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 - JackBlack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 434
1
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« on: August 07, 2020, 03:32:03 PM »
1+1 does not always = 2.

How do you arrive at a 2 if your base math is only a binary numeral system? ???

If you add 1 ocean and 1 ocean you just get 1 bigger ocean.

If 1 black hole slams into another black hole, how many black holes will there be?

To answer 1+1 correctly you need to know the conditions and context otherwise you are making assumptions
The bigger issue there is "+".
When you combine 2 oceans into 1, you are not simply adding 1 and 1, you are combining them.
The same happens with a black hole. You don't simply add 1 block hole and 1 black hole, you combine them.
Just like if you take 2 apples and smash them together you don't have 2 apples, you have a mess.

As for different bases, the only one where that doesn't hold (which actually works as a decent number system) would be base 2, which doesn't have 2 so the statement makes no sense.
However you can happily convert it to the equivalent of 2 in base 2 which is 10.
The meaning remains the same.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« on: August 07, 2020, 03:06:33 PM »
Look at this picture once again
Why?
We were discussing aberration and your inability to admit that 20 - (-20) = 40, and thus both an ~inertial reference frame with the sun stationary, and one with the sun moving at 220 km/s produce the same detectable aberration which is a difference of 40 arc seconds.

Deal with this before asking us any more pathetic questions to try to deflect from your inability to admit your argument is complete nonsense.

3
It might be authentic but how do they choose the ideal target on the irregular surface of the moon without inspecting it for reflection of light and the adjustment of moon earth speed in their respective orbits for the reflected signal towards the source.
Due to signal divergence due to the limits of resolution and how retro-reflectors work.
None of that is needed.

Quote
The moon landing was actually never happened.
All the available evidence indicates it did happen.
For Example
For example, the video footage of it happening. Footage which went out live.
The numerous photos from the moon during the landing.
The retroreflectors placed on the moon which allow you to bounce a signal off it.

Quote
There is literally nothing credible which indicates it did not happen.
Would you belive if satisfy with argument.
Go ahead and try.

how about by calculating the height of stick with the help measuring base of triangle and the angle of elevation of stick.
How?
The base is obscured by the curvature of Earth.
All you would be able to do with an idea like that is to measure the angle to the top.
And that doesn't tell you that it is leaning away, just that it is lower.

Quran also describes Earth as an Ostrich Egg.
That is an outright lie promoted by dishonest Islamic apologist to try to con people into Islam by pretending it has divine knowledge.
It is based upon an intentional mistranslation.
The Quran, when read in context, clearly indicates that Earth is flat, not a sphere.

And it also is typically backed up by quite dishonest imagery.
An egg is an asymmetric prolate spheroid.
Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Saying Earth is egg-shaped is less correct than saying it is a perfect sphere.


4
No, jack black. Those definitions are copy and paste from the dictionary.
And the definition you copied and pasted was for knowing as an adjective, not a verb.
Hence it has nothing to do with if someone knows something.

No, jack black. That is not what I'm saying. Subjective is not the same as fictitious. Subjective is based on personal feelings, while fictitious is made up.
You appealed to religion, saying it is like that, like how people to know their god exists that is saying it is fictitious, as it is based upon fictional stories rather than reality.
That is not knowledge.

If it is subjective it is belief, not knowledge.

5
The moon landing was actually never happened.
All the available evidence indicates it did happen.
There is literally nothing credible which indicates it did not happen.

How do you know the moon is 384,400 km away from the earth?
You can either measure the parallax of the moon from distant regions on Earth, or use direct laser ranging experiments.

We still donít know if the earth is round or flat due to the lack of solid evidence.
No, there is plentiful solid evidence which clearly shows Earth is round.
FEers just choose to deny this evidence, with no rational justification at all.


If a shadow of small length can be measured then canít a PTZ camera (precise and quite clear) detect that small inclination? just wondering.
Again, the big issue is the directionality of it.
The only way to measure such an inclination is by looking at miniscule difference in the width of the object as you go from the bottom to the top, or the distance. The change due to the tilt is minuscule for both.

You cannot directly see it.

For example, for an object 500 m high, 100 km away, the base is 100 km away.
The top, assuming it is parallel to an object which is vertical for you is an additional 1.25 m away from you. That is roughly 1 part in 80 000.
That difference in distance is negligible.
If instead of being parallel to it, it was tilted away due to the curvature of Earth then it would be pointing at an angle of roughly 0.9 degrees, it would be roughly an extra 9 m away.
That is still roughly 1 part in 10 000.
Again, you are not going to see that.

If you think it should be possible clearly explain what you think would work to measure such an inclination, noting that it is pointing away from you.

6
"Knowing" doesn't require objective proof. Under the definition, it only requires one having knowledge or awareness that is secret or known to only a few people.
Flat earthers can therefore correctly say they know the earth to be flat.
"Knowing" or "know"?
You are using 2 different words and appear to be using a fringe definition of knowing.
And the definition of knowing you are using is an adjective, not a verb.
That means you cannot convert it from the "verb-ing" to "verb".

It's the same thing.
So you are saying it is ficticious and not based upon objective reality and thus isn't actually knowledge?

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 07, 2020, 02:42:24 AM »
Interesting stuff. I guess if you could figure out how the density of air affects the speed of light, you could then figure out how much light bends due to refraction.
The issue is getting all the information required over the distance.
You need to know things like the humidity and temperature of the air, at each point along the way.
The problem is it is over water some of the water can evaporate, changing both the temperature and humidity.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 07, 2020, 02:39:36 AM »
You can receive radio waves from many thousands of kilometres away on the planet. If the Earth were spherical, these waves would get lost to space. Clearly the Earth is flattish
Only if there was no such thing as refraction, diffraction or an atmosphere (or other similar thing) which can interact with electromagnetic radiation.

Do you also think mirrors means there isn't a corner, because if there was you wouldn't be able to see what was around it?

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 06, 2020, 03:46:54 PM »
When doing experiments like this that are on the edge, you also need to consider refraction.
Refraction will allow you to see further than the Earth alone would allow.
This is because the atmospehre has a density gradient that will cause light to bend downwards.
A common formula I have seen is to multiply the radius of Earth by 7/6.

But over water that can vary quite dramatically.

10
Question: Would X see the LCD screen tilted similar to Cc line (BC) in the diagram if the d is 1km or > 1km?
No. At least not in any perceptible way.

Firstly, at 1 km the angle is only 0.009 degrees.
Even if you went all the way to 100 km, that is still only 0.9 degrees.
That angle would be barely noticeable if it was side on.

But an angle that is head on is quite difficult to see, even when it is much larger.
That is because when you idealise it to 2D, the angle vanishes.

So no, you wont see it.

ISS orbits at 350 km (circa) above the Earth. Currently, this is the maximum reachable height for human. You may not agree but we have never crossed that limit. Thatís why some doubt that the earth is round.
So people doubt that Earth is round because they outright reject reality?

