simonshack wrote:Let's hope that this peculiar 'level 3 verification' will sort things out.
Critical Mass wrote:As Simon would say... "The Sun never lies".
ICfreely wrote:There's also a trove of ‘satellite images’ at fourmilab.ch:
View from DUMMY MASS 1 [-] 612 km above 71°11'S 119°4'E
View from FLOCK 1B-24 400 km above 30°32'N 105°56'W
Starbucked wrote:His calculation is that the sun is around 14 900 miles from earth!
Neil deGrasse Tyson Further Explains Why B.o.B.'s 'Flat Earth' Theory is False – Kairi Coe
Jan 29, 2016 12:05 PM
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHBZkek8OSU
One of the more peculiar beefs to occur this week had to be the one between B.o.B. and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. After B.o.B. went on a Twitter rant in an attempt to prove the Earth is flat, Dr. Tyson dispelled his claims with factual scientific evidence. The two went on to create diss tracks towards one another, and judging by the video above Tyson isn't finished with the Atlanta artist just yet. The famed cosmologist appeared on The Nightly Show on Comedy Central and told B.o.B. "the Earth looks flat because one, you're not far enough away, at your size. Two, your size isn't large enough - relative to Earth - to notice any curvateur at all."
Watch as Dr. Tyson finishes off with a mic drop and more above.
The sun appears to go overhead just as the flat earth model predicts. Here are more sunspots filmed throughout day as proof of flat, geocentric earth. This shows that the sun spots in the morning and afternoon are the same ones. They do not move across the sun's surface but changing viewer's perspective by turning around at midday makes sun spots flip from top to bottom of the sun. This one includes a demonstration of the difference between heliocentric and geocentric models.
The sun is said by conventional science to be spinning and that sun spots travel across the surface of the sun. However, these observations show this clearly is not true. Like a spotlight doing an arc across the sky, the sun spots stay in their original position throughout the day. It is only after the sun goes overhead that we have to look the other way, and we see those same sun spots flipped due to our change in perspective.
no matter where you are on Earth, objects fall straight down to the surface, as if they are falling toward the center of a sphere.
Manhattan Island is 22.7 square miles (59 km2) in area, 13.4 miles (21.6 km) long and 2.3 miles (3.7 km) wide, at its widest (near 14th Street).
IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:
In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 1 The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles.
Curvature in 1 Statute Mile 8 inches
" " 2 " " 32 "
" " 3 " " 6 feet.
" " 4 " " 10 "
" " 5 " " 16 "
" " 6 " " 24 "
" " 7 " " 32 "
" " 8 " " 42 "
" " 9 " " 54 "
" " 10 " " 66 "
" " 20 " " 266 "
" " 30 " " 600 "
" " 40 " " 1066 "
" " 50 " " 1666 "
" " 60 " " 2400 "
" " 70 " " 3266 "
" " 80 " " 4266 "
" " 90 " " 5400 "
" " 100 " " 6666
Meaning & History
From Σιμων (Simon), the New Testament Greek form of the Hebrew name שִׁמְעוֹן (Shim'on) which meant "he has heard".
ICfreely wrote:[...] how can all of the buildings in Manhattan be parallel with one another? Shouldn’t they be slightly askew?
ICfreely wrote:He has heard & he has seen so what does Simon say?
Flabbergasted wrote:The visual "skewness" would depend on the height of the buildings, the vantage point, the potential camera distortion and the accuracy of our perception. Can a view of Manhattan like the one at 1:19:19 be used to determine the existence of a 0.2 degree difference?
simonshack wrote:Do you really, really wish to hear what Simon says?
simonshack wrote:Ok, so here we go : bollocks.
simonshack wrote:Also, Simon says: I'm worried about my intelligent America-based forum member ICfreely.
simonshack wrote:Please don't go all mad at me.
simonshack wrote:As it is, I have evidence that our earth is a rotating sphere - but just don't ask me right now to produce it - I will thoroughly illustrate this in due time.
simonshack wrote:After I have done so, you are STILL free to believe in anything that you like - I promise !
simonshack wrote:I won't chase you down and ask you to believe in my beliefs!
simonshack wrote:Is the American food / diet causing undue curvature (or flatness /concaveness) in his brain cells ?
simonshack wrote:However, the part regarding the Southern stars "NOT rotating around a central point" is 'news' to me. Here's what my favorite planetarium (NEAVE) shows - as viewed by an observer in New Zealand - all year long :
An observer in Norway will see a similar, 360° "merry-go-round" all year long, yet this time with the bright Polaris (the "North Star") almost smack in the middle of it. The fact that there's no similarly bright star smack in the middle of the Southern "merry-go-round" is, quite frankly, not surprising - or indicative of anything at all. Why would there be one? Why would we have such a 'coincidental' star on the exact opposite side of Earth?
Another thing is certain, that from and within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south--pole star included--sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis a south pole star, and the Southern Cross a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is strangely not the case; Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8° south of the equator, and in longitude 30° W.
ICfreely wrote:Flabbergasted wrote:The visual "skewness" would depend on the height of the buildings, the vantage point, the potential camera distortion and the accuracy of our perception. Can a view of Manhattan like the one at 1:19:19 be used to determine the existence of a 0.2 degree difference?
No. But the fact of the matter is skyscrapers are perfectly leveled and parallel with one another in every direction. There is no actual "skewness"!
ICfreely wrote:The slightest degree of actual "skewness" (in any direction) would lead to a Tower of Pisa situation.
Prior to restoration work performed between 1990 and 2001, the tower leaned at an angle of 5.5 degrees, but the tower now leans at about 3.99 degrees.
Flabbergasted wrote:It is not a fact, but an assumption you are making since - as you agree - one cannot detect 0.2 degrees of difference between buildings 20 km apart with the naked eye.
Flabbergasted wrote:Not so. You are comparing apples and bananas (no pun intended). The Leaning Tower of Pisa is skewed in relation to the ground. Normal buildings are not.
Flabbergasted wrote:You would also be aware that the angle of inclination of the Tower of Pisa is 20-25 times greater than the 0.2 degree "inter-building" difference (not inclination) we are talking about.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests