Pretty Dots In The Firmament {!)

[poptart]

pops believes that it's much more plausible that multiple (often warring) governments, throughout their revolutions and various regimes, have, for 500 years, been actively engaged in a conspiracy to actively disprove the Bible (this includes the Vatican), without so much as one person spilling the beans...

This is a predictably gross misrepresentation of what I believe.

If this misrepresentation soothes your mind, go ahead and meditate on it.
I really don't care.

But you should know that Matt Boylan (former NASA employee) did come out and talk in recent times.
He has not been received well.


I would actually recommend that instead of meditating on half-cocked misrepresentations of what an anonymous message boarder thinks, you would meditate on a question instead.
Would be healthier for you.

We've supposedly been space-stationing now for 40 years.
There are currently supposedly about 1,100 satellites up in space.

Meditate on why the ISS never shows any satellite as it moves around the earth.
They have an endless amount of video of what they are doing, and it must be fairly routine for a satellite to come into their field of vision.

But never.
Never.

In fact, in over 40 years, there still to date is not a SINGLE real pic of any satellite.

Google and find your satellite pictures, Dunce.
lol

How can it be that there are -----> NONE.

Does this even make a bit of sense to you?


Why is this?

Meditate, Duncedale.

[smackaholic]

If you go outside on a very clear night in an area with little light pollution and look into the sky, you can actually see satellites. Look for stars that are moving that have no flashing lights. All high flying aircraft have flashing lights. If you can see it move across the sky, and it doesn't flash, it is a satellite.

[mvscal]

But you should know that Matt Boylan (former NASA employee) did come out and talk in recent times.
He has not been received well.

Because he's a crackpot lunatic. Just like you. Let me know when he's got something besides talk.

What part of circumnavigation are you still struggling to comprehend? Course, heading and speed all logged for the entire voyage. It's documented and repeatable. You cannot set sail due west and arrive back at your home port from the east on a flat earth.

You are an ignorant, mentally fucked up moron. It can't be said enough.

[Goober McTuber]

poptart, you are an ignorant, mentally fucked up moron.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Not sure why pop thought such photos had never been taken, but they are common.

If you post evidence provided by the very source that tart claims is fraudulent (NASA), then you aren't going to get anywhere with him. You get this, right? All you're doing is feeding into the Circle of Dumbassery (CAD):

tart says something doesn't exist ----> board shows evidence of its existence ----> tart claims it is fake.

On and on and on it goes. Each of you participating in this exercise are exhibiting your own small level of mental illness.

If you tell someone that 2+2=4 and they dismiss it on the basis of a flawed model, then there is nothing left you can do except pat them lightly on the head and walk away.

[Left Seater]

Circle the globe N-S going over both poles, and I would believe the earth is a sphere.

Finally, an answer. Thank you.

Lefty, are there flights that do this? If not, could such a flight be chartered?

There isn't a regularly scheduled flight for this. A flight path could easily be set up to do this. There currently isn't a commercial aircraft that could make the trip without refueling, but the trip could easily be done.

There was a flight a decade ago or so that did a similar type of thing. I will see if I can find info on it.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

These aren't NASA photos.

So what? The field goal posts can easily be moved. If the photos are real, then the satellites are fake. Thus the circle continues.

I'm not sure you fully understand what you're dealing with here.

[Diego in Seattle]

[Dinsdale]

Poptard, you keep citing the view of Toronto from 30 miles away as "proof." The problem is your horribly flawed geometry.

Rather than continue to join the well-deserved pile-on (OK, I lied -- I'll certainly continue), let me help where your junior high teachers failed:

Looking across a body of water at a point 30 miles (measured over the curve of the Earth)... let's even use your (quite incorrect) formula for Earth's curvature (and we'll even fudge the numbers in your favor)...

Let's call our location across from Toronto "Point A." Toronto will be "Point C." The halfway point (on the curve) will be "Point B." Our line-of-sight is between Point A and Point C.

From Point A, go 1 mile towards Point B. The curve has gone UP 8"(according to your incorrect formula), down our line-of-sight. We're not looking for Toronto on the surface of the Moon, right... we're looking down the line-of-sight. There's a "bump" in between.

Now, let's go one more mile towards Point B. The horizon just ROSE a bit LESS than 8". We're at 15" or less of RISE.