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: August 05, 2020, 03:14:22 PM »
All i can do for you Jack is to make a geometric (trigonometric) correctional allowance for Moon's circular motion
That would require you to make an allowance of 0.2 degrees for your hour.
And that isn't simply just adding it on to everything. It is letting the angular motion of the moon be unknown to that.
And that is much larger than the difference between the 2 locations, and thus you have no known difference.

Instead you have 2 very large values which overlap.

But that is not the case at all.
There is far more that you can do. You just don't want to because doing so would show you are wrong.
There is no reason at all for you to not do one of these options except that they both show you are wrong.

Why do you feel the need to cling to such a long period where a linear approximation would not hold? What is wrong with doing it for just 1 second?
Why do you feel the need to cling to such a faulty linear approximation where it doesn't hold? What is wrong with doing the math properly, using the actual angular motion?
Either way, if there actually was a difference, it would still show up. The only "difference" that would disappear is one based upon falsely applying a linear approximation where it does not hold.

There are 2 very simple things for you to do:
1 - STOP TREATING IT AS LINEAR MOTION!
Instead do the math properly, using the law of cosines to determine what the angles should be.
2 - Use a period of time where it actually approximates linear motion, like 1 second.

Either way do it properly, without just randomly rounding off numbers for later calculations.
That means it is 2541, not 2500. So the distances are 379959 and 385041, not 380000 and 385000
That means it is 3.1415926535897932385, not 3.14.
That means the moon has to travel 2403318 km in its orbit, not 2402100 km.
That means the moon's velocity in the GC fantasy is 96497 km / hr not the 100 000 km/hr you provided.
And so on.

Now, you might not think that is important.
But you have an error in your 4th significant figure. e.g. it should be 3.142 to 4 sig figs, not 3.140; it should be 2403..., not 2402.
This means while you say it is 14.36 degrees, it could be 14.34 or 14.39.
That means the difference could be 0.18, but it could also easily be 0.15 or 0.21.
So just like your poor linear approximation, your poor approximation for pi results in you having 2 very large ranges of values for GC and HC which overlap, and thus there is no difference between them which your horribly flawed math can see.


Once more, here is option 1 for the general case:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.msg1917997#msg1917997
It shows quite clearly that you end up with the same result regardless of which is moving.

Once more, here is option 2, for 1 second, this time with all the details you provided, and more, explaining each step. Note, I provide rounded numbers here, but leave them unrounded in excel for further calculation):
Taking the radius of the Arctic circle to be 2541 km.
Taking the distance of the moon from the centre of the Arctic circle to be 382500 km.
This means the distance to the near observer is = 382500 km - 2541 km = 379959 km.
This means the distance to the far observer is = 382500 km + 2541 km = 385041 km.
Taking the period of a moon's orbit (or the time to go from new moon to new moon) to be 27.5 days.
And taking the period of the rotation of Earth to be 24 hours, i.e. 86400 s
Then, for the rotating Earth reality:
The circumference of the Arctic circle is:
2541 km * 2 * pi = 15966 km.
A point on the Arctic circle must travel that distance in 86400 s, thus the speed is:
15966 km / 86400 s = 0.185 km/s

Now, the moon.
It has an orbital radius of 382500 km.
Its circumference = 382500 km * 2 * pi = 2403318 km.
That means the speed is 2403318 km / (27.5 day * 86400 s/day) = 1.011 km/s.

Now, that means the near observer, which travels in the same direction as the moon, has the speed of the moon relative to them as:
1.011 km/s - 0.185 km/s = 0.827 km/s
Now we focus on 1 second, so the moon has moved 0.827 km, relative to the observer.
The angle is calculated based upon the inverse tan.
atan(0.827 km /379959 km) = 0.45 arcseconds

The far observer, which travels in the opposite direction as the moon, has the speed of the moon relative to them as:
1.011 km/s + 0.185 km/s = 1.20 km/s
Now we focus on 1 second, so the moon has moved 1.196 km, relative to the observer.
The angle is calculated based upon the inverse tan.
atan(1.196 km /385041 km) = 0.64 arcseconds

This means in the rotating Earth reality, there is a difference of 0.64 arcseconds - 0.45 arcseconds = 0.19 arcseconds.
Note this difference is far-near. This will be used again below.


Now the stationary Earth fantasy.
The numbers above are quite similar, it is just instead of Earth rotating, you just have the sky magically rotate around Earth at a rate of 15 degrees per hour, in the opposite direction. This is 15 arcseconds per second, and thus 15 arcseconds for our 1 second (which will be used later). As this is in the opposite direction I will denote it as -15 arc seconds, to avoid any confusion that comes later.
But now, the moon, instead of orbitting once every 27.5 days, manages to complete 26.5 circles in 27.5 days.
So now its speed is given by the circumference, multiplied by 26.5 for the number of times it circles Earth, divided by the 27.5 days it takes.
i.e.
2403318 km * 26.5 / (27.5 day * 86400 s/day) = 26.805 km/s.
And again, as this is in the opposite direction, I will denote it as -26.805 km/s, to avoid confusion later.

This means for both observers, the moon will have moved -26.805 km in that 1 second.
So now the angles:
Near observer => atan(-26.805 km /379959 km) = -14.55 arcseconds.
To find it relative to the sky, we subtract the motion of the sky (and this is where the directionality matters):
-14.55 arcseconds - (-15 arcseconds) = 0.45 arcseconds.

Far observer => atan(-26.805 km /385041 km) = -14.36 arcseconds.
Relative to the sky
-14.36 arcseconds - (-15 arcseconds) = 0.64 arcseconds.

Note, the angles relative to the sky are identical to the angles in the rotating Earth case.
But the part you like harping on about, the difference, again as far - near:
-14.36 arcseconds - (-14.55 arcseconds) = 0.19 arcseconds.
Relative to the sky:
0.64 arcseconds - 0.45 arcseconds = 0.19 arcseconds.

So yet again, it has been conclusively shown that the rotating Earth reality and your stationary Earth fantasy produce the same simple visual observation.

Now stop trying to run away from the topic, stop spamming the same refuted nonsense and do one of those 2 options; and show just what problem there is with my math, or admit that there is no difference and such a simple experiment cannot determine which is in motion.

Either do the math using the law of cosines or the like rather than a linear approximation, or do the math for a period of 1 s.
Either way, you will then show that there is no difference between GC and HC.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: August 05, 2020, 04:20:19 AM »
You ignoring all the refutations of your claims wont' magically make it go away.

So, now we've got a physical corroboration for the correctness of my math :
No, we have a few pictures with no explanation which do not help your case at all.
Your argument still relies treating a clearly non-linear situation as linear. It is this false approximation which causes the difference in values between your faulty GC model and your faulty HC model.

