The Inverse Square Law of Light
The Inverse Square Law (testable, observable, measurable and repeatable) proves that when you double the distance to a light source, you'll only get a quarter of its irradiance.
How far away is the sun?
North at the center. South is all around us:
The sun, moon, wandering stars and zodiacs rotate right above our heads if we live on a "flat, non-rotating earth", just as NASA has documented.
The sun, moon, wandering stars and zodiacs circle right above our heads:
Image sources: Google, NASA and FlatEarthDave.tv
If our sun was 93 Million miles away, it would be impossible to see it. Mathematics and the scientific method proves that our sun is just outside the firmament.
0
0
0.000
If you hate basic math like I do, this 4 minute video explains it way better than I can:
https://flatearthdave.tv/w/cYCGHNojvgCUtsS4dRWEC2
We might be able to see the sun, based on how bright it is supposed to be, but there is no way would could see stars. The probability of you standing in the right place to intercept one of its photons is infinitesimally small. Even if it is putting out billions of photons a second.
We have a lot to learn about where we live. And NASA is not helping.
Yes indeed, let alone the stars' lack of parallax. NASA has some splainin' to do.
Hmm
I thought we usually see the stars dazzling in the sky every night. Am I right?
Yep, I do.
You forgot the other part of the math equation: The size of the sun.
The size of the sun is 1392000 kilometers across, and as for distance, 1520000 km.
To calculate how much smaller things become by distance, you can use the angular size formula. I found an online calculator that would do the math, and the final result is 5.24 degrees.
https://sizecalc.com/
Well, that's 5 degrees of the sky that the sun should take up then, and that's about how it looks any time I look upwards. As for the inverse law, you'd be right, except that our eye is a lens, and takes all the light it receives across the entire surface, and focuses it onto a single point: The retina.
Right, that's what NASA, Google, Schools, et al tells us, but how could the lens of their telescope have enabled us to measure the size, or the distance of an object that is supposedly 93 Million miles away?
How do they know it's not 91 Million miles? Or just 1 Million miles?
I can fill the viewfinder of my camera by zooming in on a stop sign a mile away too, but that doesn't tell me its size, or its distance.
So, how do you know the size and distance of the sun? I'm not trying to be a smartass, I really don't know. Did they bounce a radio signal off of it, or shoot a laser at it or something? I mean I suppose that would give you the distance if that was possible.
Loathe as I am to get involved in pointless discussions when people don't want to know the answers, I expect you would struggle to bounce anything off the sun as it is giving out massive amounts of light that would swamp your laser. It would work with the Moon though.
Calculating the distance to the Sun requires careful, accurate observations, but then it's just geometry. The ancient Greeks had a go, but lacked the former.
https://www.universetoday.com/117843/how-did-we-find-the-distance-to-the-sun/
https://www.space.com/17081-how-far-is-earth-from-the-sun.html
I expect thousands of astronomers have taken measurements that will confirm the numbers. The distance does vary as our orbit is not a perfect circle. That was known hundreds of years ago.
We can see the Sun because it is so freaking enormous, as are the stars.
You say you hate maths, but just because you don't understand something does not make it untrue. If you make outrageous claims then you need extraordinary evidence and there are knock-on effects, e.g. if the Sun is close and small then how does it stay hot and what keeps it up? You may do down the concept of theory of gravity, but in science a theory needs to be tested and that one has been for hundreds of years. There have just been minor adjustments for things like relativity which come into play in extreme conditions. Newton got a lot right.
But believe what you want. The engineers and scientists will rely on real evidence.
That's true, but with the scientific method, we also need to complete the rest of the equation. Testable, observable (i see a circle up there, not a sphere), measurable and repeatable.
So, since observations are not actually measuring the distance or the size, how did they come up with the number 93 Million and not 1 Billion or a hundred thousand? A laser? A bounced radio signal?
You do know people have special telescopes that can look at the Sun? Please don't try it yourself or you will go blind. They can see how it curves. The Sun has features. I don't expect you will believe in the probes that have been sent to take a closer look, but I can't be arsed to try and convince you.
I have not looked into the exact details of the measurement, but thousands of astronomers have. Compare that to the few 'sceptics' who have done zero calculations, but think 'it does not seem right'.
This is a pointless exercise if you have already set your mind.
I'm off on a long flight next month. I hope we don't accidentally go over the edge!
Take it easy.
No legit flat earther believes that we are on some sort of disc floating in a space void/vacuum, or able to fall off an edge. That's "Flat Earth Society" bs.
