Sign into an existing account

https://www.nasa.gov/missions/tech-demonstration/space-communications-7-things-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=Currently%2C%20NASA%20relies%20primarily%20on,to%20communicate%20with%20infrared%20lasers.

>Currently, NASA relies primarily on radio waves for communications

https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/ionosphere-max#:~:text=Bouncing%20radio%20signals%20off%20the,and%20the%20ionosphere%20many%20times.

>Bouncing radio signals off the Ionosphere is an important quality and what allows radio to reach places all over the world.

https://youtu.be/G0bhYZ9Vljg?si=7371mxjTmVKLUcT3

For the moon faggs, I know that the initial footage of the landing is an animation but after the landing they go through all the equipment that they went to the moon with. That's the part I'm more interested in.

I could understand why people in the 60's might have believed this nonsense but we understand today how ridiculous this is.

Are there people here who believe we went to the moon in the 60's?

Actually, I'm watching it right now. It literally says "live pictures of first man on moon" at 40 minutes in. Now that's a twist. How would they send a live feed from the moon to the Earth and have it broadcasted on live TV in the '60's?

https://youtu.be/1Y30VAkHtdw?si=EM61R9ZoWroQNHgP

Buzz Aldrin claims that they did not record them on the moon live. So who's lying? The space command in Houston Texas or Buzz Aldrin?

https://www.quotev.com/story/14918427/Why-Albert-Einstein-was-Gay-and-Had-an-Affair-with-Thomas-Jefferson

He fantasizes about being Thomas Jefferson.

Here's a picture of the entire city of Chicago from the Michigan shoreline.

https://files.catbox.moe/o3hnot.jpg

Here's an abc57 article talking about the picture.

https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

From the article:

>A picture of the Chicago skyline taken almost 60 miles away, is actually a mirage. This is a form of Superior Mirage, superior in this meaning the mirage or image of the skyline is seen above where it's actually located.

The article has to claim this because from where the picture was taken, there should be over 2,000 feet of obstruction caused by the supposed curvature of the earth, but yet we see the entire city of Chicago which has its tallest building, the Willis Tower, standing at 1,729 feet tall.

Every single time I see an image that shows an object that should be hidden beneath a supposed physical horizon caused by the supposed curvature of the globular Earth, I'm told it's a "mirage" or that it's "refraction." It seems like these words are thrown around as if they are magical words that create miracles while preserving this notion that curvature still exists but the lack thereof is only an illusion. I'm going to address this fallacy and prove that mirages and refraction do not create such an illusion.

Let's start with mirages.

The claim in the article is that a "superior mirage" is what's causing the illusion. What's a mirage? It's a reflection. A reflection is the act of light reflecting back. Reflections cause inversion.

Here's an example of a "superior mirage."

https://files.catbox.moe/huri1b.jpg

Notice the inverted image of the ship above its true position. The ship is reflecting off the atmosphere above it.

Here's an example of an "inferior mirage."

https://files.catbox.moe/eeg4ad.jpg

Notice the inverted image of the ship below its true position. The ship is reflecting off the surface below it.

The differences between "superior" and "inferior" are simply the position of the mirage.

Is the article suggesting that the mirage is somehow a projected image above the object's true location and without inversion? Maybe they meant to say "Fata Morgana," a "complex" form of superior mirage visible in a narrow band right above the horizon.

So it's "complex." What makes it so complex? Basically, the only thing complex about it is that it's actually not a mirage at all but a misinterpretation of what really is a "false horizon."

Here's an example of a "false horizon."

https://files.catbox.moe/9az794.jpg

Notice the image on the left. It appears to be a ship floating in mid-air. If we were to change the color temperature in the photo, like we see in the image on the right, we can see that it's actually not floating in mid-air but is floating on a section of water that is experiencing a mirage effect. It's caused by a change in the refractive index due to the high temperature near the water and the lower temperature above it. Remember, mirages are reflections. It is reflecting the sky above it, giving the illusion that it itself is part of the sky. So technically, it's just an "inferior mirage" of the sky. Notice where the mirage ends. It's creating a "false horizon." This type of inferior mirage can also be seen on solid surfaces.