Once again, the moon doesn't travel in a straight line.

If your argument really held and didn't rely upon this false approximation you would have done the much shorter period of time (1 second), rather than continuing with these pathetic deflections.

Like I said, actually address the arguments raised.
Either do the math properly without any linear approximations; or do a linear approximation for a much shorter period of time.
Either way, refute the math I provided which clearly shows the 2 produce identical results.

Once more, here is a link to the math:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.msg1917997#msg1917997

Once more, what the ratio of the difference approach 1 as the linear approximation becomes more and more correct (due to the shorter distance), clearly showing that the difference you are focusing on between GC and HC is entirely due to your faulty linear approximation rather than an actual difference between the systems:
If you do the math properly (i.e. without rounding off prematurely other than to the limit of Excel's precision or saying it is roughly 100 000 km), then you get the following ratios (note: the latter ones are shown to more decimal places to show were the first point of difference is):
3600 s - 1.064
1800 s - 1.016
600 s - 1.002
300 s - 1.0004
60 s - 1.00002
30 s - 1.000004
1 s - 1.000000005

So will you actually honestly address this, or will you continue to bury your head in the sand?

13
From a philosophical point of view, the difference between believing and knowing can easily be defined as knowledge being justified true belief.
That is there are 2 essential points to have for a belief to become knowledge.
It must be justified.
It must be true.

Other than the underlying reality of it being true or false, we can determine if it is true or false based upon the justification.

The big issues is when the justification is faulty or could be faulty. If you have a justification which you think is valid, but is not, it can lead you to have false beliefs which are not knowledge but which you assume is knowledge. It can also lead you to have true beliefs, which appear justified but in fact are not justified. This leads to the issue of exactly what constitutes justification.

I believe the example commonly given is a clock that is stopped.

If you look up to the clock to see what time it is and see that it says 3:30, and it is in fact 3:30, is this knowledge? You are used to using the clock to determine the time, typically the clock works and tells you the correct time. So it appears justifies, it is true and thus appears to be knowledge.
But if instead of it being 3:30, it is actually 3:45, then it appears the same to you, the only difference is now it isn't true and thus isn't actually knowledge, even though it appears just like knowledge.

This then raises the question on what happens normally when you look up at a clock to see the time, when the clock is working. Do you gain knowledge of the time, or is it still just belief.

This is where you produce a divide between pure philosophy and between common usage.
With pure philosophy we can never know anything, because we have no way to determine if a belief is justified or not or if that justification is faulty (obviously there are some cases where the justification is obviously faulty, but in the cases where it appears justified it may not be).

But with common usage, we can know things which are justified, typically through repeated direct observation or induction (even when people don't know they are doing that).
For example, we know that the sun will "rise" in the east, due to repeated observations of it doing that with no variation.
We know that Earth is round due to the different stars visible in different regions, and the direct observations of it from photos, and many other things.

So in common usage, we know Earth is round, due to the abundance of evidence supporting this fact, while in a pure philosophical sense we don't know anything.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cypriot hacker extradited to the US
« on: August 04, 2020, 02:38:29 PM »
Also I bet he took the money only from people that did not suffer relevant damage from it.
Firstly, taking money is damage.
Secondly, he didn't simply take money. He extorted it from people by threatening them, where if they didn't pay the company likely would have been destroyed or at least very severely damaged and the person's life (as well as potentially the lives of their employees and their customers/users) would be severely damaged.

When people make threats, and demands in order for those threats not to happen, you do not just hold them accountable to the demands, you also hold them accountable to those threats.

If someone went into a bank held it up at gunpoint, threatened to kill everyone, but then only took $100; you do not treat it like they just stole $100. You also treat it like they threatened people's lives.

And that is exactly what should be happening in this case.
Not only do you acknowledge the illegally obtained money from extortion and the other damage that extortion caused which he should be forced to pay back, you also hold him accountable to the threats he made.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: August 04, 2020, 02:29:04 PM »
Jack, if you are right then Macarios is wrong, and i am still right
If he is treating 15 degrees as still being linear, then he is wrong.
Either way, YOU ARE WRONG!

Again, is you wish to disagree, then either do the math properly, without pretending it is linear, using the law of cosines; or by using a much shorter period of time where the linear approximation holds, e.g. 1 second.
And either way, you still need to deal with my math which refutes you.

The reason I keep bringing up the option of 1 second is quite simple.
If there actually was a difference which changes by which is moving, then the ratio of these differences (as difference HC/difference GC) will only grow as you get to a shorter and shorter time period as it maximises when the difference occurs (e.g. focusing on half a day would give no difference, while focusing on only the tiny fraction of time when the difference is greatest should produce the largest ratio).
If instead the difference is purely a fabrication based upon you making a massive error with your linear approximation not holding, then the better the linear approximation becomes the smaller the ratio becomes, until it reaches unity.

And if you do the math properly (i.e. without rounding off prematurely other than to the limit of Excel's precision or saying it is roughly 100 000 km), then you get the following ratios (note: the latter ones are shown to more decimal places to show were the first point of difference is):
3600 s - 1.064
1800 s - 1.016
600 s - 1.002
300 s - 1.0004
60 s - 1.00002
30 s - 1.000004
1 s - 1.000000005

And do you know what that indicates?
That this difference is entirely a fabrication due to your incorrect linear approximation for such a large range.

The other thing to note, as pointed out before, with your 27.5 day period for the moon's orbit, this gives us an angular velocity of the moon (at the north pole) of 14.45 degrees per hour. This equates to 14.45 arc seconds per second.
Using the GC model in the case of 1 s, you get angular displacements of 14.55 and 14.36 arc seconds. One above and one below, just like you would expect.
And if you look at the angle covered at the north pole, you get 14.45 arc seconds, just like you would expect instead of the 14.16 degrees you get from 1 hour.

Once again, this shows the difference is entirely due to you using a linear approximation.

So, it seems that we have to go back to the core of my ZIGZAG argument
The core of your zigzag argument is treating a clearly non-linear path as a linear path to get a significant error which falsely indicates there is a difference when there is none.

So no, we don't have to go back to that dishonesty at all.

So, it seems that we have to go back to the core of my ZIGZAG argument which presumes mimicking linear motion of the observers on the edge of the Arctic circle which means that by pointing to a certain star within REAL (not mere alleged) HC reality for an hour of time the moon would really and apparently move 0,64 degrees to the left (for farther observer) and 0,44 degrees to the left (for closer observer). In REAL (not mere alleged) HC reality pointing to a certain star would coincide with directional gyro keeping rigidity in space, that is to say : the pointer of a directional gyro would be always aligned with the star we are following, as well.

