• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Moon landing conspiracy and Flat Earth conspiracy theories go here and nowhere else

Status
Not open for further replies.

Magik85

Member
It shows a fundamental unfamiliarity with their theories when strawmen are always presented. You're mocking an idea nobody holds with those kinds of images.
Oh the irony....
The vast majority of flat earthers (or should i say every single one) show fundamental unfamiliarity with principles they are trying to disprove.
They have no clue about gravity, perspective, water "seeking" level, density and so on....
 

Nymphae

Banned
Can anyone explain this for me? I was under the impression that there was a fair bit of ice mass at the north pole. If you google search "North Pole", you will be given many images of land that appears similar to photographs of Antarctica. I watched a video last night of an expedition to the north pole, they were clearly on a landmass of ice.

XwWsYfI.jpg


I watched another video from a non-flat earther, some kid who had downloaded google earth and was just trying to find the north pole, and asking his followers to explain to him what he was missing. What most of us think is there does not appear to be there. It should be in this giant dark blue patch, no?

sa049Mu.jpg


Edit: Also didn't get any takers for explaining this one, I can't seem to find an explanation online that makes sense given the videos I've seen with delays of up to 11 seconds.



Should there not be some sort of delay in that transmission? It's perfectly synced with the musicians on Earth.
 
Last edited:

Nymphae

Banned
Ever thought that it wasn't live? A scripted show?


An astronaut and a rock singer recorded an original song together and released it today (Feb. 8) as the first duet of new music performed simultaneously in space and on the ground.

So that's out, what else you got?
 

iconmaster

Banned
I'm torn because the flat-earth theory has a lot of intuitive attractiveness, whereas the round-earth model requires a fairly extensive knowledge of math and astronomy (or at least astronomical experience gleaned through worldwide travel -- differences in constellations and such) to be convincing on an empirical basis. Arguments from the history of space exploration are not empirical arguments. I'm not saying only empirical arguments are valid arguments, however; far from it. But they do have significant persuasive power.

But I do tend to side with the Greeks on this one, who had the circumference nailed down pretty early on. If you correct for a bit of bad data in Eratosthenes' (third century BC!) methods, you get a circumference within 41 miles of the currently accepted measure.
 
I watched another video from a non-flat earther, some kid who had downloaded google earth and was just trying to find the north pole, and asking his followers to explain to him what he was missing. What most of us think is there does not appear to be there. It should be in this giant dark blue patch, no?

sa049Mu.jpg

Google Earth relies on Landsat/Sentinel-2 imagery which comes from satellites in a sun-synchronous orbit. A sun-synchronous orbit does not cover the poles, meaning that the limit of Landsat imagery is around 83 degrees. Anything above it, such as the North Pole will not be shown. Also Google Earth only shows satellite imagery over land and since the North Pole is in the middle of the Arctic Ocean Google Earth shows a map of the sea floor and not satellite imagery.

Edit: Also didn't get any takers for explaining this one, I can't seem to find an explanation online that makes sense given the videos I've seen with delays of up to 11 seconds.

Marching Bands also deal with sound delays which is the reason why they have certain techniques in order to compensate for this. Marching band musicians do not play off each other, but perform individually meaning that the back of the field starts performing first since their sound takes a longer distance to travel. Tempo changes and breaks are trained in advance through the use of a metronome, so every individual knows what to perform and when.



If you know that your delay is about 11 seconds, the person on Earth just starts to perform 11 seconds later than the astronaut. Their vocal and instrumental breaks are simply planned in advance and they do not wait for each other to finish. When both performances are put together, just like with the marching band, it will match together as intended.
 
Last edited:
If you know that your delay is about 11 seconds, the person on Earth just starts to perform 11 seconds later than the astronaut.Their vocal and instrumental breaks are simply planned in advance and they do not wait for each other to finish. When both performances are put together, just like with the marching band, it will match together as intended.
what happens if they are showing an 11 second delay to verbally respond, but seem to accidentally smile or react instantly to something happening on the ground...
 

