200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

[TAEZZAR]

I find it amusing that this thread went from a train wreck to getting derailed into a discussion about train derailments. Might it later evolve into a dumpster fire? Only time will tell.

Eric, be careful what you wish for, that may have only been a warning !

 

[newmisty]

Eric, be careful what you wish for, that may have only been a warning !

*Starts rooting around for graham crackers and marshmallows

 

[Bottom Feeder]

 

[Juristic Person]

On the Moon, in full Sunlight, it was heat they mostly had to deal with, not cold.

Edited to add: if they were on the far side of the Moon for that long, then yes, cold would have been a problem.

The heat is a result of the light from the Sun hitting an object.
The more reflective an object's surface is, the more light (and therefore heat) will be reflected away. Ie: not absorbed by the object.

To be more specific, the average temperature on the (sun exposed) surface of the moon is 260 degrees. Given that the surface of the moon is also a vacuum, the boiling point of water on the surface is only 60 degrees. Those space suits must have been magical...good thing NASA consulted with Walt Disney to help bring some of that Disney magic to the Apollo program!

 

[Juristic Person]

Hard to tell from the picture alone. Maybe it's petrified wood from the remains of an ancient giant tree stump.

 

[newmisty]

Hard to tell from the picture alone. Maybe it's petrified wood from the remains of an ancient giant tree stump.

Its actually the petrified remains of those poor brave souls who dared venture too close to the edge

 

[Juristic Person]

And yet this entire time the Earth has been rotating while simultaneously revolving for all to see and witness firsthand.

Where have you witnessed the rotating and revolving of the Earth?

 

[Juristic Person]

Its actually the petrified remains of those poor brave souls who dared venture too close to the edge

I don't believe there is an edge.

 

[newmisty]

Where have you witnessed the rotating and revolving of the Earth?

My lawn.

 

[newmisty]

I don't believe there is an edge.

That's good. One for the win column JP

 

[Juristic Person]

My lawn.

Where is your lawn? On the moon?

 

[newmisty]

Where is your lawn? On the moon?

Why, can you easily see the earth rotating and revolving from there?

 

[Joe King]

To be more specific, the average temperature on the (sun exposed) surface of the moon is 260 degrees.

What, specifically, is 260 degrees?

Given that the surface of the moon is also a vacuum, the boiling point of water on the surface is only 60 degrees. Those space suits must have been magical.

Is heat conducted through a vacuum?

260 degrees here on Earth would roast everyone, but not in space. Or on the Moon.

You seem to be stuck in the thinking that 260 degrees in space is the same as 260 degrees in an oven here on Earth.

It's not the same.

 

[Juristic Person]

What, specifically, is 260 degrees?



Is heat conducted through a vacuum?

260 degrees here on Earth would roast everyone, but not in space. Or on the Moon.

You seem to be stuck in the thinking that 260 degrees in space is the same as 260 degrees in an oven here on Earth.

It's not the same.

Specifically - the surface of the moon. Also - other objects (like the rover....and the astronauts) would have absorbed and enormous amount of heat as well while in direct sunlight.

 

[Juristic Person]

Why, can you easily see the earth rotating and revolving from there?

Given the fact that nobody has ever been there, we really can't answer that question for sure.

 

[DodgebyDave]

So......no edge means that the earth just goes on forever.....

 

[newmisty]

So......no edge means that the earth just goes on forever.....

More believable than the Earth being just like all the other observable planets! Duh.

 

[Bottom Feeder]

So......no edge means that the earth just goes on forever.....

Kinda like a gif

 

[Joe King]

Specifically - the surface of the moon. Also - other objects (like the rover....and the astronauts) would have absorbed and enormous amount of heat as well while in direct sunlight.

How much of that sunlight was reflected away from those objects?

Also, their spacesuits were water cooled.


Your temps are also wrong.

Here is a graph showing temp data from a device left on the Moon.

Notice that Kelvin temps are on the left, but also notice the corresponding Fahrenheit temps on the right.
Then look along the bottom at the dates those temps were measured.

Looks to me as though those temps during the time they were there, were quite survivable.

 

[newmisty]

Kinda like a gif

Snicker

 

[newmisty]

How much of that sunlight was reflected away from those objects?

Also, their spacesuits were water cooled.


Your temps are also wrong.

Here is a graph showing temp data from a device left on the Moon.

View attachment 257150

Notice that Kelvin temps are on the left, but also notice the corresponding Fahrenheit temps on the right.
Then look along the bottom at the dates those temps were measured.

Looks to me as though those temps were quite survivable.

