NASA and Facebook tricked you

[Stravinsk]

I am curious to know, and I don't want to continue being dismissive, how you would explain the mechanism by which the Sun and Moon, presumably much smaller and more proximal than given by scientific consensus, travel about their cyclic trajectories above the proposed Earth plane? Newton's Universal Law of Gravity, and to a better extent, Einstein's General Relativity, explain with a great deal of precision, the orbits of the planets (including Earth) about the sun. What scientific principles explain the motion of the Sun and Moon in the flat-Earth model?

I do not know the mechanism. But what I do know is that "Gravity" doesn't explain a good number of things. It doesn't explain, for example, why the Sun doesn't pull the moon away from Earth when the moon is between the Earth and the Sun in a heliocentric model.

How does gravity explain this? Shouldn't the spin of the tennis ball hold the water to it? It does the exact opposite!

Mark, when you are in a pool of water, do you weigh less? How is it that you can push yourself through the water in all directions?

Density. The water is dense, allowing for movement in any direction. When you step out of the water and onto dry land, the ability to move in all directions or float around is more limited due to lack of density.

How does a beach ball, which weighs next to nothing, when filled with air - defy gravity by floating to the top of water? Buoyancy.

The thing we call "gravity" is a combination of Density, Buoyancy and (when in the air) Aerodynamic drag.

Take a flat piece of paper. If you drop it while standing, how long will it take to hit the ground? I tested this and it took 3½ seconds.

Now crumple the paper into a ball. Now when I drop it it takes 1 second. I didn't change the weight of the paper. The density of the air was neither changed. I changed the object's aerodynamic drag.

But in space - which is supposed to be a vacuum - there is 0 density. A person can move through water easily because of the water's density. We have less movement on land (without mechanisms to change aerodynamic drag) because it (the air) is less dense than the water. But in space - there is nothing. How does one move through nothing?

 

[MarkFL]

I took the following from Why Doesn’t The Sun Steal The Moon? and did the calculations to confirm.

---

The Sun contains 99.8% of the entire mass of the Solar System. It looks to us like everything seems to orbit the Sun, so why doesn’t the Sun capture the Moon from Earth like a schoolyard bully snatching the Earth’s lunch money. That would make sense right? It all fits in with our skewed view of social hierarchy based on an entities volume.

Good news! It’s already happened, In a way. The Sun has already captured the Moon. If you look at the orbit of the Moon, it orbits the Sun similar to the way Earth does. Normally the motion of the Moon around the Sun is drawn as a kind of Spirograph pattern, but its actual motion is basically the same orbit as Earth with a small wobble to it.

The Moon also orbits the Earth. You might think this is because the Earth is much closer to the Moon than the Sun. After all, the strength of gravity depends not only on the mass of an object, but also on its distance from you. But this isn’t the case. The Sun is about 400 times more distant from the Moon than the Earth, but the Sun is about 330,000 times more massive. [From me: In fact if you carry out the calculations given by Newton's Law of Gravity, you find the neutral point between the Earth and Sun is about 160,000 miles from Earth, well below the Earth-Moon distance.]

If you’re up for some napkin calculations, you little mathlete, by using Newton’s law of gravity, you find that even with its greater distance, the Sun pulls on the Moon about twice as hard as the Earth does.
So why can’t the Moon escape the Earth?

In order to escape the gravitational pull of a body, you need to be moving fast enough *relative to that body* to escape its pull. This is known as the escape velocity of the object.

So, yes, the Sun is totally trying to rip the Moon away from the Earth, but the Earth is super clingy. The speed of the Moon around the Earth is about 1 km/s. At the Moon’s distance from the Earth, the escape velocity is about 1.2 km/s. The Moon simply isn’t moving fast enough to escape the Earth.

---

Now as far as water spinning off of a tennis ball, we have to look at angular velocity of the tennis ball compared to that of Earth as well as the difference in radii. There simply is no valid scientific comparison here.