It is not "pointless" to try and prove the actual variables in an equation. "Thousands of scientists", even those whom are "Peer Reviewed" can be wrong. Without a way to measure the distance with a laser, radio signal, etc, then all you have is a theory.
So if you really want to engage in this conversation, I implore you to give me one single proof of the distance, using the Scientific Method.
If you live in Australia and I live in Argentina, can you point a laser or shoot a radio signal at me and tell me the size and distance from you of the ball that I am holding up?
Without knowing what you believe or your qualifications for proof this is a pointless discussion. You can look up scientific papers on such matters, but may not understand them. I'm not an expert on these topics, but I trust others to be. If you lack trust then life gets difficult.
You cannot measure everything with a laser, especially as they only go in straight lines, not around spheres.
If not a laser or radio signal, then how? You gave me 2 links above and neither one of them tells us how they measured the distance from the earth to the sun. You need at least 2 values to complete the equation. Point A to B would be 1 value. You don't have to be an "expert" in a white lab coat to figure that out. Without proof, or a way to even measure it for ourselves, all you have is a theory.
It is not "pointless" to question everything.
It depends on your motives. Don't you think others would have questioned this over the last few thousand years? I don't know the full details, but I did experiments at school to measure electromagnetic forces, gravity and the speed of light. There will be loads of other articles and videos with more details on solar geometry. Google will provide.
People do not just take these things on trust. The scientific method you dismiss is about reproducing results. If anyone could disprove a major theory it would be big news. Gravity is a really robust one and is used every day by all sorts of people.
In recent decades we have sent probes out around the solar system and some go relatively close to the Sun. Maybe you don't believe in those, but many thousands of people would need to be in on the conspiracy.
Scepticism is good, but you have to decide what counts as evidence. Opinions do not.
Anyway you can live your whole life treating the Earth as flat unless you are doing actual science and engineering that would be affected. Why stress out about it? Most people don't care.
My "motives" are the truth. The scientfic method that you dismiss is how we reach the truth, we prove it and we know.
Belief is the enemy of knowing.
You believe they sent probes (little spaceships that flew 93 million miles away and sent us radio signals back from there). Again, you have no proof of that, you just trust it and believe it.
Actual science requires testable, observable, measurable and repeatable facts, not just belief.
Without knowing, all you can do is believe. That's not good enough for me.
I'm not dismissing the scientific method at all. Some proofs are complex and you or I may need deep study to understand them, but others spend their lives on them. Are you dismissing their work?
We had a flat-earther at Hivefest and also a CERN physicist. Which of those do you think could best argue their case? Just because something is beyond your comprehension does not make it impossible.
Find an astronomer who will explain things better than I can. There are Q&A sites for that. Maybe ask Elon Musk about his rocket company.
I cannot prove all these things for myself, but I trust that scientists have been held to account. If someone has a different model then they need to open it to scrutiny.
You are completely dismissing the scientific method. Your unwavering belief in their expertise (so called) and star trek probes is what has you convinced that the white lab coat people are not wrong, and not pandering to their higher authority.
Who is their higher authority? If you ever attended a University, you should know. Want funding? Get your work with their variable values signed off on. That's how easy it is. Want us to license you or give you a fancy Certificate? Regurgitate what our books say. Easy.
Once you start doing actual research and using values in the equation that are facts, then you can reach the truth and know the laws of nature.
Belief is the enemy of knowing. You must use the scientific method.
Peer review is the scientific method. My belief is based on centuries of science, not some YouTubers. If every scientist had to verify each theory for themselves they would never get anything done.
You dismiss people who spend their lives in science. There's not enough money in the world to buy their complicity. Most scientists are not rich.
I'm done with this until you come back with actual evidence. That can be a peer reviewed paper. YouTube is not acceptable.
No, Peer Review is the controllers of the curriculum determining if you have regurgitated their correct answers.
Your belief system is not based on provable facts. Detracting from the point is not proving to us how they measure such insane distances.
I want the provable facts. The scientific method. Can you prove every variable in the equation, or is one of the variables a belief in a pseudo-scientific theory..
Youtube cgi is not acceptable, you're right.
I do not want to join their cult, sorry. If proof cannot be demonstrated, then all you have is theory.
A shame, @steevc because although that I think you're technically correct, I believe you're doing a very troublesome job proving it.
The dark truth is that most people are in cults. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or perhaps even communism, nazism, democracy, republicanism, or liberalism. Or science.
