No. A great many.
America bombed the absolute shit out of japan, and generally american students are not well educated on the breadth of mass murder and savagery employed.
Perhaps they are (the work of satan). They are primarily used to deceive/lie en masse, after all.
As for me, i don’t favor superstition and am of the “jack sparrow philosophy” camp. There is what a man can do, and what a man can’t do. What he can do, he does. That’s the reason we don’t ever see nuclear weapons used except on television (in preposterously hokey and obviously fake clips).
If it were possible - we would do it ... frequently! It isn’t possible, which is why we don’t!
So how do you guys suggest they did it?
They didn’t. They used cheap camera tricks / television fear porn propaganda and conventional firebombing.
There are large bombs, granted - but there are no “doomsday devices” that can destroy the world (or even cities). No M.A.D. It’s all hollywood.
Please see the documentary “Dr. Strangelove” for more details.
They were simply firebombed to (partial) oblivion.
It blows my mind you believe in one, but think the other is fake.
Explosions are about the speed at which all the power can be released.
Nuclear reactions, like thermite reactions - likely for analogous reasons, are slow and do not happen all at once.
A “doomsday device” which can destroy the entire world?
Does that sound real to you, or rather like bad scifi tripe from a 50’s serial?
The only place nuclear weapons have ever existed is on television.
See the documentary “Dr. Strangelove” for more details.
The link is already dead :( Can you please repost?
Apocryphally, yes.
Tesla is reported to have built one and drawings of another one were found in his papers (at his museum). https://www.quora.com/Did-Nikola-Tesla-discover-how-to-invent-a-UFO-or-any-kind-of-flying-craft-If-so-why-did-they-hide-this-from-the-public/answer/William-Beaty
Precious little detail on specific workings though :( He told the newspapers not to be surprised if in the near future they saw him floating about in a flying machine no larger than a bathtub which did not utilize bernoulli's principles.
Of course there is this old chestnut too :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar
There are a great many other anecdotes about the specifics of building flying saucers, but i’ve forgotten them (and did not find them credible). Speculations on the nazi bell, and counter rotating vortices of “red mercury” and the like fall in this category.
Good luck on your search, and let us know if you find anything!
So, this is your claim
Not really, this is more like “status quo”. It’s “basic physics”, as you said. It is not surprising that you don’t know that, as most people don’t - but that’s just because physics isn’t for everybody. Some of us genuinely like it!
Try to address the content, not resort to childish ad hominem. It just makes me sad for you, and mires communication. Viciously attack the thought, but never the thinker! Attacking the thinker is a demonstration that you weren’t competent to attack the thought. Do better if you can!
It's YOUR claim.
What is my claim? You are petulantly demanding an answer to your (tangential) question which has nothing to do with anything i claimed.
You make the claim, you provide the evidence.
I’m happy to provide evidence for my claim (which i’ve already done, but you likely missed), however in real life the burden to verify/validate a claim encountered (including “facts” which are merely one type of claim) always falls on us - the students. We can ask for help if we can’t do it on our own, but demanding it is essentially always counter productive.
Given a powerful enough telescope, of course you would.
A common misunderstanding. The farthest you can see from the top of everest is a few hundred miles - more magnification can’t change that because the air is not completely transparent. The more of it you look through the less you can see clearly.
A good analogy is looking out towards the open ocean from underwater. At some distance from you - all you see is blackness. The distant light from the shark that is absolutely there simply can’t reach you and no amount of magnification can change that. There is too much “stuff” in the way (in the analogy, water and the things dissolved/commingling in it; in the example above, the air - which also behaves as a fluid - and the things dissolved/commingling in it.)
You don't understand basic physics
Lol. Look up diffraction/angular resolution limit. Physics isn’t for everyone, and optics are tricky!
The only way this could possibly happen is if the stars were a projection a few thousand feet up
There are some who claim this is the case. But actually the distance to them doesn’t matter. Perspective (which causes the “vanishing point” phenomenon which is the “reason” things that recede apparently converge with the horizon) is more to do with angular resolution / receptor density in our eyes. It doesn’t matter how far away it is - as long as we can see it.
