Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - rabinoz

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 605
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar North Shadow Experiment
« on: Today at 08:08:42 PM »
Did you know due east and due west is not a straight line on a Globe or FE but a circle? Only due North and South is a straight line on a FE.
No, due east is a direction from a point. It is not a line, either straight or a circle.

And on the Globe North is the direction to the North Geographic Pole (at 90°N where all meridians of longitude meet) and
South is the direction to the South Geographic Pole  ( 90°S where all meridians of longitude again meet).

2
Evil conspired with NASA.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
<...snip...>
The United States taking in Nazi war criminals, letting them get off without punishment for their crimes, and giving them good jobs to boot, is a shameful and long-known page in United States history.
Were they "war criminals"? Who tried and convicted them - dutchy?

Quote from: magellanclavichord
But NASA did not exist at the time. So NASA had nothing to do with that. And our shameful deals with the Nazis has no bearing on whether or not men walked on the moon.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: Bay of Fundy - FE Tides
« on: Today at 05:56:33 PM »
You did, kinda, not really, but whatever. The OP is why are the tides at the bay of fundy so extreme compared to the rest of the world. You answered something about the gulf stream. Is the gulf stream more powerful than anywhere else on the planet?

Bonus round: What causes tides across the flat earth?

Yes, the Gulf Stream is the fastest ocean current in the world with peak velocities near 2m/s.
If the Gulf Stream is the prime cause why does the tide rise and fall on average twice in about a day plus 50 minutes?

Quote from: Plat Terra
If the Moons gravity creates tides why is fresh bodies of water non-tidal? They too are under the moon and sun.
Larger fresh water lakes are slightly tidal.
The height of tides is caused by two comparatively small bulges sweeping around the earth into the shallower water around continents.
This makes the tidal patterns very complex around places like the British Isles and Western Australia.
I've been in Derby, Western Australia, and seen 9 metre tides then further down the coast near Carnarvon with less than 50 cm tides.
In these places tidal flows can come from two directions leading to even four tides a day in a few places.

The usual two high tides a day is not simply caused by the moon's gravitation on the near side but the very slight difference in the moon's gravitation on the side near the moon and the side away from the moon.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: Bay of Fundy - FE Tides
« on: Today at 04:42:36 PM »
So why wouldn't that affect a feather too? The surface of a ocean weighs more, right?
Haven't you heard that the downward force of gravity is proportional to the mass of the object?

A pigeon tail feather (~10 cm) long has a mass of about 0.05 g.
Only one cubic metre of seawater has a mass of about 1029 kg.

'Nuff said!
Haven't you head we are talking about a force that makes the oceans bulge, raise in height and increase earths surface curvature and sphere earth is more shaped like an egg?
Yes! But the gravitation of the moon does not lift water significantly.
Go and read up how tides really work but I'm afraid it is not as simple as the gravitation of the moon lifting water 6 feet or whatever.

Of course you might explain what causes the usual two tides per day on your flat earth.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Bay of Fundy - FE Tides
« on: Today at 04:26:14 PM »
So why wouldn't that affect a feather too? The surface of a ocean weighs more, right?
Haven't you heard that the downward force of gravity is proportional to the mass of the object?

A pigeon tail feather (~10 cm) long has a mass of about 0.05 g.
Only one cubic metre of seawater has a mass of about 1029 kg.

'Nuff said!

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Internet from satellite
« on: Today at 04:19:11 PM »
Still waiting for wise to show me pictures of ground stations...

PS: Pls don`t ban me again, this is really unfair, there are "people" here who can attack others without any punishment and I state something and get banned for 3 days. Very nice.

Do I have to say I am a flat earthers to be save?



Those antennas do not provide "Internet from satellite".
I have used "Internet from satellite" in the open ocean far from land and there were no antennas like that floating in the ocean!
I have used "Telephone from satellite" in remote regions of Australia and there were no antennas like that anywhere within a thousand kilometres!

So stop posting silly rubbish like that.



7
So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?
Resistance!
Ever heard of
  • "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
  • force = mass x acceleration or the more general case where mass might vary force = rate of change of momentum and
  • "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.
Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!

The second body is the tonnes of exhaust gas expelled at hypersonic velocity by the rocket.

I see nothing in "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" to exclude that!