Joe we've already been dictated to the temperature is temperature.

Reminds me of the hysterical LAUGHS WE GOT AT THE STUPID LIBERAL AT THE METAL SHOP WHO INSISTED THAT IT NEVER GOT BELOW 32° BECAUSE NPR SAID SO EVEN THOUGH HE WAS BEING POINTED OUT THE ICE THAT FORMED IN THE COLD SAW AND THE SINK.

SRY CAPS GOT STUCK

 

[goldielox1]

On the Moon, in full Sunlight, it was heat they mostly had to deal with, not cold.

Edited to add: if they were on the far side of the Moon for that long, then yes, cold would have been a problem.

The heat is a result of the light from the Sun hitting an object.
The more reflective an object's surface is, the more light (and therefore heat) will be reflected away. Ie: not absorbed by the object.

Another clueless response from you Joe. I've never seem someone with so little knowledge on a subject have so much to say (attempting to correct others and such).

Think about it. Why would the "far side of the moon" be colder than the near side? If anything, the opposite would be true. Based on your previous posts you obviously believe in the copernican cosmological model. Do you even understand how the solar system works in the Copernican model?

 

[Bottom Feeder]

Do you even understand how the solar system works

Just a little question here, g-l; when you look at the outside temperature (at your domicile, not on the moon) do you look at the temperature in the shade or in the full sunlight to determine the outside temperature?

BF

 

[Joe King]

Another clueless response from you Joe. I've never seem someone with so little knowledge on a subject have so much to say (attempting to correct others and such).

You're entitled to your opinion.
....and I feel the same towards your opinion.

Think about it. Why would the "far side of the moon" be colder than the near side?

Because there would have been no Sunlight hitting the far side of the Moon. They were on the Sunlit side, and that side was also facing the Earth.

It stands to reason that the far side, from the astronauts perspective would have been un-lit and therefore, colder than where they were.

In case you did not know, Sunlight heats things up and when that Sunlight is removed, they cool down.

Try it sometime. Take two identical objects and place one in direct Sunlight and the other in a shadow protected from direct Sunlight. Wait a little bit then check to see how warm each object is. It's pretty obvious based on your posts here, that you'll be amazed.

 

[Joe King]

Just a little quest here, g-l; when you look at the outside temperature (at your domicile, not on the moon) do you look at the temperature in the shade or in the full sunlight to determine the outside temperature?

BF

Sunlight, shade. It's all the same to our goldie. Lol

 

[newmisty]

Another clueless response from you Joe. I've never seem someone with so little knowledge on a subject have so much to say (attempting to correct others and such).

Think about it. Why would the "far side of the moon" be colder than the near side? If anything, the opposite would be true. Based on your previous posts you obviously believe in the copernican cosmological model. Do you even understand how the solar system works in the Copernican model?

 

[newmisty]

Sunligh, shade. It's all the same to our goldie. Lol

What's that flat earthers saying, everything is always the same in a hologram. Except planets."

 

[BarnacleBob]

Before the {alleged} moon landing in 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were training in a desert-like, remote area in the western US. The area was home to several Native communities. One day they came across an old Native American man...
After they told the old man they were training to go to the moon, the old man said, "people of my tribe believe that holy spirits live on the moon. I want you to pass down a message to them"
The astronauts agreed to it and asked what the message was. The old man said something in his tribal language and asked them to repeat it till they memorize it...
When asked what it meant, the old man refused to translate saying it was a secret between his people and the holy spirits....
Once the astronauts returned to their base, they started looking for someone who could translate the message. After they found a translator, they repeated the message they had memorized and the translator started laughing...
Puzzled, they asked him what it meant and the translator said it meant, "Don't believe a single word these people are telling you, they have come to steal your lands."

Source: Sapiens by Yuvol Noah Harari

 

[Juristic Person]

So......no edge means that the earth just goes on forever.....

I'm by no means an expert or an authority on this. The truth is that I don't know what the shape of the Earth is or what is beyond Earth. But yes, one theory - as plausible as the infinite "outer space" theory - is that Earth could just be an infinite flat plane. I'm not saying this is what I believe to be true - I'm just offering an altering viewpoint. The Bible is a better source of information here than I am. I don't believe the Bible mentions anything about an "outer space" that expands infinitely in all directions.

What I can tell you is that I do not believe a damn thing that NASA tells us.

 

[newmisty]

Will COVID-19 kill off flat Earthism once and for all?