Let's do this 15 times, until we get to Point B. Point B is the apex of the arc, and is what is blocking the view of Toronto (Point C).


And Point B is well under 10 feet above the line-of-sight. Add about 5 feet for the level of the camera, and this rise becomes 6 feet or less.

But there's a catch -- Lake Erie is a large body of water, and is thus subject to tidal influence and wind-waves. The swells at Point B further occlude the view of Toronto.


BASIC FUCKING GEOMETRY (which none of your linked-to loons seem to grasp, or are intentionally playing parlor tricks) tells us that only the lowest few feet of Toronto's skyline should be occluded by the curvature of the Earth.

Not hundreds or thousands of feet... again, BASIC FUCKING GEOMETRY. It's not that complicated for anyone who got at least a D in junior high school math.

A few feet.


So sorry you had to have your latest moonbat "theory" so clearly thrashed this way.

[Moving Sale]

(which none of your linked-to loons seem to grasp, or are intentionally playing parlor tricks)

No it's in there. I know he posted a lot of stuff but it's in there.
And WTF is "only the lowest few feet" would be obscured? If it is basic math give us a number. You know what a nimber is right dims? Most people learned them BEFORE first GRADE.

[Dinsdale]

If it is basic math give us a number.

Which minute?

What are the swells on Lake Erie at that exact moment?

Obviously, my post, like most things in this world, was over your head.


Yup, you failed again.

The number will usually be well under 20 feet.

[Moving Sale]

Let's go with 5 ft swells.

[pron]

rank 'em

Staying with the space theme .....




1 4 3 2 5

[Dinsdale]

Let's go with 5 ft swells.

Wayyyyy too lazy to do the math. Using pop's (incorrect) formula, a rough estimate is 12-13 feet.

[Diego in Seattle]

Let's go with 5 ft swells.

Wayyyyy too lazy to do the math. Using pop's (incorrect) formula, a rough estimate is 12-13 feet.

Let's use 30 ft swells.

-Gordon Lightfoot

[Diego in Seattle]

Holy fenders, Batman!

[atmdad]

I had something to say but I got sidetracked there...

that gal with the necklace has small boobs.

sin/MA

[poptart]

And for photos from earth of the ISS, just google "amateur photos of the ISS" and look at the image results. Not sure why pop thought such photos had never been taken, but they are common.

When did I ever say that there were not such pics?

Oh...

Never.

[poptart]

I am discussing actual proof.

You have IGNORED actual proof over and over, you lying retard.

[poptart]

Poptard, you keep citing the view of Toronto from 30 miles away as "proof." The problem is your horribly flawed geometry.

Rather than continue to join the well-deserved pile-on (OK, I lied -- I'll certainly continue), let me help where your junior high teachers failed:

Looking across a body of water at a point 30 miles (measured over the curve of the Earth)... let's even use your (quite incorrect) formula for Earth's curvature (and we'll even fudge the numbers in your favor)...

Let's call our location across from Toronto "Point A." Toronto will be "Point C." The halfway point (on the curve) will be "Point B." Our line-of-sight is between Point A and Point C.

From Point A, go 1 mile towards Point B. The curve has gone UP 8"(according to your incorrect formula), down our line-of-sight. We're not looking for Toronto on the surface of the Moon, right... we're looking down the line-of-sight. There's a "bump" in between.

Now, let's go one more mile towards Point B. The horizon just ROSE a bit LESS than 8". We're at 15" or less of RISE.

Let's do this 15 times, until we get to Point B. Point B is the apex of the arc, and is what is blocking the view of Toronto (Point C).


And Point B is well under 10 feet above the line-of-sight. Add about 5 feet for the level of the camera, and this rise becomes 6 feet or less.

But there's a catch -- Lake Erie is a large body of water, and is thus subject to tidal influence and wind-waves. The swells at Point B further occlude the view of Toronto.


BASIC FUCKING GEOMETRY (which none of your linked-to loons seem to grasp, or are intentionally playing parlor tricks) tells us that only the lowest few feet of Toronto's skyline should be occluded by the curvature of the Earth.

Not hundreds or thousands of feet... again, BASIC FUCKING GEOMETRY. It's not that complicated for anyone who got at least a D in junior high school math.

A few feet.


