alexa Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 Is It Possible To Go Above Low Earth Orbit? We Have Been Lied To. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webtrekker Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 2 hours ago, alexa said: Is It Possible To Go Above Low Earth Orbit? We Have Been Lied To. Join the queue! There are other outstanding questions in this thread that have not been addressed yet, for whatever reasons, so I politely request that these take precedence before we are sidetracked into discussions of new theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 @alexashouldn't you put this up in the moon thread,I hope you didn't place it here just to confuse the issue,like your whirlpool, Amazon's AS at it's best 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 7 hours ago, peter said: The problem I see is if Polaris is at 90% above the north pole ,how can it be at 0% at the equator,that statement is ridiculous,because the position of Polaris hasn't changed,your point of observation has and your line of sight definitely isn't 0%. I'm getting a sense of that old French saying first the 8" per mile and the way it's applied and now this Polaris is confirmed at 0° at the equator by eye witness and photographic evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webtrekker Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 13 minutes ago, Diesel said: Polaris is confirmed at 0° at the equator by eye witness and photographic evidence. Yes, because of the Earth's CURVATURE. The inclination of Polaris is always the same as the latitude it is being observed from. Obviously, with negative latitudes (ie. South of the Equator), Polaris will not be visible (ignoring atmospheric refraction). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Diesel said: Polaris is confirmed at 0° at the equator by eye witness and photographic evidence. If it was at zero deg at the equator Polaris must have got its skates on and moved position then ,or maybe it is still in the same spot and it is your point of observation that has just changed and as I said before your new line of sight is definitely not 0 deg, why make a new triangle when you already have one from From Polaris due south to the center of the earth out the to the edge of the earth at the equator then back to Polaris. Edited January 18 by peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 2 minutes ago, peter said: If it was at zero deg at the equator Polaris must have got its skates on and moved position then ,or maybe it is still in the same spot and it is your point of observation that has just changed and as I said before your new line of sight is definitely not 0 deg, why make a new triangle when you already have one from From Polaris due south to the center of the earth out the to the edge of the earth at the equator then back to Polaris. Can you provide any evidence at all to support your argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Diesel said: Can you provide any evidence at all to support your argument? For Christ sake think just about it,don't tell me where back to, I know it's a triangle but I want proof, all this rubbish regarding Polaris has been done to death back in the thread .I gave you the benefit of the doubt but all its been is same shit different day So what you telling me is you can't even picture a simple 2D triangle in your head from the points I mentioned. Can I provide evidence ,NO ,not because I can't but I'm not wasting my time any more, enjoy Edited January 18 by peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 15 minutes ago, peter said: Can I provide evidence ,NO ,not because I can't but I'm not wasting my time any more, enjoy Peter, I wish you well. The discussion with you is going nowhere, so let's take a break to reflect. I am not claiming Polaris is viewable from the Southern Hemisphere, just that it is visible on the Horizon at the Equator. No scientists dispute this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadil Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 41 minutes ago, Diesel said: Can you provide any evidence at all to support your argument? This has already been discussed in the past few days. I posted about this with info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadil Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 5 minutes ago, Diesel said: Peter, I wish you well. The discussion with you is going nowhere, so let's take a break to reflect. I am not claiming Polaris is viewable from the Southern Hemisphere, just that it is visible on the Horizon at the Equator. No scientists dispute this. Its visible because of the obliquity. Ive already explaines this. Polaris has not moved, the Earths tilt has. If I knew you I could spend evenings with my telescope seeking answers together. Nothing personal but I think you need to see things through a telescope. Then when you do the maths, things become more obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 11 minutes ago, Bombadil said: Its visible because of the obliquity. Ive already explaines this. Polaris has not moved, the Earths tilt has. If I knew you I could spend evenings with my telescope seeking answers together. Nothing personal but I think you need to see things through a telescope. Then when you do the maths, things become more obvious. I would love to view myself from Ecuador, it would make things a lot easier. If Earth's tilt had moved how is it possible for both pole stars to be viewed at the Equator as witnessed? "Obliquity describes the tilt of the Earth's axis in relation to its orbital plane, which ranges from 22.1–24.5 degrees with a periodicity of ~41,000 years." Even accepting the argument of obliquity this would only equate to a 0.000006-degree shift per year. Put simply it would take approx 16666 years for the Earth Tilt to move by 0.1 degrees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadil Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 