Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 7 2016 02:11pm)

Well since you wont post any video of where you got your description of the Van Allen Belt, Ill assume it was from Wiki that simply describes it as charged electrons, and in this day of information where ironically people only read a few words in a paragraph, I will make note of this interesting fact they also mention:

"The belts endanger satellites, which must protect their sensitive components with adequate shielding if they spend significant time in the radiation belts. In 2013, NASA reported that the Van Allen Probes had discovered a transient, third radiation belt, which was observed for four weeks until destroyed by a powerful, interplanetary shock wave from the Sun."

Um really, they just discovered a third belt , that total blew up a satellite - from a shock wave from the sun? Um wtf - yeah - they really went to the moon only 11 years after the whole program was formed, the Government can hardly even get a website running properly in 11 years, let alone go to the moon.
yet we are totally programmed into blindly accepting their art as reality.

As for the ship going over the horizon thing, I think your describing it slightly wrong - it was always used as a proof for curvature, as in you can't see it because its gone over the curve, but you can use binoculars to bring it back into view. But while Binoculars allow you to extend your view of the horizon, they also "focus" Light rays which skew your perspective in that all those light rays from the water are now building up a wall of water which make you think your still seeing curve and this is a giant trick of focusing optics - that its not actually focusing the view but concentrating the light.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jun 8 2016 09:30pm)

A satellite sitting in the belt for years or decades is very different from astronauts going through in a day or so. Also, it's not charged electrons. It's high-speed electrons. All electrons have charge, so to say "charged electrons" makes no sense. You might as well just say it's an electron.

Lenses don't work that way.... Lenses reproduce images, they DO NOT "cluster" light into new walls of water. You keep saying things that show you have no grasp of even basic physics, you just take your information from websites that make you feel smart.

Here's a very simple question to debunk your answer about lenses. If it builds up a wall of water, why does it not build up a wall of clouds when I look up? The curvature is the exact same on both sides of the lense, hell I can just turn the binoculars upside down and still won't get a wall of clouds.

Quote (Hooo @ Jun 1 2016 02:24am)

Lets say the earth is Flat, then the higher you climb, the less you should see on the ground, because your distance grows.
The fact that you can see more of the earth the higher you go is because the earth is round.


Another thing: If you are on the ocean and the earth was flat then you should see ships approaching in their full hight - like when they come out of a fog.
But you dont. You always see the TOP of the ships first. This cannot be if the earth is flat.


You can give me my 1000$ right there.

Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 8 2016 10:19pm)

It wasn't years or decades, it was a only a few weeks that completely obliteratied it, to say that blindly passing through it without dire consequences only denotes your lack of education. To simple look up at a cloud is not even to be same perspective, nor allowing the light of that wall of perspective to concentrate itself, so your point is mute.

Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 9 2016 05:35pm)

Of course i can prove if the floor is flat by taking a picture of it with a non wide angled lense camera, are cameras the same as binoculars, i don't think so but if you say so, ok.
More importantly, I just did the math to prove that Santa Claus is possibly more than a theory for children, booking trip on Expedia to the North Pole to take photographic evidence, will post results when I return.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jun 10 2016 12:50pm)

A lense is a lense, wide angle just has a greater curvature so you can't prove it with a camera. What you would need is just a simple bubble level you can buy for 5$. Use it on the surface every foot or so and make sure it stays level.

Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 10 2016 12:51pm)

A lense is not just a lense, and while a camera only has one main lens, binoculars have like 5 different shapes of actual lenses so that a camera simply focuses light , while binoculars concentrate it. In a traditional SLR (Single Lense Reflective) - you not seeing the actual light that the film sees but a reflection through a prism.


This photo is a good for showing the persective change that each focal length allows, this is for a 35mm Camera

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Focal_length.jpg/220px-Focal_length.jpg

Supposedly Nasa astronaut use hasselblads which are considered medium format cameras and thus focal length needs to be doubled in that while in a normal Camera, any focal length less than F55 is considered wide angle - it would be F110 in a medium format camera.
The distance between the camera and the horizon is more curved the shorter the focal length lense that is used.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MCDOl0FKo5M/maxresdefault.jpg

Notice how you can make it look like you see curve

Quote (Thor123422 @ 10 Jun 2016 12:50)

A lense is a lense, wide angle just has a greater curvature so you can't prove it with a camera. What you would need is just a simple bubble level you can buy for 5$. Use it on the surface every foot or so and make sure it stays level.