In our GC reality by strictly following a certain star we would get the opposite result (the angle would be greater for closer observer and smaller for farther observer), and while keeping rigidity in space our directional gyro would (apparently) drift 15 degrees/hour (wrt the stars), better to say the stars would move 15 degrees/hour with respect to a rigid pointer of directional gyro which would be directed let's say towards North, all the time.
Still wrong.
Even using your faulty linear approximation, you are right that in the HC reality, the moon moves 0.45 degrees to the left for the near observer and 0.64 degrees for the far observer.
But for the GC fantasy, the star moves 15 degrees to the right, while the moon for the near observer moves 14.25 degrees to the right for the near observer which is 0.75 degrees left of the star, while for the far observer it moves 14.07 degrees right, which is 0.93 degrees left of the star.

If instead of using a completely broken linear approximation we limit the time to 1 second so the linear approximation holds, then in reality, the moon has moved 0.45 arc seconds for the near observer and 0.64 arc seconds for the far observer, still both to the left, while in the GC fantasy the stars move 15 arc seconds right, while the moon moves 14.55 arc seconds right, and thus is 0.45 arc seconds left of the star, while the far observer sees the moon move 14.36 arc seconds to the right and thus the moon is 0.64 arc seconds left of the star.

So you are wrong, yet again.
In both cases, the HC reality and the GC fantasy, the moon appears to move move relative to the background stars for the far observer than for the near observer.
If you limit yourself to the time where the linear approximation actually holds, this difference in angle is the same for HC reality and GC fantasy.

Again, this cannot allow you to distinguish between the 2.

Again, the 2 situations are literally just related by a simple rotation.
If you take the HC system (centred on Earth) and rotate it by roughly 15 degrees per hour, you end up with the GC system.
This means any simple visual observation will be identical for both, i.e. they cannot distinguish between the 2.

The simple fact is such a simple visual observation cannot distinguish between Earth rotating with the moon stationary, the moon circling with Earth stationary, or both moving.


Now going to actually try to address the arguments that have been raised? Or will you just continue to pretend they haven't been made and spam the same refuted nonsense again?

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: August 04, 2020, 05:54:50 AM »
Original version of my ZIGZAG argument presumes mimicking linear motion
So the original version of your argument is a pathetic strawman of reality, which in no way shows a difference between GC and HC.

If your argument relies upon it being linear motion, it fails.

So, basically the practical application of my ZIGZAG argument depends on using gyros and because of that it boils down to some other kind of falsification of earth's rotation
So what you are saying is that your zig-zag argument is pure nonsense and is completely incapable of determining if Earth is rotating with the moon stationary, Earth is stationary with the moon circling, and Earth rotating with the moon orbiting, i.e. exactly what I said before.

Care to just directly admit that?

So, i only made few modifications in order to make the math above simpler and more accurate.
No, you make it simpler and less accurate.
Like I said, your own numbers for the calculated angles are off by 0.2 degrees.
The difference in angle between the 2 locations is less than 0.2 degrees.
And the difference between the differences is smaller still.

The difference you are so desperately clinging to is entirely the result of those errors.

Like I said, DO IT PROPERLY

even if we leave out the core of the original version of my ZIGZAG argument (mimicking linear motion by using directional gyros) we still get the difference between GC and HC model.
NO, we don't.
If instead you treat it properly as angular motion you end up with identical values.
If you use a linear approximation which actually holds, you end up with values which are the same within error.

You do not get a difference between GC and HC.
It is only with significant mistakes that you pretend there is a difference.

Again, if you wish to assert that there is a difference between GC and HC, DO IT PROPERLY!
Either use a period of time where the linear approximation actually holds, e.g. 1 second, or do it properly using the law of cosines and the actual arcs involved.

All the work has already been done for you here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.msg1917997#msg1917997
It just shows that you are wrong.
It clearly shows, using the correct math based upon the points following circles rather than magically travelling off in a straight line, that the 2 scenarios produce the same difference in angle.

If you can't do it honestly, stop pretending there is a difference.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: August 03, 2020, 03:58:24 PM »
My math is perfectly correct! What are you talking about? What linear motion?
The linear motion I have already pointed out.
You are pretending that over the course of an hour the moon travels in a perfectly straight line and likewise, so does the people on Earth.
This introduces very significant errors.

Here is an image to demonstrate it:

Purple is where you falsely place the moon/observer.
Green is where it should be. (Although that is just focusing on one error, you have 2 errors in opposite direction).

For your example you have the moon travelling at 100 000 km/hr.
If we start with the moon at (0,0), and have it initially moving to the left, then after 1 hour this places it at (-100000, 0).
But if you don't act like someone who failed math, and instead you actually do the calculation properly (but still pretending it is 15 degrees per hour) you end up with the moon at (-98998, -13033), and if you have the moon properly move ~14.45 degrees you end up with it at (-95477, -12108).
Notice the big difference?
You are out by over 1%. This then impacts the angles you calculate.


Like I said before, in your simple case of the velocity of the moon being based upon completing a circle in a day you end up with the angular velocity at the centre being 15 degrees per hour.
But that means the near side MUST have an angular velocity GREATER than 15 degrees per hour.
Instead you produce the nonsense of 14.74 degrees per hour.

Doing it "properly" for the GC fantasy such that after 27.5 days it circles Earth 26.5 times so it has a period of just over 1 day, it should be 14.45 degrees per hour, and again it MUST be faster for the point closer to the moon. But your nonsense produces 14.25.
The angles you calculate for the distance the moon travels is completely incorrect for your GC fantasy.

You have an error in your calculated angles of roughly 0.2 to 0.3 degrees.
That is the size of the angle you are trying to find.
As such your error completely swamps any difference.

As such, any conclusions drawn from it are likewise nonsense.

Like I said, do the math properly, without rounding pi to 3.14, without just saying it is 100 000 km, without switching 2541 km with 2500 km, and either for a much shorter period of time like 1 s, where then the moon only moves 15 arc seconds, or using the actual math required (law of cosines) to determine angles rather than pretending it is all just straight lines; or actually look at the math I have provided and tell me what is wrong with it.
Preferably this math here which is the general case which shows the 2 angles are identical:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.msg1917997#msg1917997

If you can't stop pretending you are correct or that your math is perfect when in fact it is fundamentally flawed.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: August 03, 2020, 03:16:57 PM »
The Average Motion of the Moon
Repeating the same refuted garbage will not help your case.

Your math is wrong.
You are completely ignoring how it turns by 15 degrees, making it so you cannot just pretend it is linear motion.
Treating it as linear motion results in a very significant error.

This is what you should be comparing (Just one image as you just need to rotate the image to get the second one, further proving that they produce identical results, and obviously not to scale):


But this is what you are actually comparing (2 images now as they are fundamentally different):
vs


These are fundamentally different situations, so it isn't surprising that they produce different results.
Again, angular motion and linear motion are different. Do you understand that?

