That Mickio Kaku video is a joke. Did you watch that video you posted?
I noticed the caller asked some questions but Michio starts with the 'flag' and 'shadow' which the caller didn't even mention. Kaku skirted the questions..... he even admits it.

As far as the moon rock he examined? It must of been different than this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...y-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

So yeah, someone is a liar.

180 of 270 Goodwill Moon Rocks passed out by NASA are missing or lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 21, 2017

https://www.quora.com/Chicago-is-59...320-feet-below-the-horizon-How-can-it-be-seen

 

Earth is not a flat sphere. It has different elevations
So calculate it again using the elevation of the city and update me the new data
Here is how you do it

Little extra, I do not say he is correct but like Science, its open for your Review.

Yes i watched it, please tell your arguments one by one what Michio Kaku mentioned. We shall see.

Maybe they are related? Talking about the moon mission in flat earth thread?

Maybe .I did not ask him.

WIKI links?I heard all ISS wiki were faked? maybe this Wiki is fake too?
Nice Cherry Picking again BTW

 

Last edited: Dec 21, 2017

You know what @dragonhill No need the new data... seems like people already done that.. You can Review that 3 comments and we can call it a day..Thanks anyway!

Like I have said before, Even if i do not know or know the answer it does not mean its false or true.. you can always ask it in University or College . You can do proper experiment there..

Audio Form is usually not the right place to ask Science and Math questions

NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND AND I STILL DON'T KNOW WHY YOU POST THESE UNDERGRADUATE SCIENCE QUESTIONS. MAYBE GO TO COLLEGE IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER?

As for me, give me evidence and I will change my mind. Not UTOOBS REASERCH

 

Last edited: Dec 21, 2017

Talk about 'cherry pick' you conveniently avoided the Telegraph.UK report of the Moon rock = petrified wood.
You still believe NASA 100%?

Very interesting you post in huge red bold letters about 'nothing changing my mind'
I think I'm open minded. I never declared anything about my stance, yet you assumed since I'm mentioning a few things that don't add up.

So here's a boat ride from 40 miles away

what's the elevation of that boat?
I'm sure you refuse to watch that flat earther video so let me tell you the pic on the bottom right is from 8 miles out. Doesn't it look similar to the one taken 60 miles away?

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 21, 2017

Eh? I thought mainstream medias are CGI
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...oon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html

PLEASE DO NOT quote about avoiding questions. You are the one who brought up APOLLO on a Flat Earth thread

Well, you might start by checking your math. You are calculating the drop as 8 inches per mile squared, which is wrong. It’s wrong for a lot of reasons, but the biggest is that the 59 miles is measured along the curved surface of the Earth, not along the straight base of a Pythagorean triangle set on a plane, which only gives you a very approximate number. And it’s the wrong number anyway.

What you really need to know is how high the curvature causes water to protrude upwards between you and the far shore when you look across the lake. The answer depends very much on your viewing height, which your method also has not accounted for.


You would also need to account for parallax, and the fact the objects on the far shore appear smaller than the water at the half way point, but that’s small enough to ignore here.

When you do the math correctly, depending on the exact distance of your line of sight across the lake, it works out to a bulge of 530–540 feet, so you would expect to see only those parts of the distant skyline that protrude above that height (or a little more if we aren’t looking out right at water level):


Of course, what we actually see is…oh yeah, exactly what the math predicts.






I believe that General Relativity has nothing to do with that (quantities are to close to the Newton limit to be explained by General Relativity). We can first do a little of Mathematics to understant what should be seen 59 miles away from Chicago. Let d (9.495104m" role="presentation" style="display: inline; line-height: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">9.495104m9.495104m) the distance on the surface of the Earth between you and Chicago, R (6.371106m" role="presentation" style="display: inline; line-height: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">6.371106m6.371106m) the radius of the Earth, H your altitude, and h the lowest point of chicago that can be seen. This image helps to see the relationship between all these numbers.




For example, to be able to see the buildings with an height higher than 200 m, you should be at an altitude of about 155 m. To be able to see the highest building of Chicago (442 m from Wikipedia), you should be at an altitude of about 31 m.