When a bomb explodes what was originally all part of one object separates and the parts fly in all directions - surely you don't claim that a bomb won't explode on a vacuum?

Stop making up your own "laws of physics".

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat earth observations/experiments
« on: Today at 05:50:06 AM »
Hello Flat Earthers,

in this thread I would like you to describe any experiment/observation you have made yourself that shows evidence of a flat earth. Please describe your experiment/observation in detail, and why you think it shows an inconsistency to the 'globe model'.

Thank you

I walk out of my house and observed the line between Earth and sky.  It was eye level and did not bend down from center on the left nor the right.
Exactly as it should look on a Globe earth about 7,920 miles in diameter.

What next?

Quote from: Plat Terra
I then drove to the beach and observed the same. I did not observe a curvizon because no curve was observed but I did observed a horizon; a word used in the English language to describe a straight line. .
Exactly as it should look on a Globe earth about 7,920 miles in diameter.

Maybe you erroneously use horizon; "to describe a straight line" but that is not its meaning at all! [/b]:
Quote
horizon
1. the line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet.
No mention of straight anywhere!

Have you ever taken note of the derivation of the word "horizon"?
Quote
horizon
late 14c., orisoun, from Old French orizon (14c., Modern French horizon), earlier orizonte (13c.), from Latin horizontem (nominative horizon), from Greek horizon (kyklos) "bounding (circle)," from horizein "bound, limit, divide, separate," from horos "boundary, landmark, marking stones."
No mention of straight anywhere!

Nevertheless, the horizon viewed from a low altitude on the Globe should be staright!

What next?
Quote from: Plat Terra
I did notice that the buoy off in a distance was not visible at the time because of the science of heat and humidity, but it is always clearly seen in the mornings. I was not naive to think Earth curves in the afternoon.
Are you sure it was "heat and humidity"?

Then I wonder what hides most of the container ship below. It sure doesn't look like "heat and humidity"!
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is about 10 km from the camera but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind something.
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
         And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
The makes of the video those screenshots came from wrote:
Quote
MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible. Unless they're deploying cargo submarines these days....
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera.

That certainly looks like seawater and not "heat and humidity" hiding most of the container ship.

What next?
Quote from: Plat Terra
I took a plane flight and noticed a horizon and it was still at eye level, but it should have been lower if it were a curvizon.  Observation is good science.

I saw nothing that indicated I lived on a sphere.
How do you know it was at eye-level? Did you measure it with some accurate level or just guess?
And what is the stupid "curvizon"? Haven't you learned yet that:
  • Horizon simply means the dividing line between the  the earth's surface and the sky and
  • until viewed from a very high elevation it should look straight or so close that you cannot tell the difference without careful measurement?
What next?
Quote from: Plat Terra
I am not one who follows the narrative of main stream.  If I was, I would believe trump is a bad orange man, democrats are good, multiple genders, global warming, Islam is a peaceful religion and other nonsense and hoaxes spread through media.
None of that seems at all relevant to the shape of the earth.

Quote from: Plat Terra
Now, please tell me what have you observed daily that would indicate you live on a sphere? Please tell me so I can observe them too.
  • The sharp horizon whose distance varies with the height of the eye.
  • Sunrises and sunsets:
    Time lapse of a sunset:

    Hawaii Sunset with Green Flash, Natalie Sirgo
                   And the last bit of the sun disappearing:

    PACIFIC OCEAN SUNSET...Mardoval

    Then finally a couple of stills of the sun setting over the ocean at Weipa in Queensland:

    Sun near setting at Weipa
                   

    Sunset at Weipa
And there are plenty more that need a little more explanation.

9
It does not stop its forwards motion.
So what does stop its forward motion, why do not you have an explanation? Since you have not an explanation hence You have accepted the rocket hits the sky dome.
There is no RabBlack! Stop changing the contents you quotes. Altering posts like this is simply dishonest and proves that you have no answer to the points raised.

YOU know very well that neither JackBlack nor myself, RABinOZ accepted the rocket hits the sky dome.

Look what I (RABinOZ) wrote!
Because the forward motion of rocket has not stopped suddenly. The rocket continues ascending many kilometers after the despin device is deployed.

Does that sound as though I accept that "accepted the rocket hits the sky dome."

If you cannot post honestly pease do not bother posting at all.

