 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
https://www.yahoo.com/news/astronaut-stops-view-during-spacewalk-072101129.html
Because with all the people interested in modeling planets, it's always nice to
have an actual view from space.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscape net> wrote:
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/astronaut-stops-view-during-spacewalk-072101129.html
>
> Because with all the people interested in modeling planets, it's always nice to
> have an actual view from space.
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/astronaut-stops-view-during-spacewalk-072101129.html
>
> Because with all the people interested in modeling planets, it's always nice to
> have an actual view from space.
That fisheye lens camera really makes it a good planet view!
Keep in mind Earth surface curvature as seen from ISS isn't as round as that, of
course.
From what I can find out, the horizon distance is about 1300 to 1400 miles away,
so that's approximately 5 1/2 times the ISS altitude. That should be enough to
see USA from coast to coast.
Imagine seeing the ground out to a distance of only 30 feet, as you stand atop a
perfectly round mound/rock 175 feet wide, almost 88 feet high (if you're 6'
tall, eyes at 5.5').
Hopefully I figured this right.
Our family lived next to Cape Canaveral during the Moon rocket era, and being at
the beach a lot I knew how ships appeared and disappeared over the ocean. I
loved watching the rockets travel up and away in the distance while thinking of
them going on around as they disappeared from sight in the sky, too far away to
see sink into the horizon.
I'm definitely not a "flat-earther", unlike some:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-hopes-prove-earth-flat-230622888.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/11/2017 17:56, omniverse wrote:
> I'm definitely not a "flat-earther", unlike some:
>
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-hopes-prove-earth-flat-230622888.html
I read a similar article in the Washington Post (I think). He only
became a flat earther when he couldn't get finance on Kickstart and the
flat Earth society raised the cash. O_o
Smells a bit of stinking fish.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 28/11/2017 17:56, omniverse wrote:
> > I'm definitely not a "flat-earther", unlike some:
> >
> > https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-hopes-prove-earth-flat-230622888.html
>
> I read a similar article in the Washington Post (I think). He only
> became a flat earther when he couldn't get finance on Kickstart and the
> flat Earth society raised the cash. O_o
> Smells a bit of stinking fish.
Oooohhhh! Good thing the launch was postponed anyway, I was going to watch if it
was on news or live streamed. Thought I had missed it. Didn't believe it would
happen, but hey, Evel Knievel launched into the Grand Canyon in same way so I
figured maybe this was actually going to be done too.
And I was wanting to see how the flat Earth evidence would be gathered and
presented.
It's like the lawn chair balloon guy, probably too much faith in possibilities
that I sure wouldn't attempt.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/11/2017 19:52, omniverse wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 28/11/2017 17:56, omniverse wrote:
>>> I'm definitely not a "flat-earther", unlike some:
>>>
>>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-hopes-prove-earth-flat-230622888.html
>>
>> I read a similar article in the Washington Post (I think). He only
>> became a flat earther when he couldn't get finance on Kickstart and the
>> flat Earth society raised the cash. O_o
>> Smells a bit of stinking fish.
>
> Oooohhhh! Good thing the launch was postponed anyway, I was going to watch if it
> was on news or live streamed. Thought I had missed it.
I thought I had too. Although I had forgotten about it until your post.
> Didn't believe it would
> happen, but hey, Evel Knievel launched into the Grand Canyon in same way so I
> figured maybe this was actually going to be done too.
>
> And I was wanting to see how the flat Earth evidence would be gathered and
> presented.
>
Me too. :)
But they'll come up with another excuse. I bet you a pound to a penny on
it. (Odds of 240:1) Eh! Out of interest do you have any similar type
sayings?
> It's like the lawn chair balloon guy, probably too much faith in possibilities
> that I sure wouldn't attempt.
>
It is amazing what faith can do. Or not as the case may be.
Ach well. Evolution in progress. Another entry for the Darwin Awards. ;)
Talking about Darwin (and his finches).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42103058
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 28/11/2017 19:52, omniverse wrote:
> >
> > And I was wanting to see how the flat Earth evidence would be gathered and
> > presented.
> >
>
> Me too. :)
> But they'll come up with another excuse. I bet you a pound to a penny on
> it. (Odds of 240:1) Eh! Out of interest do you have any similar type
> sayings?
Heh, I'm sure you know the American sayings are fairly humdrum compared to
others. You had me thinking of "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
when I saw the next thing said.
> Evolution in progress. Another entry for the Darwin Awards. ;)
>
> Talking about Darwin (and his finches).
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42103058
Don't get me started on evolution. I've wondered a lot why there aren't more
inbetween animals, instead of only things like the occasional Platypus
creatures. Such as, since there are air-breathing sea-going animals like seals,
where's the ones that only swim sometimes and mostly stay on land? Certainly not
the polar bears, I wouldn't think. But instead there's simply one kind and then
another entirely different kind.