Of course it's not that the written method of science is a cult necessarily. It's that your MIND; your brain, CRAVES cults to join. Cults, groups, cliques, a people, a nation, a team, a tribe. Or an answer that puts to rest your fears, uncertainties, and doubts.
Thus you have allied yourself with at least the general direction of science, such that you would scoff at @kencode's potential belief that relates to a firmament or mythological existence, but although I will expect @kencode to find it very hard to actually PROVE a firmament exists and especially come up with ways to utilize it, or even land on the firmament, and mine it for resources, I'm finding it amusing how you are also failing to prove your point.
Do you actually understand what you believe?
I was very specific in how I presented my evidence, when detailing the size-distance ratio, and how 5 degrees of sky really does seem like a reasonable answer. My math has yielded an element of truth.
Of course the answer can't be presented in inches or millimeters, but 5 degrees of a sky arc is the answer, and that's just about how it looks whenever I see the full circle of the sun in real life.
But I'll anticipate circle vs sphere and answer that: How do we know it's a sphere? We'd watch as it rotates, or as we orbit around it. Just track the features, such as sunspots, and immediately we have a very clear way to know the shape of the sun, even if the size is unknown.
However, @kencode is right that we could use two lasers in different locations to measure the distance of the sun. What we would do is be exactly one or two kilometers away from each other, and simply shine the lasers at the sun and observe when they hit the same spot on the sun. Then we shine the same laser at each other, completing a full triangle. From there, we can begin to see how we would form an equation to solve the length of the sides of a triangle.
The more data we gather, such as the shape, the distance, the size, the trigonometry details, the composition, and how it works, such as elemental or chemical makeup, nuclear science, star fusion details, etc, the closer we can triangulate the true nature of our star.
But this is a real example that you can actually implement, and understand why it works. @Steevc, you need to have a little more respect for @kencode. Do you realize the sort of society we live in? It is NOT easy to trust people, especially mainstream things, such as politics, religion, culture, corporations, and science. There is no reason why "trust" should extend beyond my family, friends, and neighbors. These other people are strangers. The politicians, the CEOs, scientists, and all others with power or influence in society. They're strangers whom I have never met. There is no strong reason to trust either schools or Google or anyone else that I don't personally know.
And even if they intrude into my life, that still does not mean I would trust them. But I can at least utilize math and logic and natural facts that I myself can test, and do test.
Only lies and falsities come up with random fake answers or excuses, or explanations that completely fail to convince. Fake answers will be inconsistent, and not fit into anything else we know. For example, one reason why a firmament is illogical is because when we look at other planets in space, we are able to watch the moons of those planets orbit around those planets, and watch those planets orbit around the sun.
The intense 3D nature of orbits, including on the atomic and sub-atomic level, where we never deal with anything like firmaments, but instead, we always deal with spheres, or "droplets in zero-gravity" with other spheres orbiting them, drives away the idea of a firmament very effectively. Firmaments just aren't seen anywhere in real life, so I am not convinced that I will ever see a firmament. I've used telescopes before. I've seen the real details regarding stars and planets and even distant galaxies. A firmament is just not a realistic answer.
The closest thing to a flat firmament in space is our galaxy, which orbits in a very flattened shape, like a nicely fried egg. Is THAT the true meaning of firmament? Our galaxy? If that was the true ancient meaning of the word firmament, as if to imply that our galaxy is a unit that we can someday explore, although other galaxies are likely too far away, then that would be an answer that is both consistent and logical, and doesn't call into play supernatural entities, nor does it bring up concepts too technical or complex for us to explain and talk about together.
I prefer to keep things as simple as necessary, because if I ever find that I cannot explain something that I believe, I immediately darkly ponder just why it is that "truth" should be so hard to explain.
You make some assumptions about what I believe. What I see from the flat-earthers is a lack of trust in authorities, but they have to assume that millions of people who are doing science are lying whilst keeping the conspiracy silent. That's a big ask. Apparently some distrust NASA, but the science of astronomy goes back a long way and covers many cultures.
I did a certain level of science at school, so I know some principles even if I may not follow advanced topics. I do know that shining a laser at the Sun is pretty pointless as you would not be able to make it out against all the radiation pouring out. People were able to make accurate measurements long before lasers came along, but these may not be easy for an amateur to replicate. I also cannot look at some subatomic particles, but I did some observations of interactions at school such as Brownian motion and some types of radiation.
I'm not into religion or other supernatural things as those lack scientific validity. People can believe what they want as long as they do not force it on others.
If you don't trust people you never met then that limits what you can trust. Will you fly in a plane or accept medical treatment? Trust is vital for a working society, but has to be earned. Without science we would not be communicating now.