So sorry you had to have your latest moonbat "theory" so clearly thrashed this way.

This is truly incredible.

Are you honestly coming in here to claim to be the smart man, telling me that over 15 miles, the earth curvature is less than 10 feet?


THINK, Duncedale, THINK!!

CN Tower, is 1,800 ft tall.



It is 250 miles (as the crow flies) from CN Tower to Pittsburgh.

By advanced Duncedale math (10 ft of curvature over 15 miles distance) only 167 ft of CN Tower would be under the horizon if we traveled away 250 miles to Pittsburgh.

In Pittsburgh, a person can see 90% of CN Tower, according to advanced Duncedale math.

rotf...

In fact, according to advanced Duncedale math, we would have to travel all the way to Venezuela, South America before the entire tower would finally be hidden from our view.


Get with the program.
You won't look like such a total fool next time.

The earth curvature rate on your ball earth model is slightly less than 8" per mile squared.

The rate of curvature on a sphere COMPOUNDS.

See the diagram and -----> THINK about a sphere!



Notice how the rate of curvature naturally increases as you move further from your target?
Notice how line 2 is longer than line 1?
Yes, says a child of 6.
lol

It is 8" for the first mile, or 8" x 1 = 8"
For the 2nd mile, it is 8" x 2 x 2 = 32"
For the 3rd mile, it is 8" x 3 x 3 = 72"
etc...

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

Over 30 miles, there is 600 ft of curvature -- from an eye height of 0 ft.
If we are at 6ft eye height, there would be 486 ft of curvature.



This was all covered and known (should have been) on this board over 2 months ago.

[atmdad]

Get with the program.
You won't look like such a total fool next time.

The earth curvature rate on your ball earth model is slightly less than 8" per mile squared.

The rate of curvature on a sphere COMPOUNDS.

See the diagram and -----> THINK about a sphere!



Notice how the rate of curvature naturally increases as you move further from your target?
Notice how line 2 is longer than line 1?

You really should have a better understanding of these terms before you try to discuss them. You do realize that the curvature of a circle or sphere is constant. You have used the phrase "rate of curvature" on several times lately. Everyone who has taken a first year course in calculus, whether they remember or not, was taught that if you refer to a rate of something you are talking about the first derivative of some function with respect to some variable. The first derivative of a constant is zero. So your statement "The rate of curvature on a sphere COMPOUNDS" is a gross FAIL.

Since you have failed so miserably on this basic concept in the thesis of your proof it is a waste of time to further read what you have presented.

[Dinsdale]

A couple of things (that I can't believe I have to explain)...

The Earth curvature creates a "bump" in your line of sight. The closer you get to the halfway point of the line-of-sight (apex of the "bump), the less height increase the curvature causes... you know, kind of the exact opposite of your math... unless you're looking for the top of the CNN Tower in outer space (excuse me... in the "Firmament"). Why would you be looking up at an angle for something that's directly across from you?

And you take a number and square it to get the rate of curvature? Really?

That's what you're going with?

Because back when I took (and even passed) junior high math, that forms a parabola when graphed... no section of which ever forms an arc of a circle.

There's yet another basic math FAIL you've made (or yet another idiot on the internet you bought into, big shocker).

[Jay in Phoenix]

To follow up on Jsc's pictures of satellites from Earth and in response to poptart's question of why are there photos available of satellites in space, the answer is relatively simple.

There ARE a lot if images, but you need to go looking for them. Sometimes they are not available on the public internet. A lot of images are paid for by companies using them to find oil or whatever. Others are spy satellite images that are military secrets. Owners of the images don't have to just give them away on the internet if they don't want to, just like you are not required to post all your snapshots online for all to see.

Pretty basic stuff.

[Dinsdale]

I'm interested in pop's explanation of how Google Satellite View works, what with there being no satellites and all.

[Moving Sale]

Dims,
Yes we get it, pop is not explaining it correctly at all times, but YOU are still stuck with the math that actually works which is not what you are purporting. As you have been told, the answer isn't that these places are not below the horizon, because in many of pop's cases they are below the horizon. The answer is Ferment's principle. I know you only made it to 12th grade math because you never went to college and feel a need to pimp 12th grade math (wrongly), but please just stop. It's embarrassing.

[Jay in Phoenix]

MS, a very simple question or two.

