Moon Landing Hoax

[CabinetMaker]

1. Eye level is straight ahead.

I hope you see that eye level for you looking straight ahead while standing on the street is not the same eye level as the person standing on the 100th floor of a building. Who can see farther? Why?

2. Exactly, they both fall at the same speed. They both are more dense than the atmosphere so they fall back down. At the same speed. It's the density itself. I've heard other theories where "gravity" exists but is dictated by temperature. I'm not sold on that, but it makes more sense than Newton's Star Wars force.

Why didn't you answer the question about the humans? Here it is again for you: Let's say you have two humans with the same density, one is 6' tall and the other is 4' tall, do they weigh the same? Why or why not?

 

[Daniel1611]

I hope you see that eye level for you looking straight ahead while standing on the street is not the same eye level as the person standing on the 100th floor of a building. Who can see farther? Why?



Why didn't you answer the question about the humans? Here it is again for you: Let's say you have two humans with the same density, one is 6' tall and the other is 4' tall, do they weigh the same? Why or why not?

1. This is my point. If i am on the street, the horizon is flat and at eye level. If I'm on top of a sky scraper, it is flat and at eye level. In a plane...flat and eye level. This shouldn't be possible on a ball. I should have to look down at the horizon.

2. Why is gravity needed for weight?

 

[CabinetMaker]

1. This is my point. If i am on the street, the horizon is flat and at eye level. If I'm on top of a sky scraper, it is flat and at eye level. In a plane...flat and eye level. This shouldn't be possible on a ball. I should have to look down at the horizon.

that would depend entirely on the radius of the ball. The bigger the ball, the higher up you have to be to see the curve. Any idea what the radius if the Earth is?

2. Why is gravity needed for weight?

Weight is a force that describes how hard you push down on the surface. Since it us a force, it obeys this law of physics W=m*a or weight equals mass times acceleration. Mass never changes and density is a function of mass. So if you know how dense something is you can figure out how much force it will have if it is accelerated. Gravity is an acceleration so when a mass is in a gravitational field, it will have weight.

Can you tell us why things would have weight in your system model?

 

[rocketman]

1. This is my point. If i am on the street, the horizon is flat and at eye level. If I'm on top of a sky scraper, it is flat and at eye level. In a plane...flat and eye level. This shouldn't be possible on a ball. I should have to look down at the horizon.

And if you go even higher you will begin to see the curvature of the earth...it is a matter of perspective.

2. Why is gravity needed for weight?

Needed? or caused by...weight is a force caused by gravity.

 

[rocketman]

that would depend entirely on the radius of the ball. The bigger the ball, the higher up you have to be to see the curve. Any idea what the radius if the Earth is?



Weight is a force that describes how hard you push down on the surface. Since it us a force, it obeys this law of physics W=m*a or weight equals mass times acceleration. Mass never changes and density is a function of mass. So if you know how dense something is you can figure out how much force it will have if it is accelerated. Gravity is an acceleration so when a mass is in a gravitational field, it will have weight.

Can you tell us why things would have weight in your system model?

Sorry for the repeat CM...:e4e:

 

[Daniel1611]

that would depend entirely on the radius of the ball. The bigger the ball, the higher up you have to be to see the curve. Any idea what the radius if the Earth is?



Weight is a force that describes how hard you push down on the surface. Since it us a force, it obeys this law of physics W=m*a or weight equals mass times acceleration. Mass never changes and density is a function of mass. So if you know how dense something is you can figure out how much force it will have if it is accelerated. Gravity is an acceleration so when a mass is in a gravitational field, it will have weight.

Can you tell us why things would have weight in your system model?

1. No, it doesn't depend on the size. The horizon would not remain flat and eye level as you continue to rise. Regardless of the size, it shouldn't happen. Whether it's 25,000 miles around like earth allegedly is or 100,000 miles. You should have to look down. But we don't see that. We see a flat eye level horizon regardless of height untill we get to the point where we have to rely on NASA and such agencies.

2. I'm still not getting an explanation if shy gravity is needed. There's equations that can factor in gravity, but I don't see WHY it us needed. Further, even if it us, it could have something to do with temperature. It's all theories like the theory of gravity of anything else. I'm not 100% sold on a theory yet so I won't dig my heels on one. The only thing I need to not accept
Conventional gravity is doubt.

 

[Daniel1611]

And if you go even higher you will begin to see the curvature of the earth...it is a matter of perspective.

I will see it or NASA will tell me? It can't be seen from a plane, so I will never see the curve.

I especially won't see the curve because it doesn't exist.

 

[CabinetMaker]

1. No, it doesn't depend on the size. The horizon would not remain flat and eye level as you continue to rise. Regardless of the size, it shouldn't happen. Whether it's 25,000 miles around like earth allegedly is or 100,000 miles. You should have to look down. But we don't see that. We see a flat eye level horizon regardless of height untill we get to the point where we have to rely on NASA and such agencies.