Nymphae

Banned
Google Earth relies on Landsat/Sentinel-2 imagery imagery which comes from satellites in a sun-synchronous orbit. A sun-synchronous orbit does not cover the poles, meaning that the limit of Landsat imagery is around 83 degrees.

So everything inside that area on the south pole is a fabrication?

I suppose their reasoning is that they can't have an unfinished globe up there on display, so they've done some creative photoshopping to fill in the areas we apparently cannot image, and just bury that fact because who really cares.
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Banned
what happens if they are showing an 11 second delay to verbally respond, but seem to accidentally smile or react instantly to something happening on the ground...

That happens in news media all the time. You will often see people react even with a delay. It's easy to see where someone is going with a joke or point of debate before they finish.
 

Nymphae

Banned
"former Marine, CIA case officer, and US co-founder of the US Marine Corps intelligence activity" makes some interesting comments about the CIA and NASA. Is this guy a nut? Is this whole conference legit? My search results for news related to this organization seem rather sparse. Timestamped at the relevant lines.



all the nazi scientists...went to two places, they went to the CIA, and they went to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which in our world we call it Not a Space Agency. And as Kathy O'Brien has said so clearly, that's where the bulk of the mind control has been done.
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Banned
paperclip isn't a big secret, the scientists went all over the place, not just nasa

mind control experiments are def a thing tho, lols
 
What about this CIA astral projection "stargate project" I've been reading about today

That's some freaky shit
Read up on mkultra as a whole, during the admitted period the government was studying these things and then where all the roaches scattered afterwards. Remote viewing was only one very subdued part of their investigations/experiments.

Shit, ted Kazinsky was basically brainwashed by the same people who invented mkultra.
 

Uh huh, dude has been flying commercial airplanes for 32 years but has apparently never heard of an LCC aeronautical chart, the most common mapping system used for aviation:

Conceptually, the projection seats a cone over the sphere of the Earth and projects the surface conformally onto the cone. The cone is unrolled, and the parallel that was touching the sphere is assigned unit scale. That parallel is called the reference parallel or standard parallel. [...] Pilots use aeronautical charts based on LCC because a straight line drawn on a Lambert conformal conic projection approximates a great-circle route between endpoints for typical flight distances. The US systems of VFR (visual flight rules) sectional charts and terminal area charts are drafted on the LCC with standard parallels at 33°N and 45°N.

Also, he doesn't know the difference between altitude and trajectory, because if he would simply maintain his altitude during flight, his trajectory would result in a curved trajectory due to the gravitational pull of our planet.
 
Last edited:
Uh huh, dude has been flying commercial airplanes for 32 years but has apparently never heard of an LCC aeronautical chart, to most commonly used mapping system used for aviation:



Also, he doesn't know the difference between altitude and trajectory, because if he would simply maintain his altitude during flight, his trajectory would result in a curved trajectory due to the gravitational pull of our planet.
Shh, the anonymous person on the internet said they're a pilot and used a number not divisible by 5 to represent their experience. Why would they lie?

I also r pilot. 27 year. No see curve. Thanks you.
 

Nymphae

Banned
strange headache strange headache I don't understand how the Coriolis effect doesn't affect something like a bullet. I can find the video if I look around, but I recently saw a video where these two Mexican guys shot a magnum straight up into the air to see how long it takes to come down. It was up in the air for about 2 minutes, and came down within like a 20 foot radius of where they were standing every time they did it. Shouldn't the Earth's rotation affect this path a lot more than that? Are we just invoking gravity again and saying that magically keeps the bullet rotating with everything?
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
strange headache strange headache I don't understand how the Coriolis effect doesn't affect something like a bullet. I can find the video if I look around, but I recently saw a video where these two Mexican guys shot a magnum straight up into the air to see how long it takes to come down. It was up in the air for about 2 minutes, and came down within like a 20 foot radius of where they were standing every time they did it. Shouldn't the Earth's rotation affect this path a lot more than that? Are we just invoking gravity again and saying that magically keeps the bullet rotating with everything?

