Beautiful

[XCR1250]

When the solar wind slams into the magnetosphere, it produces the aurora borealis, the northern and southern lights in the polar regions. When charged particles from the sun strike atoms in Earth’s atmosphere, electrons move to higher-energy orbits. When the electrons move back to a lower-energy orbit, it releases a particle of light or photon.

Aurora Australis from Space. Source: NASA

[jtssrx]

That's not a real photo. It was created in photoshop. There’s nothing beautiful about it. It’s like photoshopping a ugly women and making her hot and taking the fat off of her. Nothing we get from NASA when it comes to photos is an actual photo. 

[Skidooski]

 

[jtssrx]

6 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

That's not a real photo. It was created in photoshop. There’s nothing beautiful about it. It’s like photoshopping a ugly women and making her hot and taking the fat off of her. Nothing we get from NASA when it comes to photos is an actual photo. 

@Stephen Hawkingdo you think this is a real photo of the earth? 

[Stephen Hawking]

Just now, jtssrx said:

@Stephen Hawkingdo you think this is a real photo of the earth? 

I'm not getting sucked in to your vortex, sorry. 

[XCR1250]

4 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

@Stephen Hawkingdo you think this is a real photo of the earth? 

Why would they photoshop it, for what reason? Why would they lie

 I saw Dozens of Earth pictures that Astronaut Jeff Williams showed..the Earth is as the pic here.

[jtssrx]

3 minutes ago, Stephen Hawking said:

I'm not getting sucked in to your vortex, sorry. 

You have no answer because you are afraid to admit the truth. The truth being every photo we get from nasa is a cartoon. this 2 minute video is an interview with the guy that creates the pictures. 
 

 

 

[jtssrx]

1 minute ago, XCR1250 said:

Why would they photoshop it, for what reason? Why would they lie

 I saw Dozens of Earth pictures that Astronaut Jeff Williams showed..the Earth is as the pic here.

Watch the video i posted. The picture you posted is a photoshop recreation. Every picture of the earth we see that looks like the one you posted of the entire globe is a photoshop recreation

[Stephen Hawking]

3 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

You have no answer because you are afraid to admit the truth. The truth being every photo we get from nasa is a cartoon. this 2 minute video is an interview with the guy that creates the pictures. 
 

 

 

I've read the flat earth thread, you avoided every piece of evidence other members posted so like I said, not playing your game

[XCR1250]

2 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

Watch the video i posted. The picture you posted is a photoshop recreation. Every picture of the earth we see that looks like the one you posted of the entire globe is a photoshop recreation

You never answered the question, "why would they lie"?

Why force 100's to lie about it and why spend time & money photoshopping 1000's of pictures.

[CFM]

Wait ! Someone heRe think’s the earth is flat ?  

[Stephen Hawking]

More CGI

 

[jtssrx]

2 hours ago, Stephen Hawking said:

I've read the flat earth thread, you avoided every piece of evidence other members posted so like I said, not playing your game

You don’t read anything you just spew your Indoctrination brainwashed talking points. 
 

this thread is a prime example. You can’t disprove what I’m saying about photoshop so you go to ad hominem attacks 

[jtssrx]

2 hours ago, XCR1250 said:

You never answered the question, "why would they lie"?

Why force 100's to lie about it and why spend time & money photoshopping 1000's of pictures.

They are lying to hide god or a creator. Our entire society is garbage now. There is zero proof of a big bang that created our universe from nothing yet that is pushed by many people. 

[jtssrx]

3 hours ago, XCR1250 said:

When the solar wind slams into the magnetosphere, it produces the aurora borealis, the northern and southern lights in the polar regions. When charged particles from the sun strike atoms in Earth’s atmosphere, electrons move to higher-energy orbits. When the electrons move back to a lower-energy orbit, it releases a particle of light or photon.

Aurora Australis from Space. Source: NASA

Do you think is is an actual photo? 

[Stephen Hawking]

3 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

You don’t read anything you just spew your Indoctrination brainwashed talking points. 
 

this thread is a prime example. You can’t disprove what I’m saying about photoshop so you go to ad hominem attacks 

What points have I spewed? 