On balance I trust science more than random people on the internet. It has a better record of being right.
The issue here is that you are using the word "trust" in a way that it doesn't deserve, considering we're on a blockchain on the fringes of society, Tsk. Apparently everyone else in society can only use Twitter and Discord and Reddit, simply because those are what are mainstream and well accepted. Popular.
The keyword we need to bring up is "Trustless," in the sense of "code is law" or "math is law," or even the idea that the data, logic, and scientific method are trustless, because we do not necessarily need "peer review," as much as we need the external existence of reality.
So when you say you "trust science," I'm not really sure what your intentions are.
Obviously this entire conversation is taking place in the realm of someone who is so mistrustful of mainstream knowledge, that they question even Galileo, Copernicus, and other centuries old discoveries, to hearken back to the firmament model.
There is no place to be told that we should "trust science more than random people on the internet." In the context of this specific debate regarding the firmament, the issue is so fundamentally about the lack of trust people have in major institutions, that the only answer is the raw math, equations, and data itself.
In effect, random people on the internet are roughly as trustable as any random scientist, priest, politician, or even engineer or doctor. At least from the view of someone like @Kencode. Of course we are not here to be naive about how to function in society regarding the existence of technology and techniques, but in many ways, @Kencode's concern is very likely not necessarily a belief in the firmament, as if he absolutely knew all the facts about creationism and the firmament, but rather, the idea that modern science is so suspicious and untrustable, that all previous answers need to be reviewed again, including the firmament, creationism, and even non-big-bang theories that may lack any supernatural god element, but are still not what is currently accepted as science.
Trust has no place here and even mentioning it is a dark blight upon the topic of science. Having a better record of being right means nothing to me. Only the truth is true.
Faith, trust, and belief are blights blights blights, and even using that word in the context of a debate about the firmament is just not going to convince anyone. If you want to defeat @kencode, then you need to stop using the word trust, and stop asking him to trust people. That's not going to work. He views these institutions as liars, and until you can prove that at least some of what they say is true, why wouldn't he grow even more suspicious the more you tell him to have faith? You should just deliver him the data, the logic, and the usage of the scientific method, and importantly, do these experiments in real life, and get him to do them too. These are debates about the truth of reality, and unless you both go outside and embrace the light of the sun, all you will know is darkness.
I'm not out to 'defeat' @kencode. I am just putting out my views, but I don't know what level of proof he is looking for really. Measuring astronomical distances requires specialist equipment and knowledge.
I disagree with that. Trust is based on reputation which we can take from what we see them say/do and also from what others think of them. Mind you, I would say that a billion Christians can be wrong :) To become a respected scientist you need to prove yourself through exams and then by publishing papers that your peers review. I am not qualified to judge them, but I have some trust in the system.
None of us is going to read every scientific paper to understand how everything works, so you have to trust that others have read them. The system is by no means perfect, but it is all we have. Humans are imperfect too. They can lie and steal, but most are basically honest and so the crooks can get caught out.
Unlike some people here I have respect and trust in some politicians and CEOs. They are just people like us after all, not alien lizards out to conquer Earth (or whatever some people believe).
Trust should not be blind, but you get to set the limits you place on it. Yours may be different to mine. When I get on a plane I trust that it has been tested and maintained. I do not do my own inspection.
I love conversations like this, thanx @steevc and @heretickitten 😊
I never said the firmament was flat, but I bet NASA knows if it's dome shaped or flat. We can bounce radio signals off of it afterall. NASA tells us that the iono-"sphere" is a bunch of electrically-charged ions or something iirc. Even if there was a layer of pure helium up there, do you believe that we could bounce radio signals off of that? To bounce a radio signal off of something (I am a licensed HAM btw) it needs to be dense enough to get useful data back from it, but voice calls..? I wouldn't be so sure about that. That (and Operation Fishbowl, Operation Highjump, etc) is what makes me believe that whatever is up there is solid (just as the bible describes ~200 times). Many political figures too have referred to our "glass ceiling" and many astronauts are on camera saying that we have never been out of "low earth orbit".
I'm not a Christian either as I stated, I prefer to go by what my senses tell me along with the scientific method (testable, observable, measurable and repeatable).
One thing that I have noticed about the Christians and the globe believers alike is that whenever we hit the point of cognitive dissonance, science goes right out the window. Christians will say "it was God's will" or "it was a miracle". Globe believers will say "because of gravity".
