Here's a puzzle for you...

[beardy]

Density and buoyancy already accounts for why objects fall or rise when surrounded by other objects.

No they do not, without a motive force density and buoyancy would be irrelevant. They only have any bearing because of gravity as they vary the resistive forces against the acceleration due to gravity. Gravity isnt suspended when you have a vacuum.

[661-Pete]

(*sigh*) I own myself out-debated here. Manc33 clearly knows far more about FE than I ever did. I think I'll just have to get out on the bike and keep pedalling in a straight line until ────────────────────────────────────────┐

[Manc33]

There's no proof there are any satellites floating around up there, we just get told it.

Where's footage of a satellite being taken into space?

GPS can work just bouncing signals off the ionosphere and using ground triangulation. Go on http://www.flightradar24.com/ and see if you can track a plane anywhere going over the Southern ocean, you can't, they vanish when they start going over those oceans.

Flat Earthers say this is because flights like Sydney to Johannesburg are far greater distances on a flat Earth than a globe thus they have to hide the planes (or GPS can't cover there).

Sure enough, when you check you'll find they claim "non-stop" flights are available that aren't, they stop off in places like Dubai, going thousands of miles off course. They class it as non stop if it lands and refuels without passengers or luggage being taken off. Clever.

If you pick around the edges all of this is true. People are complaining now about how their flight isn't non-stop and so on, it's going to be funny to see how they carry on successfully covering up things like that now people are on the case. One travel website even changed its whole website around because some guy figured out you could search it and easily see they are claiming flights are non-stop that go thousands of miles out of the way to Dubai.

I am sure if GPS was a satellite based thing those flights would be able to be covered in the Southern hemnisphere. I guess with the triangulation method they can't quite cover the entire Earth, but aside from that they are covering up where the plane is really flying.

Its the same with real images of the Earth from space - there are none (and there are no videos). People seem to just not care, or they think animations, cartoons, paintings and so on are real. Well there's a lot of confirmation bias going on there. I worked in the photographic trade for more than 12 years and I know whats real and what isn't regarding photographs. NASA doesn't even attempt to try to fob us off with one they claim is real, we don't even get that.

Taken in isolation, it doesn't mean much, but add all of this stuff together and you can sort of tell NASA is just using actors and so on. There's no gravity, no curvature, no satellites.

It doesn't matter what I think though because other far more clued up people are investigating it and coming up with some shocking stuff. Check YouTube and watch "NASA CAUGHT USING ACTORS AGAIN" (no it isn't me but he has a right Manc accent lol).

Screenshot taken at time of posting, you can take one anytime, there's never a plane over the southern oceans...

http://i.imgur.com/SuPv0jz.jpg

Most people laugh at this stuff, but that's OK. As long as someone somewhere is aware of it and tells other people we always have some chance.

[Mick F]

Look at map of Antarctica.

Have you been there, or at least Down South?
I have.

Where is the edge of the Earth?
I never fell off it.

[beardy]

We can see the satellites in the night sky and we couldnt see them back in the 1970s when there werent any.

GPS can work just bouncing signals off the ionosphere and using ground triangulation. Go on http://www.flightradar24.com/ and see if you can track a plane anywhere going over the Southern ocean, you can't, they vanish when they start going over those oceans.

That website gets all its information from radar stations, it could show planes that were not there to be there if it wished. No planes shown on it need to have any GPS fitted in order to be shown, they just have to be within range of one of its radar stations.

[sjs]

As regards TV broadcast satellites, you could compare the alignment of the dishes on people's houses across the UK to get a good idea of the common intersection. Wouldn't prove it was a satellite but would be a point in the geostationary arc. What about Newton and his illustrious ilk? A bit thick, deluded like most of the rest of us, or part of a global conspiracy going back hundreds of years?

[Manc33]

Look at map of Antarctica.

Have you been there, or at least Down South?
I have.

Where is the edge of the Earth?
I never fell off it.

They describe the flat Earth as a sort of "puddle" though, not a flying disc, it depends which flat Earth theorist you're listening to, but the disc concept makes no sense, whereas the irregular puddle on a vast flat plane, does make more sense than the flying disc.

Some of them say the Earth is flying through space as a disc, when others say there isn't any "space" to it, or anything floating up there (except the sun and moon etc but they are super low density objects).

Antarctica in some flat Earth illustrations isn't circular (otherwise the inverted Antarctic coastline we get shown would also need to be). Its more of a square looking coastline, I assume because ice can cover land where sea next to it isn't frozen. This explains how a sun could be encircling around but have a very irregular looking coastline (compared to a circle anyway).

