I don't want to derail the thread, but I am new to considering the geocentric/fe model. Where can I find opinions about what is beyond the Antarctic ice wall, what's on the other side? I ask because I find that search engines are increasingly biased against these things, maybe I could get some good pointers. Thanks.
This is a good starter:
10:45
https://www.bitchute.com/video/E4yZxHcTtxB3/
There is the International Space Station, which floats in space above the earth.
So then why is so much of the alleged footage from ISS cleary faked? Not necessary if there's actually a real ISS up there.
Yes. That is the point of this thread. Why the fakery? Why would they play Hollywood in a studio somewhere with CGI, harnesses, hair gel, and other nonsense, if they could just film the real astronauts on the space station? It's almost as if there IS no real space station, which is why they have no choice but to fake it...(https://i.imgur.com/tGHzHEA.png)
All this stinks to high heaven.
1) heavy censorship of FE by Google/Youtube/Facebook and Big Tech
2) massive amounts of fraud from NASA (you could look at hours of footage with clearly-demonstrable hoaxing going on)
3) NASA's ties to Satanism and the occult (Parsons->Crowley, Masonry, etc ... and I read an entire book on the subject).
4) closing off Antarctica as if it were some top secret military base ... I saw video of a couple guys who tried to get close in a small boat and were intercepted by a destroyer, and another guy who tried to fly there on a plane and was itercepted by a fighter jet (once escorted to the military base, the commander indicated that they would have shot him down had he not complied and turned around). We need to waste precious resources on patrolling Antarctica and save a couple penguins.
What bothers me, is when people give SOME organizations 500 "passes" for lying, while they give other men and organizations just 1 or 2 passes. Why the inconsistency?It is mind blowing that Catholics sidle up to liars even after they are proven liars. The geocentric globers for instance, know that NASA has lied, but they say that NASA doesn't lie about everything. How do they know that? Why give liars another opportunity to lie to you by believing a single thing they say? Robert Sungenis is one of those Catholics and leads their pack. More interesting about Sungenis however, is that every single science source of his is an evolutionary Big Banger. Is there not some point at which one has to question the rocket scientists? Knowing many of the arguments, Sungenis wrote a tome attempting to shame flat earth. I do believe some people are duped, but others, like Sungenis, I wonder if he isn't a shill for bigger entities. It's not just the globe, Sungenis vigorously defends the notion that Russia was already consecrated and the SSPX are in schism. 3 big strikes, all based on lies.
Imagine if Fr. Pfeiffer, Pope Michael, or the Dimond Brothers claimed to have a Trad Catholic commune of 5,000 souls, but every piece of "evidence" for this place turned out to be horribly fake. Say their scenic photos are found in Google images; several of their scenic photos were screen captures from Lord of the Rings; vast evidence of using CGI/green screens, and many individuals pictured are tracked down, and actually live in subdivisions in other cities throughout the USA. And plenty of other evidence of fakery and chicanery.
How long before you wrote them off as liars and con-men? Would they be given as many "passes" as mainstream-lovers give NASA? I guarantee you they would NOT. For some reason, because NASA is NASA, little boys like rocket ships, exploring the "planets" fires the imagination, a love of sci-fi, boyhood memories of the "moon landings", a love of science from their youth, a love of astronomy, and a host of other reasons -- some men will give NASA a ridiculous latitude to be caught in lies. When faced with such lies, these individuals get hostile and/or plug their ears and sing "lalala I can't hear you..."
But I struggle to come up with an adequate analogy, because in the case of a commune, you'd have Google Earth/Google Maps, possibly an address, and unlike Antarctica, there aren't dozens of countries (many of them enemies to each other!) guarding it with ridiculous quantities of powerful military hardware. So realistically we COULD get in our car and find out the truth about a "mythical Trad Catholic commune" for ourselves. With "outer space" or Antarctica, however, it's outside the reach of most of us to verify it personally.
Knowing many of the arguments, Sungenis wrote a tome attempting to shame flat earth. I do believe some people are duped, but others, like Sungenis, I wonder if he isn't a shill for bigger entities. It's not just the globe, Sungenis vigorously defends the notion that Russia was already consecrated and the SSPX are in schism. 3 big strikes, all based on lies.
