We Have Liftoff

[andy06shake]

But all the NASA so called photo's from space always showed a perfect sphere. Now all of a sudden we get this?

That's not true.
 
Images of Earth from space look like near-perfect spheres because, from far away, large objects smooth out visually.

They may look perfectly spherical, but that's because the difference is subtle...

Not because they are actually perfectly round.

As to your fake professor nonsense.

The fella in question has "BA in chemistry from Carleton College and an MA in science education from California State University, Northridge."

What's your degree in again? 

[BeyondKnowledge]

Just for clarity on all heavenly bodies NOT being spherical.

"Not every space body is spherical. While gravity pulls massive celestial objects like stars, planets, and large moons into a spherical shape (specifically an oblate spheroid due to rotation), smaller bodies often remain irregular. 

• Mass Threshold: Objects generally need a radius of roughly 200 to 800 kilometers (depending on composition) for their self-gravity to overcome structural strength and pull them into hydrostatic equilibrium.
  
• Irregular Bodies: Smaller objects like asteroids, comets, and many moons (e.g., Mars's Phobos) lack sufficient mass to become round and can be lumpy, potato-shaped, or elongated. 
  
• Exceptions: Some large objects are not spherical due to external forces; for example, the exoplanet WASP-103b is shaped like a rugby ball due to strong tidal forces from its host star, and rapidly spinning stars can bulge significantly at their equators." (LLM)
  

--

This is how an astronomy student sees the Earth in a rather free-form shape.

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...c0850e.png]

Spheroidal with perhaps some flat parts (?)

And what exaggeration did they use for the surface variations? The highs and lows of the surface are exaggerated for clarity in that one.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere but if an exact scale model were made around the size of a tennis ball. You cound not see or feal the variations and it would be closer than any ball bearing of the same size to being perfect.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Because it is a local sun. That shrinks over distance due to perspective. Plus the atoms and dust  in the atmosphere eventually block the light. 

The Sun & Moon Are Local! Buy a Zoom Camera While It Is Still Legal! Expose the Pharaonic Deception 

Watch to End, You can't Argue the Facts- The sun Disappears above the Horizon.

That is cute. You think the difference between the distance from Hawaii to the Sun and the UK to the Sun really makes it shrink that much. If you will say how far away you think the Sun is, I can do the calculations for you.

I have a small telescope. I have Sun viewing attachments for it. I have never seen it shrink. It does get squashed on the horizon. That is shorter and fatter, so while it gets smaller in one direction it gets wider. That is common on sunrise and sunset photos.

I am curious, have you ever seen the night sky through a telescope?

[Knows]

[quintessentone]

And what exaggeration did they use for the surface variations? The highs and lows of the surface are exaggerated for clarity in that one.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere but if an exact scale model were made around the size of a tennis ball. You cound not see or feal the variations and it would be closer than any ball bearing of the same size to being perfect.

Having thought about it more, you most likely are right. I've seen other peoples' depictions of what the shape of our Earth may be, but nobody really knows for sure. 

Supposedly, our Earth and Moon are oblate spherical in shape and both bulge in the middle.



As common sense would have it, most flat earthers believe the moon is a sphere but the Earth is flat, that is not using common sense when one considers the forces that moulded and shaped both would make both the same shape.

[Knows]

This is what the prevailing theory describes. Notice that the gravity from all the planets and moons never causes any shift in trajectory. All these planets and moons just endlessly cork screw through space around the center of our galaxy. 

The Helical Model

[andy06shake]

This is what the prevailing theory describes. Notice that the gravity from all the planets and moons never causes any shift in trajectory. All these planets and moons just endlessly cork screw through space around the center of our galaxy. 

The Helical Model

That's not right.

Planets do mess with each other's paths a bit.

That's why orbits wobble and shift.

They're not doing perfect corkscrews either.

And we mostly track things by the Sun's gravity, not the galaxy, because that's what actually matters here.

[Knows]

[Knows]

That's not right.

Planets do mess with each other's paths a bit.

That's why orbits wobble and shift.

They're not doing perfect corkscrews either.

And we mostly track things by the Sun's gravity, not the galaxy, because that's what actually matters here.

They only got 2 things wrong. Otherwise the video is right. One. Some of those planets take over a hundred years to circle the moving sun. Two. They forgot to add the fact that our whole galaxy is also moving at 1.3 million miles per hour.  Relative to the cosmic microwave background. This movement, taking us toward the constellation Hydra

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

They only got 2 things wrong. Otherwise the video is right. One. Some of those planets take over a hundred years to circle the moving sun. Two. They forgot to add the fact that our whole galaxy is also moving at 1.3 million miles per hour.  Relative to the cosmic microwave background. This movement, taking us toward the constellation Hydra

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU]

So the "gotcha" is that an object cant elipiltically orbit another object in elipitical motion? Something along those lines?

Atermis II has to be a super impossible object then? 

Because Artemis II did a free return flyby of a moving moon - that has an eliptical orbit around a moving planet - in an elipiltical orbit around a moving star - that is in an elliptical orbit around a moving galaxy - that has a barycenter with a moving Andromeda - within a moving local group of galaxies - that is part of a larger moving Virgo supercluster - which is part of the Lankea Superstructure - WITH ALL THAT (relative to CBM) moving towards "The Great Attractor."

And that's only covering the relative motion of 100,000 of 2 trillion galaxies, or 0.000005% of the observable universe! 

Heliocentrism: The apex of really really wanting to be cosmically significant..

But all you need is a little knowledge of annoying math, which i don't personally have, but i know it conceptually enough to know its a lot of freaking calculus, like calculating angular momentum. So I'm going with their proofs that say it's all perfectly sound and predicted by centuries of people that know math.

So here's some Tool... Bad Religion instead...