap like my last sentence?
Golly, I have no idea.
I guess I should have thought about that before I started this whole thing, huh.
You know, because that's what's important in the search for truth.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You don't seem to understand the over the horizon thing is 100% due to atmospherics. You also don't seem to be able to even do a thought experiment.
Yeah, per fesser: let's do a thought experiment.

[quote]at·mos·pher·ics
[i]1.electrical disturbances in the atmosphere due to lightning and other phenomena, especially as they interfere with teleco ...[text shortened]... arted this whole thing, huh.
You know, because that's what's important in the search for truth.[/b]

There is nothing in your last post even close to truth, you don't want truth, you want the world to fall over and play dead so you can feel vindicated. Oh, is that too big a word for you? Ok, I'll use satisfied instead. Is that better?

I wasn't talking about GPS as it relates to ISS I was talking about being in a boat a thousand miles from anywhere in the middle of the pacific ocean where there is no ground station and yet that boat gets GPS signals just fine.

And you don't seem to understand about line of sight. Where a signal coming off ISS has to be theoretically in sight of the ground station. That is actually 100% true.

I guess you didn't get in on my post about my Apollo job, the atomic clocks needed to sync signals from one tracking station to the other.

Did you ever hear the term 'world wide network"? I suppose in your paranoid world all Nasa signals are faked but the reality is they have a large number of tracking ground stations that take the signals from ISS and all the others like Hubble and there is an uplink and a downlink path. If you don't know what that is, google the terms, don't try to make me educate you on simple shyte.

Digital data from ISS goes to a ground station but will lose it when it goes over the horizon as viewed by that ground station and thus it is required for there to be another one in sight of ISS to switch data to.

That goes on all the way around the globe Earth. Stations in Burmuda, Russia, South America, Australia, the UK and so forth, it takes a lot of ground stations to get data reliably but nothing is 100% which is also what I have been saying, they will lose signals in spite of all those ground stations sometimes plus NASA is not there just to please you, they also have time constraints on taking video shots of the men in orbit.

If you did any research at all on ISS instead of just dissing everything they ever accomplished you would realized the spacemen and women up there are busy every hour of the day when they are not sleeping.

Of course in your paranoid mind they are not up there at all, right? All smoke and mirrors but you have to expand that paranoia to Russia, China, the UK, Canada and such so the conspiracy reaches every space faring country on Earth.

Gee, I don't see Russia or China dissing anything NASA does. I guess that's because they have secret meeting designed to keep fooling people with such nonsense as putting people on the moon or putting rovers on Mars or ESA landing a probe on a comet. Nah, all that stuff is just done by a computer graphics guru and all those countries are in on the big joke, they have big laughs at our expense, right?

What part of Aircraft DO experience Coriolis effect do you not understand? I have clearly stated they DO have to take it into account because Earth is spinning under them and they will either arrive too late or too early or on the wrong heading if they don't compensate for it. The atmosphere helps out since mostly it is going the same rate as the spin but that does not compensate 100% for Coriolis. If the atmosphere was still compared to Earth , Earth would slide by at a thousand miles an hour, 24,000 miles per day just like it does now except there would be a relative wind velocity on the surface of a thousand miles an hour also.

You really need to think things through before you dis all the subjects that refute your flatassearth bullshyte. Did you forget your meds? Losing memory, since I already posted about the Coriolis effect on aircraft. Oh, wait, I forgot, I am just a stupid cut and paste artist with no creds whatsoever. Forgive me for being so stupid.

But of course you are an expert on Coriolis effect so I would like to see the publication of your science paper refuting that effect.

Oh, you don't have one? Oh such a shame. The world really needs your expertise in all these matters. You should be speaking to the United Nations on this subject, you need a wide audience.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is nothing in your last post even close to truth, you don't want truth, you want the world to fall over and play dead so you can feel vindicated. Oh, is that too big a word for you? Ok, I'll use satisfied instead. Is that better?

I wasn't talking about GPS as it relates to ISS I was talking about being in a boat a thousand miles from anywhere in t ...[text shortened]... matters. You should be speaking to the United Nations on this subject, you need a wide audience.

There is nothing in your last post even close to truth...
How would you even know?
You assert things which are demonstrably false as though they are true (one or 30 million miles away), use terms incorrectly (atmospheric), are unsure which model uses the term 'oblate spheroid,' and so forth.
On top of it, you've invoked refraction of light as the reason for the visibility of distant/over the horizon objects without having done any research as to the viability of that phenomenon as causing such occurrences.
If what I speak of is in error, it wouldn't take much to prove me wrong.
Unlike you, I have invested time and thought into the topic and perhaps obsessively researched the ins and outs of the different aspects.
I spent a considerable amount of time trying to disprove the FE model.
I spend less time now on that same effort, but that effort remains: I'm always looking for something which could satisfactorily disprove it... but upon inspection most everything simply confirms the idea that the earth is not the sphere we were taught.

And you don't seem to understand about line of sight. Where a signal coming off ISS has to be theoretically in sight of the ground station. That is actually 100% true.
So the ISS has never streamed their activities over any ocean, huh?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]There is nothing in your last post even close to truth...
How would you even know?
You assert things which are demonstrably false as though they are true (one or 30 million miles away), use terms incorrectly (atmospheric), are unsure which model uses the term 'oblate spheroid,' and so forth.
On top of it, you've invoked refraction of light as the ...[text shortened]... is actually 100% true.[/b]
So the ISS has never streamed their activities over any ocean, huh?[/b]

Jesus, are you really that dense? You perhaps, I don't know for sure, have ever heard of the concept of ISLANDS? Krist where is your brain? Did you not here the part about one in Burmuda? Or one in Hawaii? Ah, they don't use Burmuda now, that was just when I was at Goddard for Apollo.

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/services/networks/txt_nen.html

Of course they are all lying about these stations too, right?

You are so bent on dissing NASA you can't be bothered to actually learn about them.

Oh yeah, I forgot, EVERYTHING NASA did was fake, no moon landings, no mars rovers, no ISS.

No GPS satellites since it is well known by the flatassers GPS is fake also, just run by a bunch of ground stations, even though boats in the pacific ocean a thousand miles from anywhere can use GPS signals just fine.

So explain to me how ground stations can reach out to the middle of the Pacific Ocean with literally nothing within 1000 miles and yet GPS signals work fine there.

I guess the software indicating where the GPS satellites are are all faked too. You know the image you can call up on your GPS that shows how many satellites are in view? All fake of course.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Jesus, are you really that dense? You perhaps, I don't know for sure, have ever heard of the concept of ISLANDS? Krist where is your brain? Did you not here the part about one in Burmuda? Or one in Hawaii? Ah, they don't use Burmuda now, that was just when I was at Goddard for Apollo.

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/services/networks/txt_nen. ...[text shortened]... mage you can call up on your GPS that shows how many satellites are in view? All fake of course.

Get back to refraction of light and how what I posted wasn't anywhere close to true.