paul's got wright Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 how dare they say "IF"!!! x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted July 15, 2015 Author Share Posted July 15, 2015 So NASA 'control' the flat earth? Gerry, you should consider NASA...Need Another Scan Again....you looney! I didn't realize it before, but it seemed prior to NASA, the shape of the earth was still very much a matter of debate, without going up and taking a photograph of earth the ball earth argument had no more credible evidence than the flat earth argument did. Think about it, if there were no space program, no NASA, would you be more likely to question the consensus, would it not sound less ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Is it not the case that Hubble is too close to bring Pluto into sharp focus ...? Surely not more of this shit ...? Sharpe focus, yes. Too close, No! Pluto is tiny - it is about 2370 km in diameter and it is 3 billion km away. It basically subtends a similar angular diameter to the star Betelgeuse. The nebular etc which Hubble has photographed subtend much much larger angles - they are faint, but in angular size far larger than Pluto. The Pillars of Creation in the Eagle Nebular is over 4 minutes of arc wide - Pluto is 0.06 seconds of arc wide - ie its image is 4000 times or so smaller on Hubbles sensors. As ever doing a bit of maths explains a lot. It's only relatively recently that I learned (roughly) that a telescope's prime function is light gathering, rather than magnification. If you buy something like a 5" reflecting telescope, and if you're in an area without much light pollution, you will be able to see all sorts of things - particularly with long exposure photography. The size of the image, or the magnification however is a function of the eyepiece that you use to look, and these come in various magnification factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swaraj Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 I didn't realize it before, but it seemed prior to NASA, the shape of the earth was still very much a matter of debate, without going up and taking a photograph of earth the ball earth argument had no more credible evidence than the flat earth argument did. Question: Who figured out the Earth is round? Answer: It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. I believe that it was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round. Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth! http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question54.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 while i'm in the mood x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 My two-penn'orth: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 It appears that it just takes a while to download detailed images over a very long distance. Guess the wifi connection to hubble is not up to much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 This one, with the caption "latest HD image of pluto gives cause for concern" was funnier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 It's not just denying NASA though is it? It is denying every serious astronomer, physicist and mathematician that ever lived to believe instead a bunch of charlatans who have grown rich peddling total nonsense to gullible idiots that are happy to accept that the world is flat and the universe is only a few thousand miles wide or whatever the latest bilge is. Why are you happy to believe them? Simply because they are not NASA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 you put too much stock in believing things you can't possibly know woolley. that's up to you. x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted July 16, 2015 Author Share Posted July 16, 2015 Mathematicians, physicists and grounded astronomers cannot prove the consensus model anymore convincingly with the tools of their trade than a curious amateur can the earth is geocentric. Its NASA evidence that clinches it for the heliocentric. Think about mathematics, we can imagine a model in our head and then make it work with maths afterwards, this could easily be the case for something like gravity, could it be I measure the speed of a ball falling to the ground I then make an equation. Take a computer game, the programmer decides the laws inside the game and makes the math fit afterwards. So what is to stop a freemason like Newton making gravity in maths and then fitting the model of the solar system in to fit nicely with planet masses and distances and orbits that work with the maths? And also stay consistent with what an observer here sees in the sky....who standing here on the surface could spot the fraud... All the present day scientists have gone to the same Rockefeller learning centres, only a select few get to be actors for NASA, I can see it is easily achievable to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone. In the discovery of new planets outside of our solar system, they look at a star, detect an undetectable wobble with it and then from this they discover a new earth like planet, they then release an artist's impression on what it may look like, some beautiful water world or perhaps another gas giant but none the less pure speculative art work, they even speculate the life forms that may be living on it, this is then soaked up by the collective consciousness and taken as scientific fact, our space telescope cannot see it because the nearby star is to bright in comparison but we accept the pictures in the media without question. A scientist will have no problem getting a grant when he explores the right subject and produces the right results, there are plentiful funds for enforcing climate change because that is on the song sheet at the moment. If it is true, does anyone think those Pluto photos were worth 750 million dollars? If it isn't true where is the money going? Yes of course it's worth it those photos show our progression, let's hope they keep such valuable data safe then.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 You're just spouting the rubbish they tell you in their attempt to overturn hundreds of years of proven scientific advancement. It is an extremely twisted and sinister mentality, a bit like Islamic State and you are their jihadis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 you put too much stock in believing things you can't possibly know woolley. that's up to you. x Er. I think that might be you, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.