Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby ICfreely on January 22nd, 2016, 7:50 am

Indeed, nothing changes under the sun!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby Painterman on January 23rd, 2016, 1:34 am

simonshack wrote:Let's hope that this peculiar 'level 3 verification' will sort things out.

Peculiar indeed. And one could hardly be blamed for speculating about the real reason for this "level 3 verification" - a phrase humorously borrowed from The NSA Handbook, chapter on identifying dissidents through honeypot ops, perhaps? - since even a child can see that providing a voice sample proves nothing about whether an account is a sock puppet.

If a bad guy wants to post under multiple usernames, all he has to do is get some friends or coworkers to each take a minute to "voice verify" his accounts, one friend or coworker per account, even though the actual content posted under the multiple usernames will all be from the one bad guy. Such an easy workaround is clearly not too much bother for someone dedicated, or paid, enough to be a sock puppeteer at a website.

So, given that "level 3 verification" obviously doesn't prevent sock puppets, we can ask what it is really for.

Critical Mass wrote:As Simon would say... "The Sun never lies".

The Sun is perhaps the biggest clue in this case.

If it wasn't clear to some readers, I'll rephrase. The sphere model's predictions as to the distribution of daylight on the surface of the Earth are widely available (one source is linked again below). Yet no one has ever produced evidence of a discrepancy between that model and their own "clear as day" experiences of daylight and the Sun's position in the sky at their location.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby ICfreely on January 23rd, 2016, 2:31 am

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
http://fourmilab.ch/earthview/satellite.html


http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1489&start=15#p2395366
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby Starbucked on January 28th, 2016, 7:51 am

In this video a guy attempts to measure the distance of the sun by using AutoCad and available data of the sun's position on timeanddate.com
His calculation is that the sun is around 14 900 miles from earth!


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPHckG3o6NQ
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby hoi.polloi on January 29th, 2016, 6:59 pm

It's a funny video, Starbucked. Thanks for sharing.

Here's some circular reasoning for you. (Please, see if you can follow my spiral of thought).

Starting with a critique, I'd like to know why the Sun is supposed to be "aiming" its sunlight if this video creator is making such a diagram.

sun_aim.GIF


How strategic of her to send light in this way.

When I discuss these things with others, I feel like I keep hearing people say more or less the same phrase over and over: "Please don't tell me ... [any form of] light bends."

I am not sure why people hate that idea so much, but I think it's because we are taught to think in terms of abstract, infinite parallels. Our minds have been turned into this:

S2U4L1GLgrid.gif


And to me, as someone with spiritual leanings, that feels like a colonization of the gnostic geometry-worshiping assholes that are designing our hideous cities to their beloved "golden ratio". If there ever was a colonization I could do without ...

Do you feel me? At a certain point, when discussing various theories, it seems we all get to a place in these discussions where we've distilled the science back down to personal belief and personal disbelief. Personal taste.

The response in my head to someone hearing an idea they don't like is very sarcastic. Something like, "Okay, I won't tell you any more if you don't want to hear this perspective. But then stop pretending like you want an explanation when you're unwilling to explore just a few more possible answers than your narrow mind is willing to consider."

It reminds me of why there are clashes of cultures, too. We humans do not seem to be learning this lesson very well. People have different assumptions, no matter how much you think you are "reasoning" with them. (Though admittedly it takes a great deal of peaceful talking to get the discussion down to that basic, core, real but respectful level). And when we encounter those different unshakable assumptions at that core, we resort to anger, distaste and violence. Fuck, is that ever an old story! Can't we see the beauty in thinking differently if not at least be thankful in our similarities that we take for granted?

I am not convinced of this video creator's internal logic. Yet, I would say, "Take it further, man. Argue the point!" Let your freak flag fly. I want to be convinced. However, when anyone posits, "WHY?!?!" followed immediately by, "Here are some explanations I will not accept ...", we really start to learn our difference in values. The question is, what will we do with those?

My instinct is that we should enter into discussion with those people and learn from them, when it seems they are there in good faith. But there is so much to know and so very little time. We are all working on our own personal projects. Within our own assumptions.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4744
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby Critical Mass on January 31st, 2016, 10:34 am

Starbucked wrote:His calculation is that the sun is around 14 900 miles from earth!

It's certainly a very interesting video... and part 2 comes up with a figure of a quarter of a million miles.

In no way does that make the Earth flat but I agree with Hoi let's hope he & others continue, push their points & repeat their experiments.

Off the top of my head I'd recommend using towns on the exact same longitude & time zones (there's about a degree difference between the two cities he chose), placing the Sun at its "correct" distance in CAD & calculating where it "should" appear & stringently avoiding any rounding up or down of angles.

I strongly agree with Simon that this bizarre rash of (relatively) good looking women, Judy Wood promoters & vicsim buddies all pushing "flat Earth" are highly suspicious but if occasionally some good work (or at least interesting work) comes from that crowd we should have no problem admitting such.
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby ICfreely on January 31st, 2016, 4:57 pm

Mega-dittos!