Ignoring the math I provided which clearly refute your garbage, and continually trying to change topic just shows how dishonest you are and how pathetic your position is.

Why not calculate the difference in angle expected for 1 second?
See if you can.
If it actually was a difference due to the different motion, it would still be present, even after just 1 second, with the same ratio.
But if it was just due to you irrationally treating rotational motion as linear motion, the ratio would change.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cypriot hacker extradited to the US
« on: August 03, 2020, 02:58:29 PM »
I thought that was generally consensus, and actually represented in the punishments many different justice systems
If that is the case then why complain about this punishment?
You are now just contradicting yourself.
I told you they can be paid restitution.
And ignored the fact that the hacker likely can't pay that restitution. As such they cannot be magically repaired. Instead you can just shift the damage to someone else.
Idk man, most people would care if they lost 100k by a scam or if someone broke into their home and threatened their family with a gun to do that.
Notice how now you are adding in more details?
Not only did the person rob me of $100k, they also now broke into my house, and they threatened me and my family with a gun.
So what you are really asking now is what would you rather have happen:
Bad thing X, or bad thing X along with bad things Y and Z?
Also note that you are now really failing at your comparison because he wasn't just taking money, he was blackmailing people, i.e. threatening them.
An extreme case of stealing/scamming lots of money from hundreds of people and causing them serious damage. Not defrauding money from 2-3 entities that can be repaid relatively easily.
Except it isn't just 2-3 entities and you are yet to establish that they can pay it back very easily.
This is a pattern of crime, having many many counts. It is severe.
What non-financial damages?
Already answered, you'd know if you paid attention to what you're answering to, moving on.
You know states do that all the time, right?
That doesn't answer the question at all.
Why should they pay for his crimes?
Also, plenty of courts don't.
Because criminals are citizens too and their countries protect them?
So Afghanistan was right to protect Osama Bin Laden?
Germany was right to protect Hitler?
Why should countries protect criminals from prosecution for the crimes they committed?
Because being tried in a foreign court carries all sorts of different issues with it, and it seems like the US courts are determined to punish him extremely severely.
Yes, they are going to punish him severely for his severe crimes. That is not a problem.
Quote
Quote
And from the sounds of the allegations, it sounds like someone didn't pay the blackmail demands and instead got very large costs as a result of whatever it was that they were being blackmailed with. So I doubt that can get "repaired".
With that attitude, so can every crime.
Had a loved one murdered, don't worry, they can just pay some money.
Hijacked a few planes and flew them into buildings, don't worry, they can just pay some money.
That's why I specified the crimes were non violent and the damage was strictly financial, you genius. Jesus christ.
No, you didn't.
Instead you responded to specifically non-financial crimes which also had a financial impact.
Instead of accepting that that can't be repaired you decided that the courts are fine to decide that it can just get magically repaired by throwing money at it.
No. Unless it caused a huge amount of damage ... Even then, it is much easier to restore that kind of damage than a serious violent offense.
No, again, lots of "serious violent offences" require some time off to heal to repair, if you ignore the mental damage.
You also have no idea of just what the damages were.

He stole and purchased illegally obtained PII.
Stealing PII information is a very serious crime and should be treated as such.
Blackmailing people by threatening to release it is a very serious crime and should be treated as such.
Leaking can effectively destroy someone's life.

That is severe and he deserves a severe penalty.
I'm not even sure what the argument is even supposed to be here, that the victims shouldn't be compensated in any way
No, that isn't my position. I am not annoyed by the concept of restitution and compensation. I'm all for that.
Both indictments in the US demand the forfeiture of forfeitable property upon conviction.
I just also recognise the non-financial damages and the severity of the crime, that deserves more than just throwing money at the problem.
If you think committing financial crimes and blackmailing people should just result in you paying back the money you stole, then you are saying there is basically no reason at all to not do them. You either don't get caught and don't have to pay back the money, or you get caught for part of it and have to pay back part of it.
The sentence he was facing in Cyprus
The sentence for what?
That is what you keep ignoring.
What was he actually arrested for in Cyprus?
What was he actually facing trial for in Cyrpus?
From the sounds of it is is purely the attack against the ISP/telcom, not any of the rest (and that isn't what he is facing trial for in the US).
If they think it is 1.5 years for the relatively minor crime of just DDOSing an ISP/telcom (assuming no one died as a result) if acceptable, what makes you think they wouldn't accept 20 years for the numerous counts of fraud, theft, blackmail, etc.

How is this worth 20 years? I'd give him a week of community work, maybe two, plus forcing him to pay the money that he illegally acquired back.
And if he can't pay it back?
And so that means if someone blackmails you and releases your personal information, which could effectively destroy your life, you are fine with them just getting a tiny bit of community service?
A week of community service is pathetic for his crimes.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cypriot hacker extradited to the US
« on: August 03, 2020, 04:24:15 AM »
Because they are less severe?
How are violent crimes less "severe". What are you using to judge how "severe" something is?

Financial damage, which can be repaired in a straightforward way.
Not by those who have been damaged by it.
Sure, they can make more money, but they can't just magically replace was has been taken.

Which would you rather have, being defrauded 100k or being robbed of 100k?
What's the difference, either way I lose $100k.

Would you prefer to lose 100k or being raped?
Raped in what way?
I would say there are plenty of ways in which someone can be raped which are less damaging than losing $100k.

But the most severe offenses are more or less always violent ones, and the only ones that should qualify for throwing you in jail for decades, barring extreme cases of non violent offenses.
You mean like an extreme case of stealing a lot of money?
The most severe offenses are typically severe. We aren't talking about stealing a pack of gum of $5. We are talking about hacking, stealing private information, defrauding people, blackmailing people and overall taking a lot of money from people.
That is quite severe.

He will probably be forced by a court to repair it anyways, that's the point.
And when he can't afford to pay it? What happens then?

And the non-financial damages?

I am sure Cyprus could reach an agreement with the US to pay back the money instead of throwing their citizen under the bus and extraditing him.
Why should they?
Why should Cyrpus and the innocent people of Cyprus pay for the crimes for this individual?
Why shouldn't the criminal be thrown "under the bus".
That way he is the one who suffers.

And if you are so happy with allowing courts to decide he can get away with it with some other way to pay it back, why aren't you happy allowing the US courts to decide that?

Quote
And from the sounds of the allegations, it sounds like someone didn't pay the blackmail demands and instead got very large costs as a result of whatever it was that they were being blackmailed with. So I doubt that can get "repaired".
It can, as long as the court rules it so.
With that attitude, so can every crime.
Had a loved one murdered, don't worry, they can just pay some money.
Hijacked a few planes and flew them into buildings, don't worry, they can just pay some money.

Quote
So just what do you think constitutes "grave harm"?
Being killed, severely injured, traumatized, your livelihood completely destroyed.
So like having lots of money taken from you?
And again, why focus on physical injuries rather than financial injuries?