You are the one making the photoshop claim, you are the one that has to prove it. I haven't made any sort of attack. 

Wow

[jtssrx]

2 minutes ago, Stephen Hawking said:

What points have I spewed? 

You are the one making the photoshop claim, you are the one that has to prove it. I haven't made any sort of attack. 

Wow

Watch: Why all images of space are photoshopped

• For more stories, see www.businessinsider.co.za.

---

NASA, and most if not all, other space agencies photoshop their images of space - but that doesn't mean their photos are fake. Cheddar explores why images of space are photoshopped, and how that helps astronomers with their job.

The methodology behind how they do it is pretty amazing. 

The most important thing to remember is that these images are not fake. According to the space agencies that took them they’re just interpretations of our reality. 

“Its real information in the real universe. Yes, the pictures are enhanced or altered or the colours are changed but it’s done for real scientific reasons,” said Dr. Paul Sutter, an Astrophysicist at the Ohio State University. 

The images of space are not taken for beauty, but to gain information and insight about the universe around us. One reason is that these images come to us in greyscale, rather than colour. 

Coloured cameras are of lower resolution than black and white cameras, which means when it comes to collecting data you would want to collect it at the highest possible resolution. 

Of course, monochromatic photos aren't as visually appealing as coloured ones. It's also more difficult to grasp information in a black and white photograph. So scientists composite multiple filter photos into one image to approximate the real colour.

“We could show you charts and graphs which more scientifically useful just isn’t as interesting. So [we send] you the cool picture that led to that chart and graph,” said Sutter.

Now watch: Here's why NASA spacesuits are white

Frequently, colourisation is also used for categorisation. The human eye is limited to what it can see. But some cameras, like infrared telescopes, can pick up even more information. Scientists then assign a colour to data which is outside the visible spectrum, like wave lengths. 

Colourizing can also help scientists figure out the makeup of the universe. Different elements give off different wavelengths of light. By colour categorizing elements like Hydrogen or Oxygen with a colour it helps them to differentiate what they are seeing in a picture. 

Take a picture of nebula. It’s not something you would see typically with a naked eye, because the colours that have been added here are used to highlight where certain elements are, to see where they are in relation to each other, said Sutter.  

[jtssrx]

4 minutes ago, Stephen Hawking said:

What points have I spewed? 

You are the one making the photoshop claim, you are the one that has to prove it. I haven't made any sort of attack. 

Wow

Everything you say in support of the globe globetard

[XCR1250]

9 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

Watch: Why all images of space are photoshopped

• For more stories, see www.businessinsider.co.za.

---

NASA, and most if not all, other space agencies photoshop their images of space - but that doesn't mean their photos are fake. Cheddar explores why images of space are photoshopped, and how that helps astronomers with their job.

The methodology behind how they do it is pretty amazing. 

The most important thing to remember is that these images are not fake. According to the space agencies that took them they’re just interpretations of our reality. 

“Its real information in the real universe. Yes, the pictures are enhanced or altered or the colours are changed but it’s done for real scientific reasons,” said Dr. Paul Sutter, an Astrophysicist at the Ohio State University. 

The images of space are not taken for beauty, but to gain information and insight about the universe around us. One reason is that these images come to us in greyscale, rather than colour. 

Coloured cameras are of lower resolution than black and white cameras, which means when it comes to collecting data you would want to collect it at the highest possible resolution. 

Of course, monochromatic photos aren't as visually appealing as coloured ones. It's also more difficult to grasp information in a black and white photograph. So scientists composite multiple filter photos into one image to approximate the real colour.

“We could show you charts and graphs which more scientifically useful just isn’t as interesting. So [we send] you the cool picture that led to that chart and graph,” said Sutter.

Now watch: Here's why NASA spacesuits are white

Frequently, colourisation is also used for categorisation. The human eye is limited to what it can see. But some cameras, like infrared telescopes, can pick up even more information. Scientists then assign a colour to data which is outside the visible spectrum, like wave lengths. 

Colourizing can also help scientists figure out the makeup of the universe. Different elements give off different wavelengths of light. By colour categorizing elements like Hydrogen or Oxygen with a colour it helps them to differentiate what they are seeing in a picture. 