One silver lining of the pandemic: The value of common sense, facts and rational decisions increases.

bigthink.com

STRANGE MAPS — MARCH 20, 2020
Will COVID-19 kill off flat Earthism once and for all
One silver lining of the pandemic: The value of common sense, facts and rational decisions increases

Image: Library of Congress – public doma

Orlando Ferguson's map of the square and stationary earth (1893
KEY TAKEAWAY
The recent rise of flat-Earth theory can be explained by a certain social and political atmosphere. The coronavirus crisis may put an end to the flat-Earth model's already waning popularity, which has been trending down since 2017. Some have already argued that the coronavirus will sound the death-knell for populism. Perhaps it will prove the last straw for flat Earthism to
Looks like a snow globe: The world according to Homer


Image: Public dom

INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPT
‘It is no surprise,’ writes The Economist, ‘that the industry clobbered hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic is the one responsible for helping spread it to the four corners of the earth.

Even without further context, you will have guessed the economic sector in question: the airline industry. But if you’re of a particular (some would say: peculiar) mindset, another thing will have struck you about that sentenc


The four corners of the earth! Aha! How ever much they try, even the mainstream media can’t completely cover up the truth: that our earth is flat, not spherical! And this in a piece about airlin

That last bit is the icing on the cake, if you’re a flat Earther. Airlines are some of the worst offenders against flat Earth truth, what with their assertions that you can fly around the world and go east by winging it west; or north, if only you keep going south long enough.Let’s not begrudge our putative flat Earthers their chuckle. For that third thing stalking the above sentence—the coronavirus—could prove more devastating for their belief system than they may yet surmis

In the oft-quoted words of Ernest Hemingway, bankruptcies happen in two ways: “Gradually, then suddenly.” That also applies to intellectual bankruptcies, and their demise too is speeded up by crises like the current on

One silver lining of earth-shaking emergencies like these is that they tend to reaffirm the value of common sense, fact-based discourse and rational leadership. Some have already argued that the coronavirus will sound the death-knell for populism. And perhaps it will prove the last straw for flat Earthism to


What goes up, must come down: the rise and fall of the flat-Earth trend




TRENDING DO
As this Google Trends graph shows, flat-Earth theory had been growing in popularity since the mid-2010s—one more symptom of the generalized blurring of the line between fact and opinion. But eventually the novelty of taking ‘fake news’ for real starts wearing off. The popularity of ‘flat Earth’ as a search term peaked at the end of 2017 and has since been in decline. Two exceptions

The spike in March 2019 reflects media attention for a plan by flat Earthers to organize a cruise to Antarctica, which according to them is not a continent centered on the South Pole, but a giant ice wall fencing off the edges of the world. In the ‘flat Earth’ scenario, circling Antarctica would take more than 60,000 miles, not 14,500 miles, as in the ‘Ball Earth’ one. That cruise would once and for all prove the ‘sun-worshippers’ (i.e. proponents of scientific heliocentrism) wron
A smaller spike towards the end of the graph corresponds to news about the death of ‘Mad’ Mike Hughes, who died this February when his homemade, steam-powered rocket crashed into the Californian desert shortly after take-off. Hughes had wanted to fly high enough above the earth to gather photographic evidence of its ‘flatness’.The cruise was scheduled for this year but may not go ahead as planned, for obvious reasons. But even if it did, and failed, that in itself wouldn’t be the end of flat Earthism. Like ufology, its defeats merely enhance its belief in the vastness and intricacy of the conspiracy it seeks to unmask


Excerpt from Tractatus de Sphaera (‘On the sphere of the world’), published in 1230 AD by Johannes de Sacrobosco (a.k.a. John of Holywood), clearly showing the nautical proof for the earth’s curvature. Sacrobosco’s book was required reading at European universities for the next four centuries.

DEFAULT POSITION

On a flat Earth, many theories and observations that fit with the spherical Earth model no longer make sense. These include:

• The formation and movement of continents
• The existence of tides
• The change of seasons
• The phases of the Moon
• The existence of gravity

Yes, gravity. Flat Earthers who have given their model some thought (emphasis on some), often claim gravity doesn’t exist. That’s because equal gravitational pull only really makes sense on a globe. Towards the edges of a disc world, gravity would pull at you from an increasing angle instead of straight down. And not just dear old you. Air and water would also be pulled toward the central North Pole, leaving the edges bereft of both.

So, if gravity can’t make a flat Earth model work… gravity must be wrong. The flat Earth counter-model: a disc world that is accelerating upward at a rate of 32 feet (9.8 meters) per second squared, giving the illusion of gravity.

