@Quorum calling people dishonest when you think the sky proves we are a spinning globe

The sky proves we are not on a spinning ball

Its only your mind that was told this so now your belief is challenged and you refuse to see anything else

You cant look into the sky and determine the shape beneath your feet.

You are just making assumptions

And clinging to them cuz you are traumatized by anything contradicting your belief

<:happycube:507990858960732162>

Show me video of two people looking at the same star who are looking the exact same direction with compass visible and on two different continents at the same time with a map that is perfectly accurate to verify it all

Live on a Google hangout or live video

Then we will have something to talk about

@Quorum your stupid drawing proves zero

Of nothing

Lol

https://youtu.be/qHn6m8ebqCM

Want to vc debate

Working

You didn't even attempt to disprove anything I've said. You just said my drawing "proved nothing".
On a flat plane, you cannot have several people looking in opposite directions while all seeing the same exact things in the sky. On a globe, you can have several people see the Southern polar star. Take an orange and mark two arrows pointing towards the little brown stump thing on the bottom, and both arrows are on opposite sides of the brown dot on the orange's bottom, representing two people looking at the same point on a globe. They are in different locations, but looking at the same object which is **possible**. Then peel the orange so the peel is flat and level for the two arrows. They are now facing opposite directions, meaning them seeing the same point is **impossible**.

I also already explained why the star trails diverge from the equatorial trail.

Prove your claim

Which claim?

That star trails are imoossible on a flat earth?

I posted it

Show me video of two people south of equator looking at the same star who are looking the exact same direction with compass visible and on two different continents at the same time with a map that is perfectly accurate to verify it all

Live on a Google hangout or live video

Then we will have something to talk about

Prove your claim

Has nothing to do with flat earth

Prove the globe model map.

Prove magnetic declination and compass directions are true

Prove this on two separate continents simultaneously in live unedited video

Prove to me magnetic lines are perfectly straight and do not curve

You have a huge up hill battle for your claim. You should probably rent a big science vessel to do the appropriate studies. Could take a few years

Good luck

I've got proof your claim could easily not be true. Magnetic declination in Australia doesnt seem to be perfectly accurate. That would be a huge difference over thousands of miles

Also there is evidence Australia compass directions do not line up with the globe maps such as google earth

Globalists just assumes they're right just because teachers told them so at school

vbfeuwhvghysudcbsgfvryn bnidbguidfnkg

!mute @Salt & Pepper (retarded cat.)

Salt & Pepper (Lonely)#5126 (401445171591643146) is now muted for '**Unspecified.**', alright? <:THUMBSUP6:403560443345371137>

Kalerteth, which part of my proof revolves around relying on school taught subjects?

@Quorum School subjects give you knowledgr

Im thinking more critcally

They didn't teach me this in school 🤦

Stop giving indoctrination speeches :/

Heard them all already.

Also, here you go Z.
These are two places below the equator that are opposite of each other, Australia and South America.

In reality, no matter the model, basically everyone agrees that Polaris is not visible from South of the equator. Meaning they aren't looking at Polaris by deduction.

Ergo (first and last time I'm saying ergo), they're looking at *another* point.

Also, literally anyone South of the equator can see this.

Basically

In your reality

Polaris isnt visible due to perspective

Yet people see Polaris south of equator

So you are ignoring magnetic declination and simple things like compasses dont work in Antarctica so why would you think they would match up from continent to continent in the south

Those star trails aren't of Polaris.

I was referring to your comment not your photos

Your photo proves we are not on a spinning ball

Your comment says Polaris no?

When you can prove the earth curves at 8 inch per mile squared let me know

I said "...everyone agrees that Polaris is not visible from South of the equator..."

Polaris is visible south of equator

Globe busted.

oh

If everyone agreed to abort babies after they are born does it make it right?

Depends on what society feela is right.

Feels

If everyone say the sky is yellow does that make it true?

Feels?

I like how you assume it's Polaris. The stars circle Polaris going counter-clockwise I believe, while the stars around the Southern point circles the opposite direction. There are also different constellations then the stars around Polaris.

what about instst

oh.....

You kept saying "Polaris is visible south of the equator"

It depends on what ur views are. Dum dum. @Citizen Z

I never said that.

photo gone. Now read your comment

I replied to it

same

It's like you are stuck on stupid

Can you quote what exactly youre replying to then

oh.

@toga please stop

http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/12/polaris-from-the-southern-hemisphere

whats this

You keep referring to a photo you posted

Which is south of the equator.

I'm not referring to your photo

I'm referring to your comment

I know

Alright, @toga has been warned for '**Bad word usage**'.