Yes it does. The greater the radius the more something looks flat because you can approximate a circle with a series of straight lines. As the radius increases, the length of the straight line that approximates the curve also increases. Thus, to see the true curvature, the higher up you have to be. The higher you are, the farther away the horizon is from you.

2. I'm still not getting an explanation if shy gravity is needed. There's equations that can factor in gravity, but I don't see WHY it us needed. Further, even if it us, it could have something to do with temperature. It's all theories like the theory of gravity of anything else. I'm not 100% sold on a theory yet so I won't dig my heels on one. The only thing I need to not accept
Conventional gravity is doubt.

You can and do experiance this in a care or in an air plane. When you step on the gas or when an air plane begins it's take off run, you are pressed back into your seat by the acceleration of the car or plane. If you had a scale behind you, you would see your weight increase. Has you mass changed? Have you changed in any way? If not, why does your weight change?

 

[rocketman]

I will see it or NASA will tell me? It can't be seen from a plane, so I will never see the curve.

Depends on the plane, at 55k feet the curvature can be seen from an airplane and has been viewed by pilots & passengers alike aboard the Concorde, SR-71, or U2 for example. Never say never...

As seen out the window of the Concorde...

I especially won't see the curve because it doesn't exist.

OK, if you say so...:chuckle:

 

[fool]

Another perfectly good Moon Landing Hoax thread has turned into a Flat Earth thread where people aren't "sold" on gravity.
I shall leave this for the Christians to figure out between themselves in the hopes that some consensus shall be reached and then we can move on to why the universe isn't 6,000 years old.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I will see it or NASA will tell me? It can't be seen from a plane, so I will never see the curve.

I especially won't see the curve because it doesn't exist.

Red Bull saw it and photographed it. They are not part of NASA.

 

[rocketman]

A picture of Lake Tahoe taken at 90'000 feet from the SR-71 Blackbird. The higher you go the more evident it gets...the curvature that is.

 

[rocketman]

Another perfectly good Moon Landing Hoax thread has turned into a Flat Earth thread where people aren't "sold" on gravity.
I shall leave this for the Christians to figure out between themselves in the hopes that some consensus shall be reached and then we can move on to why the universe isn't 6,000 years old.

The whole "flat earth", "gravity is a theory I don't accept" thing is a bit much for me as well. The guy is either hopelessly naive or deliberately stupid at this point. Peace out. :wave2:

 

[Daniel1611]

Red Bull saw it and photographed it. They are not part of NASA.

A picture of Lake Tahoe taken at 90'000 feet from the SR-71 Blackbird. The higher you go the more evident it gets...the curvature that is.

Fish eye windows and fish eye lenses will give this effect. On the red bull video, you can pause it and take a screen shot and show a concave horizon. The lense is distorting it.

 

[User Name]

Fish eye windows and fish eye lenses will give this effect. On the red bull video, you can pause it and take a screen shot and show a concave horizon. The lense is distorting it.

.

​

 

[CabinetMaker]

Fish eye windows and fish eye lenses will give this effect. On the red bull video, you can pause it and take a screen shot and show a concave horizon. The lense is distorting it.

But there is no distortion of the pilot or craft. If the lense were distorting something, it would distort everything to some degree.

 

[rocketman]

Fish eye windows and fish eye lenses will give this effect. On the red bull video, you can pause it and take a screen shot and show a concave horizon. The lense is distorting it.

Why is the structure of the aircraft (SR-71) not curved also? I see some pretty straight lines there...how far do you want to take this delusion of yours? :think:

 

[Daniel1611]

But there is no distortion of the pilot or craft. If the lense were distorting something, it would distort everything to some degree.

Why is the structure of the aircraft (SR-71) not curved also? I see some pretty straight lines there...how far do you want to take this delusion of yours? :think:

The foreground isn't usually noticeably distorted. YouTube the red bull video. You'll see the horizon morphing from flat to concave to convex, but the guy in the foreground appears normal

 

[rocketman]

The foreground isn't usually noticeably distorted. YouTube the red bull video. You'll see the horizon morphing from flat to concave to convex, but the guy in the foreground appears normal

What? There is no "guy", this is photo taken thru the cockpit window of an aircraft. Now your just being deliberately ignorant...first you say the curvature of the earth cannot be seen from a plane, I give you two great examples and all you have is your deliberate ignorance of photography as well as the subject matter being discussed. You have no credibility on the subject nor the credible scientific answers to back up your assertions. Epic Fail!

 

[Daniel1611]

What? There is no "guy", this is photo taken thru the cockpit window of an aircraft. Now your just being deliberately ignorant...first you say the curvature of the earth cannot be seen from a plane, I give you two great examples and all you have is your deliberate ignorance of photography as well as the subject matter being discussed. You have no credibility on the subject nor the credible scientific answers to back up your assertions. Epic Fail!

I was referring to the red bull video.

And as I said before, it all comes down to dubious pictures. Others have tried to say there is much proof for the globe besides alleged photos, but when push comes to shove, we keep going back to pictures. Because that's all the globularists have is fake pictures. It is like I said, without paintings and fish lenses, you have nothing but some speculations