We can tell stars are far, far, far away simply due to triangulation taken 6 months apart
Assumptions built on assumptions. Castles made of sand.
What if the earth does NOT move over that 6 month interval - and the difference in apparent position (used for stellar parallax) is then NOT caused by this believed (but utterly unempirical ie. unmeasured ie, unscientific) motion?
We can see with our own eyes this is true
Evidence abounds, it is often the interpretation of that evidence which leads to incorrect conclusions.
We can see that the star’s apparent position moves slightly over a yearly interval. That is very different than all the (unvalidated) assumptions built beyond that evidence that you preach as gospel (because astronomers preached it to you as gospel first).
you would HAVE to still see Polaris since it is so far above us all
This is a common misunderstanding. It is analogous to the common “why can’t i see the eifel tower from the top of everest then?” nonsense.
There is more than one reason. One is perspective/angular resolution (causing apparent convergence with the horizon and vanishing because the object is too small to be resolved), and the other is there is a lot of stuff in the way (most notably air and the things dissolved/commingling in it) which as i said - tends to cause light to curve convexly towards the surface.
Any dip shit can say "everything is fake, life is a projection, the stars are not very far away"
Anyone can say anything, dip-shit status not withstanding. But that doesn’t make them correct/incorrect. You claiming (parroting the claim, in point of fact) that the stars are unfathomable distances from us is a good example. In any case, i didn’t make any claim like that, so why don’t we talk about claims i actually made instead?
I told you to publish your 'research;'
And i told you that i am, right now, to you. Look at your reaction to this publishing! Witness your belligerent disinterest and zealous faith in your own preferred “status quo”. I may “publish” something in some form in the future, but there is nothing wrong with starting small. One of the major reasons i engage in forums like this is to share (“publish”) my research to subject it to scrutiny in the hopes of refinement (including refutation!).
All celestial bodies are forced into a ball shape due to gravity
Lol, yes - so we are taught and required to repeat. It is not insane to conclude that what you have been conditioned to believe through rote under the guise of education from childhood is likely incorrect. Quite the opposite!
If gravity (gravitation specifically; gravity is a phenomenon and has been defined for thousands of years - it is demonstrably real) doesn’t exist, then it can’t force any bodies - celestial or otherwise - to take any shape.
No fuck off and die coward
Ad hominem is the last resort of the intellectually feeble. They attack the thinker out of desperation because they can’t attack the thought. Do better if you can!
Don’t be lazy!
It’s your (tangential/unrelated to our discussion) question and i’ve already suggested an app you can (most likely) use to get your answer easily. There are of course many charts of such things available as well.
Why should i do your homework to answer your question that isn’t even about what we are discussing?
Of course there are! Astronomy has been practiced for millennia, and used for charting navigation for almost as long. It is well known how far one must travel to obscure and restore a particular star / constellation.
There are also modeling applications - likely sellarium can do this, for instance - which can also be used to lookup such things. They just don’t have anything to do with your original question or my answer to it.
No, any fundamental 'discovery' that goes against the status quo
Lol, i disagree - but in any case; what “discovery that goes against the status quo” did you think we were discussing? What i said is well known and established. It’s most all “status quo” - not that that matters.
published in scientific journals
Again, science is about replication not the publisher racket. Are you familiar with the “crisis” in replication facing those “journals”? More than half of what is published across the board is garbage/junk/fraud. Although you are right that there ought to be a working system to foster and validate scientific claims - the publishing racket demonstrably isn’t that. Lots, if not most, things that “ought” to be, sadly are not.
The Theory of Everything, where Hawkings was laughed at, scoffed at, and told he was a loon, by the establishment.
As i said, i like historical fiction too - but it is important to remember it is just stories.
you are just a conspiracy theorist
Lol, imagine being on a forum called “conspiracies” and unironically saying something like this...