Take a picture of nebula. It’s not something you would see typically with a naked eye, because the colours that have been added here are used to highlight where certain elements are, to see where they are in relation to each other, said Sutter.  

I can't believe you believe all that nonsense. Please seek help.

[XCR1250]

16 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

Do you think is is an actual photo? 

Absolutely, and I have seen many more from Jeff Williams, he had taken more space pics than anyone else.

[Stephen Hawking]

5 minutes ago, XCR1250 said:

I can't believe you believe all that nonsense. Please seek help.

The first sentence says they aren't fake.

Is there a magazine out there that doesn't retouch photos before publishing? Does that make them fake? 

The whole thing he posted says the majority of photos are grayscale because it's better resolution, adding color doesn't make the picture fake, just more appealing to non scientists. 

BTW that first picture was cool

[XCR1250]

1. Look upwards

Yep, this one's pretty simple. When you look up at the night sky, you can only see certain constellations from certain points on Earth.

 

Someone in Australia will see a different sky to someone in England at night - for example, you can't see Polaris, the North Star, from the southern hemisphere.

If the Earth was flat, everyone would be able to see the same constellations.

2. Look down

An equally straightforward way to prove the Earth is not flat is to simply measure your shadow.

If you get two people at different distances from the equator, and they measure their shadows at the same time, their shadows will be different lengths. But if the Earth was flat, their shadows would be the same.

 

Eratosthenes, who conducted a version of this experiment, knew this 3,000 years ago

3. Weigh yourself

 

Gravity, which pulls everyone towards the centre of our planet's mass, means we weigh the same wherever we are in the world.

But a flat Earth would mean that those at the edge of the disk would be pulled sideways, while those at the centre would be pulled down.

To iron out this problem, Flat Earthers have concluded there is no such thing as gravity - you know, that force that pretty much holds the entire Universe together.

 

But if they were correct, you would not be able to weigh yourself at all. You would also be dead.

4. Take a trip to Antarctica

Flat Earthers argue that Antarctica is actually a massive ice wall around a flat Earth.

But, if that were true, the countless planes that fly over Antarctica would surely have just... fallen off?

5. Check your watch

Picture: iStock / FoxysGraphic (iStock / FoxysGraphic)

 

To explain seasons, Flat Earthers argue that the sun orbits in a circle above us.

But that doesn't explain time zones, though this is their attempt, which shows the sun as some kind of spotlight,

Everyone whose ever used a torch at night knows you can see its beam from the side - and that would apply to a flat Earth too.

 

6. Grab a compass

Our planet has a magnetic field generated by the molten iron at the core of our planet.

If the Earth was flat, it would have no core. And even if it had a flat layer of liquid metal instead, the planet wouldn't rotate in a way that created a magnetic field.

7. Grab a pendulum

This famous experiment was first demonstrated in 1851 by Leon Foucault and is now found in museums around the world.

If you watch a pendulum for long enough, you'll notice it starts to swing in a slightly different direction, which proves the Earth is rotating beneath your feet.

 

 

HT IFLScience

 

 

 

 

The weather helps disprove the flat-Earth hypothesis

If the Earth were flat, the weather would be nothing like it is today …

 

A “map” of the flat Earth. (Flat Earth Society) (Flat Earth Society)

By Matthew Cappucci

February 24, 2020

 

The Earth is round. It may seem like an obvious fact that we’ve understood since primary school, but for a body of “Flat Earthers,” the concept of a globe-shaped Earth is paramount to what they claim is the biggest conspiracy theory ever to exist. Their science is laughable, their evidence baseless and their claims prone to falling flat — pun intended — but that hasn’t stopped Flat Earthers from devoting a lot of effort to a cause that lacks dimension.

 

That cause turned deadly over the weekend when “Mad” Mike Hughes, “self-styled daredevil, flat-Earth theorist and limousine-jumping stuntman” died in a rocket accident while trying to prove the flat-Earth hypothesis correct.

‘Mad’ Mike Hughes, who wanted to prove the flat-Earth theory, dies in homemade-rocket disaster

But even the weather shows the Earth isn’t flat. Here’s how.