Wow, that doesn't look good for Sungenis. Just lost a ton, about 99%, of my respect for him.Yep. I have to wonder, how can someone be squarely on the wrong side of three of the most divisive and important problems leading Catholics into a great apostasy?
What a flaming moron. He might have an IQ, but he completely lacks wisdom.
Wow, that doesn't look good for Sungenis. Just lost a ton, about 99%, of my respect for him.
What a flaming moron. He might have an IQ, but he completely lacks wisdom.
I saw his debate with Rob Skiba regarding flat earth, and Skiba cited references regarding the Hebrew meanings of terms, but Sungenis just kept repeating his understanding of a certain term, despite it having been contradicted by the sources cited. Hendrie's book on Flat Earth exposes how some of Sungenis' arguments were completely dishonest.I saw the debate and everyone watching knew Sungenis was incredibly dishonest, which was devastating for Catholics.
If we're truly living on a globe earth that spins (or even the Geocentric model, where the universe spins around IT), with gravity, curvature, the vacuum of OUTER SPACE, earth-like solid planets and all that --The Moon landings are definitely fishy. I believe that unmanned Apollo spacecraft has actually gone up there and took pictures, as has been observed and tracked by multiple third parties.
Then why don't we go into outer space? We're supposed to have rockets and stuff, right? Even if you acknowledge we never went to the Moon because of the obvious fraud, lack of repetition by any country over a span of 50 years, the suspicious "loss" of the technology to go there, as well as all the evidence we went there (telemetry data, etc.). Let's say the Moon Landings were faked due to the Van Allen Belts which prevent human flesh from going too far away from earth. That's what I believed a year ago.
But now I see it's much worse than that. NASA is a *complete* scam, even Low Earth Orbit activities. They fake everything: rocket launches, humans floating in outer space, the space station, EVERYTHING. Their works are fakery and CGI. Nothing more. They are Astro-NOTs.You choose to believe what you do.
"Mars" looks like Greenland with a red tint applied. I've seen too many scuba diving suits reflected in "astroNOT" helmets -- and air bubbles escaping and rising up. In the vacuum of space. Oh, and countless funny business in Low Earth Orbit: CGI glitches, harnesses, astroNOTs getting caught in their harnesses when trying to do a somersault, dropping a beach ball and having it fall straight down, etc. Any weightlessness that's been filmed has been done using standard aircraft, such as the Vomit Comet.
Why not go into "outer space" then? Because we clearly HAVE NOT gone. It's all been a scam. Why fake it, if it's possible?
They've gone through a LOT of trouble and expense to fake it. To what end?
So, can we try this again? Where is the south magnetic pole and how does a magnetized compass needle point to it if antarctica is a band that wraps around the entire earth? How does the sun float in the air? How does it move in a circle instead of in a normal straight-line ballistic motion? How do satellites stay up without falling down?Very good points, Yeti.
Very good points, Yeti.
It's reasonable to believe it is actually the ISS, and it has exactly the shape and modules that are officially claimed. Now if we take some actual footage from it (click to enlarge to see all the beautiful details):
You can clearly see the straight edges of the solar panels, so the camera is not producing a fisheye effect. Welcome to the globe :)
Very good points, Yeti.
The problem with the ISS is that from the flat Earth perspective, it cannot exist, or it would prove flat Earth wrong.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/368680598853648405/926979382164197426/curvature1.jpg)
You can clearly see the straight edges of the solar panels, so the camera is not producing a fisheye effect. Welcome to the globe :)
So, can we try this again? Where is the south magnetic pole and how does a magnetized compass needle point to it if antarctica is a band that wraps around the entire earth? How does the sun float in the air? How does it move in a circle instead of in a normal straight-line ballistic motion? How do satellites stay up without falling down?
Romans Chapter 11:
[33] O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! [34] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?
Simple explanation: it's CGI fakery. It's a model, imposed over the fake globe earth background. Every apparent photo released by NASA is always a composite -- they even admit as much.