Here's an example of an asphalt road experiencing the same type of inferior mirage.

https://files.catbox.moe/o4ctaa.jpeg

The reality is, there is no such thing as a mirage that can be seen as a non-inverted image projecting above an object's true position. The only examples that exist are provably misinterpreted false horizons.

Now that we've established that the Chicago photo isn't caused by a "mirage," let us take a look at the possibility that refraction's causing the illusion.

What's refraction? Refraction's the process by which light shifts its path as it travels through a material, causing the light to bend. That's what refraction is, but most people misunderstand the effect of refraction.

Here's an example of refraction.

https://files.catbox.moe/e9ehww.jpg

Notice you are viewing the pencil as it exists in two different mediums. From your position you see the top of the pencil surrounded by air as you'd normally see it. As it enters a different medium, water, which acts as a lens that bends light, you see that it magnifies the pencil. A lens has limitations though. When an object's magnified within a lens, the entire image is expanded from the center of the lens outward, cutting off the edges that no longer fit in the lens. Since the pencil isn't directly in the center of the image being magnified, it expands outward, giving the illusion of a broken pencil. Also notice that you cannot see the eraser anymore because the bottom of the image is also cut off when it is magnified.

Here's another example that shows what a pencil would do in 3 different positions.

https://files.catbox.moe/yzyz9b.jpg

Notice the image on the far left. The pencil is positioned in the center of the glass. The lens magnifies the image from the center outward. Since the pencil is in the center, it remains in its horizontal position but magnifies, only cutting off the top and bottom slightly. Now notice the image on the far right. The pencil's placed close to the left edge of the lens. Since the lens is magnifying the image from the center of the lens outward, part of the pencil is cut off due to the limitation of the lens not being able to fit the entire image that's now being magnified.

Now that we understand what both reflection and refraction is, and the actual effects they create, let me give you an example of refraction occurring naturally in the atmosphere.

https://youtu.be/Y0bQm8sJwd4

This is called the "Shrinking Mill" because of the refraction that occurs regularly in this area. Notice the object being refracted is magnified at a distance, then reduces in size as it's approached. This effect is no different than holding a magnifying glass out from your face and bringing it closer. You'll notice the closer the magnifying glass is to your face, objects will appear smaller, allowing more room in the lens to see more objects.

Here's a video debunking the globohomo claim that the atmosphere isn't magnifying things.

https://youtu.be/UFP4HQQoejs?si=gHOlh0pG2Mue4A4U

Here's an example of how refraction would actually prevent you from seeing objects at great distances.

https://youtu.be/s-PhStb6mTQ

Notice how objects at the bottom of the lens disappear as it magnifies. This is because the apparent horizon acts as the bottom of the lens as it's at the bottom of the medium creating the magnification effect.

This is how refraction works. It doesn't magically project an image of an object above its true position. Not only is it nonsense to say it's refraction that allows one to see an object beyond a supposed physical horizon caused by supposed curvature, it's asinine because refraction would actually do the opposite and hide an image you actually could see if it wasn't being magnified by refraction.

Being able to see the entire city of Chicago from the shoreline of Michigan is due to the atmospheric conditions creating a LACK OF REFRACTION and it's NOT producing a magnifying effect, allowing the bottom of the lens to be viewed as normal. Like taking the water that's causing refraction out of the glass, allowing you to see the pencil as it truly is.

Conclusion: There is no curvature to the earth and any claim that a mirage or refraction can bend light in such a way as to project an image above an object's true position is just false. It simply does not work that way and not a single bit of evidence exists that would suggest otherwise. So if you have the evidence, please present it.

https://files.catbox.moe/fgykak.jpg

Lol.

If you're going to make a mathematical claim, you need to show the work.

It's like we're watching a horse race and I'm not allowed to tell him who won until I do an equation that shows him how fast one of the horses in the race should be running.