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: August 03, 2020, 04:07:14 AM »
It is actually heliocentric scenario, i designated it as "geocentric" scenario by mistake...
Right, so where you just completely ignore the effects of ROTATION and instead pretend that the only thing that happens in the rotating Earth scenario is that the people move sideways.

My math is correct, and you can't point to any mathematical or geometrical mistake that i did in the procedure above...
Except that I already have. You are pretending that rotation is just translation.
Meanwhile, you have been completely unable to show a single fault with my math, both the general case showing clearly that the angles will be the same, nor the specific example above.
In fact it is so devastating to your position that you are forced to outright ignore it as you can't find any excuse to attack it.

But if you would like some more, you have the radius of the Arctic circle as 2541 km.
So the diameter is 5082.
But then the difference in distance is only 5000 km. What happened to the other 82?
You have the GC speed of the moon completely ignore the speed due to the orbit of the moon around Earth.

You have rounding errors which continue throughout your calculation, making your final values useless for anything more than a very superficial comparison where your 0.19 is basically the same as 0.18.

You also ignore units and just give your answer as 0.192. 0.192 what? degrees, radians, arc seconds?

You use (ctg), which most people would assume means cotangent, yet you use the arc-tangent function, aka inverse tan.

You then use a completely ridiculous "linear" approximation, where you have the moon move 100 000 km or roughly 15 degrees.
And during this time the people are also moving 15 degrees.

An arc length at your distance to the moon that spans 15 degrees is ~100,138 km.
A tangent that spans those same 15 degrees is ~102,490.57 km.
If you want to go for 1 hour, and cover such a large distance, you can't just treat it as linear motion.

If you instead just focus on 1 second, the difference you end up with (using your initial numbers) is 19.206 arc seconds for both.

Now, going to stop treating rotation and orbits a linear motion and instead accept it as angular motion?
Going to actually try addressing the math I have provided, either here or in the other thread?

If not, your zigzag garbage remains refuted, just like all your other nonsense.

it only proves how despicable liar you really are.
Wrong again, you trying to change topic and avoiding the math I provided shows how despicable a liar you are.

Edit: This is also a big give away. You treat the moon as having an angular velocity of 15 degrees per hour at the centre of the Arctic circle.
But that would mean that the people closer to it at the edge of the Arctic circle would need it to be going FASTER than 15 degrees per hour.
Instead you only have it at 14.75 degrees.
So your numbers are quite clearly pure nonsense.

22
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cypriot hacker extradited to the US
« on: August 03, 2020, 03:27:50 AM »
None, because he was already arrested before he reached that age.
Your own source shows that he was arrested in February 2018.
He was 21 in July 2020, that means 7 years prior in 2017 he was 7 years younger, i.e. 18.
That means he was arrested after he turned 18.
So the question is then if he turned 18 before or after May 9th?

facing 20 years in prison for non violent cyber crimes
Why should "non-violent" crimes be treated less severely?
Just because violence wasn't used doesn't mean it can't cause serious damage.
If anything, some violent crimes should be less. For example, what would you rather have happen to you, someone punch you in the face and give you a bruise, or have $100k stolen from you? I'd prefer the punch to the face.

Did his actions gravely harm anyone? Well, he cost a bunch of money to some websites but that can be repaired
Is he repairing it? No.
So no, it can't just magically be repaired.
And from the sounds of the allegations, it sounds like someone didn't pay the blackmail demands and instead got very large costs as a result of whatever it was that they were being blackmailed with. So I doubt that can get "repaired".

So just what do you think constitutes "grave harm"?

That's no solution at all. If someone is already sentenced for a crime you cannot take them to court again for that crime in another country. Not only are you disregarding the judge's sentence, but one could argue you are completely ignoring the first country's sovereignty. If anything, you would need to appeal to the international court of justice.
You would be ignoring their sovereignty if you just charged in and kidnapped the person, or if you removed them from prison, tried them and then just released them rather than returning them to prison. If you are using an extradition treaty you are not.
The only thing being "disregarded" is the judge's sentence, but that can be based upon the laws of the country which can vary.
The argument also goes both ways, with just trying to have Cyprus deal with it is disregarding the sovereignty and judicial system of the US.
Why should the US not be permitted to prosecute and convict someone who committed a crime against them, i.e. committed crimes against servers in the US?

There is also the issue of if it is actually the same crime, with all the same information.
Was he serving time for every count of hacking et al that the US is extraditing him for?
Or only some of it, or something else?
A prosecution for one count of hacking based upon one specific hack doesn't make you immune from any other prosecutions for hacking.

Are they actually the same crime in the 2 countries, or are they similar but different crimes?
It is possible to commit multiple crimes at once. For example, if you drive while drunk and kill someone, that is 2 crimes from the one act, and a prosecution for drunk driving wont make you immune from a prosecution for killing the person.

Because if it wasn't for the same crime, then it isn't disregarding the judge at all, nor is it double jeopardy. (And that is before we get to the US Supreme court deciding that each country has their own laws and thus even if the 2 laws were identical, it still wouldn't be double jeopardy.)

And that isn't actually what is happening.
From what others have said no judge has given him a sentence. Instead he was moved to a more suitable jurisdiction.

If you are a citizen of Cyprus and you break the law, Cyprus should deal with it.
Jurisdiction is typically based upon where the crime took place, not what region you are a citizen of.

What if he had victims in a dozen countries? Should he face court in all of them?
If he attacked servers in dozens of countries then yes, he should.
If he blackmailed people in dozens of countries then yes, he should.
Especially as each server he attacks and each person he blackmails (and each time he does so) is a separate crime, which the countries can separately prosecute for.

If he didn't want to face court for those crimes, then perhaps he shouldn't have committed them in the first place.

As far as I know, it's usually used when someone has committed a crime in 'x' country and fled to Australia that we return them
This guy committed the crime in Cyprus. It seems he already served jail for it.
Ignoring the edge cases occurring on a border, that works fine for crimes where you have to physically be there to commit them. But in the days of the internet, crimes can be committed remotely, especially cyber crimes.
He breached servers in the US. That means the crimes were committed in the US.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: August 02, 2020, 02:56:06 PM »
Now, the math for the geocentric scenario :
Again, we have been over this all before.
The math ends up the same.
The difference in the ANGULAR velocity is the same.
And that angular velocity is what is observed.
Remember, the observer on Earth is not simply moving sideways, they are rotating.


And I didn't tell you to spam your same refuted nonsense.
I told you to show the problem with the math I provided, which clearly shows the angles are the same.
Remember this:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.msg1917997#msg1917997
Where I clearly went through the math showing how the angular velocities work out to be identical regardless of which is in motion? Where I demonstrated beyond any doubt that you cannot use a simple visual observation like this to determine which is moving?
The math you have repeatedly refused to address because you know there is no fault with it and it shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong?