3 minutes ago, Diesel said: I would love to view myself from Ecuador, it would make things a lot easier. If Earth's tilt had moved how is it possible for both pole stars to be viewed at the Equator as witnessed? "Obliquity describes the tilt of the Earth's axis in relation to its orbital plane, which ranges from 22.1–24.5 degrees with a periodicity of ~41,000 years." Even accepting the argument of obliquity this would only equate to a 0.000006-degree shift per year. Put simply it would take approx 16666 years for the Earth Tilt to move by 0.1 degrees. But remember that that the angle of the North pole is the degree range you stated which is why the North star is visible from the equator. In honesty I don't really want to go over this again. The last few pages have explained all this. It seems to be going back to the beginning. Now it seems that it is always the job of non flat Earthers to justify the globe, etc. It is time for Flat Earthers to now do the same. (MOD NOTE: PROMOTION OF RELIGION IS AGAINST FORUM GUIDELINES, So please don't quote the most heavily edited, and censored book in history). Can anyone, in the interest of fairness, now answer the question about the nautical almanac? Also how do Flat Earthers explain a sextants function on a flat Earth? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 24 minutes ago, Diesel said: Even accepting the argument of obliquity this would only equate to a 0.000006-degree shift per year. Put simply it would take approx 16666 years for the Earth Tilt to move by 0.1 degrees. Correction to many noughts: Even accepting the argument of obliquity this would only equate to a 0.00006-degree shift per year. Put simply it would take approx 1666 years for the Earth Tilt to move by 0.1 degrees. 13 minutes ago, Bombadil said: But remember that that the angle of the North pole is the degree range you stated which is why the North star is visible from the equator. Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadil Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 26 minutes ago, Diesel said: Correction to many noughts: Even accepting the argument of obliquity this would only equate to a 0.00006-degree shift per year. Put simply it would take approx 1666 years for the Earth Tilt to move by 0.1 degrees. Exactly Which proves a globe Earth working under the conditions we are taught. Can somebody now address my previous questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 5 minutes ago, Bombadil said: Which proves a globe Earth working under the conditions we are taught. Only if you pretend refraction doesn't exist. You seem absolutely desperate to move on so go on, but I fail to see how you have proved your point. Infact you have proved mine., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Origin Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 6 hours ago, alexa said: Is It Possible To Go Above Low Earth Orbit? We Have Been Lied To. I would not rely on crow777 being one of the people who had to decode the construct, he had pattern to capture. Nothing more, nothing less. The same patterns have been filmed by people here, they are the same. And I am quite sure that he has no answers, because the moon is still earth. No matter how far we push, we will never leave earth. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexa Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 8 minutes ago, Origin said: No matter how far we push, we will never leave earth. I agree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Origin Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 4 minutes ago, alexa said: I agree with this. And yet you don't understand what earth is. And all that is in between are other states of the earth that will never be ours. You will neither be able to see nor touch it. Just think this is used for other stages of development that also have to exist. Or do you think we are the first ones.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadil Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 Ive answered everything clearly. Youre refraction argument is ridiculous. And has been explaimed. Im not desperate to move on. I am trying to determine if you are a troll or not. Can you now please answer the questions that I asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexa Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 25 minutes ago, Origin said: Or do you think we are the first ones.. I believe there has only ever been one earth which has been wiped clean many times, so no, we are not the first ones. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Origin Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 12 minutes ago, alexa said: I believe there has only ever been one earth which has been wiped clean many times, so no, we are not the first ones. Those who have to go did not give anything to the younger ones. Ok. Tiny traces were left behind that the later ones should find and that they have to decode it themselves. That was always the rule. And it could be that earth is a little more complex than flat or round... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webtrekker Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 Interesting explanation of Eratosthenes method by Carl Sagan ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) 46 minutes ago, webtrekker said: Interesting explanation of Eratosthenes method by Carl Sagan ... Mr Trekker I hope you haven't started them off again by posting this, a risky ploy indeed Edited January 22 by peter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webtrekker Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 14 minutes ago, peter said: Mr Trekker I hope you haven't started them off again by posting this, a risky ploy indeed Haha, no! They'd first have to refute the questions we've already asked and so far they seem unable to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.