Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?

[mike tesko]

https://www.quora.com/How-fast-is-the-International-Space-Station-moving-and-why-How-can-astronauts-walk-move-in-the-space-station-when-it-is-moving-so-fast-How-difficult-does-the-dynamic-of-this-fast-movement-make-it-for-other-spacecrafts-to-dock-with-the-ISS

There's just one problem with this explanation -  no man made machine can breach the 'invisible barrier' set at around 73 mile's in altitude above the surface of the earth!  In 1962, an attempt was made to destroy the earth's dome at its source without success, using nuclear bombs! Now, if a nuclear bomb couldn't penetrate the inner surface of the earth's dome, what chance I ask you would the ISS have of achieving such a feat? It's impossible to penetrate the inner edge of the dome, it has been proven scientifically on three separate occasions (1) a military balloon, (2) a military rocket, and (3) a nuclear bomb, that it's impossible to penetrate it! That being the scientific facts, the ISS cannot be orbiting at 252 miles above the earth's surface. It could orbit in a circular motion around a flat earth at just below 73 mile's, but at that altitude can a space craft generate enough speed as is being claimed (17,160 mph), and contribute to weightlessness? I am skeptical about such claims...

[Reader]

Well, no because depending where an observer is stood upon the surface of a flat earth, the angle from there to the moon and the sun should automatically illuminate the surface of the moon making it appear full to the observer stood on earth!

Just as some locations on Earth have night whilst others have day, it's entirely possible that some locations on the moon have "moon-day", whilst others have "moon-night", so that the moon doesn't appear full automatically in the way you suggest.

[Reader]

no man made machine can breach the 'invisible barrier' set at around 73 mile's in altitude above the surface of the earth!

The link you provided referred to an apparent barrier about 7,200 miles above Earth, not 73 miles. A video you linked to showed strange behaviour of a balloon at high altitude, but that could have other explanations, such as a structural fault. There have been nuclear tests at altitude, but one wouldn't expect every detail of those tests to be disclosed to the public, so I certainly wouldn't rely on unofficial sources of information about them or their purpose. You've given a specific reason why the ISS doesn't seem to be orbiting below 73 miles above Earth, which implies you acknowledge a possibility that an orbit below 73 miles is possible, albeit at a different speed from the alleged speed of the ISS. If, however, that is the case, you are conceding the possibility that some artificial satellites exist, undermining your assertion that there aren't (and never have been) any artificial satellites in orbit.

[mike tesko]

Just as some locations on Earth have night whilst others have day, it's entirely possible that some locations on the moon have "moon-day", whilst others have "moon-night", so that the moon doesn't appear full automatically in the way you suggest.

Unfortunately, there is only a very dull light eminating from the moons surface that does not illuminate the flat earth like the sun does, so I don't think that comparison could be made in the same way as the sun - the flat illuminated surface of the moon absorbs and reflects the sun light, as opposed to it creating its own light! There is something in the two sided moon module which appears to explain why the same face of the moon faces toward the earth. In that module of the moon / 'dark sun' the various phases of the moon can be adequately explained by reference to the rotating two sided moon / 'dark sun' and is not influenced by the earth getting in-between the double sided moon / 'dark sun' and the actual sun!

[mike tesko]