Then quit saying I'm saying shit I didnt say

why is no one talking about the troll

@toga

Do you think my photos are showing Polaris or not?

Did you know that they make maps coordinates by looking in the sky not actually mapping the ground

@toga, just scroll up

well well well

What do you think,

Why do you never explain why you keep saying "**AUSTRALIA**"

@stevenlin what happened last time

well

Dude, what is wrong with australia?

!mute @toga

that one person#0464 (478017723624849431) is now muted for '**Unspecified.**', alright? <:THUMBSUP6:403560443345371137>

true

!mute @stevenlin

stevenlin#4640 (330161748512604181) is now muted for '**Unspecified.**', alright? <:THUMBSUP6:403560443345371137>

You just keep saying "it says Australia".

calm down

!mute @lumbererrrrrrreeeererrr

dimentio#8766 (496757159585906730) is now muted for '**Unspecified.**', alright? <:THUMBSUP6:403560443345371137>

!mute @Nadia

Nadia#2978 (413376039042154497) is now muted for '**Unspecified.**', alright? <:THUMBSUP6:403560443345371137>

Mod abuse

Lul

@Quorum listen, you said something about Polaris, I responded about Polaris,
then you tried telling me the star trails aren't of Polaris.
I never said the star trails were of Polaris.
I think this is a misunderstand and I'm done with it.

Mod abuse

!mut @King Of Karma ♡

stop muting randomw people

!mute @King Of Karma ♡

i'm not a fish (I swear)#6006 (423485257229008907) is now muted for '**Unspecified.**', alright? <:THUMBSUP6:403560443345371137>

<:thonk:485324336874651650>

I thought you meant that in my reality, I also thought that Polaris was below the equator

Polaris is the north star

You said "yet people see polaris below the equator". You said that right after saying "so in your reality"

The wording confused me.

Ok np

People do see Polaris below the equator

Which shouldn't happen on a globe. Another claim for a mirage

It's only just barely under the equator, which I'm pretty sure the article said

It starts to fade the more south you get from the equator

"Under typical atmospheric conditions, this adds 0.57° to an object’s altitude, so Polaris would barely show up from 1.23° south latitude."

The two points I listed are way further down the equator.

Deducing things from the spherical model is wrong to begin with

What? I concluded that the point in those photos is not Polaris, meaning it is a different point in the sky using simple deduction. Idk what you mean tbh

K. Please show me your measurements of the surface

Interested.

What kind of measurements?

Measurements of the earth curving at the globe math given

1 sec

Someone told me about the 8 inches per mile squared thing, he said this: "8 inches per mile squared calculation is a parabolic approximation of a circle, rather than a linear drop off."

Ships going to the horizon will start to dissapear from the bottom of the mass to the top. This is bc the horizon is curved or round

On a flat earth the boat would just get smaller and smaller until it disappeared.

Brb in like 5-10 mins or somethin

@jlegend wrong

How

@jlegend things disappear from the bottom up because that's how light works

It is bc the ship is going past the curved horizon

When you are standing on the beach and looking into the distance, the farther you look, the more shallow the angle becomes. Once that angle of light bouncing of the objects in the distance hits .02 degrees, the light becomes unresolvable. Think of a boat as trillions of photons of light coming to your eye. When that light hits a certain angle, it's not longer resolved

@jlegend your last comment. that's the reason the globe gives. Its assumed. It is not science. Its just an assumption based of thinking you live on a ball. No measurements, nothing.

Based on my reason

The correct reason

We live on a round earth

And I hate to tell you but its incorrect

How is it incorrect

If you would like to show me your direct scientific measurements. I might believe you.

I'll be waiting.

But I'm not just going to take your word for it

I've seen zero evidence for a globe

I have some measurements telling me its flat

FECORE
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bV8hCkvT7gRFkoR6J0AY1mDwYfQR7PAg/view

You can prove it using observation

Go to the ocean and look at the ships leaving

If the world were flat as you say then the ships would not be visible only from the top.

What abt Eratosthenes study

I think flat earthers say it also works with a small and local sun, idk how true that is though

Ffs are you dumb

@jlegend

Where he saw the sun shining directly above syene but in alexandria the Alexandria that didnt happen

How am I dumb @Citizen Z

@jlegend I just explained how light works

Il get you more info to read so maybe you will understand

You have assumptions as of now based on old history

We now know those ideas are wrong

It's not old history

Boats dont go over the horizon

That's a myth

It was an acient discovery proving my point

Myth

No.