 

If the flat-Earth hypothesis were true …

 

You would be crushed to death

Because of the way gravity works, which we all encounter in our daily lives, every molecule of air would be drawn to the Earth’s center of mass. Because the Earth is a globe, this means the atmosphere settles around the Earth, pulled toward Earth’s center, but is stopped by the Earth’s surface. The air pressure depends on height through a relationship known as hydrostatic balance. But in most places where we live, the air pressure is within tolerable limits.

 

But if the Earth were flat, a disproportionately large chunk of the air would be drawn toward the center of the “disk” that Flat Earthers believe in. Air pressure would range from near zero — or no atmosphere — at the edge of the disk to massive values toward the middle. So if you lived in, say, Australia or southern South America, you’d probably suffocate from a deficit of oxygen. And if you lived too close to the North Pole, you’d end up getting crushed by the weight of the atmosphere.

 

Rain and hail would fall sideways, and you might drown

On a flat Earth, the pull of gravity would be directed toward the planet’s middle. Flat Earthers contend that’s the North Pole. So rain, hail and every other form of precipitation would fall toward the North Pole.

 

At the pole, and close to it, all that precipitation in the air would converge and eventually pile up. Above and near the pole, the moisture would pile up high into the sky. The oceans would bulge up too. With the temperatures that exist at the North Pole, it might freeze — leaving giant ice pylons towering high into the sky. Some of it could be liquid, so there would be a column of water suspended in midair.

 

 

Through that same process, a rocket launched into the air would eventually find itself returning toward the North Pole, rather than the Earth’s surface.

 

The sun would never set

 

Have you ever experienced nighttime? Then you’ve witnessed proof that the Earth isn’t flat.

 

Flat Earthers say the sun is 32 miles wide — or about the diameter of the city of Houston. And they argue that the sun rides around in circles about 3,000 miles above the Earth.

If this were the case, the sun would never set. Because the Earth is supposedly flat, there would be nothing for the sun to set below if it were to travel along such an arc.

 

I crunched the numbers based on what the flat-Earth proponents say. Even in the dead of winter, the sun would never drop below 14.7 degrees altitude in Washington, D.C. That’s about the same height the sun appears around 7 p.m. on July evenings.

 

We would all freeze … or burn

 

Flat Earthers say the sun is 32 miles wide. (Side note: I checked their math twice and found an error. If the sun were really only 3,000 miles above us, as they claim, it would have to be about 27.9 miles wide, not 32. But even that is ignoring other problematic issues.)

 

 

For the sake of argument, let’s say the sun is 32 miles wide. And it’s parked 3,000 miles above flat Earth’s surface. If we keep their tiny sun at the same temperature as the actual sun (which is really roughly 865,000 miles in diameter), we can do the math to figure out how much solar radiation we would get.

It may surprise you to learn that the flat-Earth disk has nearly two and a half times the surface area as the actual curved version of Earth. If we assume the Flat Earthers’ tiny sun is heating it all, we’d freeze — missing out on more than a third of the solar radiation we actually get from the sun.

In other words, human life wouldn’t exist.

 

But let’s say we keep the surface area of the flat Earth the same as our actual planet. If we distributed the same intercepted solar energy over that Earth, we would be way, way too hot. Most, if not all, locations on Earth would be uninhabitable.

 

Lunar eclipses? Well … no.

 

You may have seen the moon plunged into a blood-red hue during a total lunar eclipse, with dim sunlight passing through the atmosphere bathing the moon in its eerie glow. Lunar eclipses are much more readily visible than solar eclipses. But Flat Earthers have an alternate explanation for what makes a lunar eclipse.

 

In reality, it’s an alignment in which the Earth intercedes between the sun and moon, eclipsing moon-bound sunlight. But such a lineup wouldn’t be possible, according to Flat Earthers, who say the sun and moon are constantly drifting in circles above a flat Earth’s surface.

Instead, their hypothesis is that a “shadow object” orbiting the sun enters a lineup between the sun and the moon. This shadow object, also dubbed the “antimoon,” apparently is translucent. That, they say, filters out some — but not all — of the light.

 

But wait a second … ignoring for the moment the fact that the sun would never set on a flat Earth, this is still impossible.