The FE Theory has officially crossed over to the hip-hop community.

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.

http://www.vladtv.com/article/216223/neil-degrasse-tyson-further-explains-why-bobs-flat-earth-theory-is


I, for one, am convinced. Convinced that Neil's an ass-clown astro-theologian extraordinaire.

The only difference between Neil and the likes of Sgt. Strangelove is that most people actually take deAss seriously! :lol:


P.S.

Neil,

You need to either lay off the cheeseburgers or wear larger size shirts because the combination of form-fitting shirts and bitch-titties is a major fashion faux pas.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby Starbucked on February 2nd, 2016, 6:06 am

More on the sun and the observation of sun spots from Youtuber 'Phuket Word'

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.



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n00jvH8o4LA

Does this prove that the same face of the sun is always shining on us, much like the same face of the moon?
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby ICfreely on February 25th, 2016, 7:37 pm

Question: Is the Earth convex, concave or flat?
Answer: Yes, yes and yes!

1) Water always seeks/finds its level.
2) Buildings (especially skyscrapers) are leveled (perpendicular to a horizontal plane and parallel with one another).

Despite these two undeniable observational facts we are told:


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.
http://mrfrawley.wikispaces.com/file/view/Earth,+Moon,+Sun+System+Reading.pdf

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1641&start=90#p2399126


Let’s get down to the nitty gritty in Gotham City:


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).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan



If we plug 13.4/2.3 miles into a curvature formula…


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

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm




…we get:

13.4 miles = 119.71 feet curvature
2.3 miles = 42.32 feet curvature

Now I draw your attention to 1:19:19 of the following documentary:


SEPTEMBER CLUES 9/11

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE
"But, again... REAL photography is something else"

Question: If the direction of the ‘force of gravity’ is directed ‘toward the center of a sphere’, then how can all of the buildings in Manhattan be parallel with one another? Shouldn’t they be slightly askew?


Meaning & History
From Σιμων (Simon), the New Testament Greek form of the Hebrew name שִׁמְעוֹן (Shim'on) which meant "he has heard".
http://www.behindthename.com/name/simon



He has heard & he has seen so what does Simon say?
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby Flabbergasted on February 26th, 2016, 4:44 pm

ICfreely wrote:[...] how can all of the buildings in Manhattan be parallel with one another? Shouldn’t they be slightly askew?

I´m not sure I get the point.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that if ~111 km represents 1 degree curvature of the earth (~40,000 km : 360), then buildings at the two extremes of Manhattan (~21 km apart) would differ by ~0.2 degrees (21 : 111).

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?

Image
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 618
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby simonshack on February 26th, 2016, 9:16 pm

ICfreely wrote:He has heard & he has seen so what does Simon say?


Do you really, really wish to hear what Simon says?

Ok, so here we go : bollocks.

Also, Simon says: I'm worried about my intelligent America-based forum member ICfreely.
Is the American food / diet causing undue curvature (or flatness /concaveness) in his brain cells ? :P

Please don't go all mad at me. 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. After I have done so, you are STILL free to believe in anything that you like - I promise ! I won't chase you down and ask you to believe in my beliefs!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6330
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby ICfreely on February 28th, 2016, 12:28 pm

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"! The slightest degree of actual "skewness" (in any direction) would lead to a Tower of Pisa situation.


simonshack wrote:Do you really, really wish to hear what Simon says?


Absolutely!

simonshack wrote:Ok, so here we go : bollocks.


:D

simonshack wrote:Also, Simon says: I'm worried about my intelligent America-based forum member ICfreely.


I'm touched.

simonshack wrote:Please don't go all mad at me.


Ok.

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.


Take your time! And remember that evidence doesn't always equate proof.

simonshack wrote:After I have done so, you are STILL free to believe in anything that you like - I promise !


That's really gracious of you, Simon. Thank you. :P But, being the 'nihilist' that I am, I do my best to avoid belief in general.

simonshack wrote:I won't chase you down and ask you to believe in my beliefs!


No, you'll just take shots like:

simonshack wrote:Is the American food / diet causing undue curvature (or flatness /concaveness) in his brain cells ? :P


Or maybe I have a 'chemical imbalance' :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'd better find a top psychiatrist and/or neurologist & nip it in the bud right away!

Here's my point, dear Simon; I really see no reason for you to get worked up about people questioning the size, shape and nature of our world! All the notable threads on this forum (which you have worked hard to build & protect) started with 'unthinkable' questions (doubt/uncertainty). An inquiry based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation is, IMO, very unwise. A priori = blind spots!