Nor can flat Earthers explain why the shortest distance between Australia and South America isn’t over the North Pole. Or why people at any edge of the disc see the same stars in the sky—yet those differ from the heavens at the centre of the disc.

Map of the flat Earth, showing the ice wall at its outer limits.

Image: Public domain

DUSTBIN OF GEOGRAPHY​

These are just few slingshots from the vast and well-stocked arsenal of scientific arguments against the flat Earth model. But most flat Earthers are less interested in arguing with scientists than in cherry-picking half-truths that allow them to claim the title of lone wolves, fighting for truth against a vast network of conspirators.

But here’s the thing. Just limiting ourselves to the personnel involved in the space race, that network numbers in the hundreds of thousands and is spread out over various competing countries and organizations. And yet, it has managed to enforce a total omertà for more than half a century.

That’s testament to the power of the conspiracy. Yet at the same time, it is too weak to stop flat Earthers from spreading their message. But most importantly: That vast and costly conspiracy, both so successful and unsuccessful, serves no apparent purpose.

Except if that conspiracy is… ‘Satanic’. Ultimately reintroducing religious fundamentalism into the belief system, the divine, flat Earth world view is at war with the globular view, which somehow supports the Devil’s plan with the world.

Meanwhile, the real world has just received a deadly wake-up call from nature, which it is scrambling to contain. COVID-19 will leave a lasting impression on humankind, not all of it bad: The pandemic has demonstrated that our planet’s problems do not stop at national borders, and how ill prepared we are to solve them country by country.

Perhaps this will finally urge us towards an era of truly global cooperation and progress. But at least it should eliminate our patience with fraud, quackery and self-indulgent wrong-headedness, delivering the flat Earth into the dustbin of geography, where it belongs… together with its pre-dustified cousin, the Hollow Earth (#85).

 

[goldielox1]

You're entitled to your opinion.
....and I feel the same towards your opinion.



Because there would have been no Sunlight hitting the far side of the Moon. They were on the Sunlit side, and that side was also facing the Earth.

It stands to reason that the far side, from the astronauts perspective would have been un-lit and therefore, colder than where they were.

In case you did not know, Sunlight heats things up and when that Sunlight is removed, they cool down.

Try it sometime. Take two identical objects and place one in direct Sunlight and the other in a shadow protected from direct Sunlight. Wait a little bit then check to see how warm each object is. It's pretty obvious based on your posts here, that you'll be amazed.

LOL Why would no sunlight hit the "far side of the moon" under the copernican model?

 

[Bottom Feeder]

 

[Joe King]

LOL Why would no sunlight hit the "far side of the moon" under the copernican model?

Do you have a ball? Are you capable of shining a flashlight at it?

Does your flashlight illuminate all sides of the ball at the same time?

If not, why not?


Since you can't seem to figure it out, by "farside" I mean the side facing away from the Earth, as it would not have been illuminated by the Sun's light.

The astronauts were clearly on the lit side of the Moon with Earth being visible in their sky.

So would it not stand to reason that they were on the near-side of the Moon?


Also, you were going on and on about the temps on the Moon. So I posted a chart showing the temps were well within a survivable range. No comment? Just drop it and run off once you see how wrong you were?

Ie: that's the typical MO of the Moon hoaxers and flat Earthers. Lol

 

[Joe King]

Will COVID-19 kill off flat Earthism once and for all

You mean there could be a silver lining to the wuflu BS? Lol

One silver lining of the pandemic: The value of common sense, facts and rational decisions increases

Not from what I've seen, if this thread is any indication. Lol

 

[newmisty]

You mean there could be a silver lining to the wuflu BS? Lol



Not from what I've seen, if this thread is any indication. Lol

Shhh...it's reverse psychology.

 

[Juristic Person]

How much of that sunlight was reflected away from those objects?

Also, their spacesuits were water cooled.


Your temps are also wrong.

Here is a graph showing temp data from a device left on the Moon.

View attachment 257150

Notice that Kelvin temps are on the left, but also notice the corresponding Fahrenheit temps on the right.
Then look along the bottom at the dates those temps were measured.

Looks to me as though those temps during the time they were there, were quite survivable.

You are a fantastic Googler.

 

[Joe King]

You are a fantastic Googler.

Says the guy who started this whole exchange by making the following statements.

To be more specific, the average temperature on the (sun exposed) surface of the moon is 260 degrees.

You are being very specific. How do you know it is 260 degrees?

Did you, (gasp!) happen to look it up, or did you measure it yourself?
....and is it that temp 100% of the time, or does it take time for things to heat up due to the Sunlight shining on them?