Now, this does not take account of any deflexion of light, for example due to the temperature gradient (see Mirage, on Wikipedia). Probably, with the lake around, in some hot days, the gradient is enough to make a deflexion so that highest buildings of Chicago can be seen, but this has to be checked by an expert.



Well… Let’s see… We KNOW the rule is 8″ x miles squared, Right?

8*59²/12 = 2320.7 ft or 707.3 m

So this MUST be correct, right? It’s math, can’t be wrong!

Well…

IF you put your eye/camera lens at sea-level, so it is half-way under the dirt/water, exactly at 0 elevation, and you ignored refraction then yes — that is what you would expect.

Now ask yourself, are those EVER the ACTUAL viewing conditions?

No - no they are not.

Since none of those assumptions are correct let’s try that again using the correct mathematics for the real-life question.

In short, you are trying to measure (D) in the image below when it is clearly (B) that you should be asking about. But for some reason, Flat Earth people can never seem to grasp this difference. (B) applies whenever the observer has ANY height AT ALL — even 1 cm. And unless you’ve stuck your camera half-way under the water you aren’t at 0 elevation (you have to measure to center of the lens).


Tom Dreyfus gave an excellent answer on the math as well, I’m just expanding on it a bit using slightly different geometry here so we can avoid doing any trig, which I think is easier for a layperson to understand, and then I’ll do the actual math for Chicago - which puts this whole nonsense to rest for the rational and sane.

Here is the correct geometry to use for an observer who hasn’t (metaphorically or literally) buried their head in the sand…


We have two right triangles to solve. This geometry is obviously correct - right? If you don’t understand this diagram then you might as well stop here. It’s also the same as the geometry in Tom Dreyfus' answer to Chicago is 59 miles from the opposite shore of Lake Michigan. Given the earth’s curvature, it should be 2320 feet below the horizon. How can it be seen? We are solving the EXACT same equation here - I’m just doing it with simple algebra.

Inputs (the values we know, to some approximation)

h₀ = elevation of observer
d₀ = total distance to distant object
R = Earth Radius (we will calculate this based on our latitude rather than using an average value)

Outputs
d₁ = observer eye-line distance to Horizon
h₁ = height of object obscured by horizon (positive when √h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R] > d₀)

Equations

The first equation we will need is to figure out the value for d₁ which is the distance to our horizon point. We will need this value in the second equation.

We can plug in these values into the Pythagorean theorem equations giving us:

(R+h₀)² = d₁² + R²

When we solve for d₁ we get (click on the equation to see Wolfram|Alpha solve it):

equation (1) d₁ = √h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R]

We can be very certain of this equation because I've provided the Wolfram|Alpha link which solves it for you.

And the FIRST thing we need to do is see if our observer can see GREATER THAN your total distance. If this horizon point (√h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R]) is GREATER THAN d₀ then your total calculation needs to be a NEGATIVE value, meaning. ONLY where √h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R] is LESS THAN d₀ then it will be positive h₁ value.

Next we just plug in the values for our second right triangle (on the right):

(R+h₁)² = d₂² + R²

And we solve for h₁, giving us (click on the equation to see Wolfram|Alpha solve it):

equation (2) h₁ = √[d₂² + R²] - R

We don't know d₂ directly but we do know that d₂ = (d₀ - d₁)

We can now combine these equations to give us our final formula (or you can calculate it yourself in the two separate steps since you need the first result anyway). You can simplify this equation further if you make a few assumptions but I don't want to do that.

h₁ = √[d₂² + R²] - R
h₁ = √[(d₀ - d₁)² + R²] - R
h₁ = √[(d₀ - [√h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R]])² + R²] - R

This is our complete formula!

Height of Distant Objects Obscured by Earth Curvature = h₁ = √[(d₀ - [√h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R]])² + R²] - R (when √h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R] is LESS THAN d₀)

Example for Chicago from Warren Dunes State Park

First we need to know what the Earth radius is at the point where we want to make our observation, we going to ESTIMATE it based on latitude for Chicago from Google Earth Pro:


There is a nifty calculator you can use here: Earth Radius by Latitude Calculator

Using 41.885367 and our elevation bias is 175m (the lowest elevation along our sightline which is the height of Lake Michigan, see more below) which gives us R of 6,368,824 meters.

