- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
So then imagine the biggest pot of boiling water you can. It puts off a ton of steam… like an old steam engine train. How LONG does the steam persist after it leaves the pot? That’s the point. Understand? It’s not the amount of steam… but the duration I’m asking about.
Yeah, that is what I addressed. The more you have the more the cloud remains.
If you think about it, why not apply your concerns to natural clouds. You could argue about evaporation not providing enough for clouds to stick around for a while. After all, evaporation happens when water turns to gas which would be a very thin layer of water at the top of lakes, seas, and on the ground. So how does that thin layer of water produce all the clouds let’s deny that too.
Here’s an honest question, does anyone remember these “trails” growing up? I’m talking about the ones that last for hours and hours and eventually turn into thin cloud looking things themselves. I don’t. If anyone could remember this or provide any video from long ago that shows this I would be very interested.
Also, why don’t all the rockets leave a massive trail that expands and becomes massive clouds? They produce much more vapor and are more concentrated. They go much higher than the standard commercial planes! Just wondering.
Contrails according to Scientific American
These white narrow clouds are called condensation trails or contrails. They can evaporate swiftly if the relative humidity of the surrounding air is low. … This caused the relative humidity level to drop to around 41 percent, still high enough to produce a visible rocket plume.
My guess is rockets may leave contrails, but they are not flying across the sky initially, rather straight up. And yes, once they find their orbit and fall back at the same rate the Earth is moving away from the satellite, then maybe the atmosphere is too thin or perhaps the rockets are turned off soon after. So a contrail would be left at a certain altitude range and would be vertical in nature.
I googled it dig and found this:
Q: Do rockets leave contrails?
A: A contrail is basically condensed water vapor when hot exhaust gas from an engine hits cold air at altitude. For Hydrogen/LOX fueled rockets the primary exhaust product is super hot steam. For any hydrocarbon/LOX fueled rocket, steam forms a large part of the exhaust.
So, yes! Absolutely!
Here is a picture of the contrail left by a Falcon 9 launching out of vandenburg.
Another answer below:
It can in the lower atmosphere, where jets fly. Above a certain altitude (Perhaps 10 to 15 miles?) there’d be less and less water to condense in the exhaust, so the trail would simply be an exhaust plume, and not a contrail.
Dig, weather modification is likely a thing in drought prone areas and I don’t think anyone is denying that, but that is far removed from the government spraying poison on the masses to dumb them down.Contrails exist and they are not chemtrails.
Phoenix is in monsoon season right now… humid as it ever gets. North America is in our hot, humid summer right now. Yet reports are that the trails have all but disappeared for the last month. So the humidity thing doesn’t seem to be adding up.
Mike…your looking at the lower atmospheric conditions, you must consider the upper atmosphere. Mike there is nothing “mysterious ” ot difficult about this, brother.
Now go over and read what I wrote about Rev 17:10 , I want your opinion on it.
Peace and love to you and yours. …….gene
This topic has been going for over a year now and none of the so-called Flat Earth evidence is compelling. Anything that hasn’t added up is because of error, missing information, or misunderstanding. There are no outstanding issues.
Where is the smoking gun?
Here is a post at the beginning of this conversation. This is still my view upon considering all the evidence provided.
Hi Mike. My post is going to start 2 steps back and ask some bigger questions before getting into the details of each theory.
I have actually watched a couple of Flat Earth videos and have read the memes you posted to let you know that I am listening.
First off, why can’t the current understanding fit with these descriptions found in the Bible and if today’s view is wrong, why the conspiracy anyway? The current view gives God more credit because it is way more amazing. Many of the men that helped us come to the current view were Christians who were persecuted by ungodly institutions.
Spreading out the sky sounds a lot like an expanding universe for example. The firmament above could be the atmosphere which is partially transparent to us, but we only view a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Beyond that is space which scientists believe is an actual substance like water because space has weight, thus it looking like glass which is transparent.
There are so many ways you can view the Universe because if it is true that we are all moving, then things look different from where you are looking. Only God sees it as it is. Why can’t the galaxies for example be the heavens, each galaxy a heaven. There are so many possibilities. Could each star be a stargate? God creates a world and when that world is advanced enough, they figure out their sun is a gate to other suns and they can explore their galaxy. Then when they are advanced enough, they find out that the black hole in the centre of each galaxy is also a portal to another galaxy. Or could it be that only massless creations (spirits) can travel to these?
I diverge. But here’s the thing. Your brain is in complete darkness inside your skull and yet you see light. Your sensory organs take in waves from the spectrum and convert them to electromagnetic waves into your brain and it is your brain that creates the picture of reality that you see. It is so subjective. When you see the person next to you, that picture of that person is inside your head. So what is the Universe really?