It does affect bullets. Snipers have to account for it.
 

Nymphae

Banned
It does affect bullets. Snipers have to account for it.

I wish I could find this video, these guys were just doing magnum tests and were not related to any conspiracy channels. The bullets were always in the air for the same amount of time and landed in the same area, they almost got hit a couple times it sounded like. Shouldn't the bullets be moving more? Like a lot more?
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
I wish I could find this video, these guys were just doing magnum tests and were not related to any conspiracy channels. The bullets were always in the air for the same amount of time and landed in the same area, they almost got hit a couple times it sounded like. Shouldn't the bullets be moving more? Like a lot more?

It doesn’t affect bullet trajectory much, only a few inches to the left or right at 1000 yards of horizontal traversal, depending on latitude.
 
Last edited:

Nymphae

Banned
It doesn’t affect bullet trajectory much, only a few inches to the left or right at 1000 yards of horizontal traversal, depending on latitude.

What if you're shooting a bullet straight up, the earth's rotation doesn't move the launching point away from the path?
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
What if you're shooting a bullet straight up, the earth's rotation doesn't move the launching point away from the path?

No, that’s not what the coriolis effect is, and not how objects on/near the Earth’s surface behave.

Gravity is a big deal. ;b
 

Nymphae

Banned
No, that’s not what the coriolis effect is, and not how objects on/near the Earth’s surface behave.

Gravity is a big deal. ;b

So you need to account for rotation on a horizontal shot, but a vertical shot just comes straight down again?
 
Last edited:

Nymphae

Banned
Another thing I don't understand about rotation speeds is why there is no apparent effect of two constant speeds while orbiting the sun. I've shared this in here before, this guy is interviewing an astrophysicist about some FE questions (under false pretenses.)



Timestamped at the relevant question. He shows her the video of a carnival ride where people are rotating in a circle on a witch's hat, while the whole thing moves back and forth on a half pipe. You feel acceleration and deceleration as you move with, then against the half pipe path while circling on the witch's hat. It's probably easier just to watch the video, the ride is self explanatory and the effects obvious.

So the earth rotates at 1000 mph at the equator, and also moves 66,000 mph around the sun in an elliptical orbit, but no acceleration or deceleration resulting from the two constant speeds is apparent. She says "because gravity" basically:

Guy: Surely with the rotation of the earth, and because it's going around the sun at 66,000 mph, we'd be experiencing deceleration and acceleration...

Astrophysicist: So you want to include all of the velocities involved? Of the earth...

Guy: Just two, the earth's rotation on it's axis 1000 mph, and 66,000 mph around the sun. If you're on the edge of this sphere, like a human being, you would surely be experiencing acceleration and deceleration

AP: Yes, exactly.

Guy: How does astrophysics at your level explain that?

AP:
Well it's gravitational forces. So one of rotational forces you have the rotation of the earth, so gravity of earth, and that would...holds Earth together, and when it rotates you experience this acceleration on the edge of the Earth, and the gravity of the Earth. But when the Earth goes around the sun, there is gravitational force towards the center of the sun. So two gravitational forces produce this effect of acceleration and deceleration combination [?]

Guy: But, wouldn't that mean we're not at a constant velocity, so humans should feel the rotation of the Earth?

AP: [long pause] That is interesting.

Guy: It's an interesting one. The astrophysicist I met, he did a model showing that it should show acceleration and deceleration...you can even go on the ISS which is orbiting the Earth, and this should also be experiencing A&D due to the two constant motions, just like the fairground ride.

AP: Right. Well, uh...

Guy: Probably need some homework

AP: Yeah I need some thinking
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
I recommend taking a physics course, Nymphae. You’ll conduct experiments and gain a lot of first hand experience, and your prof will be able to answer all your questions. You’re clearly curious and looking to learn.
 

