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 ... 656
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« on: Today at 08:45:35 PM »
Aetherific eddification/electromagnetic acceleration.
That helps, I guess ::).

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bishop Challenge
« on: Today at 08:16:26 PM »
And it might be off-topic...
And with that, you just lost the challenge.
And as I stated, that winning or losing a debate is unimportant, it poves nothing.
The Earth simply takes no notice and carries of the shape it's been all along.

Maybe it props up Tom Bishop's ego a bit but so what?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bishop Challenge
« on: Today at 06:56:59 PM »
Your answers are "Yes, it's an equation based on an assumption... But if we assume these sets of assumptions on a Flat Earth (straight line light geometry) we get different answers."

Is that a valid defense? No. RET is still unjustified and its astronomy depends on various assumptions about the Earth and nature.

Your idea of how it would work on a Flat Earth with straight line light trigonometry also depends on an assumption, and this assumption is contradictory to its stated astronomical model on tfes.org. None of your "what about FE" justifies your RE. We find that the RE is a weak model that is unable to justify itself.
Then why does the Globe model work in the sense that we can make predictions of when the moon will rise and from what direct or when the next lunar eclipse will occur.

And it might be off-topic but the Globe model can also predict the route a plane should fly to get to a given destination.

You don't have a model that allows any such predictions and the best we seem to get is that it's "based on patterns".

Quote from: Tom Bishop
"What about THIS" is a totally invalid defense, is just another assumption, and does nothing to show that RE provides a sufficient or self justifying answer.
You complain about assumptions but then you, yes YOU personally, put this "assumption" in your Wiki!
Quote from: Tom Bishop, TFES Wiki
Nearside Always Seen
A consequence of this paradigm of upwardly bending light is that the observer will always see the nearside (underside) of the celestial bodies. The below image depicts the extremes of the Moon's rising and setting. The image of the nearside face of the Moon is bent upwards around the Moon and faces the observers to either side of it.

What is that but a totally unsupported assumption? I cannot even imagine a possible refractive index profile that could cause such light paths!

Astronomers did not assume the earth was a Globe. They regarded that as so close to being proven that it might as well be called a fact.

I closing, I'm not greatly concerned if you claim all this is off-topic or whatever - I'm more concerned with what the real evidence shows than winning any debate.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« on: Today at 06:54:41 PM »
Tom Bishop in the TFES wiki claims that everybody sees the near side of the moon because the light follows the paths shown below"
Quote from: Tom Bishop, TFES Wiki
Nearside Always Seen
A consequence of this paradigm of upwardly bending light is that the observer will always see the nearside (underside) of the celestial bodies. The below image depicts the extremes of the Moon's rising and setting. The image of the nearside face of the Moon is bent upwards around the Moon and faces the observers to either side of it.

Can somebody, preferably Tom Bishop, please explain some plausible physical mechanism that could cause such light paths?

5
Rockets work in a vacuum.

No they don't.
QFT
Hoppy, a word of advice! Don't venture into the upper fora or you might get lost.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bishop Challenge
« on: Today at 05:33:32 PM »
The other traditional way of determining the Moon's distance in astronomy is through parallax, and which makes an assumption that the Earth is round.

See the following video:



When the earth was assumed to be flat, the same observations computed the Moon to be close to the Earth.
Really!
I dare you to do the same measurement for places say 500 miles from the sub-lunar point and then 5000 miles from the sub-lunar point.

You did not

Quote from: Tom Bishop
How is RE astronomy superior, when the axioms depend on the shape of the Earth?
But you will find that your so-called axioms give inconsistent answers when used on a flat Earth but consistent answers when applied to the Globe Earth.

Give it a go if you like.

8



What's left of the plane. Clearly it met with a violent end.
Which is completely irrelevant!  Most planes crashes are violent.

Garuda Flight 152 - but no suspicion of foul play.

9
But here is rab. Stating without evidence of his own that the plane was not downed deliberately but was yet another accident. And he claims this before any investigation was concluded. Not that the investigations will be forthcoming with the actual truth
I said no such thing, Mr Shifter! Read again:
Until you can show adequate evidence that the plane was deliberately "downed" you have nothing.
You inability to read what is written shows up so often. Maybe you should check in with
The Canberra Reading Clinic provides specialised reading assistance for low-progress readers, particularly students with dyslexia.

Though I suspect that your real problem is that you and truth have never been introduced.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, 1808).

Now some evidence for your claim, "Re: Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds", thank you.