"God's will" and miracles are not science. I'm sorry Christians, but that is just how I feel. Who were the many bibles written by? Men. What do men with power usually want? The pastor at my church when I was a kid referred to us as his "flock". WTF? How insulting. I do agree though that this realm in which we dwell was created by an intelligence that as of now we do not fully understand yet. The apocalypse will reveal all though (by definition) and seems to be happening as we speak.
Gravity is still a theory. As a matter of fact, they admit that gravity is comprised of over 95% dark matter and dark energy. That's 2 more theories on top of your theory. Sooo, density, buoyancy and the electrostatic force don't explain why things fall downwards or rise up to the equilibrium/medium that surrounds them? okaaaay
Exactly. This is what I was trying to explain earlier, that if the base equation does not have proven facts/laws in each of the variables of the equation, then that equation will never yield a fact or law, and all equations based on that will also be incorrect.
Speaking of men with power, Julius and Augustus Caesar even changed the names of the months in their "honor". The gregorian calendar is a ridiculous mess. I suggest we go back to the 28 day and 13 months just like the sky clock gives us.
One word: compartmentalization - They're not all lying imo, they have just been duped like the rest of us. Quadrillions of people can be wrong, given a long enough timeline. The controllers control the narrative, the peer review results, the guy's who count the votes, the college "degrees", the "license" that those authorities may or may not grant you, etc...
Don't even get me started on govern-ment and corpse-orations etc. Just because a mob of people (ie: demo-cracy), or the School "Board" says what the facts are, doesn't make it so. I love etymology. Anyway, the dangers of groupthink don't even need to be discussed here.
How do we know that they even existed at all? Weren't the Rockefellers the controllers of that curriculum that we all had to read in school? Their Foundation stamp is found everywhere in academia.
Again, written and approved by whom?
I could care less about their white lab coats, degrees, licenses, accolades, political position, wealth, reviews, title, etc. For things that matter to me, like where we came from, why we are here, etc, I want the facts, based on the scientific method, where every variable in the equation can be proven. Proper research requires facts that we can prove together again and again.
How then, if radio signal pings and lasers were not used, then how did they measure the distance to the sun from the earth. Magical spaceship star trek "probes" is not a proper scientific answer.
A bunch of gases came together because of "gravity" (from chaos to order? ie: impossible in nature) and formed a burning ball of gas in a void/vacuum and creates magical gravitational forces that pull things in to form ball shapes in a flat "egg" pattern across unfathomable distances whereby nothing exploded into something and created everything. Sorry, but there's way too many impossibilities with that belief imo.
Why would I want to subject myself to all this? Being called a flat-tard, flat-head, idiot, moron, science-denier and all that bs. This is what started me on that rabbit hole of our existence.. Their "lunar lander". They flew to the moon in this tweaker hut? If NASA lied about this monstrosity, maybe they lie to us about some other things too. This piece of sh!t looks like it was built by some kindergartners...
But it does. Should be relatively easy mathematics, and depends on the magnification factor of your lens and the distance you would be able to fill the STOP sign from when using the shortest focal length of the lens.
Say if you can fill the viewfinder at 2 meters with a 75-300mm lens at 75mm, you should be able to multiply the distance with the zoom factor, which in that case would be 4.
So here's a real-life example, I took two photos of a smallish painting (sized 33cm × 20cm) in my flat, filling the viewfinder at 300mm and 75mm, and it checks out. At 300mm I was 5 meters away, and when shooting at 75mm, the distance was only 1.20m.
For copyright reasons I can't post the photos of the paintings, but you can actually try it out yourself. Calculate the zoom factor of your lens by dividing the longest focal length with the shortest of your lens, then apply that when shooting the stop sign. In my case, if the mile-away STOP sign filled out the viewfinder, I would just divide the distance by 4, and find out I should walk three quarters of a mile closer to fill the viewfinder at 75mm.
Oh, and also that the STOP sign is really huge.
Edit: If you want to know the actual size of the STOP sign, you can do that too. Shoot something that you know the size of, by filling the viewfinder, then apply those measurements and the distance you shot it in, to calculate the size of the STOP sign.
I've come to learn that we essentially live on a huge, battery-powered clock. A perfect timepiece. The sun tracks the hours, the moon tracks the months and the stars track the seasons. Just like this: https://flatearthdave.tv/w/5CFDzPVAzsbMCGNdN34kTk
Who changes the batteries?
No need. The earth, the oceans, the torroidal electro-magnetic and electro-static energy that surrounds us is the perfect self-regenerating battery.