The so-called ISS in the videos must be a small model floating high up using weather balloon technology. Or some other explanation. Because the ISS can't be real:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/why-no-space-travel-not-even-leo/
Remember, there's not one second of footage showing the most monumental construction project since the Pyramids -- the building of the ISS. Consider me suspicious.
Anything produced by NASA is not acceptable as proof. Sorry. Welcome to being a gullible fool if you find them the least credible. It's like accepting in court the testimony of someone who's a known pathological liar and then convicting someone based on his testimony.I see your point. While I don't agree on it, I can accept it as a position.
Any evidence of such realtime fakes of epic complexity being done by all space agencies and companies, apart from some literal video glitches that can be interpreted in certain ways?Yeap! One of Jules Verne's novels is actually "The Green Flash" where he discusses this effect. Erastothenes of Cyrene, 2 centuries before AD made calculations of the curvature based on empirical observations that took him years. I think he didn't have any reason political or not for his conclusions.
Any evidence of the "miniature model on balloons" theory? A very bold claim that the ISS can't exist, but I've explained how you get to that point in your ways of thinking.
Extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.
I see your point. While I don't agree on it, I can accept it as a position.
The good thing is that we don't need NASA at all to prove the globe - remember the agency was only founded some 70 years ago.
But as we are talking about CGI and space agencies, riddle me how they took these high quality LEO pictures back in the 60ies and 70ies, which are consistent with what we are presented today, after 50 years of technological advancement (remember, CGI wasn't even possible in the 60ies, 70ies and most of the 80ies).
- first American to spacewalk: https://www.history.com/.image/c_limit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_1240/MTcyOTkyNDIzNzc1OTcwNTQw/edward-white-nasa-9457842193.webp
- another image view: https://cdn.historycollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/800px-Ed_White_First_American_Spacewalker_-_GPN-2000-001180.jpg
- first rendezvous & docking of two spacecraft in orbit: https://cdn.historycollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Gemini_6_Views_Gemini_7.jpg
- another perspective: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Gemini_7_in_orbit_-_GPN-2006-000035.jpg
- damaged russian Spektr spacecraft, part of the Mir station, after a collision with a Russian "Progress" spacecraft: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Spektr_-_cropped.jpg
- first American to spacewalk without a tether: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/EVAtion_-_GPN-2000-001087.jpg
I chose these pictures because they show a consistent globe, have different sources and predate all kinds of digital image editing, let alone 3D computer graphics (CGI).
But as I said, you don't need NASA to debunk FE at all. Here you see refraction, compression, and a rare green flash sunset going on, with the Sun disappearing below the horizon, not due to perspective, but due to actual spatial obstruction by the curved surface of Earth which the water follows. There is no sound explanation of even a simple sunset by FE whatsoever.
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/5564a47ad5dded3a4f20b358b6c4e0a2.gif)
And don't get me started on the Space Shuttle! That "thing" was about as aerodynamic as a fat bull.It was a fat bull - for the launch and ascent phase, not that much aerodynamics were needed anyway, it was just all engines thrusting at full capacity as the atmosphere gets thinner. The structural load
It was a fat bull - for the launch and ascent phase, not that much aerodynamics were needed anyway, it was just all engines thrusting at full capacity as the atmosphere gets thinner. The structural loadRe entry from space. Laughable. Imagine you're an astronot on a rocket, leaving earth, which according to the heliocentric model is going 67,000 mph. It would take an entire year to catch earth again and only if you waited in the exact right spot for it to come back around. Unless we have a space ship that goes 68,000 mph they never mentioned. This is the nonsense NASA wants us to believe and for some odd reason people are still trying to piece together this corpse of an idea hoping to resurrect portions of it. To include the globe. Neither is there such thing as "orbit". Any man-made thing that goes up, must come down, after the fuel is consumed. Until it comes down, it's fueled. As pointed out before in this thread, fuel operates in earth's atmosphere only, so it's obvious "space" rockets are a lie. It becomes clear how people will be persuaded to believe the Antichrist is god if they are willing to believe pathetic NASA lies.