10
But that fact is, this Chilean plane crash was not an accident
But the fact's are:
  • you've proven nothing,
  • you keep posting nothing but your baseless opinions and suspicions and
  • you are a useless time wasting troll!

11
I'm just laying down the facts. If that 'one ups' anyone then so be it.
Show one fact that you've laid down - it's not a fact until proven and all we have is that words of an empty headed babbler or is that some new bird?

Quote from: Shifter
Prove me wrong if you think the possibilities are bullshit
We are not talking about possibilities! You falsely claimed "facts".

Remember that your topic is "Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds" and you have NONE, not one Brass Razoo!

There is nothing to prove! Get used to it, loser!

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bishop Challenge
« on: Today at 02:28:14 PM »
I was issuing a challenge to Rabinoz, and which he refused in the thread. I wonder why. Surely he can actually argue successfully in a debate on a single subject with his collection of copy-pasta.
I ignored your challenge when you post stupidity like "I'll rip you a new one!"

I might be able to do respond to your challenge if you did not simply refer everything to your TFES Wiki, which on investigation, contains nothing but unsupported hypotheses.

All I can find in your Wiki is:
Quote
Moon
The Moon is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
With no evidence to back it up.
Quote
Moon Spherical
The Moon is thought to be spherical due to a slight rocking back and fourth over its monthly cycle called Lunar Liberation, where more than 50% of the lunar surface can be seen over time.

“ Simulated views of the Moon over one month, demonstrating librations in latitude and longitude.”
Quote
Nearside Always Seen
A consequence of this paradigm of upwardly bending light is that the observer will always see the nearside (underside) of the celestial bodies. The below image depicts the extremes of the Moon's rising and setting. The image of the nearside face of the Moon is bent upwards around the Moon and faces the observers to either side of it.

<< etc >>
You claim that insisting that light travels in straight lines in uniform material is simply an assumption,
then you have the audacity to present your Electromagnetic Acceleration or paradigm of upwardly bending light which is nothing but a baseless hypothesis.

You have never shown that it possible for a material to have a refractive index profile that might cause such bending let alone what that material might be.

So, let's cut to the chase: What is the distance to the FE distance moon so that it can be compared to the value measured by parallax or radio, radar or laser echoes?

Now, read the OP again!
I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (approx)

I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.

I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.
The basic "challenge" is
"I . . .  ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)".

Well, justify that claim in YOUR WIKI or admit that it is quite unfounded and change you Wiki accordingly.

13
The proof is the numerous planes downed and so called 'accidental ship wrecks'.
Just face it! You've proven nothing.

Quote from: Shifter
Even you must admit that for the limited traffic near Antarctica, there is a disproportionate amount of 'accidents' over anywhere else in the world over a similar sized area.
I/we admit nothing of the sort!
You've never shown that there are "a disproportionate amount of 'accidents'" on and near Antarctica, not ever - you just say it!

But, just face the facts, Antarctica is a hazardous place to fly especially with the smaller and older aircraft - the conditions can change so rapidly.

All you ever have of words with nothing but conspiritard innuendo to back them up.
Why would anyone even want to go to such lengths to hide Antarctica? Answer that with something better than guesswork.


14
Underground missile silos and flak cannons dotted across the continent
This would be hilarious if it weren't of such a sombre topic.
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Of Antarctica!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Mr Shifter, you're so far down the rabbit-hole that you'll never see the light of day!

15
Governments around the world are always shooting down others' planes. What's your point?
Always - like twice? And both of those were due to misidentification.

16
A white out shouldn't be an issue. Unless auto pilot flight routes have planes fly into mountains.

And why would a pilot simply not increase altitude? It's a white out. Sight seeing is over anyway right?
Go and read the full report and don't pretend that you can guess all that might lead to a disaster like this.
Try EREBUS: The Mahon Report

17
If the pilot deviates, then expect the plane to be downed such as the case from the New Zealand disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901
What total adulterated garbage!
Read EREBUS: The Story.
Initially, it was put down to pilot error but that blames the pilot for a situation totally unforeseen.

18
You appear to know a lot of "secret stuff" how do you come by this? what are your sources?

If I said, maybe people would look for me to knock me off.

Guilty conscience, I see ;D!
Or is it plain simple paranoia?

19
None of this has much to do with Antarctica tourism. Who wants to visit an ice sheet at -40 degrees or lower filled with disgusting, smelly penguins, who rape their own dead and be under watch from military who do not want you to traverse there? Most people have the good sense to know what is out of bounds. Be it mother nature telling them not to bother with the place or past events strongly indicating nefarious actions involved in the untimely deaths to those that dare.
It would appear many do want to visit. You don’t. Does not mean everyone thinks the same.