When we see the partial phases of a lunar eclipse, we witness the moon disappearing behind the round edge of Earth’s shadow — not a flat shadow.

 

However, if the flat-Earth theory were true, millions of people perpendicular to the sun-moon lineup would see a fully eclipsed first- or last-quarter moon. That doesn’t happen.

 

Flat Earthers also struggle to explain moon phases. If their theory were correct, everyone on Earth would see a different moon phase at the same time depending on which “side” of the supposedly 32-mile-wide moon they were on. That simply doesn’t happen.

 

The jet stream? Forget about it.

 

The jet stream forms over steep temperature gradients at the mid-latitudes; it’s driven by the thermal wind, which helps distribute heat energy through the atmosphere. The swiftly moving river of air screams eastward, its poleward tendency balanced by the Coriolis force. The Coriolis force stems from the Earth’s rotation.

Roaring jet stream powers British Airways flight from New York to London in under 5 hours, an unofficial record

In the Northern Hemisphere, the Coriolis force deflects air parcels to the right; south of the equator, it’s to the left.

 

 

But without a rotating system, we’d have no jet stream snaking its way about the poles. We’d have no big sprawling storm systems like nor’easters. We’d have no spinning areas of high or low pressure. Those air masses might still exist, but there would be no “rule” to their orientation or spin. Any weak spin would be random.

Despite this, tornadoes and waterspouts could still exist on a flat Earth. Those depend on smaller-scale wind dynamics and can’t “feel” the Earth’s rotation. However, at present, nearly all tornadoes in the hemisphere spin counterclockwise because the larger-scale storm systems that give rise to them do “feel” the Coriolis force. Those larger-scale mid-latitude systems encourage supercell thunderstorms and tornadoes to spin in one particular way.

 

There would be no hurricanes

 

Hurricanes couldn’t form either. It’s the same reason there are no hurricanes on (or near) the equator — the strength of the Coriolis force is zero there.

 

The aurora australis would have some issues

 

The flat-Earth “model” has a clear-cut North Pole, but what about a South Pole? The flat-Earth movement says the southern edge of the world is bordered by ice — Antarctica. It appears there is no definitive South Pole in the model, however.

 

 

For starters, the southern lights, or aurora australis, are routinely visible in Antarctica and occasionally in southern Tasmania and New Zealand. That’s because of their proximity to the magnetic South Pole. No South Pole, no southern lights. One point for a round Earth.

But moreover, the Earth’s magnetic field results from its spinning, superheated core largely composed of iron. It’s so hot, but under so much pressure, that some hypothesize it may be in plasma form despite behaving like a solid. That spinning mass is what generates Earth’s protective magnetic field.

Magnets have a north and south pole. If the North Pole exists, as it does in the flat-Earth theory, then typically the South Pole would be beneath it, on the “underside” of Earth, rather than near Antarctica. It’s another gap that Flat Earthers can’t explain.

 

 

If they do discount the idea of Earth’s core or magnetism, then where do the lights come from? If they buy the idea of a spinning magnetic core, where would you put the 750-mile-wide mass? Flat Earthers have yet to explain any of this.

 

Ocean currents would be screwy

Ocean currents on a flat Earth would be downright weird. The lack of the Coriolis force, coupled with virtually sideways gravity, along with the method and distribution of heating, would lead to truly bizarre current behavior.

All the existing ocean currents in the world can be explained in tandem with the proven fact of a round Earth. Yet again, Flat Earthers can’t round out their arguments.

[jtssrx]

39 minutes ago, XCR1250 said:

Absolutely, and I have seen many more from Jeff Williams, he had taken more space pics than anyone else.

It’s not snd I’ve just provided you multiple stories including the guy who creates the photos for nasa and you still think the photos are real. 
 

last post on this thread

[XCR1250]

2 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

It’s not snd I’ve just provided you multiple stories including the guy who creates the photos for nasa and you still think the photos are real. 
 

last post on this thread

That's good because you look less and less credible & more foolish each time you post your nonsense which has been proven wrong millions of times for the last 2000+ years.

[Deephaven]

Explain how aurora borealis works on whatever shape you believe the thing we live on is.