10
So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?
Resistance!
Ever heard of
  • "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
  • force = mass x acceleration or the more general case where mass might vary force = rate of change of momentum and
  • "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.

11
both sites have rabinoz but only here has wise.  :)
The other site threw you out and banned you permanently didn't they? Maybe you could tell us what you did to deserve that ;D.

12
We have clearly heard a "plop" then rocet does magically stop!

The "plop" was activation of the yo-yo despinner, then it stopped the rocket spin.

How the rocket didn't smash the nose at the "dome hit" ? hehehe

And for yo-yo despinner, here is your chance to further educate yourself:




"Smart is not who knows. Smart is who learns."

It stops both spin and forward motion.  Why can not you say its stopping the forward motion? Why do you need lying? Or why do not tell the all truth and tell a part of it (you think so) ? Because you need manipulation. Your needing manipulation proves that there is a dome and it has crashed it.

Seriously? Enough Wise. The rocket stops spinning because of a device that makes it stop spinning. It didn't hit a dome as the guy who made the original video claiming the rocket hit a dome made another video (all linked here in the thread) saying, yeah, he was mistaken, it didn't hit a dome.

So enough. If you got something satellites and stuff you want to lay down, have at it. But enough with your rocket/dome video bullshit. It's old. Can we move on?
A device like that can't stop it. in order to do so, the mass of the part separated must be much greater. its mass is too small to be compared to the rocket and cannot produce the required torque.
Incorrect!
It is not simply mass of the yo-yo despin device compared to the mass of the rocket
but the moment of inertia of the yo-yo despin device compared to the moment of inertia of the rocket.
"For a point mass the moment of inertia is just the mass times the square of perpendicular distance to the rotation axis, I = mr2."

Here read this:
Quote
Yo-yo de-spin

A yo-yo de-spin mechanism is a device used to reduce the spin of satellite, typically right after launch. It is basically two lengths of cable with weights on the ends. The cables are wrapped around the final stage and/or satellite, in the manner of a double yo-yo. When the weights are released, the spin of the rocket flings them away from the spin axis. This transfers enough angular momentum to the weights to reduce the spin of the satellite to the desired value. The weights are often released.

De-spin is needed since some final stages are spin-stabilized, and require fairly rapid rotation (perhaps 50 rpm) to keep stable during firing (See, for example, the Star 48, a solid fuel rocket motor.) After the firing, the satellite cannot be simply released, since such a spin rate is beyond the capability of the satellite attitude control to cope with. Therefore after the rocket firing but before satellite release, the yo-yo weights are used to reduce the spin rates to something the satellite can handle (often 2-5 RPM).

As an example of yo-yo de-spin, on the Dawn Mission, roughly 3 kg of weights, and 12 meter cables, reduce the initial spin rate of 1420 kg of spacecraft from 36 RPM down to 3 RPM in the other direction[1]. The relatively small weights can have such a large effect since they are far from the axis of the spin, and their effect grows as the square of the length of the cables.
Quote from: wise
And you globalists still have not an explanation how forward motion of rocket has stopped magically.
Because the forward motion of rocket has not stopped suddenly. The rocket continues ascending many kilometers after the despin device is deployed.

13
Hello,
I think every one else who responded is a glober, just so you know.
So why are the flat earthers not responding?

14
We have clearly heard a "plop" then rocet does magically stop!

The "plop" was activation of the yo-yo despinner, then it stopped the rocket spin.

How the rocket didn't smash the nose at the "dome hit" ? hehehe

And for yo-yo despinner, here is your chance to further educate yourself:




"Smart is not who knows. Smart is who learns."

It stops both spin and forward motion.  Why can not you say its stopping the forward motion? Why do you need lying? Or why do not tell the all truth and tell a part of it (you think so) ? Because you need manipulation. Your needing manipulation proves that there is a dome and it has crashed it.
No, the rocket stops spinning but it does not stop climbing!

The video you show ends just after the yoyo de-spin and does not show the rest of the ascent.
But look carefully at the following video you will find that it stops spinning but it does not stop ascending!


SpaceLoft-7 launch and de-spin video

The time of de-spin is at T + 55.8 secs and 212,500 ft (about 65 km) and Mach 3.3 (still rising very fast!)
           and the apogee at T + 165 secs and 119 km.
The rocket climbs another 54 km after yo-yo de-spin stops the spinning at 65 km altitude.