“Conspiracy theorist” is a meaningless derogatory designed (and procedurally used) only to discredit and slander. You would do well to refrain from using/perpetuating the tools of our common enemies.
Anyone can lay a claim that Jews control everything and that there is a secret cabal trying to hide the truth, well my friend, that is the true meaning of a conspiritard.
This “conversation” has sure taken a strange turn... What an odd non sequitur...
So put up or shut up
Completely agreed, and a great motto! I’m absolutely “putting up”. That’s what i am doing every time i share my views, research, and conclusions. That is regardless of the venue, which is irrelevant. You can, and evidently more than half do - routinely, “put up” nonsense in “reputable journals”. Publishing doesn’t matter, validation does!
that is the language of a coward
If you say so. I understand academia, and the parasitic profiteering publishing racket attached to its belly, far too well to fear it.
If you are so much smarter than they are
Lol, you misunderstand. The smartest people who ever lived were all wrong. It will be forever thus. Smart does not equal correct.
I am claiming that the commonly taught belief that the “curve of the earth” obscures distant objects/lights is incorrect. I am not claiming anything about my intelligence nor anyone else's.
Every flat earther is a fucking idiot
There aren’t really any flat earthers. That’s a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) psyop. They are advertised as idiots intentionally to drive legitimate interest and research away from a valuable subject.
To date, not one of you FE's has ever done anything more than make fake assumptions without any evidence whatsoever.
In general, i agree with you - however there are many earnest flat earth researchers which conduct legitimate - evidence based - research. The psyop is designed to obfuscate them.
Also, “evidence” is not the “slam dunk” it is often misrepresented as. There is evidence available for most anything, very much including things which are incorrect. Legitimate evidence is used to convict innocent people all the time. Legitimate scientific/empirical evidence is historically always used to draw incorrect conclusions and theories which are then taught institutionally to millions.
What content?
They’re called words.
You throw down some words that explain nothing
Lol. That’s not for lack of trying! When you don’t understand something, the best first step is to ask questions! Instead you resorted to ad hominem, which is not a good/intelligent way to discuss, learn, or teach anything :(
I too can string some fancy sounding words together randomly,
Clearly you didn’t understand what i said. Ask questions!
Name the distances.
As i said, there are many charts of such things. Look them up if you are interested! They have nothing to do with the question you asked, or the answer i gave.
Publish your research
I “published” the conclusions of my research to you - just now...
Besides, what i’ve said is demonstrably observable for all to see. What better “publishment” can there be but trivially observable reality?
All objects, and the light from them - wether reflected or self luminescent - do as i describe when receding.
show your empirical evidence and then have it reviewed by your peers
Again, there is no better empirical evidence than trivially observable reality. Go out and “review” my evidence for yourself. Science is about replication (validation), not the publishing racket.
Once you do, you will be proven right and become the most famous person in the world.
Lol. You massively overestimate peoples interest in such things. Virtually no one cares friend, because they are too busy slaving away to “earn” a crust.
Think of all the brave innovators who challenged the church and old-school ways that came before you
I like historical fiction as well, but it is important to remember that they are just stories.
so everyone can once and for know how they have all been manipulated.
No one requires to be “manipulated” in order to be wrong and to likewise be taught, from childhood, wrong things and repeat them. That happens naturally, without any intervention/manipulation.
What are you waiting for?
That is a good question to ask yourself. I am not waiting. I’m here sharing my views and conclusions. You are the one who won’t/can’t bother to validate them. As I said, most people don’t care about such things :(
The light from stars travels billions of light years
I don’t believe such things, but even if it were true - it wouldn’t change what i said or the demonstrable reality of it. No matter how far away the light source is - as you recede from it (or it from you) it will appear to converge with the horizon and eventually no longer be visible.
only to be blocked
You misunderstand, that is your view. You are the one who believes that the light is blocked by the “curve of the earth”.
In my view, the receding light is first apparently converged with the visible horizon (perspective / angular resolution), and ultimately refracted, convexly towards the surface, by the density gradient in our air.