Just keep in mind that the ancients who 'believed' in the existence of a horizontal plane saw what we see today (the Sun, Moon and Stars rotating clockwise). All of the constellations & heavenly bodies were accounted for. Seeing as they didn't feel the Earth rotating they concluded that it was the heavenly bodies which were moving!

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 :

Image

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?


That Southern "merry-go-round" is a Computer Generated Image! There's only one observable
"merry-go-round" with Polaris at its center and the Southern stars at its perimeter - all moving in the same direction (i.e. a snow globe).

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.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm



Anyhow, good luck with your upcoming final "TYCHO/SSSS"! I hope that you are willing to accept tough peer-reviews. Surrounding yourself with yes-men & ridiculing opposing points of view is unnecessary & counterproductive.

Going forward, I'll do my best to refrain from busting your balls/bursting your bubble. :P I think I can best serve CF's readership by concentrating on Sharpstuff's "Engineering 'disease'" and other related medical/health threads/topics. However, I reserve my 'right' to critique your "TYCHO/SSSS."


P.S.

Do you believe in NASA's map of Antarctica and the seminal 1911 expedition to the "South Pole"?
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby Flabbergasted on February 28th, 2016, 3:31 pm

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"!


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.

ICfreely wrote:The slightest degree of actual "skewness" (in any direction) would lead to a Tower of Pisa situation.

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. 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.

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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 618
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby fubarfuthark on February 28th, 2016, 5:08 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Pataphysics

Has anyone heard of alfred jarry? Examining imaginary phenomena but treating them as real, entrapping confused bright-eyed and hopeful western university students (and unfortunate foreign students who part with a lot of hard currency) into speculation about non-existent tiny or massive things that are 'imposed upon metaphysics' and later upon 'real' physics. The unfortunate thing is the very real debt that the students accrue in the process of this pataphysical speculation!

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

Look at the list of perps who have made use of this concept: Derrida, Harold Bloom (his literary 'criticism' deserves its own entire repository, along with his bizarre groping of Naomi Wolf), simone de beauvoir, Alain 'set theory as ontology' Badiou with his totally meaningless and destructive books. Poor students, searching around for imaginary things at both both micro and macro level, reading Zizek articles on lrb and trying to figure out how not to offend anyone whilst Slavoj rants on about Foucault's enjoyment of fisting being an astringent example of 'the expansion of a concept', his outre experimentation apparently eventually leading him to die of AIDS (i have never heard of this particular notarikon have you)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notarikon)

At some point I would post a much longer examination of Jarry, Dali's clocks and the ludicrous acid trip that the world has embarked upon but it needs some more refinement. The tentacles reach everywhere, trying to form a coherent picture in my head would have to take in Rimbaud, the Martinists, Breton and the vorticist movement as preparation for the worldwide pushing of the ultimate vortex: SPACE. It is not that far-fetched, considering Wyndham Lewis's connection to the Bloomsbury Group, who are definitely perps or, at least, perpmäßig.

It is as if Alfred Jarry's invocations of the green-goddess of absinthe, Aleister Crowley's Gin and Opium pipemix induced reveries have been pushed to the level of ontology and moral teaching, eventually sort of expelling a kind of diarrohea bomb in Guy Debord's society of the spectacle, he eventually drinking himself to death and leaving a trail of traumatised half-marxist nicompoops who ostensibly 'believe in space' but nevertheless write articles meditating on the epistemological break in Marx, as embodied by the strangulated corpse of Louis Althusser's wife, or join the german green party in order to further the child-bothering ways of Danny 'the red' cohn-bendit. Meanwhile we are left with the pure spectacle in itself, NASA!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY

No Gil! He isnt and wasnt. His lodgemasters and zionist hollywood just shot a dumb film with whitey as an actor.
fubarfuthark
Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: February 15th, 2016, 1:20 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby ICfreely on February 28th, 2016, 5:11 pm

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.


You're absolutely right! What I meant was if you check the level of skyscrapers from one end of Manhattan to the other, building by building, they will all be perpendicular to a horizontal plane (not skewed in relation to the ground) and parallel with one another, across the city. If building #1 is parallel with #2 and #2 is parallel with #3 and so forth and so on and they're all perpendicular to a horizontal plane, then, in my estimation, it's not unreasonable to conclude the Earth is spread out across a horizontal plane. what's hard for me to wrap my mind around is water adhering to the surface of a sphere (a spinning & revolving one at that) Within a near vacuum no less!

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.


I think 'skewed in relation to a horizontal plane' is more accurate because buildings, in general, are built on sloped, concave, convex and flat surfaces. The Tower of Pisa is also askew in relation to the leveled buildings in it's vicinity. Those buildings, in turn, are parallel with one another & perpendicular to the same horizontal plane.

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.


My point was, if a skyscraper were even a fraction of a degree askew it would eventually begin to lean/crack if not collapse. The Tower of Pisa originally began to tilt because the soil beneath its foundation was too soft & settled unevenly. Bad comparison on my part.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests