1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I can't see New Zealand.

« on: December 19, 2007, 07:50:47 PM »

Why does the fog not distort the visibility of stars billions of miles away.

Care to explain ?

New Zealand is such a distance away from Australia that the entire country is squished into perspective angles beyond the capabilities of human perception.

Additionally, the fog of the semi-transparent atmosphere only allows one to see so far before all distant bodies are obscured and faded beyond recognition. The atmosphere is filled with atoms and molecules - all of which are not transparent.

Telescopes could make it possible, if its possible to see Jupiter from Earth without it being distorted by fog, which ti clearly isn't because you can see it. Thus the fog does not exist thus Flat Earth would allow me to walk out of my house here in Sydney and look over to the sheep rooters in New Zealand!

If FE theory were true you could easily see Perth from Alice springs at night because of the glow from the city, or Sydney from 300 km/s out to sea bar this fog. The Fog, along with FE theory is obviously ficticious, the new aether!

Get an education. That was horrible reading, you spelled many things wrong.

2

The Lounge / Re: 3ds Max Photorealistic RE

« on: December 19, 2007, 07:47:12 PM »

Because that is the most accurate size I could find of the RE, and so I can get ridiculously close to it and still have ridiculously high detail.

It will never look right without accurate lighting. The detail will be about the same no matter how big you make it, so you would be better off just making it smaller.

Ok, I made it bigger so I could get plane's-eye-views of the earth without it clipping on the viewport. I'm working on the lighting, but I also want to fix things like the city lights and the cloud map.

3

The Lounge / Re: 3ds Max Photorealistic RE

« on: December 19, 2007, 07:34:55 PM »

It looks horrible with the default lighting. Use a spotlight or something.

I would, but I'm using a real-world scale now (7,926.41 miles at the equator and 7,901 miles from North to South pole)

Why? What reason could you possibly have for making it so big?

Because that is the most accurate size I could find of the RE, and so I can get ridiculously close to it and still have ridiculously high detail.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Test of FE vs. RE

« on: December 19, 2007, 07:33:48 PM »

If one cannot drive a car in a perfectly straight line down a short stretch of straight highway without turning the wheel, what makes you think that aviator of a plane could do it over a course of tens of thousands of miles?

There's no railing or side-wall, dickass.

Also, there is no friction with the ground, so the shape of the ground will not matter. As for turbulence, we have powerful techniques with which to stay in a straight line. Satellites are one. I know because I can see them in the sky.

There's no such thing as satellites. You must be referring to conspiracy stratellites.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Thermodynamics and the Moon Spotlight, a contradiction

« on: December 19, 2007, 07:27:50 PM »

Jesus.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Test of FE vs. RE

« on: December 19, 2007, 07:24:24 PM »

If one cannot drive a car in a perfectly straight line down a short stretch of straight highway without turning the wheel, what makes you think that aviator of a plane could do it over a course of tens of thousands of miles?

There's no railing or side-wall, dickass.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: my evidence

« on: December 19, 2007, 07:16:18 PM »

If somebody posted pictures using a device with a magnification power of 40, which showed that half-sunken ships were not being restored, would that convince you of a curvature to the earth?

Yes. If someone actually could follow the simple, basic, and straightforward instructions in the Flat Earth Literature for restoring half-sunken ships I would be convinced of the results.

That's why you fail. All your literature is outdated, inaccurate bullshit written by idiots who believed the earth is flat.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I've read the FAQ, but ...

« on: December 19, 2007, 07:14:57 PM »

Secondly it's not what I asked. How come there is a point at which I can no longer see it? This "perspective" effect of yours would not have a critical threshold, therefor there should be middle ground where the light is dimmed due to a partial effect of this "perspective". As I have said, this is not the case.

And yet that is what happens.  The light barely diminishes before it disappears at the vanishing point which coincides with the horizon.

That's my point. Why does it happen? According to this theory of yours, it disappears because it merges with the horizon. This cannot physically be an explanation. This is why:

Light is produced by this aircraft. That light travels towards us and we see it. As it goes towards the horizon, I cease to see it. It does not fade, therefor cannot be due to the density of the air. In this case, the only plausible explanation is that something gets in the way of it.

RE explains that the ground gets in the way of it. What does FE says gets in the way of it?

The ice wall.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis

« on: December 19, 2007, 07:11:13 PM »

The coriolis effect is experimentally sound. It has been proven. As to it's effects on Earth, it has been observed. Are you denying that the wind travels the opposity direction as soon as you pass the Equator?

No, I'm proving that toilet flushes have jack shit to do with the Coriolis Effect.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: my evidence

« on: December 19, 2007, 07:02:46 PM »

Please don't use words you don't know the meaning to. Or, at least, google them beforehand.

Google tells me that Newton's first telescope in the 1600's had a magnification power of 40. Therefore I'm setting that figure as the minimum power of Rowbothams quality telescope of the 1800's. Isn't that reasonable?

No, I already stated that powerful was 750, so reasonable has to be at least 500.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Can There Be Daylight for So Long in Antarctica?

« on: December 19, 2007, 06:58:50 PM »

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/South_season.jpg
this looks like it makes a lot of sense.....
then again, it seems like a lot of things about a GE make a lot of sense, but according to you they dont....

edit: dammit, why would people disable HTML, it makes thumbnails a lot easier.....

That's some pretty fucked up perspectives in that image. The earth is bigger as it gets farther away and is almost as big as the sun?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: my evidence

« on: December 19, 2007, 06:52:53 PM »

Except that, based on the limited material that Bishop has given us, it seems like Rowbotham was not using a Newtonian reflector telescope, but a much less powerful and more portable refractor.