Imagine you live on a flat earth as depicted in the images above. The clock works perfectly.
But I thought you didn't believe in a flat earth?
I think you're just messing with me. If not then we have stalemate. I'll enjoy the wonders of science.
I'm not messing with you Steve, you came into this conversation because you disagree with my viewpoints and wanted to let me know. That's awesome man and I do appreciate a good debate. My beliefs are seemingly fringe, I know that, but I don't care. I seek out truth. Provable facts. If I just trusted my belief like you are doing, then I might be a bible thumping Christian or something which I am not (no offense if you're a bible thumping Christian).
As for the shape of the world that we live on.. I no longer believe that we live on a spinning ball in an impossible space void/vacuum surrounded by evermore spinning balls, that's for sure. :)
Yes its flat, it was good to get to know about you. Please consider adding the LasseCash tag in the future, so we can reward your post... Flat eathers are rewarded indeed on www.lassecash.com
Before you do what @lasseehlers suggests @kencode here is a word of advice:
Go to https://www.lassecash.com/created first and scroll down. Look at what the reward payouts in Lassecash are actually like. You'll see very few posts actually get much of that token.
https://www.lassecash.com is @lasseehlers' own personal circle jerk community in which @lasseehlers upvotes only himself and a few of his friends. Hive users tend to look down on circle jerk upvoting for posts. @lasseehlers is already a flat earther with a low reputation score for things like that. The Hive platform doesn't need another one.
You're making too much sense, let's go back to watching Star Trek. That's is much more trustworthy than math. :-) !LOLZ
lolztoken.com
but then I changed my mind.
Credit: marshmellowman
@kencode, I sent you an $LOLZ on behalf of ironshield
(2/10)
ENTER @WIN.HIVE'S DAILY DRAW AND WIN HIVE!
I believe the sun is inside the firmament.
I believe it is within, or just outside of the firmament because of the shape of the light that is cast over the surface of our known plane-t. Turn a big glass bowl upside down on a table, turn out the lights, put a flashlight just outside the bowl and circle that flashlight into the bowl just outside of the bowl and watch the shape of the light that is cast into the area under the bowl. That shape seems to match the light shapes that we can see. Sometimes the light is circular, sometimes it becomes oblong. Crrow777 has some awesome demonstrations of this which also make a lot of sense.
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps that explains 24 sun in the outer circle? Something to investigate.
I always thought the sun must be inside and distant from the firmament since the firmament remains unlit (black) behind the sun, while the earth is lit (blue). This seems to indicate that the sun is closer to the earth than the firmament.
When I realized that EAST/WEST is not a straight line like NORTH/SOUTH is, that changed my perspective on everything. Following the compass EAST will require you to turn slightly to the left to stay going EAST. Following the compass WEST will require you to turn slightly to the right to stay on course. Traveling due EAST or WEST without adjusting to the "curvature" will eventually take you off course to the SOUTH.
It's claimed that if you follow a compass south, then east, then north you'll end up where you began. This is true, but does not prove a ball. The reality is that North will always lead to a central point, south always leads away from that central point, and east (and west) will always circle around that central point. Straight south, curved east, straight north - like a slice of !PIZZA.
This is how I overcame the pacman map view of the world, which didn't make any sense at all. I assumed EAST/WEST were a straight line and a person would teleport to the other side. Going "around the world" by going EAST or WEST, completing a circle, makes a lot more sense to me now. !LOLZ
lolztoken.com
A taxidermist takes only your skin.
Credit: reddit
@kencode, I sent you an $LOLZ on behalf of ironshield
(1/10)
ENTER @WIN.HIVE'S DAILY DRAW AND WIN HIVE!
Exactly.
NASA tells us the curve equation is 8 inches of drop per mile, squared. So, iirc, a 6 foot person standing at the edge of a large lake should not be able to see the surface of the water any further than 3 miles away. Yet with a basic camera, we can. Basic math with the proper variables in the equation gives us correct answers and proofs, not just beliefs.
Need a t-shirt with 8" per mile ^2 written on it, just to remind everyone of their own beliefs, if they ever decided to prove the "crazy ones" wrong. Alleged stories and photographs and urban legends and myths do not change the reality we experience every day. The only curvature anyone can find outside of one's own imagination, is inside a fish-eye lens.
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@ironshield(1/5) tipped @kencode
I donated 12000 LASSECASH POWER to the upvotes on your FE post who voted 100%, 9 people
I guess that officially makes @kencode a member of you exclusive and private conspiracy theorists circle jerk community then.