The link you provided referred to an apparent barrier about 7,200 miles above Earth, not 73 miles. I never made reference to the 'invisible barrier' being 7,200 miles, in altitude above the flat earth and that quote was amongst other information I was drawing your attention to. My mention of the 73 mile limit has always been in relation to the scientific testing of that military balloon which hit the inner edge of the 'invisible barrier' and fell back to earth! You have introduced the 7,200 miles reference above the surface of the earth mischievously thinking that if you throw such a spanner into the works, that it would stop me in my tracks! But, it hasn't worked because I wasn't referring to that distance, I clearly was referring to the 73 mile limit linked to the testing of a military balloon... A video you linked to showed strange behaviour of a balloon at high altitude, but that could have other explanations, the video was posted specifically to make the point that the balloon had hit the inner edge of the 'invisible barrier', by any other name, the inner edge of the firmament!such as a structural fault. the balloon hit the 'invisible barrier', that's all there is to it... There have been nuclear tests at altitude, but one wouldn't expect every detail of those tests to be disclosed to the public, the nuclear tests performed on the earth's dome at the south pole was not made public knowledge, news about it leaked out decades later..so I certainly wouldn't rely on unofficial sources of information about them or their purpose. your view is not shared by me, I believe that the reports about the use of the nuclear bombs to try and destroy the dome at the earth's source!You've given a specific reason why the ISS doesn't seem to be orbiting below 73 miles above Earth, which implies you acknowledge a possibility that an orbit below 73 miles is possible, but, if possible, a huge question mark over the misleading data on the ISS Live feed which was claiming last night that the ISS was orbiting at an altitude of between 252 and 254 miles, and travelling at 17,160 mph...albeit at a different speed from the alleged speed of the ISS. exactly, the information being presented is obviously faked! If, however, that is the case, you are conceding the possibility that some artificial satellites exist, not above 73 mile's of altitude because of the 'invisible barrier'... undermining your assertion that there aren't (and never have been) any artificial satellites in orbit.There are no artificial satellites in orbit around the earth in an altitude higher than 73 mile's, because it's been scientifically established that the inner edge of the 'invisible barrier' sits at this altitude and prevents any manmade piece of equipment penetrating beyond, and upwards...

[mike tesko]

Note the inferences to the named land in Antarctica, having a strong UK and USA connection!

[Reader]

I clearly was referring to the 73 mile limit linked to the testing of a military balloon... the video was posted specifically to make the point that the balloon had hit the inner edge of the 'invisible barrier', by any other name, the inner edge of the firmament! The balloon hit the 'invisible barrier', that's all there is to it.

The video doesn't prove that the balloon hit anything. You just choose to accept one explanation and reject a structural fault or other explanation. Also, you can't know for certain that the balloon's altitude was 73 miles. You don't allow for the fact that some people post fiction on youtube.

[Reader]

There are no artificial satellites in orbit around the earth in an altitude higher than 73 miles

You stated before that there are no artificial satellites (without adding any reference to 73 miles). In any case, you can easily see the ISS for yourself on a clear night using binoculars, especially when it happens to pass across the face of the moon, which makes it easy to point the binoculars in the right direction to see the ISS.

[Reader]

I believe that the reports about the use of the nuclear bombs to try and destroy the dome at the earth's source!

Precisely. You give no technical reasons for believing some reports and disbelieving others. You simply choose which ones you happen to prefer and then assert "that's all there is to it". That's a recipe for deluding yourself. Belief is not the same thing as proof. Repeatedly posting along the lines of "I'm right" or "it's impossible" doesn't imply that you're correct. One of the giveaways is that you sometimes resort to posting stuff like "the size of the earth is A". I don't need to do that.

According to you, we've never visited the moon, so how can you know what its shape is?

[mike tesko]

The video doesn't prove that the balloon hit anything. You just choose to accept one explanation and reject a structural fault or other explanation. Also, you can't know for certain that the balloon's altitude was 73 miles. You don't allow for the fact that some people post fiction on youtube.

Ok, let's put things into perspective since you allege that everything I choose to believe in is somehow faked or fabricated nonsense!  You have no evidence whatsoever to prove that what the video clip of the military balloon crashing into the inner edge of the earth's firmament did not happen, as it is stated it had happened! Your view of this amounts to wild speculation which you introduce because it challenges the very beliefs instilled in you by the system! You haven't got any evidence to back up anything your inventing! I know that the earth is flat, and I know there is a domed firmament above the earth! I can think for myself and don't need anybody who has been brainwashed and indoctrinated to believe in absolute mistruths, I can think logically, and from where I stand or sit the earth cannot be a globe, it's flat, it's always been flat, and it's always will be! It has been established scientifically that the limit from the surface of the earth to the inner edge of the 'invisible sheild' is around 73 mile's in altitude! It's very easy for you to sit there saying 'how can you prove this, or that'? The fact is that you and everybody else in general only know what you"be been told, or seen, or read about somewhere, you and almost everybody else haven't gone into the field and done your own scientific analysis, so don't start trying to preach to me that what I know can't be proven because of this excuse that you keep throwing into the ring or debate, or that excuse! Trouble is, I don't particularly care what nonsensical grounds you keep trying to introduce to try and unhinge me in my beliefs, because you yourself have not carried out the necessary research or scientific tests which prove that your approach is the only sure way of getting to the truth! The earth is flat ( I say) no, (you say) it's a globe! Well, you made a humongous error here because the earth is 100% flat (semantics aside)...