The thing we call gravity is seen as a curvature of spacetime and the propensity of objects to travel the shortest path through same...as such it has nothing to do with density, buoyancy and drag, which are forces separate from gravity. They may be part of the net force on an object, but they are not part of gravity. Reduce the coefficient of drag on an object, and yes, it can move through a viscous fluid more rapidly, but what does this have to do with flat Earth? Without drag things move more easily...I don't understand you point about moving through space?

 

[JPPT1974]

NASA makes fake videos and over it? Really that is something new. Pretty shocking!

 

[Stravinsk]

I took the following from Why Doesn’t The Sun Steal The Moon? and did the calculations to confirm.

---

The Sun contains 99.8% of the entire mass of the Solar System. It looks to us like everything seems to orbit the Sun, so why doesn’t the Sun capture the Moon from Earth like a schoolyard bully snatching the Earth’s lunch money. That would make sense right? It all fits in with our skewed view of social hierarchy based on an entities volume.

Good news! It’s already happened, In a way. The Sun has already captured the Moon. If you look at the orbit of the Moon, it orbits the Sun similar to the way Earth does. Normally the motion of the Moon around the Sun is drawn as a kind of Spirograph pattern, but its actual motion is basically the same orbit as Earth with a small wobble to it.

The Moon also orbits the Earth. You might think this is because the Earth is much closer to the Moon than the Sun. After all, the strength of gravity depends not only on the mass of an object, but also on its distance from you. But this isn’t the case. The Sun is about 400 times more distant from the Moon than the Earth, but the Sun is about 330,000 times more massive. [From me: In fact if you carry out the calculations given by Newton's Law of Gravity, you find the neutral point between the Earth and Sun is about 160,000 miles from Earth, well below the Earth-Moon distance.]

If you’re up for some napkin calculations, you little mathlete, by using Newton’s law of gravity, you find that even with its greater distance, the Sun pulls on the Moon about twice as hard as the Earth does.
So why can’t the Moon escape the Earth?

In order to escape the gravitational pull of a body, you need to be moving fast enough *relative to that body* to escape its pull. This is known as the escape velocity of the object.

So, yes, the Sun is totally trying to rip the Moon away from the Earth, but the Earth is super clingy. The speed of the Moon around the Earth is about 1 km/s. At the Moon’s distance from the Earth, the escape velocity is about 1.2 km/s. The Moon simply isn’t moving fast enough to escape the Earth.

---

That's all very interesting Mark. There is a very big problem with the moon "orbiting" a ball shaped earth, though. Every 6 months when the earth and it's moon is on the other side of the sun - the moon phases should be reversed.

And guess what. THEY ARE NOT. You can look yourself at the night sky or any moon calendar and you will see that year round, the moon phases - depending on your position (closer to N pole, or further from it) - do not change. Month after month after month, year after year, the moon is lit from one side and then darkened from that side.

Here's something else Mark. Do you have a heat sensor gun? Measure the temperature of the Moon's light. Then obscure the light with an object and measure the temperature of the Moon's shade.

The moon's shade is warmer than the moon's light. So this should please you, a couple of things that can be measured.

Presents a bit of a problem for the Globe model where the light from the moon is said to be reflecting the sun. Reality - you know - the type that can actually be measured - shows different.

Now as far as water spinning off of a tennis ball, we have to look at angular velocity of the tennis ball compared to that of Earth as well as the difference in radii. There simply is no valid scientific comparison here.

There is no sphere on earth that exhibits these properties. Exactly how fast or large does it have to be to start showing a gravitational pull that makes things orbit it, or keep water attached? Are you saying that greater/less velocity and mass will eventually have the OPPOSITE effect on the tennis ball?

Really?

The thing we call gravity is seen as a curvature of spacetime and the propensity of objects to travel the shortest path through same...as such it has nothing to do with density, buoyancy and drag, which are forces separate from gravity. They may be part of the net force on an object, but they are not part of gravity. Reduce the coefficient of drag on an object, and yes, it can move through a viscous fluid more rapidly, but what does this have to do with flat Earth? Without drag things move more easily...I don't understand you point about moving through space?

Gravity is indeed magical. It keeps me on the ground, but let's a helium filled balloon defy it, holds vast oceans on a spinning surface and also keeps the moon a certain distance away, lest it also crash into us.