The real hard and dangerous part was the atmospheric reentry, because the heat tile system was a complicated and quite fragile design with multiple SS failures owed to it. The SS also only had one go at landing, because it was just coming down like a gliding rock with one try at making the perfect landing, there was no go around option.
Neither is there such thing as "orbit". Any man-made thing that goes up, must come down, after the fuel is consumed.
... unless it's something like a gigantic helium balloon. Those too will EVENTUALLY come down, but the newest ones can stay aloft for years.Right, I just considered helium a fuel. The fact that balloons are employed at all, and they are, and that communication systems operate by cable and transmitters, a known fact, the whole idea of satellites is just preposterous.
Behold your "satellites" ...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FAT3f8NwprOk/ (warning: a bit of foul language here ... a fair number F-bombs as the guy sees it "transiting" the moon)
One of the many things I never questioned, until someone brought up the absurdity -- how do you have THRUST -- even if you bring your own oxygen (solid, liquid propellant) with a rocket in the vacuum of space? I've seen rockets work -- on earth. There is AIR to push against, giving you forward momentum or thrust. When there is NOTHING THERE -- a vacuum -- you get no thrust.No, these are just plain wrong. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is?
Do you realize you could detonate a HUGE bomb just 10 feet from a theoretical structure in a vacuum, and no damage would be done? Damage is normally done by a SHOCK WAVE which travels by air. With no air particles in a "vacuum of space" as taught by mainstream science, there would be no damage inflicted. All explosives operate on the principle of extremely-rapidly-expanding air, due to heat, reaching super-sonic levels. But the whole thing needs air.The huge bomb point is wrong too - you only need rapidly expanding / accelerating matter to wreak havoc. It's not a classical "faster than sound" shock wave that's happening, there are multiple kinds of shock waves. As you can see here in this neat little video demonstration:
Re entry from space. Laughable. Imagine you're an astronot on a rocket, leaving earth, which according to the heliocentric model is going 67,000 mph. It would take an entire year to catch earth again and only if you waited in the exact right spot for it to come back around. Unless we have a space ship that goes 68,000 mph they never mentioned. This is the nonsense NASA wants us to believe and for some odd reason people are still trying to piece together this corpse of an idea hoping to resurrect portions of it. To include the globe. Neither is there such thing as "orbit". Any man-made thing that goes up, must come down, after the fuel is consumed. Until it comes down, it's fueled. As pointed out before in this thread, fuel operates in earth's atmosphere only, so it's obvious "space" rockets are a lie. It becomes clear how people will be persuaded to believe the Antichrist is god if they are willing to believe pathetic NASA lies.I'm sorry to say that you're embarassing yourself here, Tradman, as you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
A rocket engine doesn't work by pushing against matter, but by combusting fuel which evaporates gases (remember, a rocket engine produces trust by a constant controlled explosion). These expand out of the engine nozzle and create an opposite thrust vector. There are actually rocket engines which are designed to work better in vaccuum than in a pressurized environment, but that's besides the point.
I'm sorry to say that you're embarassing yourself here, Tradman, as you clearly don't know what you're talking about.That may be what they say, but it is utter nonsense. When you leave the ground you become independent of it and if travelling along at thousands of mph, it will leave you up in the air. But, since the ground doesn't travel anywhere, and rockets don't go into space, convince yourself it's one big travelling circus.
I'd advise you to research frames of reference, inertial systems, and orbital mechanics before you say anything on this topic again.
A rocket leaving Earth moving at 68,000mph retains the same speed ± it's own velocity obviously, also called deltaV.
What actually creates the reentry heat is a spacecraft that orbits Earth and starts entering the atmosphere at very high speeds - still relative to the 68,000mph movement vector - which creates immense friction with the air molecules brushing against the hull.