Those rockets do not hit any dome!

In this post shows the search for the nose-cone after it came down by parachute and that was not damaged by hitting any dome.
           Re: SpaceX rocket launch? « Reply #13 on: January 03, 2019, 02:37:04 PM ».

And here is the nose-cone after it came down by parachute:

Rocket intact after claimed hitting of the "Dome".

That rocket do not hit any dome!

15
Do you actually think this picture of a sphere Earth was taken in the vicinity of the moon? Have a real close look. Yes or no?


Why shouldn't it be? Please explain!

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar North Shadow Experiment
« on: July 22, 2019, 04:16:23 PM »

It actually has everything to do with your experiment. What you don't get is the damning fact that the sun at Equinox rose due East and it didn't even have to happen at the equator. Which makes it far worse for your argument. If you don't get that, you need to seriously learn about globe theory versus flat because your argument is toast.

Nope. You have to capture the first moments of bothSunrise and Sunset with no obstructions (no trees, hills or mountains) and have a true east and west line set up at the Equator. That's ground zero.  You can argue all you want and go back and look at the tree line and not horizon.
Nope! It matters little, especially at the equator where in real life the sun goes right overhead at either equinox and so is always due east or due west.



17
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar North Shadow Experiment
« on: July 22, 2019, 04:13:07 PM »
Ok, you set that up. But with your "bipartisan" team effort you may not want to blow your wad with things like, "Say it, Earth is flat" before you've even done the experiment. And it's not really a great way to endear your notions and garner participation. Just saying.

In the mean time, your experiment has been done countless times all with the same results. A result of which, based upon your meme and saying, "If the Earth were a Globe this would be observed," would mean that you must believe the earth a globe. I'm just using your words, not mine. Have a look:



Did you know the experiment is about being at the equator on the day of equinox?
Did you bother to check that time and date of the equinox in Western Australia in September 2016?
"Equinox 2016 was at 10:21 pm on Thursday, 22 September, All times are in Australian Western Standard Time."
And the paper he showed was dated 23 September 2016!

And from TimeAndDate.com:
On the evening of Thursday, 22 September 2016 the sun set at 5:47 pm in direction 270° and
on the next morning, the closest morning to the equinox  the sun rose at 5:39 am from direction 90°.

But why does all this matter? On the Globe the sun rises close to east and sets close to west at either equinox everywhere except close to either pole.
Take Ushuaia at 55° S in Argentina: Equinox 2016 was at 11:21 am on Thursday, 22 September, All times are in Argentina Standard Time.
Again from TimeAndDate.com:
On the morning of Thursday, 22 September 2016 the sun rose at 7:20 am from direction 91° and
on that evening the sun set at 57:32 pm from direction 269°.

Only one degree off due east and due west - try that on you flat earth map with the sun on the equator.

Quote from: Plat Terra
Did you know the experiment is about observing the direction of the very first rays at sunrise and last at sunset without obstructions and observing if it first comes up north of the east and west line and sets N?
Did you know that it should not matter much where you are on earth?

Quote from: Plat Terra
Did you know your guy in the video is 17° S?
So what? The sun rises close to east and sets close to west at either equinox everywhere except close to either pole.

Quote from: Plat Terra
Did you know he was not filming before sunrise?

Did you know the horizon could not be seen because of obstructions?
So what? A few degrees is quite immaterial!

But the sunset horizon is not obscured by anything and any obstructions to the east will make little difference - certainly not the tens of degrees to make it fit your map!

Quote from: Plat Terra
Do you know your video has nothing to do with the experiment in question?
Did you know that the sunrise and sunset directs, especially in the Southern Hemisphere summer, completely kill you flat earth with the sun circling overhead?

Quote from: Plat Terra
Did you know you will learn to say it!

And did you know the road in the video is not running true east and west. Just 1 degree cac make a huge difference.


So what? One degree makes very little difference when the FE map predicts that the sun should rise towards the NE and set towards the NW.
Look at the expected sunrise direction in Brisbane on your FE map with the sun circling above the equator:

At the equinox the sun does rise very close to due east - I know because I have observed it out my back door!
But your map would have the sun rising at 37° and not 90°!