Makes total sense.
It does when you understand it. However, making sense doesn’t make it (or anything) correct. Reality is stranger than fiction because fiction is obliged to possibility.
Flat Earthers are unable to actually substantiate their idiotic fantasies
There aren’t really any “flat earthers”. There are just products and/or agents of the heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop.
As for “idiotic fantasies”, all i did was answer your question - plainly. I know you are more comfortable believing there is no available answer but the one you were trained to repeat - but this is essentially never the case.
Try to address the content of my statements, instead of resorting to vapid and self degrading ad hominem. Viciously attack the thought, if you are capable, but never the thinker - as the latter only demonstrates your incompetence to do the former.
I don't think that you actually understand any of the words you use there
Lol.
but please show me the calculations and distances involved.
Calculations are what we contrive AFTER we measure first. If you want to calculate, make some measurements of the same star in the same position (multiple nights, obviously) from different known distances/locations to it and extrapolate from there. You will see that it does exactly as i said; as you recede the star will lower in azimuth until it converges with the horizon and you can’t see it anymore. Do you honestly doubt that?
How far away from the constellation of Orion am I on the Northern Hemisphere and how far on the Southern and what exactly is the cut-off distance beyond which it isn't visible anymore?
I’m sure those answers are available to you if you want to go find them. It’s pretty standard astronomy stuff - go look it up if you’re interested! It doesn’t have much to do with what you asked though - that will just tell you how far you’ll have to travel to “restore” the stars you can’t see anymore.
I am talking about why you can’t see them anymore (they’re too far away), which is a different matter than how far you need to travel to restore them.
Pretty good article, surprisingly.
Can hollow earth and flat earth even co exist?
Of course, why not?
How can earth be hollow if its just a flat square.
It just has to have large hollow spaces beneath the surface (which it obviously does, in any case), the shape of the entire world is irrelevant to that. Even if the world is a flat square, it obviously isn’t 2 dimensional!
Basic physics here people.
Most people struggle with physics. It isn’t for everyone.
I thought this shit would be common knowledge
Lots of shit is taught as “common knowledge”. Historically (and contemporarily) speaking, “common knowledge” is always wrong and at best incomplete. Thank god truth is not a democracy, eh?
In the original legends of Hercules, he uses a compass to navigate the seas.
Interesting - never heard that before!
The equations that the greeks came up with could work both ways.
The equations that eratosthenes apocryphally used to calculate the circumference of the world assume and depend on the world being spherical (and many other unvalidated assumptions). Misrepresenting it as a “proof” for the shape of the earth is at best disingenuous/erroneous and at worst fraudulent. Eratosthenes never doubted the world was spherical (and hence, of course, never sought to verify/validate it), because he was taught it as fact from childhood just like we were.
Anaxagoras is said to be the first person to explain that solar eclipses are caused by the Moon passing in front of the Sun
Also interesting. Pythagoras usually gets the credit for the explanation of the lunar eclipse, and from it the further deduction that the world is spherical - maybe anaxagoras is the real source.
Sure. (though “flat earthers” don’t really exist)
The reason you can’t see (all of) the stars from where you normally live is because you are too far away from them.
As you recede farther and farther from any object/light source, it approaches, then converges, and then is (ostensibly) obscured by/“behind/over” the apparent horizon.
The reasons this happens are due to perspective, and due to refraction caused by the density gradient in our air which tends to cause light which travels through it to curve convexly towards the ground.
How long could something such as this actually last before everyone perishes?
Unknown. The times we have actually tried to do it, it failed within years.
However - miniature sealed glass biomes can and have lasted on the order of centuries. Those rely on the sun however, and a different sort of biome would be required to live in darkness - but there are certainly plenty of living things which thrive in such environments. It’s all about the balance and symbiosis of them.
If you knew that the earth itself is a closed system, would you suspect that it could be done on a smaller scale too? This is generally my view.
Agreed. But it doesn’t make it a rock, mineable, or reachable in any way.