Also, it's not just NASA. But because you like it so much, here is footage of a reentry, filmed directly from the spacecraft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vmVJKqUFE
Gorgeous CGI, or is it? Oh, here's a Russian spacecraft that is intentionally deorbited and disposed of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR-kJ15i2-4
... unless it's something like a gigantic helium balloon. Those too will EVENTUALLY come down, but the newest ones can stay aloft for years.He filmed a nice weather ballon, that's great. Way to slow for an actual spacecraft, but he filmed a lunar transit, that's great.
Behold your "satellites" ...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FAT3f8NwprOk/ (warning: a bit of foul language here ... a fair number F-bombs as the guy sees it "transiting" the moon)
Also, it's not just NASA. But because you like it so much, here is footage of a reentry, filmed directly from the spacecraft:
Gorgeous CGI, or is it? Oh, here's a Russian spacecraft that is intentionally deorbited and disposed of:
Says NASA and other liars. I don't believe liars. You can believe them with worse-than-blind faith if you wish; I choose not to.
What if there IS no "vacuum of space", as many individuals hold?
That's called BEGGING THE QUESTION.
Again, argument from ignorance. I showed video of a dude testing a rocket engine in his homemade vacuum tube, and it still works:
I'm done arguing here, it is a waste of time.
He filmed a nice weather ballon, that's great.
You can get miniscule amount of thrust do the the equal+opposite reaction principle. No "homemade" vaccuм tube will completely evacuate the tube.
I don't think most people appreciate how different the "rules of the game" are, when there's NO AIR.
Where did you all study vacuum rocket science?Yea, so basic that the necessary means of explosion to propel the bullet or rocket is impossible in a vacuum. You don't have recoil without the explosion.
Jet propulsion simply works based on conservation of momentum. Think of a gun and recoil.
It's very basic mechanics.
Yea, so basic that the necessary means of explosion to propel the bullet or rocket is impossible in a vacuum. You don't have recoil without the explosion.
The surrounding is vaccuum. The rocket carries the oxidant and fuel.That cannot burn without oxygen.
That cannot burn without oxygen.
Thanks, I'll check them out
This is a bit longer and more in depth:
30min 6sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmYRFtY_jfQ
That channel has lots of good vids on FE
As I said, the rocket carries fuel and oxidant. Not sure, what your problem is, replying like you do.Oxidant and fuel will not burn without oxygen because they are inhibited by lack of oxygen. I don't have a problem, lack of enough oxygen is the problem for burning.
Oxidant and fuel will not burn without oxygen because they are inhibited by lack of oxygen. I don't have a problem, lack of enough oxygen is the problem for burning.
, I asked where the southern magnetic pole is and how a magnetic compass needle can always point to the south pole if flatties don't believe there is a south pole;The needle always points north, regardless. Some manufacturers will reverse the red depending on geography.
The surrounding is vaccuum. The rocket carries the oxidant and fuel.
I don't believe that they brought even one man into orbit and back again, alive. This includes Gagarin, Apollo missions, MIR, ISS, and whatever. Main problems are radiation and re-entry.
So you're completely on-board that NASA lies through their teeth. Why are you so averse to the idea they're lying about the shape of the earth as well?
You also quickly answered the question about the age of the earth -- with the correct Catholic answer I should note.
Meanwhile, Stanley N, Dankward (et alia) have NOT yet answered said question.
In 2015, out of nowhere, there were rising Eric Dubay and jeranism, the two main FE shills on youtube and elsewhere. Dubay had supported the view of Sungenis before, as I have docuмented on CI, before he came up as the FE king having published his tract in Nov or Dec of 2014.
Not this crap again. You seem to have a unnatural obsession with Dubay.
In 2015, out of nowhere, there were rising Eric Dubay and jeranism, the two main FE shills on youtube and elsewhere. Dubay had supported the view of Sungenis before, as I have docuмented on CI, before he came up as the FE king having published his tract in Nov or Dec of 2014.I admit I was convinced of the truth of flat earth by Eric Dubay, but so what?
I admit I was convinced of the truth of flat earth by Eric Dubay, but so what?
Do you admit that you were convinced by the "man", or by arguments? In the latter case, which ones?Definitely the arguments. He's not that charismatic, lol.
Definitely the arguments. He's not that charismatic, lol.