Motion Parallax
Motion parallax refers to the fact that objects moving at a constant speed across the frame will appear to move a greater amount if they are closer to an observer (or camera) than they would if they were at a greater distance. This phenomenon is true whether it is the object itself that is moving or the observer/camera that is moving relative to the object. The reason for this effect has to do with the amount of distance the object moves as compared with the percentage of the camera's field of view that it moves across. An example is shown in Figure 2.29. An object that is 100 m away may move 20 m in a certain direction and only move across 25% of the field of view, yet the same 20 m displacement in an object that is only 40 m away will cause the object to move completely out of frame.

https://files.catbox.moe/b2stle.jpg

Stars show no motion Parallax.

https://files.catbox.moe/dipkpn.png

People that think the world is a ball seem to be confused about gravity. They keep invoking newtonians theory and claiming it as proof of Einstein's theory.

https://bigthink.com/hard-science/gravity-force-complicated/

>Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are locked in an eternal battle over the nature of gravity. Whose side are you on?

>what Newton did was to work out the mathematical laws that govern the gravitational attraction between two bodies. The gravitational force depended on the mass of each object and the distance separating them.

>Despite the breathtaking success of Newton’s equations, he was never completely satisfied with his theory. He didn’t see the mechanism that would connect two astronomical bodies, like the Moon and the Sun. For forces like picking up a glass, what caused the force was clear. But that wasn’t true for gravity. He was always uncomfortable with this idea of “action at a distance” (action being his word for force). He even wrote to a colleague, telling him that any competent thinker shouldn’t believe his theory.

>Regardless, it worked. Astronomers used his equations to predict the motions of planets and comets, as well as the location and timing of solar eclipses.

A quick note here, You can predict the motions of the "planets" because they repeat a frequency cycle over the flat Earth, creating sacred geometry like this.

https://files.catbox.moe/a25z7x.png

>The situation changed in 1915, when Albert Einstein devised his own theory of gravity. His ideas were staggeringly different from Newton’s. Einstein imagined that space and time were equivalent, where one could be transformed into the other. Because they were the same, he joined them into a single concept: spacetime.

>When Einstein married his spacetime concept with gravity, he found that gravity was actually the distortion of spacetime. Heavy objects like stars and planets distorted spacetime in a way that made objects move toward them, so gravity is simply a result of the geometry of spacetime. As bizarre as this sounds, it has been validated over and over again.

>While Einstein’s ideas are very well regarded, they are also known to be incomplete. His theory fails in the subatomic world. When scientists try to use his equations to describe the nature of gravity at atomic scales (and smaller), they fail miserably, predicting non-physical infinities. When a theory predicts something to be infinite, this is a sign not that infinities are real, but that the theory is broken.

>Accordingly, researchers have tried to devise a theory of gravity that describes the world of the ultra-small. To do so, they look to theories of electromagnetism and other subatomic forces of the quantum world, which work very well.

The article asks whose side you are on, I am personally on Nikola Tesla's side, but based on Newton's own comments, He would probably agree with Nikola Tesla.

>Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.

I also agree with the idea of electromagnetism quantum physics as the law of everything.

Newton's explanation of gravity works terrestrially on earth because he based his theory on the atomic mass of objects. The atomic mass of an object is an average mass for a particular element. This will determine how it is affected by electromagnetism. Although the protons and neutrons are set in stone for an element to be the element it is, electrons have mass and are constantly moving and exchanging places. This is why atomic mass is average and not exact. The number of electrons can vary.

You can see how electrons affect gravity yourself by using a Van de Graaff generator. If you were to touch one, it would draw the electrons out of you. This will leave you with a positive charge. Most of the atoms in your body are heavier than the air around it, even with a positive charge. This is because not all atoms exchange electrons in the same way. For instance, Sulfur can expand its valence shell to hold more than eight electrons, but oxygen cannot. The parts of your body that consist of lighter atoms like your hair, which consists of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulfur, lose enough electrons to where they have less than the molecules in the air around them. When you take volume and divide it by mass, you get density. The loss of electrons make your hair less dense because it lost mass. It is now less dense than the air around it, therefore it will float.

I'm just trying to figure out what kind of authority you guys respect. If that's all it takes then call me Professor Nasty.

@Sector2 You need to do better.

"Professor" Dave Farina

The guy even gives you a testimony. He flunked out of college once. Then he tried to do it again. His second go, they were short staff so they allowed him to teach some kind of beginners course or something. Him retaining the job was contingent on him getting his degree. He failed. Since nobody would pay him to teach anybody physics, he started a YouTube channel and proclaimed himself a professor.

This is who you guys are using as a source. A person that subscribes to the theory of relativity, but flunked out of college twice because he couldn't learn the theory of relativity. Then he calls himself a professor. Lol.