Can you show any actual problem with that math?
If not, you argument is still pure nonsense.

Now, the math for the geocentric scenario :
Farther observer (on the opposite side of the Arctic circle) : 3639+665 = 4304 km/h
Closer observer moves wrt the Moon : 3639-665 = 2974 km/h
Why are you adding and subtracting speeds here?
For the GC model you are having Earth stationary.
For the GC model there is just one speed of the moon.

For some actual numbers with justification/explanation:
Taking Earth (in reality, it would be the sky in your GC fantasy) to rotate once every 24 hours (1 day) and the Moon to orbit at a distance of 400 000 km once every 28 days (or in your fantasy, still at 400 000 km but now it will do it 27 times in 28 days.
Also note that the moon orbits Earth in the same direction that Earth rotates. This means the angular motion due to the orbit of the moon is in the opposite direction to the angular motion due to the rotation of Earth.
Taking the Arctic circle to be at a radial distance of 2534 km.
This means the linear speed of Earth at this point is ~184 m/s or 663 km/hr.

The linear speed of the Moon in the model with Earth rotating is ~1039 m/s or 3740 km/hr
For the model in which Earth is magically held stationary and instead the moon circles Earth 27 times in 28 days we have an orbital period of 28*86400/27=89600, giving us linear velocity of ~28050m/s or 100 980 km/hr.

Now what angles would we expect.

For the simple GC model, where all the apparent motion is due to the moon, and notice there is no magical subtraction of velocities here, as Earth is stationary in this fantasy.

The 2 distances that we care about are the point when the Moon is closest to the observer at 400 000 - 2534 km =  397,466 km; and the one where it is the furthest at 400 000 + 2534 =  402,534 km.
Approximating the Moon's motion as a straight line, that means after 1 second the moon has moved 28050 m or 28.050 km.
For the near observer that amounts to an angle of  14.56 arc seconds.
For the far observer it amounts to  14.37 arc seconds.
This gives us a difference of 0.18 arc seconds.

Now the more complex and closer to reality model with a rotating Earth:
Now, we need to remember that we aren't just dealing with linear motion. Instead we are dealing with rotation.
Both observers are initially looking towards the moon (or are zero point is anyway).
But after the 1 second of rotation of Earth, this puts them looking 15 arc seconds rotated, which when projected to the moon places it (again, assuming a simple straight line) places it 29.089 km away from where the moon was.
Now adding in the real motion of the moon of 1.039 km, we end up with a change in position from our new rotated reference of 28.050 km.
This should seem familiar, it is the exact same as the GC fantasy.
This means the angular change in exactly the same.
For the near observer that amounts to an angle of  14.56 arc seconds.
For the far observer it amounts to  14.37 arc seconds.
This gives us a difference of 0.18 arc seconds.

So just like already shown countless times, the difference in angular velocity for the 2 positions is the same, regardless of if Earth rotates with the moon orbiting or if Earth is stationary with the moon circling much faster.

You cannot tell which is moving by such a simple visual observation.

However, there is no need for conducting such experiments because all we need is one fixed platform
You are right that there is no need for conducting such experiments, as no simple visual experiment can tell which is moving.

Instead now you are appealing to a "fixed platform",

But, as soon as we provided one fixed (in absolute terms) platform
Fat chance getting one of them. Regardless, that is an entirely separate argument.
Does this mean you accept your ZigZag argument is garabge?

24
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cypriot hacker extradited to the US
« on: August 02, 2020, 02:11:35 PM »
The problem with an international cyber based crime is where was the crime committed in?
It involved things physically in both countries.
While the person may have never left Cyprus, that doesn't mean the crime was committed entirely in Cyprus.
It gets even more complex if any of the servers were in a 3rd country.

As a comparable situation (for the location of the crime and where they should be tried): Imagine 2 people at the US-Canada border (or any other similar land border), the one on the US side pulls out a gun and shoots the one on the Canadian side.
In which country did the murder take place, and in which country should the perpetrator be tried?

I would say if you commit a crime across borders like this, you are committing the crime in that other state. i.e. he was hacking a US server, and thus was remotely committing a crime in the US. Thus it should be fine for the US to try him.

To claim otherwise is to say that you can commit whatever crimes you want remotely and not worry about being punished for it by that country.

If there is an issue with double jeopardy there is also a very simple way to solve it, have any time already served in prison for the same crime be deemed to have already been served.

e.g. if he has already spent 2 years in prison for the crime in Cyprus, and he gets sentenced to 20 years in the US, he serves 18 years in the US.
Otherwise you encourage people to get tried in whatever country has the more relaxed punishment to avoid a more severe punishment.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: August 01, 2020, 02:26:39 PM »
Even refined version of my old ZIGZAG argument is valid
We have been over your zigzag nonsense countless times.
It is an argument against a near sun, nothing more.
The angles will be the same regardless of if Earth is moving with the sun stationary, the sun moving with Earth stationary, or both moving at different rates.
A simple visual observation like that cannot be used to determine which is in motion.
If you want to discuss your already refuted zigzag nonsense, feel free to revive one of the threads you have already been defeated in and deal with the math that was provided that shows the visual observations are identical.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 03:51:21 PM »
The conclusion I have come to is you are as mad as the fucking preverbial brush and trying to reason with a madman like you who has a dog turd for brains is pretty pointless.
I'll take that to mean you have come to the conclusion that I am an intelligent and rational individual that understands logic quite well and has clearly shown the flaw in your reasoning but you are far too arrogant to accept that you could ever possibly be wrong on a FE forum so will just resort to throwing insults.

That is also quite clear from how you continue to attack pathetic strawmen rather than the actual argument.

Remember, this argument of yours was put forward on a forum where people reject the vast majority of modern physics including the fact that Earth rotates and orbits the sun.
As such, your argument effectively boils down to:
"If you accept that you are completely wrong about reality, then this video shows you are wrong."
And thus it proves literally nothing.

Again, if you need to start with the sun being stationary for your argument to hold, then you have already lost the argument as virtually no one accepts that. The GC and FE community have the sun move around Earth with Earth remaining fixed in place.
You could even put a camera in place between the sun and Earth and have it move in such a way to remain between the moving sun and fixed Earth.

So yet again you have failed to justify your claim that the video alone shows Earth is fixed.

And see, me being rational and actually caring about the truth means I am not going to accept BS just because the conclusion is true. I actually care about the justification, as the sole distinction between knowledge and belief is justification.


So yet again, if you want to show I am wrong then it is quite simple, explain FROM THE VIDEO ALONE how you can distinguish between the light source and camera being fixed with Earth rotating; the Earth being fixed with the light source and camera circling Earth; or the Earth rotating with the camera and light source circling Earth.

