Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: turbonium1
How high do you think this barrier is?

A commercial passenger plane flies so high it seems really tiny and the space station is like 34 times the distance of that and you can't see it during the day but it can be seen at night.

Why wouldn't they be able to shoot a rocket straight up until it disappears without hitting the barrier?

We have satellites orbiting Earth that can take a photo of a pimple on Madonna's butt, yet we still can't get an Apollo landing site pic other than that Clementine photo with that stupid dot that could be anything?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: turbonium1
It was already explained. Small project, less than 100 meters long, the effect of the curvature is 6/100ths of an inch and there is a margin of 1 inch, those 6/100ths are insignificant.

Say you are placing utility poles every 50 meters and you measure for each one. The effect of the curvature is 3/100ths but the road side rises and dips a few yards at each spot, those 3/100ths are insignificant and you can can go for tens of miles like that.

Honestly, it seems you just don't have the imagination to grasp how these things work. Probably less than 1% of projects actually need the type of accuracy where the curvature needs to be taken into account.

Ignoring it doesn't make sense, that's the point. They account for what IS there, no matter how 'insignificant' it may be. Why wouldn't they? If they know a curvature of 4/100th of an inch is there, why would it be ignored? They KNOW it's there, so why not account for it? And what about inches of 'curvature'? Why would it be ignored. as if it's not even there?

You're claiming 'curvature' exists, has a known rate of curvature, but it's ignored completely, and they assume the surface is flat!

Having a known rate of 'curvature', they ignore it, and just assume it's flat, while knowing that it's not flat!

What a joke!

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: turbonium1
How high do you think this barrier is?

A commercial passenger plane flies so high it seems really tiny and the space station is like 34 times the distance of that and you can't see it during the day but it can be seen at night.

Why wouldn't they be able to shoot a rocket straight up until it disappears without hitting the barrier?

That's what would prove it, so why don't they do it? That's the whole problem. They can prove it's true, but they don't, so why would they refuse to prove it to the world, and settle the issue, once and for all!


They cannot do it, that's why they won't EVER do it! Easy as that. Everyone knows it's easy to prove, so when they don't even try it once, it's because they CAN'T do it even once!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

To send rockets directly upward, and see if they keep flying up and up, until a mere speck in the skies, or if they hit a barrier while in our sight, and spin off sideways.

What a waste of resources that would be. Just as with the laser gyro, there would be yet more excuses.

That would prove what is true, and what is false, once and for all, right?

Once and for all, the world is round and there is no "firmament." There is, however, an ionosphere.

Then why don't they prove it, and send rockets straight up, to prove us wrong, once and for all? To say, space is really endless, no firmament exists, and all of us have seen it, with our own eyes, many times now!


You make up lame excuses, instead.

Every major space agency has sent rockets up. No firmament exists. It's a tissue of tosh from religious documents that are based around non-science.
How on earth has this nonsensical thread kept going this long? Oh yes, Turbo's lies.

originally posted by: turbonium1
If they know a curvature of 4/100th of an inch is there, why would it be ignored?

Because they have a much greater margin than that amount. It makes that amount insignificant.

If you can place a post 1 inch higher or lower you adjust that instead of of worrying about 4/100ths of an inch because of the curvature but honestly you don't even really have to do that because it is such a small amount.

You do realize how much 4/100ths actually is, don't you?

When Von Braun saw his rockets hit the firmament, he knew it was true. He was so moved by it, he referenced a passage from the Bible, on his tombstone, which specifically mentions the firmament as God's handiwork.

a reply to: turbonium1

When Von Braun saw his rockets hit the firmament,

When did that happen?

a reply to: turbonium1

They do prove it. They p;rove it all the time. Theproblerm is that the dumbasses of the world refuse to accept anything that counts as proof, fabricate delusional nnsense, dismiss everyhing they don't understand as lies and generally deny the reality that's in front of them.

NASA, ISRO, ROSCOSMOS, JAXA, all of them, don't need to prove the Earth is a globe. They don't send rockets up to prove it's a globe. They send rockets up because it's a globe. They use the fact of it to get their rockets up there. Your failure to grasp basic physics and the evidence of your eyes is of no concern to them.

a reply to: turbonium1

Yes, it's you. You claimed it wasn't taught, I provided you with links to learning resources proving you wrong. You're still making that claim. That makes you a liar.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

They do prove it. They p;rove it all the time. Theproblerm is that the dumbasses of the world refuse to accept anything that counts as proof, fabricate delusional nnsense, dismiss everyhing they don't understand as lies and generally deny the reality that's in front of them.

NASA, ISRO, ROSCOSMOS, JAXA, all of them, don't need to prove the Earth is a globe. They don't send rockets up to prove it's a globe. They send rockets up because it's a globe. They use the fact of it to get their rockets up there. Your failure to grasp basic physics and the evidence of your eyes is of no concern to them.

No, they fly rockets out of sight, over the ocean, where they all crash down.

Proof is to send rockets straight up, and see what happens, and proves this true, or a lie, and you know that it does.

That's very easy to do, but they'll never do it, because it would prove that they're liars, to the whole world.