Well think of a whole bunch of waves. Think of signals. The picture you see on that old TV is not actually real. What is real is the signals it receives. The conversion is done in the box. Same with reality. Physicists today admit that the only theory that makes sense of the universe and quantum world is if the universe is digital. In other words, if there are pixels in the real world and nothing smaller than that. If so, and with the result of quantum experiments, the best explanations is these pixels are generated and compiled by consciousness. It could turn out that the universe is consciousness, and what we see is the object reality of that. The question is, did the universe create consciousness or consciousness the universe. We know the latter.
Now to my point. If the world is flat and hell underneath and a dome above, that is absolutely true. That is how we see it. If we create telescopes and microscopes, and see that the earth is sphere, and the qubits as pixels, then that too is real. Not contradictory at all. Just a different perception now. We know that nothing can travel faster than light that has mass. So what does it look like to massless life forms? No time? Heavenly? More light? All the spectrum visible and not just the tiny part we perceive.
So to conclude. My view is the universe has many different ways it can be viewed and they are all subjective. Perhaps there is an angel sitting in my room even though I cannot detect it. Thus, the sun sets and yet it is the earth going round the sun and the sun round the galaxy and galaxy round the universe. All very fickle because that which you call reality is compiled in your brain like a camera compiles light into a photo. Does it really look like that without an observer? Do signals look like the final picture your brain compiles. I tell you something, the famous Double Slit experiment makes you ask these things. Perhaps I can post that here without diverging from the subject too much?
So you need proof the earth is flat, motionless, with a firmament above? The majority of the earth is water from what I’m told. Yet water seeks to find level….flat water…I cannot detect any motion on this plane, water sticking to a spinning ball? If I spin anything that is a BAaL with water on it “slings off”. So NASA has all these photos off the outer space our current model of the earth has changed too many times. Whenever they show a picture of earth from space the earth is not spinning, where are the luminaries? Where are all satellites?Using NASA math to detect or measure curvature there is none! Where is the curve?
That rainbow is another great example of having a firmament that they shot rockets at in Antarctica before ww2
Hi Sharp.
Try to imagine this playground ride spinning once in 24 hours.
Do you think that kid would go flying off?
So you need proof the earth is flat, motionless, with a firmament above?
You can’t prove we are motionless, but lets say we are. Then everything revolves around us? We are the centre? God revolves around us?
However, God is the only stationary. He changes not. If we make ourselves God, then everything revolves around us instead. But all change is around God and God doesn’t need to change and why does an eternal God need to move or revolve. He is eternal, thus is everywhere you look.
Furthermore, the heavens are the work of his hands. Notice that the word ‘heavens’ is plural.
We spend 50million$ a day for C.G.I and astronauts to wear a harness for a backflip!
And for what purpose? To prove that God made a small creation, thus not displaying his eternal nature?
Our current understanding of the universe shows the glory and handiwork of an eternal creator.
You would have a us believe that God made a single snow globe? But an advanced race of aliens could have done that.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Sharp, God’s eternal power is understood by the things he has made. A snow globe doesn’t show an eternal God, it shows an advance God of some kind that could himself have an eternal God.
The more we peer into the universe, the more man is without excuse for denying the creator. I’ve seen footage of NASA scientists in absolute awe of the creation and its extent. Imagine the creator then? He is all the more awesome right?
I remember being in awe at the size of the Australian outback. I drove for days through empty landscapes where no one lives. The scale was mind blowing. The universe just blows me away entirely though. And I am sure we only understand a small fraction of it, perhaps just one atom in comparison.
An eternal God exerts little effort in creating an almost eternal universe. Any finite size is easy for an infinite being. There are more planets in the universe than sand grains on Earth. And how many atoms are in a football field. Creation displays God’s eternal and awesome nature.
T8: Hi Sharp.
Try to imagine this playground ride spinning once in 24 hours.
Do you think that kid would go flying off?
Now try to imagine the circumference of that playground ride moving 1000 miles per hour. Then you’ll be comparing apples to apples. Would the kid fly off then?
Sharp: So you need proof the earth is flat, motionless, with a firmament above? The majority of the earth is water from what I’m told. Yet water seeks to find level….flat water…I cannot detect any motion on this plane, water sticking to a spinning ball? If I spin anything that is a BAaL with water on it “slings off”. So NASA has all these photos off the outer space our current model of the earth has changed too many times. Whenever they show a picture of earth from space the earth is not spinning, where are the luminaries? Where are all satellites?Using NASA math to detect or measure curvature there is none! Where is the curve?
Thanks for the comments. And yes, everything you’ve listed clearly points to the Biblical flat and stationary earth. Of course there are hundreds of other examples too. I’m working on an angles series on YouTube right now, and hope to post the next episode this weekend. I’ll post the link here in case anyone’s interested.
I look forward to future posts from you. Cheers.
Took this one yesterday…
100% impossible with a sun that’s 109 times bigger than earth, shining parallel rays from 93 million miles away. Light rays will always converge at the source… in this case a local small sun that’s not too far up in the sky. Crepuscular rays are just another impossibility in the heli model.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
