Search results

Most of the hull remains hidden. Is that what you meant is to see?

Numpty.

A person stood on the beach should be able to see anything above about 180 feet of the cliffs, according to my calculations and not allowing for refraction. The cliffs are quite big and close to France. But you still haven't explained why I can't see the bottom of the cliffs and lighthouse when...

As said already, you are reading from a chart that allows you to find what would be visible if you dunked your head in the water to observe from exactly sea level. From above the sea level your line of sight does descend to sea level at the horizon, when th epath is tangential to the curve of...

Sussex coast. But the same effect happens everywhere in the world, to the same degree. Why can I not see the base of the lighthouse?

I was observing from 1.4 metres above sea level, so the horizon was probably only about three miles away. The simplistic 'drop' figures you link to don't show what an observer can actually see when above sea level. My figures are good. Why can't I see the bottom of the cliffs on a flat earth?

You've spent days avoiding skewing the direct questions, instead offering moved goalposts again and again. I'd you can't answer questions based on simple direct observations them nothing else you offer is going to make any difference. My observations of the hidden base of the lighthouse yields...

You are talking as of the moon has an atmosphere to slow the dust and allow it to settle. In a vacuum the dust follows a parabolic ballistic trajectory and you wouldn't expect it to settle back where it came from. Please answer the challenges in my previous post.

No, don't care, curved. How does the coriolis effect occur on a flat earth? Do you think Australians are crazy for thinking they see different stars to us? You still haven't explained why ships become visible over the horizon may first, to the same extent no matter what the air temperature...

No. No cracks. Radial grooves pointing out from a blasted area. The crater you claimed didn't exist. So wrong on all counts. But you are getting used to that experience, aren't you?

Once you open your mind so much your brains fall out, and you succumb to believing the first impossible thing, you find the next ones easier to believe, until eventually you believe all of them.

It is sad. He seems genuinely interested in scientific sounding ideas, and if only he persisted with the actual science he would find plenty to astound him and satisfy his curiosity. By he has got lost amongst thee siren sums of the conspiracy theorists.

You wouldn't expect to see the pads covered in dust, since the particles would have been moving sideways and away without air to slow clouds of dust and keep it close. And I have seen photos on the ground underneath the lander where you can see regolith blown away. Your assumptions based on...

The regolith 'soil' is electrically charged from solar radiation, so it binds to itself. The astronauts had problems getting the stuff of their space suits when reentering the LEM.

I would really suggest that you familiarise yourself with Newtonian Physics. Your comments uniformly avoid any discussion of forces, which is essential for this thread. Many of the comments intended to clarify things for you make use of force concepts, but they have all gone over your head, as...

But or is designed for extended missions, and in any case the engineer says precisely nothing about falling the moon landings. Your are reading in what you want- you have spent too long watching those mind rotting conspiracy nutjob videos. You didn't answer the question: how does the coriolis...

Apollo passed through the belts very quickly, while Orion was spending three weeks there, and the manned missions could be long duration missions of many months. Doesn't that sort of exposure deserve testing? I don't think you even watched the engineer's video, as then or would have been clear...

Only after you have explained how a stationary earth generates the Coriolis forces that drive stormy weather.

You are wrong, because Physics. It's as simple as that.

That's why you are not a scientist. It does make sense to the people that study it in all its finer points. It is only when you filter the science through the pre-instruction concepts that you hold that there is difficulty.