The distance is ~53 miles or 85,350 meters (measured in Google Earth Pro from the shore of Warren Dunes State Park).

Observer height (182 - 175) = ~7m

Now we have to estimate the refraction… I’m going with 20% refraction as it was documented that this NOT the normal view and there was a thermal inversion over the lake. But even if you DO NOT take refraction into account (and we will do that also) you’ll just get a slightly larger value for the height obscured - this problem and the images of Chicago all still CLEARLY show curvature of the Earth! The thing you need to know about refraction here is that we can express in terms of Earth radius - so we just multiply R by our refraction factor (so 1.20 = +20%). But the person making the claim that “this is IMPOSSIBLE” needs to provide us with the EXACT value for refraction or else they cannot possibly know what is possible or not. So I’m left guessing some “reasonable” number — but since we doing upper and lower bounds here we can see any reasonable value gets us close enough to disprove a Flat Earth - the Spherical model is a better fit.

More details here: Derivation for Height of Distant Objects Obscured by Earth Curvature

Now we can plug these values into our equation:

√[(d - (√h √[h + 2 R]))² + R²] - R, d=85350, h=7, R=6368824*1.20

[Wolfram|Alpha] = ~368 meters

And again WITHOUT refraction we get a max value of:

√[(d - (√h √[h + 2 R]))² + R²] - R, d=85350, h=7, R=6368824

[Wolfram|Alpha] = ~452 meters

So we can ESTIMATE (Unless you know EVERY value to high precision you are ONLY making a rough estimate) that we would expect somewhere around 368 to 452 meters of Chicago [as measured from the water level of 175m] to be blocked at 53 miles away view from about 7m over the water, depending on the atmospheric conditions.

Since the Sears Tower is RIGHT at this limit, 442 meters tall (excluding the top spires), we would expect that under low refraction conditions we would JUST BARELY see the very tips of the tallest building (atmospheric conditions allowing) and during inversions we would see a significantly higher fraction - possibly 100+ meters.

Isn’t it AMAZING how, using the CORRECT mathematical equations and a deeper understanding of the phenomena actually being observed that we get results that align much more closely with our actual observations?

*NOTE: some of the images are from Grand Mere State Park which is 56 miles BUT you also have a higher observation point there of about +15 meters elevation (so you STILL get~368m obscured). But, please DO THE MATH YOURSELF for the EXACT observation you are testing but make sure your input values MATCH the exact picture you are testing.

What Flat Earth model cannot do is explain where the bottom of the city goes or why our view varies so greatly. Can’t be refraction because that would allow us to see MORE of the city. Can’t be perspective because that makes a distant object appear proportionally smaller in angular size, it doesn’t hide one thing behind another - if the bottom of the tower were too small to see due to perspective then the top would be too small also.

Here is the awesome photo showing a very distant Chicago skyline with the Sears Tower (aka Willis Tower) (credit to Joshua Nowicki I believe) circled in red.


And we clearly see that a significant portion of the city is below the horizon line with only tall buildings jutting up. The only question here is how much curvature are we seeing.

And we can tell there is some serious refraction going on by looking at the Sears Tower inside the red outlined area. What do you suppose that building looks like? Does it have a tall thin section below the spires on top? No, it doesn’t. So we’re seeing the top of the building Stretched by differences in the refractive index along each sight-line.

This is unequivocal evidence for the refraction.


And where do you suppose the ENTIRE bottom of the city went exactly besides hiding behind the curvature of the Earth?

Here is the Google Earth Pro elevation profile between the two showing why I used 175m as my elevation bias (it’s the height of the water which is our low-point, AKA OUR horizon is biased up by 175 meters, the lake water is NOT at sea-level but ~577′ or 175m)


And here another, more typical view where the mirage effect is inferior.

Lake Michigan mirage of Chicago skyline


~ Joshua Nowicki

Now tell me that isn’t refraction.