Here's a good video that just documents how retarded this guy is. You can't tell me he's not a jew. Lol.

For real, listen to this guy's testimony with a straight face.

https://youtu.be/3ABRu-Dj0e8?si=Zht2kw86YlLWS07v

Here's another video debunking some of his videos.

https://youtu.be/elIdedx07mE?si=kJ2OOEMeCQd8GEJI

There's lots of them. You might have to use Yandex to search for them. Definitely won't come up in the YouTube algorithm.

Edit: Just to give you some perspective, if you presented professor Dave with the testimony about masturbation death machines in Nazi death camps, he would defend it. Says a lot about everybody here defending him.

Eratosthenes is claimed to have proven the earth is round in 240 BC with his observation of shadows.

In his observation he made a couple presumptions. First, he presumed that the earth was round. Because of this presumption, he had to presume that the sun's rays were reaching the earth in parallel fashion for the behavior of shadows to be accurate. His conclusion looked like this.

https://files.catbox.moe/6k92sk.png

This is odd because nobody ever gives a reason why he should have presumed the earth was round in the first place, given it was 240 BC, prior to his observation of shadows. The oddest part being, he would have seen clouds all his life that looked like this.

https://files.catbox.moe/likxfy.webp

In 240 BC, why would any reasonable person see clouds that look like this their entire life, then presume that the sun's rays are reaching the entire earth in parallel fashion?

So let's take the objective, observable, and repeatable data that Eratosthenes would have objectively seen, crepuscular rays, and make the necessary presumptions we need for the behavior of shadows to be accurate.

Crepuscular sun rays from behind clouds would suggest a smaller local Sun. With a smaller local Sun, the behavior of the shadows can be reproduced on a flat Earth. That conclusion would look like this.

https://files.catbox.moe/e8kule.png

Now I know that you globs like to cry "illusion" and "the sun rays really are parallel, but they just appear to be crepuscular." After all, Einstein told us all about reality and how it's all a "persistent illusion." But we are talking about 240 B.C. They didn't have jewish "scientists" lying to them about rockets in space yet. Their entire reality is based on their terrestrial observations. He would have saw the same thing that we see today. Crepuscular rays. Sure, modern science can argue things are "illusions." And I can argue that they're not. The following is an example.

The distance of the sun from the earth to scale.
https://files.catbox.moe/hfaki9.jpg

Now visualize that distance and convince yourself that the sun can create this hotspot with parallel rays.
https://files.catbox.moe/q4zj4v.png

Now attempt to visualize parallel rays creating the illusion of crepuscular rays in this picture.
https://files.catbox.moe/5ffm86.jpg

I can make an argument against the claim of illusion but my point in this post is that they are described as illusions for a reason. An illusion is something that appears like one thing, but is something else in reality. Without the explanation of the illusion, you would have no reason to believe it was an illusion. So if atmospheric refraction creating crepuscular rays is an illusion, and we're told that in reality the sun's rays are parallel, but the illusion is that they appear crepuscular, then Eratosthenes should have observed them and presumed that the sun was small and local because he personally had no reason to presume crepuscular rays were an illusion and he should have came to the conclusion that the earth was flat.

Sure, you could argue that the world would proved him wrong years later, but I'm asking about Eratosthenes, in 240 BC, with the information he had available to him, and whether or not you find his conclusion reasonable given his circumstances.

With all this being said, Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt with his presumption that the earth was round in the first place, this would indeed require that the sun's rays are parallel, but modern science can't even keep consistent with that claim when they try to explain an eclipse.

https://files.catbox.moe/m0j93u.png


Everybody has their own chronological order in which they received red pills. We receive them all our lives. From the moment you realized that Santa Claus wasn't real, you have progressed to understanding that the CIA killed JFK, 911 was an inside job, climate change propaganda and so on. It might differ from person to person but we all have a list. But at some point you understood that the Holocaust was a hoax. This was a major leap because it probably changed your perspective on the entire world and the history we are given. You realized that 911 was an inside job, but the people behind that job were jews. Or that the CIA did kill JFK, but that the CIA answers to the Mossad. You eventually see a pattern. But as a Holocaust denier, you would fully understand what it is like to have such an unpopular opinion. And you would also understand what it is like to argue against a brick wall of ignorance and regurgitated mainstream narratives without any substance until you are inevitably banned from whatever platform you used and relocated to the limited hangout farm we call voat. That is where I am at today. Ever since I learned the truth about the Holocaust, I've treated anything and everything with the same skepticism. It has led me to the inevitable conclusion that the Earth is flat. I simply challenge the mainstream claim by observing reality.