[mike tesko]

Precisely. You give no technical reasons for believing some reports and disbelieving others. You simply choose which ones you happen to prefer and then assert "that's all there is to it". That's a recipe for deluding yourself. well, the only person deluding themselves here and now is you...Belief is not the same thing as proof. Oh, but it is, if the person who believes something to have been proven to their satisfaction! Repeatedly posting along the lines of "I'm right" or "it's impossible" doesn't imply that you're correct. By the same token it dies not imply that I am wrong!One of the giveaways is that you sometimes resort to posting stuff like "the size of the earth is A". Don't you think it's childish promoting these type of arguments because it challenges your own beliefs?I don't need to do that. You can do what you want and believe what you want, but from where I'm standing, or sitting,  it doesn't prove that your version of events as believed by you, us any more truer than my beliefs!  Your belief that the earth is a globe is a massive deception!

According to you, we've never visited the moon, so how can you know what its shape is? Nobody landed on the moon, it's all hogwash and codswallop!

And the earth is flat!

[mike tesko]

You stated before that there are no artificial satellites (without adding any reference to 73 miles). In any case, you can easily see the ISS for yourself on a clear night using binoculars, especially when it happens to pass across the face of the moon, which makes it easy to point the binoculars in the right direction to see the ISS.

I have always maintained (on this forum and thread) that the highest known clouds have an altitude of about 53 miles, and that the edge of the inner firmament is 73 mile's! Leave me to decide what I want to say, and concentrate on what your saying about your own beliefs! On the subject of binoculars,you should check the moon out with clouds in front and behind it! this of course serves to remind everyone that the sun and the moon are much closer to the earth than NASA' are accepting!

[Reader]

I have always maintained  (on this forum and thread) that clouds have an altitude of about 53 miles, and that the edge of the inner firmament is 73 miles!

That's impossible, as there must have been a time when you were too young to know what the words "clouds" and "firmament" mean. Aeroplanes have flown through clouds at a much lower altitude than 53 miles. At least one type of cloud has been estimated to exist at an altitude of about 53 miles, but most clouds in Earth's atmosphere are at much lower altitudes.

[Reader]

Oh, but it is, if the person who believes something to have been proven to their satisfaction!

You're trying to quibble over semantics. You haven't provided a static flat earth model that works anything like as well as a rotating round earth model. Also, some of your assertions are blatantly untrue. For example, a full moon and the sun cannot be seen in the same part of the sky simultaneously, whereas you asserted that such a sighting can occur for all phases of the moon.

Don't you think it's childish promoting these type of arguments because it challenges your own beliefs?

No. I hadn't noticed any such challenge anyway. I doubt that a statement such as "the size of the earth is A" would challenge anyone's belief of anything.

Nobody landed on the moon, it's all hogwash and codswallop!

So how do you know what shape the moon has?

[Reader]

. . . you allege that everything I choose to believe in is somehow faked or fabricated nonsense!

That's completely untrue. I've made no such allegation.

. . . it's flat, it's always been flat, and it always will be!

In that case, it's untrue that it was once formless and void. Are you seriously suggesting that you are some kind of oracle that somehow knows its indefinite future?

It's very easy for can't key to sit there saying . . .

That's so ungrammatical that I have no idea what you mean.

. . . haven't gone into the field and done your own scientific analysis

How does anyone do a scientific analysis of the assertion that the size of the earth is A? I'm not a scientist or a surveyor anyway.

Well, you made a humongous error here because the earth is 100% flat...

Using "humongous" like that might be for dramatic effect. Perhaps you're trying to write a script or book rather than communicate well. How can the earth be 100% flat? Are you asserting that hills and valleys don't exist? Anyway, I was using "globe" or "round" to refer to a model. It hardly matters at all whether that model is "true" according to some individual. All that counts is whether the model's usefulness justifies its retention.