What was the most striking proof to me was the countless examples of people being able to see much further than 3 miles out at sea level(which is the distance predicted by the globe earth model). Also, when you look out across a body of water, it is clearly level and rises to meet the eye line of the observer, which is what universally happens along flat surfaces.
Congrats! What about the position of the Church?Not sure what you mean.
Not sure what you mean.
As far as I know, the Church takes no official position on the shape of the earth.
In 2015, out of nowhere, there were rising Eric Dubay and jeranism, the two main FE shills on youtube and elsewhere. Dubay had supported the view of Sungenis before, as I have docuмented on CI, before he came up as the FE king having published his tract in Nov or Dec of 2014.
Do we even know that in space there is a vacuum, no trace amounts of oxygen at all?
You also quickly answered the question about the age of the earth -- with the correct Catholic answer I should note.I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.
Meanwhile, Stanley N, Dankward (et alia) have NOT yet answered said question.
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.
Some examples, non-exhaustive list:
- old starlight, up to millions of lightyears away
- age of meteorites that collide with Earth
- old ice cores in Antarctica (800,000 years at least)
- age rocks and sediments using various dating methods, e.g. radiometric
- old fossils and cadavers dated using radiocarbon methods (only goes back ~50,000 years)
- old trees (tens of thousands of years old)
- etc.
Am I disagreeing with Holy Scripture? No. Even St. Augustine held the belief that the "days" of Genesis didn't refer to 24h periods.
Am I disagreeing with Holy Scripture? No. Even St. Augustine held the belief that the "days" of Genesis didn't refer to 24h periods.You're right, he didn't. He posited that they were seven subsequent instances instead, far shorter than 24 hour periods.
I admit I was convinced of the truth of flat earth by Eric Dubay, but so what?
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.I think the lightyears concept is false. When any one sees starlight it is current to that time, not from lightyears or lightyears away. It may be far but it is a simple measure of distance away at a time, also as that part of the 24 hour cycle, and the stars all rotate around the Earth in 24 hours. When Sirius is up in the sky and going around, it is right then at that time that the light transmission is and is seen. The lightyears idea is illogical and heliocentric. The way time works, the past has been dismissed and is being dismissed even from moment to moment. Time is current to now and so is the light.
Some examples, non-exhaustive list:
- old starlight, up to millions of lightyears away
- age of meteorites that collide with Earth
- old ice cores in Antarctica (800,000 years at least)
- age rocks and sediments using various dating methods, e.g. radiometric
- old fossils and cadavers dated using radiocarbon methods (only goes back ~50,000 years)
- old trees (tens of thousands of years old)
- etc.
Am I disagreeing with Holy Scripture? No. Even St. Augustine held the belief that the "days" of Genesis didn't refer to 24h periods.
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.
Some examples, non-exhaustive list:
Am I disagreeing with Holy Scripture? No. Even St. Augustine held the belief that the "days" of Genesis didn't refer to 24h periods.
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.
Some examples, non-exhaustive list:
- old starlight, up to millions of lightyears away
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.
Some examples, non-exhaustive list:
- age rocks and sediments using various dating methods
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.
Some examples, non-exhaustive list:
- age rocks and sediments using various dating methods, e.g. radiometric dating
- old fossils and cadavers dated using radiocarbon methods (only goes back ~50,000 years)
I accept the evidence we have for an old universe.Just googled what is the age of the oldest tree on earth. The answer:
Some examples, non-exhaustive list:
- old trees (tens of thousands of years old)
Day 4: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth, to rule the day and the night and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the fourth day. God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
I think the lightyears concept is false. When any one sees starlight it is current to that time, not from lightyears or lightyears away. It may be far but it is a simple measure of distance away at a time, also as that part of the 24 hour cycle, and the stars all rotate around the Earth in 24 hours. When Sirius is up in the sky and going around, it is right then at that time that the light transmission is and is seen. The lightyears idea is illogical and heliocentric. The way time works, the past has been dismissed and is being dismissed even from moment to moment. Time is current to now and so is the light.Light is a wave and a particle which travels through a distance through space over a time.