 

[MarkFL]

That's all very interesting Mark. There is a very big problem with the moon "orbiting" a ball shaped earth, though. Every 6 months when the earth and it's moon is on the other side of the sun - the moon phases should be reversed.

Are you saying that at one point in the Earth's orbit a full Moon occurs when the moon is farthest from the Sun, but on the other side of Earth's orbit, a full Moon would occur when it is closest to the Sun?

Here's something else Mark. Do you have a heat sensor gun?

No, I don't happen to own one of those. But, take a gander here:

Moonshine and Lunacy

There is no sphere on earth that exhibits these properties. Exactly how fast or large does it have to be to start showing a gravitational pull that makes things orbit it, or keep water attached? Are you saying that greater/less velocity and mass will eventually have the OPPOSITE effect on the tennis ball?

Gravity is a relatively weak force, some 43 orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetic forces at comparable distances. I recommend you delve into a physics textbook, along with some calculus material, to get a feel for how these things work.

Gravity is indeed magical. It keeps me on the ground, but let's a helium filled balloon defy it, holds vast oceans on a spinning surface and also keeps the moon a certain distance away, lest it also crash into us.

Again, learn about buoyancy (Archimedes) to learn why balloons filled with gases less dense than the surrounding air can rise, and also about how angular momentum will cause one celestial body to orbit another. Once you get a bit of vector calculus under your belt, it is a fairly trivial matter to show that Newton's Universal Law of Gravity implies orbital trajectories that are conic sections.

The real magic here though is the flat-Earth model which has a small Sun and Moon orbiting the polar axis a few thousand miles above the "plane." Have you found anything yet about the scientific model that predicts that?

 

[MoreCoffee]

If the world is flat and circular then why is it morning here for me and night time for the folk in the USA?

 

[Rens]

If the world is flat and circular then why is it morning here for me and night time for the folk in the USA?

The sun is small and circles above it.

 

[MarkFL]

The sun is small and circles above it.

And from what I've gathered, is directional like a spotlight, where it cannot be seen "from the side" somehow. :dunno:

 

[Rens]

And from what I've gathered, is directional like a spotlight, where it cannot be seen "from the side" somehow. :dunno:

Maybe the sun is flat too.

 

[Stravinsk]

And from what I've gathered, is directional like a spotlight, where it cannot be seen "from the side" somehow. :dunno:

No, that's the model you believe where a huge sun 93 million miles away puts out rays that we would only see as straight given the distance and the size. It appears to "go over the horizon" of a curved earth (much like a boat fading gradually downward into the distance) - except that just like the boat - use binoculars or a zoom camera and it comes back. So it isn't going over the supposed curve and it's a matter of perspective.

I find the whole curvature thing laughable now. Even if boats did gradually sink down due to supposed curve (which they don't - because you couldn't see them again zooming in) - you'd also see their angle change over the curve (which you don't see either).

The sun's rays also wouldn't appear to be following people reflecting off of a flat ocean surface who are standing miles apart on the beach. And they especially wouldn't be curving around the water to form a straight line to these individuals.

All observations show a closer and smaller sun over a flat earth - not the one out of Copernicus's imagination that has been hammered into us with their false model for over 500 years.

But - science fiction. It keeps NASA and a large section of the movie industry in business selling space dreams.

For those Christians here who mock and ridicule the idea - you are mocking what Christians commonly accepted prior to the 1500's, and you are mocking many verses in your own bibles. NASA gives us fake images - that are provably fake, then top spokesman for the so called science agency change the shape of the earth from a sphere to an "oblate spheroid", and now to slightly pair shaped.

They are laughing and mocking you.

 

[MarkFL]

No, that's the model you believe where a huge sun 93 million miles away puts out rays that we would only see as straight given the distance and the size.

What? In the scientific model, the Sun puts out rays of EM radiation in all directions.

It appears to "go over the horizon" of a curved earth (much like a boat fading gradually downward into the distance) - except that just like the boat - use binoculars or a zoom camera and it comes back. So it isn't going over the supposed curve and it's a matter of perspective.