Earth Not a Globe does not specify whether Robotham was using a reflector or a refractor. You're making things up.

However, Rowbotham does say that he was able to make his observations using a telescope of considerable power. Therefore we must assume that he was using a refractor.

Maybe it was of considerable power to HIM. I'd say minimum for a powerful telescope is 750x optical zoom.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Round Earth Proof!!

« on: December 19, 2007, 06:50:07 PM »

Looks more like you took a picture of your monitor, or of a picture. FE ruelz!

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hello People

« on: December 19, 2007, 06:13:44 PM »

You've come to the wrong forum, you want this one: http://www.wizardnet.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi
Now GTFO.

Welcome to the forums!

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: my evidence

« on: December 19, 2007, 06:11:43 PM »

Haha I hope Tom Bishop rots in prison.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity and Centrifugal Force do exist!

« on: December 19, 2007, 05:04:50 PM »

Your name is 'epsilon'. The 'e' should be capitalized. Therefore, you are wrong.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Can There Be Daylight for So Long in Antarctica?

« on: December 19, 2007, 05:03:33 PM »

There's no point in continuing. FE has lost, now it's just ridiculous speculation from the few that haven't left the thread.

Did you guys prove that the perpetual all day sun occurs in Antarctica yet? Nope.

My aunt and uncle went close to the North pole several summers ago, and it was constant daytime they said. Should I give them a polygraph test?

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: See for yourself! the truth is right before your eyes!

« on: December 19, 2007, 04:29:34 PM »

I don't see any reason why.  It's the density of the atmosphere close to the ground and in the distance that gives the illusion of a curve.  Above us we're not looking at nearly as much atmosphere so the opposite effect takes hold, giving us a clear view of the heavens.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong infinity!

19

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Some say humanity needs to leave the planet. Why not move the Planet itself

« on: December 19, 2007, 04:22:50 PM »

Where's the Samus pic from?

20

The Lounge / Re: 3ds Max Photorealistic RE

« on: December 19, 2007, 04:21:07 PM »

It looks horrible with the default lighting. Use a spotlight or something.

I would, but I'm using a real-world scale now (7,926.41 miles at the equator and 7,901 miles from North to South pole), so the spotlight looks absolutely puny and dim, and I don't have time to adjust it.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Can There Be Daylight for So Long in Antarctica?

« on: December 19, 2007, 04:19:42 PM »

these ice crystals... i did a quick google search, can some 1 direct me to  definition about them from a external source ?

Tom Bishop made some ice cubes in his freezer and launched them into the atmosphere, where they fused with dark matter and bent the light in the atmosphere out of control.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: See for yourself! the truth is right before your eyes!

« on: December 19, 2007, 04:18:36 PM »

I don't see any reason why.  It's the density of the atmosphere close to the ground and in the distance that gives the illusion of a curve.  Above us we're not looking at nearly as much atmosphere so the opposite effect takes hold, giving us a clear view of the heavens.

Wrong.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Can There Be Daylight for So Long in Antarctica?

« on: December 19, 2007, 04:16:29 PM »

Do you have a reference for this from Sir James Clarke Ross?

It's in the Antarctic section of Earth Not a Globe.

The perpetual day is also impossible on the Flat Earth model, because once the sun becomes so distant that it appears to have disappeared (and it must do this regularly, if FE is correct), then nighttime has set in.

This might be true. But the explanation in the Flat Earth model is that the light from the unseen sun beyond human perspective is bouncing off of the ice crystals in the upper polar strata, simulating day.

If that were the case, then the same effect would be visible all year round, not just in the Antarctic summer. For the ice crystals in the upper polar strata would still be there.

But the sun would be in a different position relative to the ice crystals in the upper polar strata.

There's no point in continuing. FE has lost, now it's just ridiculous speculation from the few that haven't left the thread.

24

The Lounge / Re: 3ds Max Photorealistic RE

« on: December 19, 2007, 04:12:47 PM »

Here's an updated render (low settings, default lighting, cloud bump map didn't render properly for some reason):

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: See for yourself! the truth is right before your eyes!

« on: December 19, 2007, 04:11:04 PM »

The atmospheric density causes the illusion that the surface itself is curved.

That picture is taken from the upper edge of the atmosphere. If what you say is true, than every celestial body would appear heavily distorted from the ground.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Can There Be Daylight for So Long in Antarctica?

« on: December 19, 2007, 04:06:13 PM »

If the earth rotates on an axis tilted at between 22.5 and 24.1 towards the sun, then it would receive light until it has progressed in its orbit (which would take almost a month). It has to do with the time of year, because it will be tilted away from the sun depending on what part of it's orbit it is on, it doesn't have to wobble back and forth to be alternately tilted towards and away from the sun. This explains the South pole phenomena too.

And Tom Bishop,

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Confusion on FE Sun

« on: December 19, 2007, 04:02:41 PM »

It must suck to be so ignorant.

You'd like to suck something, wouldn't you?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis

« on: December 19, 2007, 04:01:36 PM »

Thanks for proving my point.

It was my point first, you lose.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: See for yourself! the truth is right before your eyes!

« on: December 19, 2007, 04:00:08 PM »

So I was wondering how do you FE'er explain the curve in Horizon Displayed by the red line?

Why wouldn't the horizon be curved?  It represents the furthest distance we can see from a central point in all directions; it is in the shape of a circle.

Taking a similar picture with an IMAX camera would show that the curve is not a flat surface.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Planetary Illumination

« on: December 19, 2007, 03:54:41 PM »

There's a faggot in this thread then. Their name starts with a 'D' and ends with a 'Dogplatter'.