All you can do is make up excuses for NOT proving this is true, because it's a complete lie. What a complete fraud this is. It's about time they showed us that they're not a pack of liars, isn't it?

a reply to: turbonium1

where they all crash down.

Prove it.
Granted, the first stages usually do so (Space X usually recovers them in a very cool manner).

It's about time they showed us that they're not a pack of liars, isn't it?

They (nor many others) care about "you." "You" are a joke and the world laughs.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Yes, it's you. You claimed it wasn't taught, I provided you with links to learning resources proving you wrong. You're still making that claim. That makes you a liar.

Where do they mention it's rate of curvature in their books, if you aren't lying about it?

So that is not taught, then?

originally posted by: AncientHeru
lunar meteorites have been found on the earth so its not a big deal.

It's a big deal when people present false claims as fact. You're claiming neutrality and indifference despite everything you post on this subject contradicting that supposed stance. Like many before you you're claiming to be 'just asking questions' but you really aren't interested in the answers.

How do you think they know they are lunar in origin? When was the first lunar meteorite confirmed? How many kg of them are there? How come you're prepared to accept scientific conclusions of a meteorite's origins when you do not approve of the scientiiic method and have no first hand experience of them?

a reply to: turbonium1

You are the laziest troll out there.



surveyorconnect.com...

civilengineering-softstudies.com...

www.aboutcivil.org...

It's all BS.

They claim to account for 'curvature' for long highways, but have no proof of that. Show me all their documents for a highway, that mentions how 'curvature' was account for in it!

Still waiting for you to show me where they mention the rate of 'curvature' too, I'm sure they all knew it before they build those long highways, to 'account for it'!


Making up BS is not a problem, until you have to actually PROVE that it's not all BS, isn't it?

a reply to: turbonium1

Please stop lying. That's all you have now. Lie after lie after lie. You've been refuted so many times that it's no longer funny, it's just the pathetic wails of a refuted liar.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

No, you wouldn't. Direct north is the exact center point of Earth, so everywhere opposite of the center is to the south, where they claim there is an 'uninhabited' continent called 'Antarctica'.

How on a flat earth fantasy that doesn’t spin.

The ball Earth should have two magnetic poles, one in the north, and one in the south. But as we know, there's only ONE magnetic center, at the direct north point of Earth - which fits the flat Earth model, but NOT the ball Earth model.

What is a magnet center? Please define.

The earth has a magnetic field. It has a north and South Pole. Like a magnet.

Why does the earth have a magnetic field. And how would that be possible without a north and South Pole in the context of a magnetic field?

www.britannica.com...

Magnetic pole, region at each end of a magnet where the external magnetic field is strongest. A bar magnet suspended in Earth’s magnetic field orients itself in a north–south direction. The north-seeking pole of such a magnet, or any similar pole, is called a north magnetic pole. The south-seeking pole, or any pole similar to it, is called a south magnetic pole. Unlike poles of different magnets attract each other; like poles repel each other.

What creates Earth’s magnetic field?

Travelling to see the Northern or Southern lights has made its way into almost everyone’s bucket list. But unknown to most, these beautiful displays of light are caused by dangerous cosmic rays that have been deflected by our Earth’s magnetic field.

Magnetic fields around planets behave in the same way as a bar magnet. But at high temperatures, metals lose their magnetic properties. So it’s clear that Earth’s hot iron core isn’t what creates the magnetic field around our planet.

Instead, Earth’s magnetic field is caused by a dynamo effect.

The effect works in the same way as a dynamo light on a bicycle. Magnets in the dynamo start spinning when the bicycle is pedalled, creating an electric current. The electricity is then used to turn on the light.

This process also works in reverse. If you have a rotating electric current, it will create a magnetic field.

On Earth, flowing of liquid metal in the outer core of the planet generates electric currents. The rotation of Earth on its axis causes these electric currents to form a magnetic field which extends around the planet.

The magnetic field is extremely important to sustaining life on Earth. Without it, we would be exposed to high amounts of radiation from the Sun and our atmosphere would be free to leak into space.


cosmosmagazine.com...

The fact the earth has a magnetic field just proves the earth spins, and flat earth is a lie.


Again. Spherical earth provides practical and usable knowledge and technology, flat earth explains nothing practical.

Now. In the flat earth fantasy. It is clear on the map of flat earth you would have to travel east from Africa to get to Antarctica relative to north south in North America. Is that false? The flat earth map is a lie.

HAHA!!

We're back to orbit is straight up... dude is thick as a brick wall

Turbo is a Disney cartoon... lol

These people take the word of the bible and interpret it literally, despite that when the various books were written less than 20% of the Earth was known to them. They were ignorant scribes and they wrote about what they saw and tried to describe how what they saw came to be. What we know now is infinitely more rich in detail and data, almost all of it backed up with experimental research and evidence.

Today, it is utterly laughable and pitiful that people with a modern education still have the same basic view of the world and its beginnings than those same ignorant scribes.

As a side note, I'm not using the term 'ignorant' derogatorily, I'm using it in its literal form within the context of modern common knowledge.