Flat earth:
This is the best rebuttal of flat earth
It is an optical illusion related to the vanishing point associated with perspective views.
If you stand at the end of a row crop field and look straight down a single row, the rows on either side of it appear to NOT be parallelâŚeven though they are actually parallel.
The same applies to the beams of sunlight. They are quite near perfectly parallel but they appear to converge at a single point.
Your estimate of distance to the sun is a bit high. The average distance between Earth and our Sun is about 93,000,000 miles.
Not sure I buy the optical illusion explanation and I said abt 100 - so I was 7 off or approx 100
And Iâm not a flat-earther but there are a lot of things that donât make sense to me - like plane surveying - like there only seems to be one photo of the earth from the moon - HTF did we ââloseââ the tech that got us to the moon 60 yrs ago - HTF did we ever get thru the Van Allen belt.
Maybe the flat- earth conspiracy was dreamt up by TPTB to discredit anyone who asks qâs - that is standard MO btw.
Beams of sunlight do spread when they pierce a thick cloud, through a hole.
Ridiculous to claim itâs an optical illusion.
Both of you are full of shit.
When the sunlight hits a cloud, which is nothing but water, it is reflected and refracted, scattering the light.
Nowadays with heavy chemtrailing, different chemicals affect the angles of light as well as its frequencies and sometimes you see rainbow-like rings around the sun.
![image|297x169]
(upload://u4w3HYm5HbndDUuj0uFG1kQNuEG.png)
Exactly! They squeeze through a small hole ⌠and then spread out.
You can almost hear a sigh of reliefâŚ
We did not lose the technology that got us to the moon.
The hardware became obsolete, rather like old black-and-white TVs.
He loosened it so that Neil et al could get through
That is actually close to the truth. Many people died for disagreeing with the âChurchâsâ view of the universe.
My mistake we didnât lose it we destroyed it LOL.
Playing the didgeridoo?
Thatâs 50,000 year old technology, capable of pushing away hurricanes and typhoons.
(One question though: How come the didgeridoo players I know are all poor?)
Apollo 11 certainly didnât, but it donât mean other missions didnât.
1 Like
Technology doesnât just die - it evolves - B&W TVâs evolved into colour, then HD, thenâŚ
Why not same for space travel - I would posit that if we really went to the moon 50 yrs ago we should have colonised Mars by now.
2 Likes
I need to practise my typing so⌠the âkâ key is playing up, so apologies for that.
In the beginning was the B&W TV which received AM signals using approximately a 6MHz bandwidth and produced a poor picture ⌠but in the absence of anything else it was of course wonderful.
Then along came colo(u)r, which had to be backward compatible with B&W teles and so a chroma signal was introduced. This new signal was an FM modulation applied to the intensity, which was thus totally ignored by the AM B&W receivers but could be decoded by a receiver which was expecting to receive a colo(u)r broadcast.
Then along came HD. This is a totally different transmission system using (I believe) initially a QAM-16 modulation to transmit digital information. Later the modulation was upgraded to QAM-64, it might be even higher now⌠This transmission technique uses prescribed modulation methods (which first appeared in high-speed telephone modems giving 56k-bps) to send data and which required a digital decoder.
Initially the decoders were set-top boxes which supplied viewable signals using a SCART connection. Soon (maybe simultaneously) TVs began to appear which incorporated the digital decoder so that the set-top box became unnecessary, and is now obsolete ( IMHO ). Indeed it is becoming very difficult to find a new TV that has a SCART connector because the system has moved on to HDMI.
In the UK new uses have been found for the underused B&W TV frequencies, and in recent years the old transmission systems have been switched off. The frequencies have been reallocated (in the UK) to upgrade the systems used by the Fire Brigade and other utilities.
Recently I upgraded our main TV to UHD ( 4k ). I anticipate some of the main television channels (e.g. BBC) providing 4k broadcasts, but in the meantime I can enjoy 4k from Amazon and possibly Netflix or NOW if I had a subscription. The new TV has built-in WiFi, connects to the internet for SMART TV services (e.g. Freeview Play and Amazon) and doesnât even have an analog radio frequency receiver.
Therefore, as far as all current (UK) users are concerned, the old B&W broadcast system is obsolete. The only way to get a TV set which can receive the old signals is if you happen to have one stashed in the attic, and nobody is broadcasting the correct signals so the TV will not work. The system is obsolete, and when the CRT display fails there is nobody manufacturing those tubes.
Now let us turn to the Space program
I have no idea what control systems were used on the Saturn-5 launch vehicle. However I do know that the computer on the flight vehicles was a masterpiece.
The memory was made from the commonly used components of the time, ferrite toroids. Minute ferrite toroids that were something like 1.5mm across with a hole through which 3 thin wires passed. Whilst the ferrites are probably available to special order the sense amplifiers used to recover data from said cores are probably unavailable. Magnetic core memory was still in use when I started working in the computer industry, it was replaced by MOS-memory in the 70s and never reappeared.
Anything that had a microcontroller incorporated ⌠no chance of finding one today.
The old 54/7400 series logic is still manufactured but it seems that the controller pre-dated that component family, so probably the basic building blocks are no longer available.
But why would you want to recreate exactly the same systems? Nobody would recommend bringing the Wright Flyer back into service (except possibly Richard Branson). Anything that Space-X is using will do the job and provides re-usable launch vehicles. All that is required is the right motivator and it will happen. ( = $ trillions )
There are technologies that evolve with human knowledge and experience.
For example:
From stone tools to bronze to iron to steel.
(Not that stone tools are dull, because chipped stones, especially obsidian tools are as sharp or even sharper than modern scalpels)
Other technologies seem to recede, instead of advancing.
Even with todayâs technology and machinery, we cannot build pyramids of Giza. (A construction engineer told me that.)
After the crash of UFOs in Roswell, New Mexico, certain things have appeared out of nowhere, like transistors of which nobody has claimed the invention.
Why was it so secret?
What technologies has the US manage to glean?
Where do optical fibers come from?
And the computer technology itself?
Yeah, BS like hell.
Whatâs name of the guy who invented it?
Did he get the Nobel Prize? No.
Read the article, lazy boy.
The transistor was successfully demonstrated on December 23, 1947 at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. Bell Labs is the research arm of American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T). The three individuals credited with the invention of the transistor were William Shockley, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain.
I doubt the implications of its worth were apparent for many years.
1 Like
So, no specific inventor for such a great âinventionâ.
Itâs typical whitewash.
Transistor is only one example; many other inventions appeared out of nowhere with no specific inventors each.
Finally you have descended into the ignoramus stronghold.
If you read the article it told you that William Shockley had worked on the theory of the transistor device beginning in 1936.
Equally you could have looked in Wikipedia for a similar disclosure ⌠but no, instead you would rather badmouth Asaratis
What a fuck-wit âŚ
1 Like