In any case on the Globe, at equinox, the sun rises exactly due east and sets exactly due west at the equator but deviates a little at higher latitudes.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect proves a globe
« on: July 22, 2019, 03:22:07 PM »

Snce you obviously have no useful information to add on the topic we are done here too!

You are constantly done but other you's never done, we know.  :)

Your writing red and bold proves you are in anger. Why so anger?
Not anger, just disgust that you would stoop so low as to change what I said and change the diagram that I used!

Quote from: wise
So you know you are wrong , cornered and start to be an angry globularist one more time, right?
Incorrect again!

Quote from: wise
I don't blame you for your ignorance about meteorology. It definitely is a statistic repeating itself depends on moon and sun location. Your claiming its relationship with some effects have no value more than claiming its being relevant with anything lonegranger has in his hand.
Incorrect again!

Your repeatedly changing my quotes and repeatedly falsifying my diagrams proves that you are dishonest and I do not debate proven dishonest people.

Come back when you are prepared for an honest debate without your altering my quotes and my diagrams.

19
0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM:

  • Combustion of material with its own oxidiser is not impossible but the ignition is difficult.

  • The combustion chamber of a rocket engine is very far from being a vacuum.
    For example the combustion chamber pressure in the SpaceX Raptor engine is 300 bar or almost 262 kilograms per square centimeter. Roughly 300 x normal atmospheric pressure.
Quote from: cikljamas
0b. The airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.
Why should there be any "airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside"?
The lunar rover is only driven by astronauts wearing spacesuits (Extravehicular Mobility Units) so why would airlocks be needed?

You possibly mean the Lunar Module (LM) and not the Lunar Rover. If this if the case there were no airlocks simply to save weight.
When entering the LM from the CM the airlock is part of the CM (one hatch on the CM and one on the LM).
On the surface, the LM was depressurised before exit and repressurised after re-entry.
The LM atmosphere was pure oxygen atmosphere at only 5 psi, about one-third the pressure of the air.

So you, cikljamas, might not be able to understand these simple issues but that in no way proves it is "Fantasy the lot" it just proves that you are too lazy to investigate and understand it!

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Why are there two flat earth society forums?
« on: July 22, 2019, 02:46:55 PM »
Sorry I didn't know where to post this. Why the two forums? Are there two flat earth societies?

https://forum.tfes.org/

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?wwwRedirect
You might be better to post it on both sites. That way you can judge from the replies.

TFES.org is much more tightly moderated and it takes little to get a ban and I believe that a number of members of this site have been permanently banned from TFES.org.

The "Wiki" on TFES.org is better maintained and contains a lot more recent material - I'll let you judge it's quality and reliability but I have my own personal opinions.

Originally there was just one society, this one, but probably due to some personality clash, there were differing opinions as to how the site should be run.

You will find that this site allows a lot more free debate but the other site will not allow much in the way of insults or off-topic posting.

The rest is up to you.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect proves a globe
« on: July 22, 2019, 05:46:39 AM »

Don't blame me for my ignorance about meteorology,

Okay I don't blame you for your ignorance about meteorology. We know everything about meteorology is a statistics relevant with moon and sun position and hours and a few other small affects. I've done a working about it. I think you want to me motivate to continue that working. Why do you do that? Anyways.

All we see that how here in the Southern Hemisphere the winds blow both clockwise and anti clockwise around "Lows" and both clockwise and anti-clockwise around "Highs".
No, they do not "blow both clockwise and anti clockwise around 'Lows' and both clockwise and anti-clockwise around 'Highs'.
In the Southern Hemisphere the winds blow clockwise around 'Lows' and anti-clockwise around 'Highs'. Get used to the facts for once in your life!

Except in the drawing that YOU FAKED!
And I'm getting totally sick of your continually altering the contents of quotes and altering photos and diagrams!

Snce you obviously have no useful information to add on the topic we are done here too!

22
It's not my problem! I know that the drawing is genuinely by Al Biruni.  You are the one questioning it.
It's not my problem too. You can create as many names as you want, starting with the word al, and record a theory for each. It is your own problem technically can't be an argument.

Again, grow up and prove who al biruni is; then prove these writings belongs to him. You have a claim and burden of proof is in your side, whether you agree or not.