You can see it

It's not going over a horizon

It's the way light works

In different surfaces the sun hits at different angles

Bc we are on a flat surface

You are not listening

Firstly

OPTICS

This is how angular resolution works physically in the eye.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459802853524111361/1_EN.png
Cameras work the same way.
The cones of the retina is a zoom in of the eye. If the angular size of the target is not enough to activate more than a single cones/sensor the object is unresolvable.
There are 3 ways to decrease angular separation.
1. Move the two separate targets further or closer together.
2.Increase the distance.
3. Change the angle of view.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459805458644074511/angseperation.jpg

First here is a demonstration of how angle of view changes the angular separation of 2 targets. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459806914331541504/unknown.png

For example in this image, as the stop sign's angular size shrinks from distance or angle, the image that prjected onto the retina also shrinks. Eventually it will reach such as small size the eye can not physically detect the light. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459808085436006410/refraction_cornea.png
A geometric analogy would be closing a pair of scissors. When the scissor tips are closer together than the spacing between the rods and cones of the eye then you get to see the target. The point where the tips cross from too close to normal vision is the angular resolution.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459817803038326784/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459818062858682368/65116694_resized550bbc_sg_g4_eye.png
When the angle of view becomes to much it pretty much goes parallel, but you lose sight of the ground before that. It's the same on the globe too but even worse because the angle of view is increasing quicker because of the curving away of the ball surface.

These next images show someone how the angle stays the same but the area that you are actually observing increases. You can see the 5th image how the bottom of a building would disappear.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459819761644077057/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459813762132869126/ang1.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459813783464968206/ang2.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459813767576813578/ang4.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459813769548267542/ang5.png

They are using this stuff for self-driving cars. To automate the driving they have to turn the perspective view into an orthographic top down view.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459807394109849600/fig_2.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459807507745996810/hqdefault.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459818062858682368/65116694_resized550bbc_sg_g4_eye.png
The soure of that image.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20937803

Even though the title is BS. No one sees further. You ONLY capture more light.

This is how they build telescopes, to capture light.
Large telescope are reflectors. The larger convex lens gets the more distortion. So they made this. It all works the same generally speaking. A telescope will only help so much. It depends on the light collecting ability that is determined by the diameter of the lens. Some of these aren't built yet...
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/460954948222320640/512px-Comparison_optical_telescope_primary_mirrors.png
They are making the lens bigger not building 15 mile long telescopes.

Here is a demonstration of angular resultion effects with an eye charts 1D is distance from chart 2D is 2 time the distance etc...
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/460955465246048256/unknown.png

Optical and Geographical Slant.
Links to PDFs and resources.

https://archive.org/details/perceptionofvisu00jame

http://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/todd/group/Shape%20from%20Texture/Todd-2007-jov-7-12-9.pdf

http://wexler.free.fr/library/files/todd%20%282005%29%20the%20effects%20of%20field%20of%20view%20on%20the%20perception%20of%203D%20slant%20from%20texture.pdf

http://wexler.free.fr/library/files/flock%20%281965%29%20optical%20texture%20and%20linear%20perspective%20as%20stimuli%20for%20slant%20perception.pdf

https://www.csc2.ncsu.edu/faculty/healey/download/tap.12.pdf

Source video to shorter version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yjTuaHHsTM
A short video explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNg5wqYKkJE

Accompanying information and imagery to go with the above PDFs and resources.

"As he looks downward toward his feet the slant approaches zero, as he looks upward the slant increases, as the center of ckesr vision approaches the horizon the slant becomes maximal, and at the horizon itself the land ceases to be a surface and becomes an edge."

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458196098767388674/461973747197411339/Screenshot_20180628-121601_Drive.jpg

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458196098767388674/461973747776094228/Screenshot_20180628-121640_Drive.jpg

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458196098767388674/459444571332411412/Screenshot_20180621-113400_Drive.jpg

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458099953349427210/461804044697075712/unknown-35-1-1.png

Next we have what is called Spatial Disorientation & Visual Illusions which includes our visible horizon. Sometimes called the offing, this apparent line is where the sky meets the ground and is being perceived as an edge because of perspective due geographical slant and other optical phenomena.
Visible Horizon 1
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/462039366013812748/Screenshot_20180628-141432_Chrome.jpg
Offing
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/462038361121619968/Screenshot_20180628-141841_Chrome.jpg
Visible Horizon 2
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/462038361612222465/Screenshot_20180623-163225_Chrome-2.jpg
"In the offing"
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/462038360362582038/Screenshot_20180628-143947_Chrome.jpg

False visual reference illusion
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/462038359708008450/Screenshot_20180628-144334_Drive.jpg

Spatial orientation & Visual Illusions
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/462038361121619969/Screenshot_20180628-144237_Drive.jpg

