51 minutes ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

I was at the edge today

Hope you didn't lose your head

22 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Hope you didn't lose your head

Hey! I see what you did there 

13 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Hope you didn't lose your head

How did he escape from the armed forces of the world that protect the edge of the Earth? 

6 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

How did he escape from the armed forces of the world that protect the edge of the Earth? 

I dunno, it's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder.

On Florida's horizon: dust, brilliant sunsets and allergies

If the Earth isn't Round how does the dust from Sahara Africa get to Florida?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/floridas-horizon-dust-brilliant-sunsets-141559042.html

18 hours ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

I was at the edge today

Global warming  

@EagleVA : Since you hate debunker videos, why don't you help the Flat Earth (community?  movement?  society?) and take just ONE of these challenges and prove him wrong?  That would probably shut him up, right?

 

4 minutes ago, paco said:

@EagleVA : Since you hate debunker videos, why don't you help the Flat Earth (community?  movement?  society?) and take just ONE of these challenges and prove him wrong?  That would probably shut him up, right?

 

He has to do his own research!

Always finds it's level

 

Oh those wacky NASA fake photos!!

Stephen Hawking’s Theory on Black Hole Surface Area Was Right

 

Matthew Hart

Wed, June 16, 2021, 9:48 AM

 

 

British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking is known for his predictions regarding black holes. Hawking, for example, is famous for theorizing the idea black holes do indeed very gradually emit light over time; a phenomenon physicists refer to as Hawking Radiation. Now, new gravitational-wave analysis provides strong evidence supporting another one of Hawking’s black hole predictions. One that has to do with their ability to maintain their overall surface area in the event of a collision.

 

A visualization of two black holes merging and, subsequently, emitting ripples in the fabric of spacetime.

Charly W. Karl

Science News reported on the new analysis, which a team of astrophysicists recently outlined in a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters. The team studied the data the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or LIGO, detected in 2015 coming from a pair of extremely distant, merging black holes in an attempt to find confirmatory evidence for "Hawking’s area theorem.”

The theorem, which stems from the general theory of relativity, describes changes in black holes after matter’s entered into them. Essentially, as a black hole gains more mass, it should also increase in surface area. But if newly absorbed matter also increases the black hole’s spin, that should cancel out the increase in surface area. However, the area theorem states that the increase in surface area due to additional mass will always outweigh the decrease in surface area. (This would be necessary for the conservation of information to hold.)

In the case of the LIGO data, the astrophysicists studied two merging black holes that sent gravitational waves, or ripples in the fabric of spacetime—which NASA visualizes in the unrelated video above—across the universe. The astrophysicists broke up the data into two segments; one accounting for the two black holes’ respective surface areas prior to the merger, and one for the new, singular black hole’s surface area post merger. And, upon studying the data, found the post-merger black hole did indeed have a larger surface area. One that was, in fact, bigger than that of the two, previously separate, black holes combined.

These findings are "an exciting hint that black hole areas are something fundamental and important,” astrophysicist Will Farr, a co-author of the study from Stony Brook University in New York, told Science News. MIT astrophysicist Maximiliano Isi, another study co-author, added these findings are an example of general relatively explaining the world flawlessly. Although whatever happens inside of a growing black hole is still a complete mystery.

25 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

 

Oh those wacky NASA fake photos!!

Who you trying to fool? 

2 minutes ago, DBW said:

Who you trying to fool? 

They forgot to photoshop out some of the wires too.

1977 Voyager image of the Moon and Earth.

Notice that Exactly half the Earth and Moon are in light and half the Earth and Moon are in Darkness. How does this work in a Flat Earth Model. 

The First time the Earth and Moon were captured in a single photo.

 

 

This is the moon. This is the Face of the Moon that everyone on the Entire Planet sees. Why? Because the moon is tidally locked with the Earth. How does a Flat Earth Model explain this?

Earth's Moon's rotation and orbital periods are tidally locked with each other, so no matter when the Moon is observed from Earth, the same hemisphere of the Moon is always seen.

Here is a photograph  of the moon that I PERSONALLY took with a Canon Rebel T5

1/100 sec., f/11, 300mm, ISO 100

This proves that I can both take a photograph of the moon AND get the camera settings.

Sadly, it does not prove the Earth is flat. Of course, since it isn't flat, this is not a problem.

4 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Here is a photograph  of the moon that I PERSONALLY took with a Canon Rebel T5

1/100 sec., f/11, 300mm, ISO 100

This proves that I can both take a photograph of the moon AND get the camera settings.

Sadly, it does not prove the Earth is flat. Of course, since it isn't flat, this is not a problem.

That’s a very nice picture.

Just now, TEW said:

That’s a very nice picture.

Thank you. The moon fascinates me and I take pictures whenever weather allows.

 

Just now, Toastrel said:

Thank you. The moon fascinates me and I take pictures whenever weather allows.

 

I know next to nothing about photography, but astronomy always fascinated me. Is there a reason there are no stars in the background other than there simply being none?

Anyway, you have a good eye for this stuff. Beautiful photograph.

14 minutes ago, TEW said:

I know next to nothing about photography, but astronomy always fascinated me. Is there a reason there are no stars in the background other than there simply being none?

Anyway, you have a good eye for this stuff. Beautiful photograph.

Compared to the moon, stars are too dim to capture unless you have a lengthy exposure time. The problem is it would cause the moon to look like a bright white circle. You wouldn’t get any surface details. 

3 minutes ago, EagleJoe8 said:

Compared to the moon, stars are too dim to capture unless you have a lengthy exposure time. The problem is it would cause the moon to look like a bright white circle. You wouldn’t get any surface details. 

Makes sense. Thanks.

630 ft in the air! Still looks flat!

Just took this shot.  Sun is out, shouldn’t I be able to see the whole moon ??  
 

 

2 hours ago, downundermike said:

Just took this shot.  Sun is out, shouldn’t I be able to see the whole moon ??  
 

 

Hey!! I saw the same moon no where even near you!! 

Getting closer tho lol