Since you have denied to prove Biruni's being exist, so we can agree its being not exist, right? You have accepted you can not prove Biruni's existance and write these shapes, do we get it true? Inother say you have accepted your saying lie about Biruni, did not you?
I have posted plenty of Muslim references showing that Al Biruni was a very important Muslim scientist, astronomer, mathematician and geodesic surveyor.
If you don't believe them you'll never believe me. All you have proven is your own ignorance in one more topic. I think we're done here!

The fact that a person is a Muslim does not mean that I will accept everything he says. tom bishop christian but you don't accept what he says. You expect me to believe you. it's the same as worshiping satan in my side. Do you really believe I do this? Grow up. I have already told you about the Islamic literature system.
1- Ayath
2- Sunnah
3- Ijmah
4- Kiyas.
Why are they relevant? I never mentioned them.

Quote from: wise
You speak outside of this system. clearly you must first prove that these people belong to this system and their position. you claim that these people are Muslims and that I should believe them. we now see these names as videos.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I claimed that Al Biruni was a Muslims. Do you deny that?
I claimed that Al Biruni measured the radius of the earth. Do you deny that?
I claimed that Al Biruni made a drawing showing how the moon phases are caused and I showed that same drawing in a number of Islamic publications who all label it as Al Biruni's drawing. Do you deny that?

Where did I say "that you should believe them"? I posted evidence but you didn't.

Quote from: wise
There 's been a tom bishop we've known for years, but you refuse him. How is this insincerity?
I never said that you had to believe everything that Al Biruni wrote. I just posted evidence as to the radius of the earth as measured by Al Biruni.
Believe or deny it but it is certainly one of the many things that Al Biruni did.

Quote from: wise
I know we have not done, because it never done, stop lying about you have done. Because you have never done. Your anger to believers, God and humanity never ends, both of us know why it is so. You can not deceive me, either give up or surrender.
I am not lying and I am not deceiving you.

But I said that we are done on this topic of "Eratosthenes Shadow Experiment Is Inconclusive" because you are not posting anything relevant to the topic.

23
It's not my problem! I know that the drawing is genuinely by Al Burning.  You are the one questioning it.
It's not my problem too. You can create as many names as you want, starting with the word al, and record a theory for each. It is your own problem technically can't be an argument.

Again, grow up and prove who al biruni is; then prove these writings belongs to him. You have a claim and burden of proof is in your side, whether you agree or not.

Since you have denied to prove Biruni's being exist, so we can agree its being not exist, right? You have accepted you can not prove Biruni's existance and write these shapes, do we get it true? Inother say you have accepted your saying lie about Biruni, did not you?
I have posted plenty of Muslim references showing that Al Biruni was a very important Muslim scientist, astronomer, mathematician and geodesic surveyor.
If you don't believe them you'll never believe me. All you have proven is your own ignorance in one more topic. I think we're done here!

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Did NASA really send peopel to the moon
« on: July 22, 2019, 04:34:30 AM »
My country is Bangladesh.My language is Bangla.I have no expertise in English language.May I send the text in my language?
Google Translate does not include Bangla but it does have Bengali.
Is that the same as Bangla or can you read Bengali?

You can post in your own language but keep your posts short.
If might be a good idea to post an English version as well.

This is how Google Translates that into Bengali:
"আপনি নিজের ভাষায় পোস্ট করতে পারেন তবে আপনার পোস্টগুলি সংক্ষিপ্ত রাখুন।
একটি ইংরেজি সংস্করণ পোস্ট করার জন্য ভাল ধারণা হতে পারে।"

25
Okay. Prove its being Biruni's own hand writing but not anybody else. And prove who Biruni is.
You can go to the Tehran library and see the original your self much more easily than I!
<< Irrelevant and deleted >>

No, I can not go. You who has to go Tehran library. You have that claim belongs to Biruni and you have a claim Biruni is an important scientist so burden of proof is in your side. Prove what is difference of Biruni and rabinoz first.
It's not my problem! I know that the drawing is genuinely by Al Burning.  You are the one questioning it.
You wouldn't believe me even if I could go.

But I'm absolutely amazed that you are so ignorant of one of the important astronomers, mathematicians and scientists in history, Al Biruni.
And he is probably the very top in Muslim history.