Angular Resolution https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458196098767388674/459052120495095818/Angular_Resolution_01_v001.webp

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458196098767388674/459052123091632138/Angular_Resolution_02_v001.webp

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458196098767388674/459052121896124436/Angular_Resolution_03_v002_1.webp

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458196098767388674/459052121065783297/Angular_Resolution_04_v002.webp

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458196098767388674/459052122537721856/Angular_Resolution_05_v004.webp

https://plus.google.com/116502556172406985386/posts/Qegqk1jSNEE

https://plus.google.com/116502556172406985386/posts/fzjPdL8H7FX

https://plus.google.com/116502556172406985386/posts/4D6qoxFBSEy

Imagine this cone is one of your eye cells at the back of your retina
That's the "angular resolution"
At 5.4km, an object must be AT LEAST 4.8m in diameter to register as a single pixel
Even looking straight and level that pixel will merge with the horizon
An object would disappear bottom first https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458196098767388674/466295250198200320/DeepinScreenshot_select-area_20180710085940.png at 2000 meters https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458196098767388674/466295250701385728/DeepinScreenshot_select-area_20180710091613.png at 5432m the bottom half of your angular resolution is gone https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/466288992611205154/DeepinScreenshot_select-area_20180710085513.png

Let's work from the center of vision out to the edges , Up (sky) Down (ground) So this image https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468559885718519848/unknown.png Below the blue you can only see ground
Above sky.
Now how do we bring the max viewing distance into focus?
max viewing distance of the ground
that is... We can only use the bottom half of our vision.
The central part is unresolvable.
The upper part is looking for the sky. The angle between B and C is fixed. We will say the same as the eye .02 degrees. So we are seeing above and below the blue cone but not the cone itself. Like seeing the horizon...the horizon is unresolvable...but the ground leading to it and the sky above it we can see. Question: So what happens when line A to C gets parallel to the ground? Answer: Whatever is in the cone is gone, the cone turns to a line. Exactly and what's in that cone. Anything in a line extending from A to C to infinity will never intersect the ground . But the cone is the area between B and C. So the ground stops at B , anything above point C can only see sky. So the cone in the drawing is the unresolvable part of the camera lens or our vision.

The cone does reverse inside the eye.
Light is projected on to the retina. We don't see things directly.
It goes through the lens is projected and inverted. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/466469361562026015/kan_ch26_f001.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/466469513500688384/retinaimage.png Those images are right for a single point of light. This is part of another misconception. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468563187713835020/unknown.png This illustrate how we would see a SINGLE point of light. Say a single photon reflecting off the molecule of a wall
Take notice how it emanates in a sphere. Now what we see is the light reflecting from EVERY molecule spherical , and traveling out. The important thing is this. The airy disks I started with.
That is what EACH point is.
Trillions (probably more) of points of light. We don't see each point. We can only differentiate points to the angular resolution limit.
So a trillion points in a 4 ft space at 3 miles looks like a point. Think of the horizon as a bunch of points of light, and not as a building , a boat or mountain.
Then equate an entire object to a point of light. As far as the angle goes. The angular size on an object has the same angular size when projected onto the retina.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468565104326082575/unknown.png All those angles between features of objects in the room are identical to the angles of the corresponding projected image of that room. (projected onto the retina)
So something that is 10 ft in real life and has an angular size of 3 degrees. When projected to the retina it's angle is still 3 degrees but it's actual size is .5 mm
projected to the retina.
So knowing that angular size decrease with distance. When I get far enough away from that something and it's angular size shrinks outside AND inside my eye. Eventually the angle being projected on to the retina is too small for the cells and photoreceptors to form an image from. You have to think of it like this. Whatever we see or photograph whatever is being captured by the lens is being projected to the retina. Only it is a physically tiny version of what you are seeing. So if a building is "trillions" of points of light...each point of light on that building will come to the eye at a different angle. The bottom angles will be unresolvable before the top angles because they close sooner in the back of the eye or camera. The angle is tilted away more. Think of rotating a piece of paper. You hold the paper in front.
Rotate the top away until the sheet is parallel.
and you are looking down the edge.
Now imagine you put a circle on top and bottom of the sheet and did it all over again.
Before the tilting of the angle the spots would appear a good distance away from each other. But as you rotate the paper those 2 circles will appear to be close.
The top of a building is not rotated as much from the plane of the retina compared the the bottom at equal distances.