Or in other words, the way evolution seems to be mostly finished. You don't see
a creature becoming future whales or dolphins anymore. What happened to their
land-based counterparts? How could they only be 100% water-borne since they
began taking to the ocean, why not half and half, like seals and walruses?
Somehow I doubt those are each others distant relatives, being more like
separate animals entirely.
It's just that there are huge gaps from one thing to another. Maybe that's the
way it is, some freaky biological dead zones. I just can't believe that doesn't
mean all sorts of other creatures shouldn't also exist today. I've never really
been convinced of a string of lineages over time from one thing to the next
either. It's like the infamous human missing link idea, I guess only because of
sudden change?
I don't know, like I said, I get to thinking on that subject and it doesn't end!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-11-2017 4:08, omniverse wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> Evolution in progress. Another entry for the Darwin Awards. ;)
>>
>> Talking about Darwin (and his finches).
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42103058
>
> Don't get me started on evolution. I've wondered a lot why there aren't more
> inbetween animals, instead of only things like the occasional Platypus
> creatures. Such as, since there are air-breathing sea-going animals like seals,
> where's the ones that only swim sometimes and mostly stay on land? Certainly not
> the polar bears, I wouldn't think. But instead there's simply one kind and then
> another entirely different kind.
Darwin's finches are exactly the examples you are looking for, and
particularly that news item Stephen posted. Otherwise, "intermediate"
animals are present in the fossil record but rarely to be found. Browse
the scientific literature and you will see that the record abounds in
all kind of intermediates.
>
> Or in other words, the way evolution seems to be mostly finished. You don't see
> a creature becoming future whales or dolphins anymore. What happened to their
> land-based counterparts? How could they only be 100% water-borne since they
> began taking to the ocean, why not half and half, like seals and walruses?
> Somehow I doubt those are each others distant relatives, being more like
> separate animals entirely.
Not true (see the finches) and look at our own species for instance: we
were on our way to speciation (black, white, yellow) when we thought it
more smart to travel extensively and visit our cousins. This slowed down
(obvious) evolution but did not stop it. Only, you do not see it happen
in your life time. But compare skulls and skeletons from different ages
and specialists will tell you the differences.
And don't forget our own little job of evolutionary tinkering: dogs,
cats... what do you think those are? They are the product of controlled
evolution, only not nature but man is the agent.
>
> It's just that there are huge gaps from one thing to another. Maybe that's the
> way it is, some freaky biological dead zones. I just can't believe that doesn't
> mean all sorts of other creatures shouldn't also exist today. I've never really
> been convinced of a string of lineages over time from one thing to the next
> either. It's like the infamous human missing link idea, I guess only because of
> sudden change?
It is a matter of extinction and extinction rates. When you adapt to a
particular (new) situation, there is no reason to keep the old ways so
those traits are rapidly lost. Evolution goes very fast in most cases on
a geological time scale, even in a matter of a few dozen generations as
survival is often involved, and that is why most in-between changes are
lost forever and not preserved.
>
> I don't know, like I said, I get to thinking on that subject and it doesn't end!
>
Keep on thinking!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I forgot: The evolution of horses is one of the best documented in science.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/11/2017 03:08, omniverse wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 28/11/2017 19:52, omniverse wrote:
>>>
>>> And I was wanting to see how the flat Earth evidence would be gathered and
>>> presented.
>>>
>>
>> Me too. :)
>> But they'll come up with another excuse. I bet you a pound to a penny on
>> it. (Odds of 240:1) Eh! Out of interest do you have any similar type
>> sayings?
>
> Heh, I'm sure you know the American sayings are fairly humdrum compared to
> others.
Not really.
How about "many a mickle maks a muckle"? I bet Sven has heard it.
> You had me thinking of "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
Oh! the temptation to paraphrase that in the style of Mr Trump. But I am
strong and I will resist. ;)
> when I saw the next thing said.
>
>> Evolution in progress. Another entry for the Darwin Awards. ;)
>>
>> Talking about Darwin (and his finches).
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42103058
>
> Don't get me started on evolution.
[Snip]
>
> I don't know, like I said, I get to thinking on that subject and it doesn't end!
>
I'm glad I waited. Thomas has filled me in on things I had a gut feeling
of but did not know.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/11/2017 17:56, omniverse wrote:
> I'm definitely not a "flat-earther", unlike some:
>
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-hopes-prove-earth-flat-230622888.html
Talking about head bangers. I just saw this. O_O
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-42167619/daredevils-jump-from-a-mountain-into-a-plane
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