I fully expect shills to be butthurt and agree with the disclaimers that Wikipedia or YouTube would put on the information that I try to share. If you're a Holocaust denier, then you know the routine. Make a post with substance, get denial, get insults, accusations, and deflection. Not a single one of them will address the actual post I made about Eratosthenes because the argument is bulletproof. They will treat this post the same exact way reddit would treat a post that was questioning why the chimney at Auschwitz wasn't attached to the building or ask how Anne Frank could write her diary with a ballpoint pen. There's no argument against it so they will avoid it at all costs.

It's like if someone hated gay people but would go around fuckin dudes like a flaming faggot to prove their point? You're obviously gay. If you really hated gay people, you wouldn't do what gay people do.

https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/einstein-was-a-fraud-says-nikola-tesla/#msg396032

>Why so much hype for this Jєωιѕн god of "Theoretical Science"; this serial adulterer, this proven plagiarist, this deadbeat dad, this phony "pacifist" who fled anti-Communist Germany and then urged the U.S. Into entering an unnecessary war.

What Nikola Tesla said about relativity.

>"Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible. Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."

Nikola Tesla clearly tells people that relativity is rubbish. Somebody help me understand why so many people here believe the jew Albert Einstein over the white guy Nikola Tesla?

It takes 24 hours for the Earth to make a complete rotation. Only half the Earth can be illuminated by the sun. Explain how a day can ever be more or less than 12 hours. And how can we experience a day when over 50% of the Earth is illuminated by the sun?

Logically, this would never change if the earth was a ball.

All energy can be explained as radiant waves emitting from a source. All energy can be measured by how many radiant waves are emitted per second.

The fundamental principle for any and all lasers is the same. It is a radiant frequency that is condensed using lenses to bottleneck and concentrate the energy of the radiant wave into a beam. This beam can then be directed.

Objects themselves have a personal relationship in how they interact with different frequencies based on the material the objects are made of. For example, if you wanted to protect a person from an x-ray, you could use lead as a shield because the lead will reflect it. This is why they give you a lead vest if you were to get an x-ray of your arm. It shields your vital organs from any damage.

As for the frequencies that we consider "color," we can only witness them as they reflect off of objects. The color of an object will let us know exactly which frequencies from the color spectrum are being reflected and absorbed by the object.

As we know, ultraviolet light is a radiant wave of energy emitting from the sun that we cannot see with the naked eye but only its reflection. We receive direct UV rays that we do not see. This particular frequency can be dangerous for our eyes so we use a shield that reflects that particular frequency. Those shields that we call UV protection sunglasses are simply sunglasses with lenses that are tinted blue. The more opaque, the more protection they offer. If you had a lens that was 100% opaque, it would damn near block 100% of the UV rays. Sure, You wouldn't be able to see through them, but your eyes would be perfectly safe and undamaged.

Let's take the fundamental principle of what a laser is and create one using ultraviolet frequencies. We take a machine that can produce ultraviolet radiation, condense that radiation using lenses that will bottleneck the frequency into a concentrated beam of ultraviolet energy, and direct that energy beam at an object.

Will the object burn? Depends. What color is the object? Does the object have UV protection? What is UV protection? It's just the color blue. So if the object is blue, it will not burn and in fact it will protect an object behind it if it is obstructing the UV radiation. Just like a lead vest in an x-ray room would protect your heart from dangerous x-rays, a blue vest would protect it from UV rays.

Context for my question....

If it's an objective fact that ultraviolet radiation can be condensed into an energy beam and directed at an object to cause damage....

Actual question....

If you're going to say that the government didn't use DEWs, then what is your explanation for objects like blue roofs and blue patio umbrellas going seemingly untouched? Because the argument isn't that these umbrellas survived next to a fire that could melt metal, but that the umbrellas survived next to a piece of metal being melted by a direct energy beam.