As to space, rockets have only so much capacity and the capacity of the Saturn V was hugely exaggerated. Communist China and ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA can't reach the moon with any rocket. In the City of God, St. Augustine wrote about deceiving spirits and the power of deceiving spirits, etc., and JPL and NASA are both Satanically influenced, i.e., they are communicating deceptions and are in the service of deceiving spirits.
Light is a wave and a particle which travels through a distance through space over a time.
Light is a wave and a particle which travels through a distance through space over a time.
Its speed can be measured accurately. We also know the distance to the stars and thus can find out how ling it takes for light to arrive at an observer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement
A wave is a movement of a medium. Nothing doesn't move. To say otherwise, like physicist do since 1905, is simply nonsensical.
So here we have one more 'Croix'.
Other flat earthers, like Ladislaus, chuck up if I mention Dubay. They prefer Lady Elizabeth Anne Mould Blount.
A wave is a movement of a medium. Nothing doesn't move. To say otherwise, like physicist do since 1905, is simply nonsensical.Light / EM waves are not just a mechanical wave like sound.
Yes, the speed of light can be measured. The distance of stars cannot be measured. Given Einstein's lot says heliocentrism and geocentrism cannot be confirmed by science, then the distance of stars, calculated only by the heliocentric method, is mere speculation.Not all distance measurements depends on the heliocentric model.
Not all distance measurements depends on the heliocentric model.
Stellar parallax would also happen in a geocentric universe, but it still allows for distance calculations due to the parallax.
Redshift of starlight also works.
There are more methods which are quite interesting, perhaps you want to look them up.
Well actually it doesn't show a flat earth.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/v2.jpg)
And then the globers try to pass this off as proof of curvature, even though this guy was at 1/3 the elevation as the V-2 rocket.Well, this is obviously a fisheye lens and doesn't prove anything as such.
(https://img.redbull.com/images/c_crop,w_3000,h_1500,x_0,y_0,f_auto,q_auto/c_scale,w_1200/redbullcom/2012/12/21/1331580141147_1/red-bull-stratos-mission-attempt)
Well, this is obviously a fisheye lens and doesn't prove anything as such.
But, if we know the camera which took the image, we can correct for barrel distortion (usually fisheye distortion).
Using Adobe Lightroom for example.
Some interesting info here:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Lens+Distortion+and+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth#H_Lens_Correction
So we can take a distorted image and correct the lens distortion to get an undistorted image to see the actual, geometric curvature (shape) in a photo.
Here's an earth curve simulator.We need a horizontal reference in your picture or it will not be evidence of how the horizon behaves relative to altitude of an observer. I'm afraid no such thing exists, and that the camera is actually angled down slightly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08-YbvOCwGw
Let's compare what the eye level would look like at ground level vs. what it would be at 120,000 feet, which is the altitude from which Baumgertner made the Red Bull jump. Screenshots below are taken from the simulator above.
(https://i.ibb.co/0JgqdSx/eyelevel.png)
Now let's compare the view from within Baumgertner's capsule when he was down on earth and then when he was up at 128,000 feet (my earlier screenshot was from 120,000 ... so giving him a bit of an edge here).
(https://i.ibb.co/m88xcCM/baum.png)
So this little clip from about 2:40 - 2:45 in the video had me laughing out loud as I watched it repeatedly.Okay, now I am going to show my "guilty pleasures." The soundtrack sounds almost exactly from Sid Meier's (yes, I know, name gives him away) Civilization Beyond Earth strategy game.
[https://www.facebook.com/LoveTruth1035/videos/1920035241625563]
It won't embed, so you have to copy the link and paste it in.
So this little clip from about 2:40 - 2:45 in the video had me laughing out loud as I watched it repeatedly.
[https://www.facebook.com/LoveTruth1035/videos/1920035241625563]
It won't embed, so you have to copy the link and paste it in.
We need a horizontal reference in your picture or it will not be evidence of how the horizon behaves relative to altitude of an observer. I'm afraid no such thing exists, and that the camera is actually angled down slightly.