Yeah, and they dont get to do what they want.
What about the great number on independent expeditions, alone, in pairs or in small goups.

If you organise a private expedition you can get to do what you want within the limits of the Antarctic Treaty!
But it will certainly cost you plenty of money just to set yourself up, arrange supplies and emergency evacuations etc.
There are no Care-flight helicopters down there. There are organisations that arrange for small groups but be ready with your $100,000 and the rest.

It's not the place for untrained individuals to just wander around.

You complain that they are recorded but that's simply because either they are out to set a record or gain kudos in some way.
But just "wandering off solo" is rather dangerous in a place that can be so hostile and changeable.

But you cannot wriggle out of your erroneous claim, "Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds" with diversion tactics like this!

20
I never said travel there was impossible - just that YOU dont get to free roam.
No, YOU said, "Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds"!

21
Don't bother posting again unless you at least have evidence of foul play.
None of you have posted evidence to the contrary of the plane being downed. Until you can, your posts are merely shilling or speculation
No, it doesn't work that way, Mr Shifter!
Until you can show adequate evidence that the plane was deliberately "downed" you have nothing.
If you make the accusation it's up to you to present supporting evidence.

Don't bother posting again unless you at least have evidence of foul play.

23
RADAR is an electromagnetic echo machine,
even if it's stuffed up your butt.
I guess so but it's an ultrasonic echo machine in the latter case ???.

24
It's not my claim that it is 'out of bounds'.
It is obviously your claim! Read your own topic title, "Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds".

Quote from: Shifter
But events such as the downing of planes
You still have not posted evidence let alone proof that any planes were "downed"!
Planes crash for numerous reasons including mechanical failure or pilot error. At least wait until the cause of the crash has been determined before jumping in with your conspiracy theories,

Quote from: Shifter
and security clearances required for entry make that abundantly obvious
What total rubbish. They make nothing "obvious" except to conspiratards like you.
You've even never shown evidence that any required clearances were lacking.

You started the thread with nothing and you've gone down hill ever since.

Don't bother posting again unless you at least have evidence of foul play.

By the way a security clearance is not generally reqjired for jobs in Antarctica.
It's a matter for the country involved and in the case of the USA and Australia some jobs do need a clearance but by no means all.

25
Maritime radar is usually used for collision avoidance.  Radar in spacecraft is usually used for rendezvous, docking or landing assistance.

Sooooo, collision avoidance.
Not quite.
A rendezvous and docking could be called a controlled collision with another spacecraft.
A landing could be called a controlled collision with a moon or asreroid.
So in both cases the radar is assisting a controlled collision ;D.

26
Runaway with you stupid conspiracy theories!
That treaty is not worth my sons used nappy.
So you say but your word seem worth nothing.
Quote from: Shifter
So much for rabs insistence that everyone there is peaceful and only doing 'research'.
How little you know.
The Chilean Antarctic claims are historic and date from centuries before the treaty.
Since Chile is a signatory it can carry on with any historic activities not precluded by the Antarctic Treaty:
Quote
Within Chilean territorial organization Antártica is the name of the commune that administers the territory. The commune of Antártica is managed by the municipality of Cabo de Hornos with seat in Puerto Williams and belongs to Antártica Chilena Province, which is part of Magallanes y la Antártica Chilena Region. The commune of Antártica was created on July 11, 1961, and was dependent on the Magallanes Province until 1975, when the Antártica Chilena Province was created, making it dependent administratively on Puerto Williams, the province capital.

Chilean territorial claims on Antarctica are mainly based on historical, legal and geographical considerations. The exercise of Chilean sovereignty over the Chilean Antarctic Territory is put into effect in all aspects that are not limited by the signing of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959.

You've still got nothing but baseless innuendo.

But please explain why you claim that "Antarctica is out of bounds". What would be the purpose of such restructions?

27
Well read the OP.
I did!
Quote from: Shifter
People died
Yes, a plane crashed and people died. That is tragic but planes crash for numerous reasons.

Quote from: Shifter
when protocol was obviously not adhered to.
That is nothing more than a baseless innuendo.
You have posted no evidence that "protocol was . . .  not adhered to" nor that was any evidence lf foul play.

You have nothing and have proven nothing other than that you are useless conspiratard.

28
No. You do not have free reign in Antarctica. The fact that lyinoz can name people who have visited there shows that exactly.
And I suspect that you'll find a record of all those attempted to climb Mt Everest, so what?
But, like it or not, preparing for an Antarctic expedition, even a solo one, is not easy not is it inexpensive.