I find the whole curvature thing laughable now. Even if boats did gradually sink down due to supposed curve (which they don't - because you couldn't see them again zooming in) - you'd also see their angle change over the curve (which you don't see either).

The sun's rays also wouldn't appear to be following people reflecting off of a flat ocean surface who are standing miles apart on the beach. And they especially wouldn't be curving around the water to form a straight line to these individuals.

This is a bunch of misinformation. It is easy to be misled by such when you are uninformed about what the scientific consensus is. I'm not trying to be derisive, there's really no other way to explain how you are being taken in by this flat-Earth model. When you don't know the true explanation, false ones don't stand out as much as being just plain bad.

All observations show a closer and smaller sun over a flat earth...

They do? Where?

You still haven't given any explanation for how the Sun and Moon supposedly orbit the polar axis. I understand the Newtonian model, and Einstein's model as well and how well their predictions fit with observations...but without some kind of mathematical model to explain and observations to confirm, the flat-Earth model is largely meaningless.

 

[Stravinsk]

What? In the scientific model, the Sun puts out rays of EM radiation in all directions.

Mark, please think without consulting immediately consulting some "authority" on the subject. The sun that large and the earth that small is going to show that "parallel light" you referred to a page or so back.

But that isn't what we see is it?

In the flat earth model, the sun also puts out light in all directions - and your assertion or insinuation is either just one person's opinion or your own misinformed position regarding it. That being said - from high distances we have evidence of a hot spot from the sun. This is clear evidence of a NEAR sun - but of course someone is going to say it's all an optical illusion and the properties of light somehow work different for the sun, will give a complicated equation that works out (but no one but people like you will work out) but also totally disregards what we see:

Have a look:

This is a bunch of misinformation. It is easy to be misled by such when you are uninformed about what the scientific consensus is. I'm not trying to be derisive, there's really no other way to explain how you are being taken in by this flat-Earth model. When you don't know the true explanation, false ones don't stand out as much as being just plain bad.

Oh, I am not uninformed. I am very well informed on what the so called "scientific consensus" is on this subject. I just happen to reject it. I grew up believing it and not my own eyes all my life. No longer. You don't - you live in the reality they have given to you, where you must reject almost everything you see because it doesn't fit their model. You walk on a flat earth. We can prove the curvature they say is there isn't. We can do it with lasers, high flying balloons and rockets. We can do it by showing their fake NASA footage. We can show it with simple spherical trigonometry that doesn't work on the globe model presented to us verses what we can actually measure on the face of the earth.

They do? Where?

You still haven't given any explanation for how the Sun and Moon supposedly orbit the polar axis. I understand the Newtonian model, and Einstein's model as well and how well their predictions fit with observations...but without some kind of mathematical model to explain and observations to confirm, the flat-Earth model is largely meaningless.

Mark, have a look at the following image:

If you are an adult, you will see two lovers.

If you are a child, you will see dolphins.

Your programming makes you see a globe and interpret the sun to be very far away. Not your eyes. Your programming. It's as simple as that.

 

[MarkFL]

Two railroad tracks are parallel, yet converge in the distance to the vanishing point. You make the mistake of thinking I blindly accept authority. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic scientific principles, and this makes it easy for you to reject them.

You are still avoiding my question about the mechanism by which the Sun and Moon move in the your model...

 

[Stravinsk]

Two railroad tracks are parallel, yet converge in the distance to the vanishing point. You make the mistake of thinking I blindly accept authority. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic scientific principles, and this makes it easy for you to reject them.

You are still avoiding my question about the mechanism by which the Sun and Moon move in the your model...

1. I am not avoiding your question about the mechanism at all. I've already given my answer. It's simply "I don't know". In my world (a true Deist affirms a Creator), it is possible there is a mechanism that can be measured or replicated, but there is no absolute need for it either.