And another with OBVIOUS mirage effect right across the center of the ‘city’ which has significantly stretched all the buildings. This guy has some awesome images.


~ Joshua Nowicki

And a guy who did some side-by-sides comparing these photos:




https://www.quora.com/Chicago-is-59-miles-from-the-opposite-shore-of-Lake-Michigan-Given-the-earth’s-curvature-it-should-be-2320-feet-below-the-horizon-How-can-it-be-seen

BTW i switched off the YOUTUBE video the moment I knew he did not understand the meaning of mirage

 

same place the pic from 8 miles away depicts. You might want to keep watching.

@mozee was that a submarine?

 

Here is a light source across a frozen lake in Utah .....on the frozen lake, ......The camera is 30 inches high 7.53 miles away......

mirage?
just asking questions

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 21, 2017

Galileo was no popper, anyone that tells you he was persecuted is complete nonsense as HE WAS THE TOP MAN at the Vatican. 95% of people did not know how to read latin ( the established elite language to keep the masses dumbed down) during his time. 98% of people were simple laborer's and farmers. Only the top elite families even were able to read and write and the main hierarchy was where Galileo lived. What farmer in Galileo's time had access to medical texts, historical texts ( how the Religions kept celestial events hidden), astronomical charts etc!! not 1.
Take a 900 x reflector outside and point it to Jupiter, you can barely see it and somehow Galileo was monitoring it's Moon's with a 10 x lens LOL Seriously use your brain man. In fact Galileo was so supported by the Roman Catholic Church that all his teachings and methods were CAST AS LAW by the Church. Galileo was a Freemason hence all his numbers always have the 33 number on them ( 33 is the highest degree of Freemansory). You really can not question this in School since that is the Indoctrination point where you are forced to accept it or leave. Basically you have to accept and believe that Galileo was PHYSICALLY observing Jupiter's Moon's with a Telescope that you could barely see the Moon properly even in his time. Anyone with a Telescope today knows exactly what you need to see Jupiter's Moon's
and a minimum 1500x Reflector is needed. The Optics in Galileo's time never existed to see that far and he clearly was using ancient texts which had information passed down .
Do you really think the Alexandria Library fire was an accident? No what happened was the Library was going to be opened to the public, not just scholers and this would mean anyone could then see the link between the old world and the new world in the Middle East area. Someone removed the important historical books translated and then burned the library down. This information is worth more than the Entire Wealth of the World put together and anyone who has access to the location of it is the group who is really in Control. This is why we do not know how the old World was built and by who. How they had access to the cosmos details in precise numbers . We lost this link because someone was about to lose control of that power of knowledge and this is why the Alexandria Library Fire conspiracy is not only plausible but a reality.
You do realize the USA, Britain and Russia stole 70,000 Patents from Germany right? The Entertainment Industry, the Music Industry, your food packaging, your agricultural chemicals, your food supply, your SHIPMENTS from Amazon, Shipments of Food all due to German Patents. Oh and your hospitals, Dentistry, Clinics have 80% German Machines.

 

Best Joke about this It's called an "AIRPLANE" not "AIRCURVE"

 

ProTip: Don't start wars & lose them :|

 

Now let's talk about 9/11...................just kidding

 

^

You'll never destroy all the evidence, thieving Flat Earthers!

 

This is is the humor section after all so let's have some fun now.

You guys remember the Shuttle that blew up with the Christa somebody the school teacher that died? What are the odds 2 of the seven people that died have identical twins living today? Others only bothered to start using their middle names.

When you sound out the four letters NASA ......like naw saw .........in Hebrew is................to deceive, beguile.

 

Oy vey...

 

If it was na-Sha then it would be a very old form of deception, in the singular form (one to one.)

As it is NassA - more like to carry off or to marry

Nas' lift.

Semitic languages don't work with the same mechanics as Germanic or Latin languages especially the vowels they are also more dependent on context and surrounding words than Germanic or Latin words when it comes to deriving their meaning unless a certain form is a noun or has been conceded a certain meaning by the contemporary people using at that particular time.

 

Thanks for the Hebrew lesson @mozee
So what are your thoughts on the boat and frozen lake experiments?