Questions needing answers

[Allan F]

Parachutes were stored outside the habitable volume.

[tradosaurus]

  So for 6 days the 3 astro-nots spent cramped in the Command Module, which is listed as 10'-7" in height and 12'-10" in diamter.  The room I'm typing in now is about 11' square and about 8 ft in height.  I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around. 

We've done this before.

1.   The Command Module being only 210 cubic feet would not fit (3) men all the food, water, air, spacesuits, boots, helmets, cameras film and equipment needed for up to 10-11 days in space. The usual reply is that these items were in the Lem or the service module, but that would be very unsafe (not to mention bringing back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks)

Are you DAKDAK?

No.  Although I guess I will send him a PM if he is still on this forum.

[ka9q]

Please review this image.

Already very familiar with it. Much more so than you are, it would seem.

I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around.

The Apollo CM was cramped. But the astronauts reported that it subjectively became a lot roomier once they were in weightlessness, as they could use its internal volume much more fully.

However, as you would know if you'd actually studied this diagram, water, fuel and parachutes were not stored inside the relatively small inhabited volume of the CM.

The parachutes were packed around the docking tunnel, outside the pressurized inhabited volume.

Water was produced as a byproduct of the three hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells. The fuel cells and reactant storage were all in the service module, not the CM. See that big cylindrical thing behind the CM? Notice how much bigger it is than the CM?

Nearly all the rocket fuel was also stored in the SM; see those huge cylindrical tanks labeled "fuel tanks"? Only the small amounts of fuel needed for attitude control during re-entry were stored in the CM, and those tanks were around the outside of the CM just above the bottom -- again, outside the pressurized, inhabited volume of the CM.

You can even see actual Apollo CMs for yourself; they have been on display in museums around the world ever since they flew. The most famous CM, that of Apollo 11, is in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington DC but there are many others.

[ka9q]

His research is poor to nonexistent, when you read the whole thread

Obviously.

[frenat]

the globe earth as an impossibility.

I'll probably regret this, but ... WHY?

When folks have been certain of it as a globe since, oh, Roman times, and this has persisted through all manner of civilisations and scientific communities, what makes you such a speciality?

Mathematically, given a 7,917 mile earth diameter and 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on.  See image at http://flatearthwiki.com/images/f/fb/Bluemarb.jpg.
Basically you should not see a building across, say the chicago skyline from Grand mere state park, which is about 50 miles away. But you can see it.

Quite a few Chicago buildings would still be above the curve.  Refraction is often seen over water, especially cold water as seen in Lake Michigan.  And you said nothing about the height of the observer.

I've stood at the water's edge in Mexico Beach, FL, at the Bay/Gulf county line and looking directly south from there, you can see the trees on Cape San Blas across the water but you can NOT see the beach or water line.  This is exactly as expected with a round Earth.  From that point I've then gone up to the road level about 15-20 feet up and from there you CAN see the beach and water line of Cape San Blas.  Again, exactly as expected.

I've watched the sun set below the horizon while remaining the same visual size it was when directly overhead.  This would not happen on a flat Earth.  I watched clouds be lit from underneath during sunrises and sunsets.  This would not happen on a flat Earth.  I've seen how the sun sets later for higher altitudes.  This would not happen on a flat Earth.

I've used RADAR and radio both from ground and airborne platforms.  From the ground, range increases for both the higher the antenna is and low altitude coverage for both is lost at distance exactly as expected with a round Earth.  For an airborne platform, range increases for both at exactly the rate expected with a round Earth for the altitude of the plane.

The world has been known to be round for over 2,000 years.  The Greeks proved it then and their experiments still work today.  No amount of recent ignorance on the internet and youtube will change that fact. 

[ka9q]

Basically you should not see a building across, say the chicago skyline from Grand mere state park, which is about 50 miles away. But you can see it.

How tall are the buildings in downtown Chicago?

Have you been listening recently to a certain high school dropout rap artist? There have been more than a few excellent rebuttals to that moron over the past few days, e.g.,

[Gazpar]

the globe earth as an impossibility.

I'll probably regret this, but ... WHY?

When folks have been certain of it as a globe since, oh, Roman times, and this has persisted through all manner of civilisations and scientific communities, what makes you such a speciality?

Mathematically, given a 7,917 mile earth diameter and 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on.  See image at http://flatearthwiki.com/images/f/fb/Bluemarb.jpg.
Basically you should not see a building across, say the chicago skyline from Grand mere state park, which is about 50 miles away. But you can see it.

Brian Mullins, profession civil engineer, has a good video talking about the mythical gravity and gravitational constant.

Earth is a globe and water adheres to a curves surface?  LOL. 

Basically we have been brainwashed by "scientists" to ignore our observations and BELIEVE in things we cannot see.

First off, Your math is wrong because it does not includes some variables.
You forgot about:
1) Your eyes height. Your picture assumes they are at the same height as your toes.
2) Atmospheric refraction: it will rise the image of the buildings to some degrees and it is entirely weather dependant. The skyline has been reported to be seen on days with a particular weather.
3) It assumes the amount the curvature drops is the same as the amount of an object hidden by it. That is not the case.