Nymphae

Banned
I recommend taking a physics course, Nymphae. You’ll conduct experiments and gain a lot of first hand experience, and your prof will be able to answer all your questions. You’re clearly curious and looking to learn.

I'm not interested in taking a course at this point in my life, it's just a side interest. I am trying to learn more about this stuff in my own time and I appreciate everyone's responses. I've taken physics like everyone else has, and I used to be quite fond of theoretical physics books for laymen, I've read some Greene, Kaku, Hawking, Asimov's science writings, some others I don't remember now. I'm interested in hearing intelligent people critique the globe criticisms of FE proponents. That interview I shared is pretty interesting in that regard I think, particularly near the end when she is incapable of even tackling the questions anymore.
 

greyshark

Member
I'm not interested in taking a course at this point in my life, it's just a side interest. I am trying to learn more about this stuff in my own time and I appreciate everyone's responses. I've taken physics like everyone else has, and I used to be quite fond of theoretical physics books for laymen, I've read some Greene, Kaku, Hawking, Asimov's science writings, some others I don't remember now. I'm interested in hearing intelligent people critique the globe criticisms of FE proponents. That interview I shared is pretty interesting in that regard I think, particularly near the end when she is incapable of even tackling the questions anymore.

I can't speak to why the physicist couldn't answer the question, but here's the explanation:


There is also another way in which we could indirectly feel the Earth's spin. Above we said that the Earth spinning is an example of almost constant motion. The reason we said "almost" is that the Earth's spin carries us around in a circle, not in a straight line. It's a very big circle, and it takes a long time to go around, but qualitatively it is the same thing that happens on a spinning amusement park ride, where it feels like you're being flung outward as the ride spins around. The spinning Earth is flinging us away from its surface a tiny bit, so that we weigh a little less than we would otherwise, simply because we are not being held down to the surface as tightly.

However, this is a very small effect. At the equator, your weight is reduced (compared to a non-spinning Earth) by about 0.3%; the effect weakens as you go north or south, and once you reach the north or south pole it disappears completely because the Earth is not spinning there. So if you can feel differences in your weight of 0.3% (about half a pound for a 150 pound person), and if you travel from the equator to the north or south pole, then technically speaking, you could feel the effects of the Earth spinning. On the other hand, people's weight naturally fluctuates more than 0.3%, so it's unlikely that you'd be able to disentangle this from other effects (like whether or not you had just eaten lunch).
 

Nymphae

Banned
I'm curious to know if that has ever been experimentally verified, something weighing more at the poles vs equator.
 
Last edited:

greyshark

Member
I'm curious to know if that has ever been experimentally verified, something weighing more at the poles vs equator.

Are you questioning the 0.3% value? Centripetal acceleration of course has been experimentally verified - the equations to calculate the value in this example can be found here:


So some of the force of gravity (centripetal force) is being used to make you go around in a circle at the Equator (instead of flying off into space) while at the pole this is not needed. The centripetal acceleration at the Equator is given by four times pi squared times the radius of the Earth divided by the period of rotation squared (4×π2×R/T2). Earth's period of rotation is a sidereal day (86164.1 seconds, slightly less than 24 hours), and the equatorial radius of the Earth is about 6378 km. This means that the centripetal acceleration at the Equator is about 0.03 m/s2 (metres per second squared). Compare this to the acceleration due to gravity which is about 9.8 m/s2 and you can see how tiny an effect this is - you would weigh about 0.3% less at the equator than at the poles!
 

Nymphae

Banned
Are you questioning the 0.3% value? Centripetal acceleration of course has been experimentally verified

I'm not questioning that the math checks out, I'm curious how this has been experimentally verified, specifically that something would weigh less at the equator than the poles.
 
Last edited:

greyshark

Member
I'm not questioning that the math checks out, I'm curious how this has been experimentally verified, specifically that something would weigh less at the equator than the poles.

Looks like it has:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom