I understood a few days and did not find evidence that it is flat, as well as did not find evidence that she was a ball
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I understood a few days and did not find evidence that it is flat, as well as did not find evidence that she was a ball
Same here, both sides are failing to convince me that they have the answers and I don't care a jot for convention so I'm parked on the fence.
I think I know how solve this for once and for all, hop down and look at your fence, is it pointing up or in some other crazy direction?
:)
Satellites have cameras yes? Those cameras show the planet as a sphere. Satellites orbit yes? That orbital pattern is reliant on the planet being a sphere.
If only it were that simple and there actually was a photo of the Earth that wasn't a Nasa composite showing a spherical Earth, when Scientists insist that it's an oblate spheroid. If only people didn't have days of footage of the moon without one single satellite flying past their camera.
I have seen the ISS fly by with my own eyes and a telescope. Your statement of "a NASA composite showing a spherical Earth" indicates that despite being shown evidence, you choose to deny it. "The earth is an oblate spheroid" well that implies any spherical shape that deviates from a perfect sphere, the images from the ISS of the earth are plenty confirmatory that the earth is a sphere (and only capture a part of the planet in view). I don't know exactly how much the planet deviates from a uniform perfect sphere however. The earth is big, perhaps those moon videos were not within the flight path of a satellite. Let me ask, have we (humans) ever been to the moon?
I don't know, did humans have the technology to pass, unharmed through the Van Allen Belt in 1969?
Well according to mainstream science the flatness at the poles is sufficient to spot in a photo, it isn't just a little off-spherical.
Apparently NASA's trying not to scare us with their composite, sanitised image but that just makes me question everything that they do and say.
Replying to next comment in sequence here because of comment tree limit.
"I don't know, did humans have the technology to pass, unharmed through the Van Allen Belt in 1969?"
There wasn't any technology necessary, they just went. NASA decided not to even really try to protect the astronauts. They went around the inner belts and went quickly through the outer belts, dosimetry didn't indicate significantly large exposure to the charged particles for the astronauts (significant being greater than 5 rads). I guess had they orbited in the outer belts they would have had an issue, but they didn't do that.
That sounds like a plausible explanation but I still can't believe something just because I saw it on TV and I was taught it in school, without seriously hard evidence and sadly that seems to be lacking in many areas.
@smi
Когда вы снова начнете проводки, пришлите мне сообщение, чтобы я мог проголосовать за вашу работу.