If the earth was flat, the skyline and the shoreline should be visible but only the skyline is visible on every picture.
Assuming you are looking Chicago from the location you said and that your eyes are 6 ft above the ground, the earth curvature will hide 1470 ft of the object. If we assume our eyes are at the same height as our feet, we get 1674 ft.
Take the Willis Tower height: 1450 ft. To rise the image of the tower from 50 miles, lets say 500 ft, you would need 6 arcminutes of refraction or next to nothing.
If we assume your eyes are 30 ft above the ground, any building will need to be 1200 ft higher to be seen.
You have not given us any meaningful data about your elevation.

Gravity here is non-sequitor. The question of the shape of the earth is purely a geometrical question.

[Chew]

a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance,

lol. Love it when people claiming an engineering degree don't know what "inversely" means.

[bknight]

the globe earth as an impossibility.

I'll probably regret this, but ... WHY?

When folks have been certain of it as a globe since, oh, Roman times, and this has persisted through all manner of civilisations and scientific communities, what makes you such a speciality?

Mathematically, given a 7,917 mile earth diameter and 25,000 miles in equatorial circumference, a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on.  See image at http://flatearthwiki.com/images/f/fb/Bluemarb.jpg.
Basically you should not see a building across, say the chicago skyline from Grand mere state park, which is about 50 miles away. But you can see it.

Brian Mullins, profession civil engineer, has a good video talking about the mythical gravity and gravitational constant.

Earth is a globe and water adheres to a curves surface?  LOL. 

Basically we have been brainwashed by "scientists" to ignore our observations and BELIEVE in things we cannot see.

Riddle me this Batman, why when a ship approaches you the top of the ship is visible first, followed by more and more of the ship from the top down?  In a flat Earth the whole ship would be seen once it is inside the visual acuity of the observer.

[raven]

Tadosaurus, I'm not as educated or as intelligent as many of the fine folk on this forum, but I can pick at a thread staring me in the face, and this one deserves a good picking: Just who benefits from a ridiculously massive conspiracy to make the people of this world believe the world is a globe? If NASA wants to send people into space, the world being flat doesn't stop them. They might have to alter things,  but there's some pretty clever people over there.Surely they'd suss something out. If they want to send probes to other planets, that doesn't stop them either. I don't see any way for governments to benefit from such an elaborate conspiracy. Religious leaders can preach their views whether the world is a ball or pancake. Airlines may not send people around the world, but they can do it across. The only people I can see being put out are globe makers, and surely they don't have that much pull, do they?
So, again, I ask you, tradosaurus the claiming to be wise, who benefits?

[gillianren]

I'm going to regret asking this, not least because it's off topic, but if the world isn't round, how did Juan Sebastián Elcano circumnavigate it?

[dwight]

Just to add my 2 cents. I have studied Apollo inside out, upside down and around and around. Will someone please explain to me how the astronauts were suddenly teleported back in time onto the moon with 1960's technology??

[DD Brock]

Riddle me this Batman, why when a ship approaches you the top of the ship is visible first, followed by more and more of the ship from the top down?  In a flat Earth the whole ship would be seen once it is inside the visual acuity of the observer.

Additionally, how does a flat earth explain the fact that battleships were designed to effectively fire over the horizon at targets not visible on deck? There was a reason WWI battleships were equipped with such tall masts as well as the float planes on WW2 ships, because large naval rifles were able to shoot over the curve of the earth.

[ka9q]

Just who benefits from a ridiculously massive conspiracy to make the people of this world believe the world is a globe?

The airlines.

[nomuse]

Well so far my post has demonstrated to me that NASA space is a religion.  I get mostly derogatory comments that indicate a concern of members who have their belief system questioned.  I guess the same type of response from cults like the Mormons and Scientologists.

Or that you have wandered into a specialist forum and tried to posture and pontificate from a position of near-total ignorance.

Try wandering into the Practical Machinist forum, confusing bronze with brass, then telling people all about how "obviously" you'd get cleaner cuts with lower RPMs. See how polite they are to you then!

Please review this image.  It is a diagram of the Saturn V Rocket that NASA says sent 3 men to the moon and back on a 6 day journey not including a 1 day stint on the moon.

I don't need your selectively quoted source, because my understanding of the Apollo Program is based on familiarity with the equipment via a number of different sources. Any one image can be open to misinterpretation -- it can even be incorrect. NASA, like Homer, can nod. This does not reflect upon the vast correspondence between the documentation of the project and physical reality as we currently understand it.

  So for 6 days the 3 astro-nots spent cramped in the Command Module, which is listed as 10'-7" in height and 12'-10" in diamter.  The room I'm typing in now is about 11' square and about 8 ft in height.  I'm imagining putting food, water, fuel, parachute, 3 men and instruments in a room this size and I don't see much room for the astro-nots to move around.  So basically for 3 days, 3 astro-nots were most likely strapped to their chair and had eat, pee/poop somehow and dispose of their waste.  In staged videos from NASA it shows the 3 astro-nots moving around the CM as if there is plenty of room.   
Also step 4 on the phases of the trip it states that the CSM turns and docks with the Lunar Module.  That's a neat parlor trick while moving at a fast clip around the moon. 

I'm going to ignore the poop obsession, and nod only in passing to the repeated error that habitable volume includes stored perishables and general supplies, to move on to a failure to understand Newton.

Let me put it to you this way. I can, sitting at this very desk, not only type and write (semi-legibly) but even thread a needle. Yet desk, myself, and my entire neighborhood is hurtling around the globe at over 1200 kilometers per hour. Which it does in very regular and methodical fashion, apparently unconcerned that at the same time the entire planet is booking around the Sun at over 100,000 kilometers per hour!