I don't reject the Scientific method - but I do reject "Scientism" - which basically involves theories that only work in math and not on anything testable in the world. They remain theories because they cannot be tested and proven to be true. Gravity remains a theory in my mind - simply because it cannot be replicated and fit all the criteria for which it is said to influence and allow - and also - btw - which doesn't account for phenomena that contradicts it. You said the spinning tennis ball pushing water away is "not comparable" and "not science". Then you said angular velocity and radii had to be considered - and yet - cannot provide a concrete example that is testable and provable to show that at some point, the tennis ball with water on it, when spun, will exhibit the opposite effect that it does. This should be provable and testable as surely as it is provable that if one soaks a tennis ball in water and spins it - it will display the effect that the photograph says it will.

Oh and btw (yes, I realize that it's an appeal to authority) - Nicola Tesla wasn't fond of either gravity or Einstein's relativity theory. I could say I absolutely believe him, but then, I haven't tested his statement - so it is also a theory:

Nikola Tesla: “EARTH is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with elector-magnetic levitation. Electromagnetic levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the firmament.”—Nikola Tesla

 

[MarkFL]

Well, when you can offer some kind of explanation and evidence to back your assertions, then we'll have something to discuss.

 

[MarkFL]

And if you zoom in with a high powered camera or binoculars, it all comes back...

I knew this was hogwash when you first posted it, because I have looked at ships over the horizon while in the Navy using the ship's "big eyes" (which are high powered binoculars). It simply and clearly doesn't "all come back."

Here's a video showing what actually happens when you zoom in and out.

 

[MarkFL]

Here is a nice series of videos, for those who are interested, that shows how the flat-Earth "model" simply does not work.

 

[Stravinsk]

So Mark - instead of debating any of the points in the original or follow up videos (refusing to, actually), then the link I posted, you simply found what you think proves your case. Congratulations.

I'm up to 2:38 and the first argument is already one commonly used that not seeing a curve (and by extension - not seeing how objects such as boats should *behave* (ie: curve down)) over a curve is simply waved away. It's all an illusion and what you should see doesn't happen because we can't trust our eyes. My gosh - his first example is to cut a flat disc into an orange and make a comparison to the perfect sphere globe NASA has always shown us until recently calling it oblate then slightly pear shaped.

I expect to be wowed.

 

[Stravinsk]

Oh gosh. Now I'm at 6:25 and he's using the boats over the horizon argument! LOLOLOL! Mark - you can save yourself considerable embarrassment by simply watching the videos I already provided and the video Rens provided on perspective and the horizon. Your video "evidence" has (in part) already been shown to be faulty in this very thread.

Edit: Time mark: 7:25 "The examples they use, are always not below the horizon, but near it, or at it"

My gosh.

The Horizon is the flatline visible to your eye whether you are using a device to extend it (such as binoculars or zoom lense) or your naked eye. Pulling back the zoom reduces your view of the horizon and in the video - it also makes the boat appear to "sink" below it - when clearly it is not.

Nice attempt at trickery by obfuscating the horizon as a fixed point rather than a perspective point.

This video will deceive people not careful about how they consider the points with word trickery.

 

[Stravinsk]

I knew this was hogwash when you first posted it, because I have looked at ships over the horizon while in the Navy using the ship's "big eyes" (which are high powered binoculars). It simply and clearly doesn't "all come back."

Here's a video showing what actually happens when you zoom in and out.

It's not hogwash.

1:30-1:42 (the zoom). Yes, contrary to what he says, you can clearly see not only more detail, but the bottom sections of building totally hidden from far away. For example, the spire on the left. Are the bottom buildings next to it visible at all from the 1:30 point? No - they are NOT.

2:22 "You see that same shape all the way in. You're not seeing more of Toronto by zooming in"

Uh, he points to the top of the shape and uses it to prove why we can see more of the BOTTOM? Yes you DO see more of the bottom at zoomed in as compared to zoom out. Compare to still frame at 1:30.

2:52 (second example) -

This shot is zoomed out from 2:52 to 2:54/2:55 - and yes, you can clearly see the bottoms disappear as it is zoomed out.

3:20 "We're not seeing less of Toronto - it's just getting smaller"

No, you ARE seeing less - less and less of the bottom as you zoom out.

Seriously Mark?