I don't have to read anything! You could read a but in: TheMuslimTimes Al Biruni: One of the Greatest Pioneers of Science

Here are a few extracts from it:
Quote from: Zia H Shah
Abū Rayḥān Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Bīrūnī (Persian: ابوریحان محمد بن احمد بیرونی), often known as Alberuni, Al Beruni or variants, (born 5 September 973 in Kath, Khwarezm (now in Uzbekistan), died 13 December 1048 in Ghazni, today’s Afghanistan) was a Persianscholar and polymath of the 11th century.

The early Muslims duplicated the technique of Eratosthenes, to measure the circumference of the earth, 200 years before Al Biruni. But, that technique had a basic flaw. Al Biruni came up with a better idea, to measure the circumference of the earth, based on trigonometry. It is beautifully demonstrated by James Al Khalili in his BBC documentary, the Empire of Reason. He quotes Al Biruni’s book and then applies the technique himself:




An illustration from Biruni’s Persian book. It shows different phases of the moon.

<<  Lots more to read >>

Earth sciences

1973 USSR stamp commemorating the 1000th anniversary of Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī

Biruni made a number of contributions to the Earth sciences. In particular, he has made significant contributions to cartography, geodesy, geography, geology and mineralogy.

Cartography

By the age of 22, Biruni had written several short works, including a study of map projections, Cartography, which included a method for projecting a hemisphere on a plane. He introduced the use of three rectangular coordinates to define a point in three-dimensional space, and also developed ideas which are seen as an anticipation of the polar coordinate system.

Geodesy and geography

Biruni is regarded as the father of geodesy. At the age of 17, Biruni calculated the latitude of Kath, Khwarazm, using the maximum altitude of the Sun. Al-Biruni also solved a complex geodesic equation in order to accurately compute the Earth‘s circumference, which were close to modern values of the Earth’s circumference. His estimate of 6,339.9 km for the Earth radius was only 16.8 km less than the modern value of 6,356.7 km. In contrast to his predecessors who measured the Earth’s circumference by sighting the Sun simultaneously from two different locations, al-Biruni developed a new method of using trigonometric calculations based on the angle between a plain and mountain top which yielded more accurate measurements of the Earth’s circumference and made it possible for it to be measured by a single person from a single location.

<<  Lots more to read >>

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect proves a globe
« on: July 22, 2019, 01:41:19 AM »
Sorry I don't get what you meant. This map proves nothing. Even it proves otherwise. What can be easier than to add some arrows which direction you want to an empty map?
That map proves a lot!
It proves that you have no understanding of meteorology and have no chance of understanding Highs, Lows, Hurricanes, Typhoons or Cyclones.
Hence you cannot possibly understand the significance of the wind directions around each.
Nope. It does not prove anything. your claim its prove anything does not magically prove anything. meteorology is the presentation of repetitive weather events with the help of statistics. There is nothing in a weather forecast about wind directions or weather events. These things are making up depends on real forecast comes from statistics.
I showed you a synoptic weather chart that is used to assist in weather forecasting and you refused to explain it.
Here, this one:
Quote
Wind Direction Maps
Below is the BOM synoptic chart for a day early in June.  High pressure zones cause the heated air to rise from low down to first move upwards then outwards in anti-clockwise spirals, whereas the low pressure areas create the opposite, they draw air inwards and downwards in clockwise spirals.  (ie in the Southern Hemisphere). I have added some coloured arrows below  to highlight these ideas.  If the weather was so easy to predict then our life would be so much easier, however in reality there are so many influences,  and we are lucky if we get half of it right :-) As we can see from the information above the wind directions locally can switch around quite quickly and rarely follow the precise patterns given in a synoptic chart, hence the usefulness of a local weather station.   

Note how here in the Southern Hemisphere the winds blow clockwise around "Lows" and anti-clockwise around "Highs".

If you are ignorant of such things then read this: How to read synoptic weather charts

Don't blame me for your ignorance about meteorology,

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Michelson-Morley Experiment
« on: July 21, 2019, 11:18:10 PM »
Michelson Morley have a conclusion that the earth have no relative motion with ether which is medium for light wave to propagate. That means the earth is center of universe. Because if light have no medium to propagate, then wave equation have a discontinuity at its boundary.
No it doesn't.
Michelson and Morley came to the conclusion that no motion was detected between the earth and the ether.
And that is far from the same conclusion.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat earth observations/experiments
« on: July 21, 2019, 10:39:54 PM »
Why are flat earthers so touchy about this thing about asking questions ?
I have asked questions about flat Earth but usually got no replies or got no answers or some replies that they were under no obligation to answer your question.
I would really like to some ideas about flat Earth
I have never ran into this on any other website no matter how stupid  my question might seem to experts on those websites.
They were often very happy to explain things in great detail.
What's the reason for this hostility ?
Seems to me it's more the angry flattist rather than the angry globurist.
Maybe they just get upset because they have no answers .
If they have been  on this website for any length of time they should have found out by now that the earth isn't flat anyway ?