If Earth is a flat plane there's no need to "fall off". Ten mile high mountains and two mile high icebergs for 360 degrees around us see to that.

[freeflow]

We all know that the flat earth isn't a disk flying through space. It's actually carried by four elephants standing on the back of a giant tortoise. It says so in books I've read so it must be true.

[ddraver]

just a friendly FYI boys - http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=13020528

He's not interested in your answers Pete

[Keef66]

We all know that the flat earth isn't a disk flying through space. It's actually carried by four elephants standing on the back of a giant tortoise. It says so in books I've read so it must be true.

It's a turtle actually.

You lot should be aware that Manc33 has got form for this kind of thing elsewhere http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... start=1220

<moderated>

[AlexWale]

I mean you can't build a machine to demonstrate the force of gravity. We just have to "believe" it exists (wait, this is meant to be science!) because somebody says it does.

Yes you can, and it's been done.

It's called the Cavendish Experiment.

It shows that there is an attraction due to gravity between objects which are which are side by side.

[661-Pete]

Wow! A whole lot of new joiners. Welcome to the forum guys! By which I mean - welcome to all of the forum, not just the fun & games bit!

I don't know whether 'manc33' has done anything wrong by this forum, I don't see why he/she shouldn't be allowed freedom to post what they like within the forum rules - but that's for the Mods to decide.

As for me - I've given up. I thought I was the proud possessor of a Physics degree. Perhaps it's all a delusion...

[Manc33]

Here's how it goes:

1. I ask for "images of Earth from space". Let's say just five images.
2. Images that are paintings, still animations and composites get posted.
3. I say "I asked for real images".
4. People posting the mock ups claim they are real, when they are not.
5. I have still not seen any real images of the Earth from space.

If people are happy to accept all those fake images - that's fine, but don't include me in that when I know none of them are real. They are always a perfect circle and Earth is supposedly bulging at the equator in reality, so you know they are fake just from that.

No videos exist of Earth turning in space, either. People say what about the ISS feed - what about it, it is flown at a low altitude with a black vignette and wide angle lens. There's a reason it flies over the oceans 90% of the time, if it had land under it all the time people would probably start working it out.

I always thought in science, if you're making a claim, it needs backing up? The claim is - there's more than fifty years of space travel behind us and more than 30,000 satellites floating around the Earth - so in this case, can I see a few real images please?

People do get annoyed when you point this stuff out and they can't answer it, but that's not my problem, I got annoyed myself when first realizing it. You think "A real image, that's easy" then realize erm... where are they all.

[jochta]

I expect it's been mentioned but I cant be bothered reading the whole thread to find out but the answer to the original question is the difference between sidereal and synodic periods. See http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion3/sidereal_synodic.html where it's explained.

Basically the sidereal period, the time it takes Earth to rotate 360° against a fixed reference, is 23h 56m whereas the synodic period, the time interval between the Sun appearing overhead, averages out to 24h which is what our watches are set to. Various fudge factors (e.g. leap years) are required to allow for the differences between the sidereal and synodic years.

[jochta]

Here's how it goes:

1. I ask for "images of Earth from space". Let's say just five images.
2. Images that are paintings, still animations and composites get posted.
3. I say "I asked for real images".
4. People posting the mock ups claim they are real, when they are not.
5. I have still not seen any real images of the Earth from space.

If people are happy to accept all those fake images - that's fine, but don't include me in that when I know none of them are real. They are always a perfect circle and Earth is supposedly bulging at the equator in reality, so you know they are fake just from that.

No videos exist of Earth turning in space, either. People say what about the ISS feed - what about it, it is flown at a low altitude with a black vignette and wide angle lens. There's a reason it flies over the oceans 90% of the time, if it had land under it all the time people would probably start working it out.

I always thought in science, if you're making a claim, it needs backing up? The claim is - there's more than fifty years of space travel behind us and more than 30,000 satellites floating around the Earth - so in this case, can I see a few real images please?

People do get annoyed when you point this stuff out and they can't answer it, but that's not my problem, I got annoyed myself when first realizing it. You think "A real image, that's easy" then realize erm... where are they all.

Can't tell if you're being serious or not.

You wouldn't notice the Earth's bulge, the difference is a tiny fraction. The human eye couldn't discern it. Jupiter is obviously oblate to the naked-eye as the difference between it's polar and equatorial circumferences is much larger.

You can see the ISS and other satellites from the ground pretty much any night of the year. It's a fairly simple task to photograph the ISS to prove it's real and a simple task to photograph it from two or more locations to triangulate it's altitude and position.