Is Our Earth FLAT and Motionless, Not a Spinning Globe?

[gsjackson]

@gsjackson

What I said in my most recent post was true, Winston did ignore my response and proceed on as normal. At least he didn't go and again say the specific points I disproved, but that's not saying much.

The normal explanation of why objects are cooler when out of shade is that the heat they radiate can go farther without some of it bouncing off an obstacle and returning to rewarm the object. Moonlight would have nothing to do with it. It seems like a reasonable enough explanation to me. Certainly a lot more reasonable than assuming the earth is suddenly flat and all of cosmology is a hoax.

Well, you're civil. I commend you for that. But you do understand, don't you, that whether or not you've "disproved" anything is a matter of opinion? I, for one, can't make heads or tails out of your "debunkings." "...the heat they radiate can go farther without some of it bouncing off an obstacle and returning to rewarm the object." Huh??

[Aron]

@gsjackson

I should probably use an image so it's easier to understand.


Basically it's going to be cooler already when you put something out of the shade during the night. So if you really want to prove moonlight hitting objects somehow removes heat from them you'd have to control for that variable.

[Neo]

Debating such topics is useless. Either a person is able to accept it readily after their own investigation, or not. There is no need to beat a dead horse.

[Cornfed]

Basically it's going to be cooler already when you put something out of the shade during the night. So if you really want to prove moonlight hitting objects somehow removes heat from them you'd have to control for that variable.

I've never done the experiment myself, but presumably it is just a case of putting on thermometer in shadow and one in the moonlight on a clear night.

[Aron]

@Cornfed

I know they work that way, and that's the problem. They don't control for radiative cooling, letting Flat Earthers assume any temperature loss is due to moonlight.

[Moretorque]

Why would you bother with this thread ? we all know the earth is a triangle...

[Winston]

More funny flat earth themes for you all to ponder, enjoy and laugh at.

[Aron]

@Winston

The reason you can take pictures of satellites is probably that they just have another satellite in synchronized orbit or take pictures when other satellite orbits are going to synch up.

The last meme you posted there contradicts the earlier ones which admit there are photos of satellites.

Lastly, you ignored all the countering evidence again, it removes a lot of the point of the thread if you are not going to respond to anyone who disagrees with you.

[Pinayhunter]

The sun’s not what we’ve been told.

Sun caught shining through the firmament and circling above Earth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrcIWqGI-uE

Looks like the sun’s reflecting off some glass dome above. Also notice how the sun changes in diameter and moves through an arc as it rises and sets.

The sun gets smaller as it moves away from us:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1TUpNkHcAM

For those who still don’t think the sun gets smaller and moves away from us as it “sets.” You can clearly see this happening when the air is dry enough and there’s minimal atmospheric distortion.

Eclipse points to hyper-dimensional luminaries:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdjRkHg58B0

There are no words. You have to see this for yourself. Even I was shocked.

[TruthSeeker]

The reason you can take pictures of satellites is probably that they just have another satellite in synchronized orbit or take pictures when other satellite orbits are going to synch up.

Are you just surmising this or do you have hard evidence of this? The key word in your sentence is probably, which means you are unsure.

I Binged Satellite speed

A satellite requires a speed of 17,450 miles per hour in order to maintain a low Earth orbit. Satellites in higher orbits travel more slowly; for example, a geostationary satellite only orbits at 6,858 miles per hour.

That is mighty fast to capture a still photo of one. It would just be a blip or flash if you tried to take a picture of one unless you were moving at the same rate.

[TruthSeeker]

A satellite requires a speed of 17,450 miles per hour in order to maintain a low Earth orbit. Satellites in higher orbits travel more slowly; for example, a geostationary satellite only orbits at 6,858 miles per hour.

That's interesting. I also Binged earth rotation speed at equator

At the equator, the circumference of the Earth is 40,070 kilometers, and the day is 24 hours long so the speed is 1670 kilometers/hour (1037 miles/hr).

[gsjackson]

A satellite requires a speed of 17,450 miles per hour in order to maintain a low Earth orbit. Satellites in higher orbits travel more slowly; for example, a geostationary satellite only orbits at 6,858 miles per hour.

That's interesting. I also Binged earth rotation speed at equator

At the equator, the circumference of the Earth is 40,070 kilometers, and the day is 24 hours long so the speed is 1670 kilometers/hour (1037 miles/hr).

It would obviously be less above or below the "equator" if we are on a sphere.

If these satellites are moving at a speed of 17,450 miles per hour in low Earth orbit, isn't that much faster than the Earth's rotation? Wouldn't satellite dishes have to constantly be moving to track the moving satellite? What about when the satellite goes on the other side of the Earth? Wouldn't satellite dishes constantly lose their signal?

Maybe this is a stupid question, but how are they locomoted at that speed? What makes them go? Obviously it's not fuel of any kind. I had assumed the theory held that they are caught in the earth's atmosphere and propelled forward with it. But if they are going much faster than the earth's atmosphere what force is driving them?

[TruthSeeker]

That would be Newton's law of motion:

First law:
In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

So in theory your satellite would be launched into orbit at a certain speed. Since space is a vacuum there would be no friction (of air) to slow it down. The only force that is acting upon it would be the force of gravity but because the satellite is moving so fast, gravity has little impact. They tell us all the satellites will eventually be pulled in by gravity and burned up in the atmosphere.

[gsjackson]

That would be Newton's law of motion:

First law:
In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

So in theory your satellite would be launched into orbit at a certain speed. Since space is a vacuum there would be no friction (of air) to slow it down. The only force that is acting upon it would be the force of gravity but because the satellite is moving so fast, gravity has little impact. They tell us all the satellites will eventually be pulled in by gravity and burned up in the atmosphere.

Thanks. You got me interested in this subject I knew nothing about by linking a Dubay video.

[Cornfed]

The only force that is acting upon it would be the force of gravity but because the satellite is moving so fast, gravity has little impact.

Or to put it more correctly (assuming conventional theory is true), it is moving so fast that the curvature of the earth creates distance from it as fast as it is falling, so it effectively falls around the earth.