A case in point. Have a look at: New design? "Sun Quadrant Sextant" « Reply #24 on: Today at 09:37:27 AM »

I go into considerable detail in answering every one one of Plat Terra's points only to be brushed off with:
I am not into pissing matches. But I will say, the sphere you think you live on has a imaginary radius of only 3959 miles. That's small and would be very noticeable from mountain tops. Hell, a 6' drop in curvature would also be noticeable. My place wouldn't flood if there was a 6' drop in curvature surrounding me.

Do any Flat Earthers have any concept of scale or persprctive? It's evident both here and far worse in YouTube videos and comments.

I wouldn't waste my time except that these same people, those here and on YouTube, then have the audacity to call NASA and all the astronauts liars as in:
      "Liars sometimes forget the exact propaganda",
      "And yes those astronauts are indeed evil liars who worked for an evil government" and
      "It is because of people like you that scumbag nazi/NASA got away with their lies till date".

And they accuse hundreds of thousands to millions of being in a conspiracy to deceive the rest of the world to "cover up the true shape of the earth".

In many cases, it matters little about what people believe.

After all, maybe they are right and I'm missing something but when their belief is clearly incorrect yet demands such false accusations I'll fight it on all the fronts that I can.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect proves a globe
« on: July 21, 2019, 09:58:39 PM »
Maybe FE is actually a medical condition.  I wonder if it is covered by Obamacare.
This is becoming Complete Nonsense: More R.I.P. Flat Earth - The Coriolis Effect « Reply #31 on: Today at 02:54:48 PM ».

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat earth observations/experiments
« on: July 21, 2019, 09:46:16 PM »
... the line between Earth and sky.  It was eye level...

Your don't have to trust the video.
It is cheap to make rig like this and see for yourself if the horizon "stays at the eye level".



Your buddy is leaving out an important issue, “Science” and perspective.  Earth has an infinite plane and at some point the horizon is going to be obscured with atmospheric bleeds (so to speak) . If your buddy did his experiment at different times of the year and day he would see the horizon would vary according to weather conditions. 
Really?
Numerous videos I see show the horizon well below eye-level (the local horizontal).

Flat Earth Fail - The Horizon Does Not Rise to Eye Level by Flat Earth Dogma



Does the Horizon Always Stay at “Eye Level” by Bobby Shafto
I find the background music annoying!


Flat Earth - Surveyor's instrument confirms the Horizon does NOT rise to eye level by Wolfie6020


And you can test it with mountain peaks too:

The flat earth horizon & eye level: it's time you heard the truth by Rory


And sailors doing celestial navigation must allow a "dip correction" or there position fixes will be wrong!

FLAT EARTH: The visible horizon drops below eye level at altitude. Celestial Navigation. by Andy Woof
.
This has been known about for centuries.
I note that you fail to answer any point that I make so why should I bother with yours?

Quote from: Plat Terra
Notice the red bull jumper's view to the flat horizon as he sits in the chair and he's above the atmosphere at 128,000'. No one looks down to see the horizon on this Earth. However, one can appear to be looking down when the view is skewed through the beloved fisheye lens.
How do you know that "No one looks down to see the horizon on this Earth". There is no way to determine that from any of Felix Baumgartner's video because there in no horizontal reference, ie no level.



Quote from: Plat Terra

Not in this either! And a tiny scrap of the horizon can never show any curve! The earth is huge!

Quote from: Plat Terra

Exactly!
And if you are standing with your eyes 6 feet above sea-level it is like you being a microbe 1.7 millionths of an inch high sitting that 12 inch ball!
How much curve would a microbe sized you see 1.7 millionths of an inch high sitting that 12 inch ball!

Even Felix Baumgartner at 128,000 feet above earth would be only about 1/32 of an inch that ball.

PS Maybe someone can check my sums.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 605