You know, kinda like what is shown in that graph I posted where it shows the temps over the course of a Lunar cycle.

It has a max and min temp. As long as you go there when it is in a range you can survive, why tf would it be a problem?

Given that the surface of the moon is also a vacuum,

How do you know that? Did you look that up too?

C'mon man, that's cheating! Or so I've been told online. Lol

the boiling point of water on the surface is only 60 degrees.

Again, how exactly do you know this? You word it as though it is fact. Did you actually boil water on the surface of the Moon and then check the temperature of it? Or did you look it up?
....and yet you try to get a jab in because I looked something up, same as you did?

Why not just address the fact that the facts I found are better than the ones you found?


Let's recap.

First you use data to make your point that could only have come from nasa and be found using a search engine, and then respond as you did when I use a search engine to find info from the same source that shows you were wrong.

I thought you were better than that JP.


How can we have an honest discussion if you constantly move the goalposts? It's ok for you to spout facts that you find to support your ideas, but not ok for me to spout better facts that I've found using the same tools as you use?

Seems there's a word for that.

 

[newmisty]

What I love about this thread is it's like opening a box of cracker jacks seeing what the latest response is.

 

[goldielox1]

Do you have a ball? Are you capable of shining a flashlight at it?

Does your flashlight illuminate all sides of the ball at the same time?

If not, why not?


Since you can't seem to figure it out, by "farside" I mean the side facing away from the Earth, as it would not have been illuminated by the Sun's light.

The astronauts were clearly on the lit side of the Moon with Earth being visible in their sky.

So would it not stand to reason that they were on the near-side of the Moon?


Also, you were going on and on about the temps on the Moon. So I posted a chart showing the temps were well within a survivable range. No comment? Just drop it and run off once you see how wrong you were?

Ie: that's the typical MO of the Moon hoaxers and flat Earthers. Lol

Again your lack of knowledge about the copernican model is astounding. Breaking news for you: Under the copernican model (or any model I know of), the earth doesn't illuminate the moon. Let that sink in for a second, since you're so busy flapping your lips you don't spend any time thinking before you spout off.

No I didn't bother responding to your assinine chart which is obviously way off. According to space.com the daytime highs on the moon are from 250-424 deg F. (Exactly what I said in all my previous posts (temps up to 400 deg F which is 3x what your uncited chart claims.)

What is the Temperature on the Moon?

The pits of craters at the lunar poles are home to the coldest temperatures on the moon.

www.space.com

And I'm not a flat earther. Once again you're wrong (shocker).

 

[Joe King]

Again your lack of knowledge about the copernican model is astounding.

Your lack of knowledge makes me look a genius, in comparison.
....and I never claimed to be a genius. So we all know where that'd put you on the iq scale.

Breaking news for you: Under the copernican model (or any model I know of), the earth doesn't illuminate the moon. L

Who the heck ever said it did?

If that's what you got out of my post, your reading ability might be ok, but your ability to understand what you've read, sucks.

Let that sink in for a second, since you're so busy flapping your lips you don't spend any time thinking before you spout off.

That defines you perfectly, mr "i think he said the Earth illuminates the Moon", guy. Lol

Also, it wasn't what I was referring to at all, but seeing as you brought up the idea of the Earth lighting the Moon, there is such a thing as "Earth shine".
So in a way, some light reflected off of the Earth does in fact strike the Moon.

Look it up.

No I didn't bother responding to your assinine chart which is obviously way off.

Yet my asinine chart from nasa is where the info in your next statement comes from. Lol

According to space.com the daytime highs on the moon are from 250-424 deg F.

Yep, and that data came from the same source as the data reflected in "my" chart.

Also, keep in mind those are DAYTIME highs.

Daytime on the Moon lasts approx two weeks. When the astronauts were on the Moon, it was early in the Lunar day and the Sun was only about 30 degrees above the horizon.

Or are you so ignorant as to think that the instant any Sunlight hits an object in space or on the Moon, that it instantly becomes 260K?

It takes time for heat to build up. Even on Earth it does. Ever cook something in the oven without heating the oven up, first? Probably not.
Edited to add:...and here on Earth we have conduction and convection to aid heating and cooling, in addition to radiation which is the only way heat is transferred in space. So would it not stand to reason that if only one third of the possible ways to heat something up exists in space, that it would take longer to heat things up in space?
Edited again to further add: ...do you even know what conduction and convection are? It seems as though you do not.

And I'm not a flat earther. Once again you're wrong (shocker).

You act like one.