Look , these are the same distances. Obviously the angles are not the same. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468569265574903818/unknown.png I can make it even more extreme... https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468569771735253012/unknown.png But guess what....the top of the building will get cut off. When the entire situation is reverse.
Image looking up with your chest up to the world trade center. You wouldn't see the top because the angle would be too shallow. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468570710344728576/unknown.png Look what happens when you are closer to the vertical than the horizontal, the reverse. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468570964817608715/unknown.png Here are some questions you can ask yourself. Where is the plane of the eye? What is the relative angle between the surface of target and the plane of the eye? Give that angle , what is the angular separation of the points of light on that target? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468574743637786645/unknown.png The relative angle to the plane of the eye and the optical tilt of the target determine the angular separation
If I rotate the green block until it is vertical all the angle will grow. If I rotate it counter clockwise all the angles will shrink. If It was more to scale the angle difference would be more dramatic. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468578052302176266/IMG_3195_one_world_trade_center_nyc2015_aagdolla-1038x576.jpg https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468578348789006336/502382332.jpg Now imagine the building is 3 miles tall and not 1776ft.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468578739572441119/look-down-the-hallway.jpg So here is what happens being closer to one wall than the other. That shows the slant/tilt. Left wall angle is steeper than right wall, relative to the observer. This photo looking upward is a good example also. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468579766983720980/OrganicMechanics101.JPG

Post 1 of 2

How angular resolution works:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/459818062858682368/65116694_resized550bbc_sg_g4_eye.png

The further an object (i.e. boat, building mountain) gets away from the lens, the angular separation will continue to close until the light blurs together and eventually becomes a line or point or edge"
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468546464780386306/Airy_disk_spacing_near_Rayleigh_criterion.png

"As he looks downward toward his feet the slant approaches zero, as he looks upward the slant increases, as the center of clear vision approaches the horizon the slant becomes maximal, and at the horizon itself the land ceases to be a surface and becomes an edge"
https://zdoc.site/gibson-1952-the-perceived-slant-of-visual-surfaces-citeseerx.html

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458196098767388674/461973747197411339/Screenshot_20180628-121601_Drive.jpg

As you look down the right side of the hallway, you'll see the angular separation of light begins to close the further you look. Then looking at the left side of the hallway you'll notice the angular separation of light does not close or blur as quickly as the right side.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/379214321907007488/468578739572441119/look-down-the-hallway.jpg

Post 2 of 2

Here are some questions you can ask yourself. Where is the plane of the eye? What is the relative angle between the surface of target and the plane of the eye? Given that angle , what is the angular separation of the points of light on that target?

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/419246750260264960/470518575698935808/unknown-65.png

Notice the blue cones angle compared to the orange cone. The blue cones angle will lose the light first on the bottom and the ground will start to blur with the object but if you raise in height the resolution will increase shown with the orange cone because the angle of light hitting the retina or camera is made larger. Once the angle becomes too shallow the light turns into a line or Edge. Think of buildings or boats or mountains not as objects but as quadrillions of points of light or photons coming to your retina at different angles and some will become non-resolvable before others. The ones closest to you disappear first as you back away. You will see the ground running up to the horizon then see the horizon as a line and will see things like the sky still or if there's a mountain or building you will still see the top parts but eventually those will also become unresolvable as they get further away and the angle changes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVAWQGlXRWg

https://youtu.be/nK-WJwVGh8k

https://youtu.be/uLLwzKPwTDc

https://youtu.be/FD9PDJ-xZgI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSAlVua7T4g

Next eratosthenes

Ok

Disprove that

Also. They didn't even have clocks back then. They couldn't have known when it was exactly noon in Alexandria if they were in syene

When the sun is exactly above one stick they couldn't have know when that was 400 miles away. They had no clock. No phone. No radio.

The story is nothing more than a myth

Plus it works for a flat earth or a globe earth

Just make assumptions first.

Eratosthenes made 5 assumptions

All were wrong

It works for both.

I just showed you

Stop denying

Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2

Same.

What abt the fact that with a telescope you can see other planets that are spheres

Or the fact that satalites orbit the earth

And the fact that it's night on one half of the earth and day on the other side

balloons with relay antennae

ha ha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_balloon_satellite

balloon satellite constellation relay network

If the earth is shaped like that

Then explain a lunar eclipse

The earth projects it's shadow of a round earth

Satellites are seen moving at 17,500 mph. They also don't look like those balloons.

What abt the people who have been to the international space station

And have said the earth is round

@jlegend What cause and effect experiment has been done, (i.e. placing a big balloon at a specific location to cast a custom shadow on the moon) to prove the Earth is the cause of the shadow, red, blue colors on the moon? The Heliocentric model does not predict them, the Saros cycle does and was based on a Flat Earth cosmology using pattern recognition.