The key part is FROM THE VIDEO ALONE as you seem to think that video is all that is needed.
That means no appealing to the fact that Earth rotates or obits the sun or anything else like that.
All you can use is the video itself as well as anything common to all photos.

For example, all you can prove from the lighting is that the camera is roughly between the light source and subject.

It looks like given you absence that you were on some bender and have returned foaming at the mouth ready for some madcap action. Well on you go and rave away you stupid fuckwit.
No, I decided I would sleep for a few hours. See, with Earth being round there are these things called TIME ZONES.
While it is only roughly 4 pm yesterday for you, it is closer to 9 am today for me.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 03:28:39 PM »
Just think when the camera has moved 90/270 degrees you will get a split lighting situation, and when the camera has gone a full 180 the earth will be a black blob with a halo, assuming the exposure remains constant and the sun does what the sun does and remains stationary.....and you say you know lighting....i dont think so!
Are you seriously not comprehending or are you just playing dumb?
Again, you cannot appeal to the sun remaining stationary. That is appealing to more than the video.
That means you still have the option of a single light (the sun) which is moving along with the camera, around a stationary subject (Earth).
How is that incompatible with the video?

There is no split lighting, no Earth being a black blob.
The light is always ~behind the camera, giving the same exposure every time.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Virgin Galactic
« on: July 31, 2020, 03:20:44 PM »
You mean a gravitational force, not a g-force.
A g-force is a force like that you experience when you stand on Earth. It is a force which is applied to your body in one region (the region which is contacting something else), which is transferred through your body to the rest of it.
When you are standing "still" on Earth, the 1-g you feel is not gravity pulling you down, it is Earth pushing you up.
So no, there is not always a g-force acting on you.
For example, when you are in free fall in a vacuum.

How about you start accepting what words mean rather than pretending they mean something they don't just so you can pretend to be smart?
Whether you are falling to the Earth from an altitude of 10km, 100km or a sextillion km, you are subjected to Earths gravity.
Which in no way means you are required to experience any g-force.
That means you can be experiencing 0 g. Now stop ignoring the meaning of words.

Once again, g-force is not gravity. Learn the difference.

I'm all for the space travel decadent frippery for the 0.1% if, over time, like airline travel, it might ultimately become something commercial as opposed to purely a luxury. The safari thing, I just don't see that as ever benefiting mankind.
You mean like the Concorde?

Air travel was commercialised due to its relatively low cost and the speeds available.
You were able to turn a journey which lasted months into one which lasted a day or 2 at most.
The Concorde allowed you to make that same journey in a few hours.
But the increased cost simply didn't justify it. Those who could afford it didn't really care about getting there as fast as possible and preferred the luxury on slower jets.

So unless they can make it cheaper than a plane, I highly doubt it will ever be commercial for travel between locations on Earth.
So the best it would be commercial for is a flight to the moon, but Virgin Galactic (with their current launch setup) doesn't have the potential to get to the moon.
And I highly doubt there will be much commercial travel between the moon and Earth for quite some time.


I don't doubt your number, but here's a US stat:
The US is a fairly luxurious part of the world.
Try it in the third world.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 03:11:20 PM »
The goal post have never moved from the start, they are still the very same as placed by the laws of nature.
No, they have.
You started with just the video, now you also want to invoke "the laws of nature" by which you mean the entire body of scientific understanding of the world. But with that, the video proves bascially nothing about the motion of Earth, as the "laws of nature" alone indicate Earth is rotating.
So again, this makes your entirely circular.
Earth is rotating and orbiting the sun, thus the video shows Earth is rotating and orbiting the sun.
That is not a logical argument, and that doesn't prove anything about the motion of Earth.

I said that it was impossible to produce such a video by spinning the camera, and still say that and have explained why your argument is wrong.
Except you haven't actually explained why. Instead you just dismissed that possibility using other evidence, specifically exactly what was pointed out that your argument lacks.
So you are still wrong.
The video still doesn't prove Earth rotates.

What you are doing is flapping around as you know you have not a single leg to stand on and are clutching at the proverbial straws by deflecting. Can you explain how this video could have be produced by moving the light source? That might make for interesting reading!
Good job projecting your own inadequacies and deflecting yet again.

Once more, explain FROM THE FOOTAGE ALONE how you can tell which is in motion.
That means no appealing to the fact that Earth rotates. No appealing to the fact that Earth orbits the sun.
You are also permitted to use the content of the video.

If you can't, then be honest for once and admit that the video does not prove that Earth is in motion.

....but you can, irrespective of anything else.
Replace the sun with a fixed unmovable light while the subject, the earth moves on a rail as does the camera.
Now think about the video.
Again, you can't.
Replace Earth with a fixed immovable subject, while the light source and camera both move on rails around the subject.
Now think about the video.

You cannot appeal to the sun being fixed, as that is not in the video.

There is no other way to obtain such a video without moving the light
i.e. THERE IS A WAY, you just dismiss it.
The video does not tell you which is moving, and thus you are wrong.

Is moving the sun to illuminate the subject really an option?
When you are using the video to prove Earth is rotating YES!
If you want to "bring in reality" then you bring in Earth rotating and the video proves nothing.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 05:15:22 AM »
No...its just that you are spouting pure mince again.
No, that is still you. You are still yet to actually address the argument.
Instead you continue to present strawmen and attack them, all to avoid admitting you were wrong, just like with your past behaviour in other topics.

Stop and think about it.
The Epic camera is mounted on a satellite in a fixed L1  orbit around the sun pointing at the earth,  while its PlasMag is pointing at the sun. ( that's if you care to believe it)
The Epic camera took 3000 still images over a period of a year that were put together in a timelapse to produce the video.
How about you stop and think about it?
All of that is irrelevant to using the simple visual observation which you think is all that is needed.
If all you need is the visual observation, then it doesn't matter where EPIC is or what it is doing/how it is moving.

Now again, care to explain how just from the visual observation alone, without any other data or evidence at all, you can magically determine that Earth is spinning in the EPIC video, but the camera is moving around the Earth and skier in the other video?

That is the real issue and what you actually need to address.

But of course, you wont even attempt to do that because you know you are wrong and are just unwilling to admit it.
Instead you will just keep presenting childish strawmen so you can pretend you never made a mistake.

I really do hope that you have the ability to think clearly and dispassionately about this problem and not let your desire to be right get in the way.
Do you not notice your own hypocrisy?

Remember epic takes sets of images every 2 hours illuminated by the sun
If you examine the video closely what are the things you notice?
I removed the irrelevant information for your argument.
Remember, you think the visuals alone show that Earth spins. You cannot use the fact that Earth rotates to try to pretend your argument is valid.
If your argument relies upon the fact that Earth spins to try to prove that Earth spins, then it is entirely circular and entirely pointless.

Now how about instead of asking what I notice you clearly explain how from the visual observation alone you can tell that Earth is spinning rather than the camera moving.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 434