Anyone could drop into the coast but they would have no right to expect hospitality at any of the bases unless it's been prearranged. They aren't motels or service stations for supplies or fuel.

But stop you silly ignorant unfounded accusations and face reality for once, Mr Shifter!

I did not claim that anyone had "free reign in Antarctica" but nobody could stop those individuals on those expeditions "doing there own thing.".

You claimed that you had "Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds" and you have presented no such proof.

You have read "The Antarctic Treaty", I suppose. Have a look: THE ANTARCTIC TREATY.

It is to prevent the militarization and protect the environment of Antarctica.

Runaway with you stupid conspiracy theories!

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds
« on: December 14, 2019, 11:23:56 PM »
Rab you talk lies.
What I wrote was completely true and you've never proven otherwise.

Quote from: Shifter
There is not a so gle other continent on Earth that you are not allowed to free roam (countries like North Korea are the exception for political reasons).
Please learn to read Mr Shifter! What I wrote was:
Not only that but visitors are allowed to visit Antarctica and even the South Pole itself.
All I said was that "visitors are allowed to visit Antarctica" and they most certainly are. Why wouldn't they be?

But I said nothing about "to free roam" though there have been plenty of one and two person expeditions.

Quote from: Shifter
You want to 'see' Antarctica? You can go on a plane where the route and what you fly over is dictated. You can not step foot and do your own thing.
And where did you drag that from? How many would you like?
  • 1989–1990 – Antarctic crossing on foot by Reinhold Messner and Arved Fuchs. 2800 km. 92 days.
  • 1992–1993 – British Polar Plod – led by Ranulph Fiennes with Mike Stroud (physician), first unassisted expedition crossing the continent by ski, (2,173 km in 95 days).
  • 1992–1993 – British Polar Plod – led by Ranulph Fiennes with Mike Stroud (physician), first unassisted expedition crossing the continent by ski, (2,173 km in 95 days).
  • 1992–1993 – Erling Kagge (Norway), first unassisted, and first solo expedition to the South Pole by ski, (1,310 km in 53 days).
  • 1996–1997 – Børge Ousland (Norway) first person to travel across Antarctica solo. The crossing went from coast to coast, from Berkner Island to the Ross Sea, and was unsupported (without resupplies). He used a kite as traction for parts of the expedition. 63 days, 3,000 km.
  • 2000–2001- Norwegian Liv Arnesen and the American Ann Bancroft crossed Antarctica on ski-sail from Blue 1 Runaway 13 November reaching after 94 days of expedition McMurdo, passing through the South Pole.
  • 2008 – Todd Carmichael sets coast-to-pole solo/unsupported record of 39 days, 7 hours and 49 minutes.
  • 2016−2017 – 7 February Mike Horn completes first ever solo, unsupported north-to-south traverse of Antarctica from the Princess Astrid Coast (lat -70.1015 lon 9.8249) to the Dumont D'urville Station (lat -66.6833 lon 139.9167) via the South Pole. He arrived at the pole on 7 February 2017. A total distance of 5100 km was covered utilizing kites and skis in 57 days.
  • 2018–2019 – 13 January, Matthieu Tordeur (France) becomes the first French and youngest in the world (27 years and 40 days) to ski solo, unsupported (no resupply) and unassisted (no kiting) from the coast of Antarctica (Hercules Inlet) to the South Pole
Who was supervising those people?

That's just a few and doesn't include the numerous flights including Duck Smith's where visited many of the bases, including a Russian vase.
Quote from: Shifter
You want to work there? You must be background checked and have a valid security clearance from your government despite Antarctica not being 'owned' by anyone. What the hell?

Anyone that wants to go there by boat has to have a plan forwarded to other people of where and how long they will be there. I don't need to do this if I want to go to Greenland.

So yes. There are bounds in Antarctica. It most certainly is not 'in bounds' for just anyone.
There are "out if bounds" areas in all countries so what? Antarctica, as a whole is not "out of bounds".

Your topic was "Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds" and that is completely wrong.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds
« on: December 14, 2019, 09:27:38 PM »
Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds

What do you mean by that expression?

The meaning of "out of bounds" here is "people are not allowed there".

Most flat Earthers claim that ordinary people are not allowed to visit or even go near Antarctica.

This is because those flat Earthers say that the Earth is laid out like this:

And if ordinary people could visit Antarctica they might learn that the Earth is really flat.

I do not agree with that and believe that Antarctica is an island continent as shown on this map.


Not only that but visitors are allowed to visit Antarctica and even the South Pole itself.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 656