Jump to content

Flat Earth?


gerrydandridge

Recommended Posts

Photo taken from mount Everest...

 

top_600.jpg

Why don't you do some maths and work out what the dip angle would be on an earth with a radius of 6400 km from a height of 8,800 metres?

 

Are you capable of doing it, Gerry?

 

Maybe you could read an account of it from 1797 - Observations on Horizontal Refractions which affect the appearance of Terrestrial objects and the Dip, or Depression of the Horizon at Sea.

 

Or someone from 1950 looking how different atmospheric conditions affected it - Investigations into the Dip of the Horizon H. C. Freiesleben (German Hjdrographic Institute)

 

Or how about people sending rockets up really high up and taking the advantage of the horizontal dip to get additional solar visibility.

 

The high altitude flight of the FFM [rocket] provides additional solar visibility via the dip angle [2]. Figure 10 indicates the dip angle from the FFM local inertial horizontal to the horizon at each trajectory simulation point. The dip angle at 275 km is -16.5°. Solar elevations above -16.5° (in Figure 9) allow sunlight onto the FFM throughout the flight time of interest.

 

It's so easy to ignore evidence when you pretend it is all faked by the lizard people. People living in the real world can actually measure this quite easily, all it requires is a dip sector, a common navigational instrument from the age of exploration and sail.

 

large.jpg

 

But just keep ignoring evidence Gerry and pretending all contrary evidence is fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

As ever Gerry misses a couple of important points.

 

With a flat Earth things wouldn't disappear over the horizon, and secondly the horizon wouldn't appear at a lower angle the higher you go - something called horizon dip.

 

Both are well observed phenomena, but Gerry doesn't let that get in the way of his beliefs.

That was my line of thought, Chinahand. I get the effect of perspective making things look smaller, but if the earth was flat, with a powerful enough telescope couldn't I see America from the west of Ireland?

 

It isn't really telescopes which would clinch it, but telecommunications - you would be able to send radar and microwave signals over the Atlantic say without all that messing about with satellites or the ionosphere.

 

Let's await Gerry's post insisting all the evidence we have for satellites and short wave using the ionosphere is faked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here is the latest picture of earth, 40,000 satellites are orbiting it, cant you see them, don't some of them have flashing lights?, we can see Pluto's thin atmosphere, do these Satellites have an anti-reflective coating on them?

 

 

earth-blue-marble-dscvr.jpg?quality=65&s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here is the latest picture of earth, 40,000 satellites are orbiting it, cant you see them, don't some of them have flashing lights?, we can see Pluto's thin atmosphere, do these Satellites have an anti-reflective coating on them?

 

 

earth-blue-marble-dscvr.jpg?quality=65&s

I can't see you down there either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well here is the latest picture of earth, 40,000 satellites are orbiting it, cant you see them, don't some of them have flashing lights?, we can see Pluto's thin atmosphere, do these Satellites have an anti-reflective coating on them?

I can't see you down there either.

You must admit, gerry has gone a bit flat recently...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The angular resolution of an optical device is 1.22 λ/D where λ is the wavelength of light and D is the diameter of the main lens/mirror.

 

If the object being resolved is a distance of d away then the size ® of the object capable of being resolved is r = 1.22 λ x d / D.

 

Gerry, care to actually use your brain and the internet to work out what size object can be resolved by the DSCOVR cameras?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't expect to see little dots floating around but we see light reflecting off of particles in Pluto's atmosphere, wouldn't 40,000 car sizes objects buzzing around Earth make some sort of haze or light refraction?

 

Edit: looking at that new earth picture now, that word just stands right out, I had to pinch myself when I initially saw it.....You really couldn't make this up anymore, I think some big disclosure is about to come out, I cant see any other reason for the blatant mickey taking from NASA....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't expect to see little dots floating around but we see light reflecting off of particles in Pluto's atmosphere, wouldn't 40,000 car sizes objects buzzing around Earth make some sort of haze or light refraction?

 

Probably, but there aren't anywhere near 40,000 car sizes [sic] objects in orbit.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/idealab/satellites-earth-orbit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Albert, but when I think of another billion dollar probe being launched out to space, I have the image of Han Solo navigating the asteroid field in star wars in my mind, or is it just luck that they get a clear shot into space?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...