Do you believe as poptart that the Earth MAY be flat but is definitely not round?

Do you believe that satellites are in orbit around the Earth?

[Moving Sale]

Nobody actually thinks its round. Do they?

You get that people's conclusions can be right but their evidence in support is not correct. Right? In this case i find it interesting that people are saying things about math and whatnot that is just not true. That doesnt make the earth flat.

As for satellites, I hear there are satellites, but I have never seen one, but I have never looked so that probably explains that.

[Dinsdale]

I know you only made it to 12th grade math because you never went to college

You "know" this?

I guess you claim to "know" a lot of things. And you're equally as wrong about those things.

Whatever creepy spreadsheet you're using, it's none too accurate.

You might update it to "never got a college degree."

[Moving Sale]

if you got an AA from the local CC then what is your excuse for sounding like such a dumbass?

[Dinsdale]

if you got an AA from the local CC then what is your excuse for sounding like such a dumbass?

The guy who is completely unfamiliar with punctuation says someone "sounding like a dumbass"...


Cute.

[Moving Sale]

if you got an AA from the local CC then what is your excuse for sounding like such a dumbass?

The guy who is completely unfamiliar with punctuation says someone "sounding like a dumbass"...


Cute.

Way too. Take the, easy way? Out and comp"letely ignore the topic% @ hand£
Nice~job putz•

[poptart]

Since you have failed so miserably on this basic concept in the thesis of your proof it is a waste of time to further read what you have presented.

LMAO!

I presented 2+ months ago that in your model, the earth curves at 8" per mile squared.

And you're still not going to acknowledge it?






Whatever, dude.

[poptart]

Dims,
Yes we get it, pop is not explaining it correctly at all times, but YOU are still stuck with the math that actually works which is not what you are purporting. As you have been told, the answer isn't that these places are not below the horizon, because in many of pop's cases they are below the horizon. The answer is Ferment's principle. I know you only made it to 12th grade math because you never went to college and feel a need to pimp 12th grade math (wrongly), but please just stop. It's embarrassing.

Yes, classic Duncedale here.

Despite presenting to the board his math equation showing that if a person travels 250 miles to Pittsburgh, he would still be able to see 90% of CN Tower (BWAAAAA HAHAHAHA!), he acts as if he is wise -- and that the FACTS I have presented are somehow wrong.

Total idiot.

[poptart]

To follow up on Jsc's pictures of satellites from Earth...

He didn't post any pics of satellites, you stupid lying fuck.
He posted pics of the ISS.

[poptart]

I'm interested in pop's explanation of how Google Satellite View works, what with there being no satellites and all.

I'm interested in how you imagine that the earth curves just 10 ft in 15 miles.

[poptart]

Explain this futher, Duncedale.

Please.


GO...

[poptart]

In this case i find it interesting that people are saying things about math and whatnot that is just not true. That doesnt make the earth flat.

Right on, right on.

Get your shit together people.

[poptart]

Sorry, pop, I'm not getting into that. Your "proof" is a mere argument, and a poor one at that.

What's your explanation for things being seen WELL above the horizon, when by your model, they have to be WELL under the horizon?



You're going to use some Duncedale razzle dazzle math and really show us?



Or just call me names and pretend that what anyone can see is really not seen?

[poptart]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

Scroll down to Distance to the Horizon -- and then down a bit more where we have Objects above the horizon.

-- To compute the greatest distance at which an observer can see the top of an object above the horizon, compute the distance to the horizon for a hypothetical observer on top of that object, and add it to the real observer's distance to the horizon. For example, for an observer with a height of 1.70 m standing on the ground, the horizon is 4.65 km away. For a tower with a height of 100 m, the horizon distance is 35.7 km. Thus an observer on a beach can see the top of the tower as long as it is not more than 40.35 km away. --


If someone is 5'7" tall, the distance to the horizon is 2.9 miles.
A tower is 328 ft tall.
The tower would sink completely below the horizon for the person when he reached 25 miles away from it.

That's 328 ft of earth curvature in 25 miles, Duncedale.
For someone 5'7" tall.




10 ft of curvature in 15 miles

- Dunce

[poptart]

Rather than continue to join the well-deserved pile-on (OK, I lied -- I'll certainly continue), let me help where your junior high teachers failed:

- Dunce