1

Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky

« on: August 18, 2020, 01:20:53 AM »

Me to Stepdad: Well I strongly recommend you go and get yourself a pair of binoculars.  They are not exactly expensive, $50 will get you a pair which will literally open up a whole new universe.   Then you can joint the ranks of the astronomer living in the 21st century and not have to rely on just your eyes alone any more.  Or you could walk over to your PC or laptop and look up a couple of websites which will quickly allow you to identify whether that moving 'star' in the sky was a plane or a satellite.   Use all the information that's available to you now.  Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still...

Fair enough. Though I think Stepdad would be a little miffed by being told, "Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still..."

You probably wouldn't get a burger after that smackdown.

It's totally something I would say to him after he's irritated me enough though!

2

The Lounge / Re: I have very sad news. Rabinoz has passed away.

« on: August 17, 2020, 11:37:39 AM »

Did Rab tell you how many times he was accused of working for the CIA or other alphabet agencies, by me and others.

Or how it was claimed that multiple accounts were the same person even though those accounts are still posting messages. 

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky

« on: August 17, 2020, 12:25:05 AM »

OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?'  I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'

At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction.  Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.

This is interesting. I could honestly see it play out like this if I were your neighbor:

Me: "Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?"
You: "O yes, that's a satellite."
Me: (Not being a contrarian or even challenging you, just light conversation) "Or maybe it's a meteor, a comet, a shooting star..."
You: "No, it's definitely a satellite."
Me: (Again, not being a contrarian or even challenging you, actually just interested in how you know, in a "what am I missing" sort of thing) "How do you know?"
You: "Because that's what satellites look like when they pass overhead."
Me: "Wow, satellites look like shooting stars..."
You: "They do, but that is a satellite, not a shooting star."

Your conversation with your neighbor (me) amounted to you stating that it was a satellite simply because you said so. That's a friendly, neighborly conversation. Now apply your logic to a debate as to whether such things as satellites even exist. You just saying they do does not cut it. It doesn't even cut it in the neighborly conversation let alone anywhere else more divisive.

My stepdad, most annoying guy I can think of, actually applies this logic when I am stargazing in my mom's back yard:

Me: "Look, that is *name of star*."
Him: "Well it could also be a satellite."
Me: "It's not moving..."
Him: "There are geostationary satellites, they don't move relative to Earth."
Me: "Look at this app (showing the screen on my phone), it confirms it is a star and geostationary satellites are too small and too far away to be seen."
Him: "Your app could be wrong."

At those moments I want to tear out my own fingernails. This has happened repeatedly. The reason I go to their back yard sometimes to watch is because my sister still lives with them and she loves it when I teach her what you can see in the sky.

However annoying, this exemplifies just why based on the observation of a moving dot in the night sky alone one can't claim definitively that it is a satellite.

By any chance is your stepdad Tom Bishop? 

No I am glad he is not!

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky

« on: August 16, 2020, 10:49:13 PM »

OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?'  I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'

At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction.  Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.

This is interesting. I could honestly see it play out like this if I were your neighbor:

Me: "Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?"
You: "O yes, that's a satellite."
Me: (Not being a contrarian or even challenging you, just light conversation) "Or maybe it's a meteor, a comet, a shooting star..."
You: "No, it's definitely a satellite."
Me: (Again, not being a contrarian or even challenging you, actually just interested in how you know, in a "what am I missing" sort of thing) "How do you know?"
You: "Because that's what satellites look like when they pass overhead."
Me: "Wow, satellites look like shooting stars..."
You: "They do, but that is a satellite, not a shooting star."

Your conversation with your neighbor (me) amounted to you stating that it was a satellite simply because you said so. That's a friendly, neighborly conversation. Now apply your logic to a debate as to whether such things as satellites even exist. You just saying they do does not cut it. It doesn't even cut it in the neighborly conversation let alone anywhere else more divisive.

My stepdad, most annoying guy I can think of, actually applies this logic when I am stargazing in my mom's back yard:

Me: "Look, that is *name of star*."
Him: "Well it could also be a satellite."
Me: "It's not moving..."
Him: "There are geostationary satellites, they don't move relative to Earth."
Me: "Look at this app (showing the screen on my phone), it confirms it is a star and geostationary satellites are too small and too far away to be seen."
Him: "Your app could be wrong."

At those moments I want to tear out my own fingernails. This has happened repeatedly. The reason I go to their back yard sometimes to watch is because my sister still lives with them and she loves it when I teach her what you can see in the sky.

5

The Lounge / Re: I have very sad news. Rabinoz has passed away.

« on: August 15, 2020, 03:33:37 AM »

It's been two weeks. Is it just me or can you see the effect of us missing him here? What I specifically mean by here is that in the "General" topic, I miss his replies.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky

« on: August 15, 2020, 03:30:18 AM »

OK let me just re-iterate this one more time.

1.  I look up the predicted passes for the ISS through one or more websites.  All agree on the dates and timings.
2.  I go outside on said date and said time and look to the west where I know the ISS will appear from and I see a bright moving light in the sky getting higher and higher in altitude.

3.  I aim my binoculars at said light and I can SEE the shape of the ISS in my binoculars complete with solar panels etc etc.  So I have visual evidence that it is the ISS that I am looking at.

I have done this many, many times over the years and have even imaged it through a telescope.  I can post you the image if you want. What more proof do I need that I am looking at an orbitting satellite?

You didn't mention the visual evidence as in binoculars earlier. That would indeed be proof that at least the ISS exists.

I have also seen it with binoculars, looks cool although I think it is way cooler to be on board than to see it

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky

« on: August 14, 2020, 10:04:21 PM »

So how do FEers know the Earth is flat?  Is there some evidence that they are privy to which the rest of us are not?  I suppose you would say you 'know' the Earth is flat if you reject through denial all the evidence that shows it isn't flat.  What is the one piece of evidence you have and which has escaped me and the rest of the mainstream scientific community which shows beyond any reasonable doubt that this Earth we live on is flat and not a sphere. 

Where is there a photo for example that shows the flat Earth from space?   There are plenty of photos showing a globe from space but of course you will reject all those won't you because they don't show what you believe to be true.  So by default you will label all those as fake. East way out.

Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?

Absolutely not. Any more than you are not going to admit that the Earth is not flat.  You have your beliefs and I have mine.  So I guess we might as well end this stalemate and agree to differ.

JackBlack is not a Flat Earth believer AFAIK. He's just trying to help you here in his own way.

The question you can ask yourself, and it's good to do this sometimes, is "Why do I know these fast moving dots are satellites?". And indeed you already gave an example by mentioning the photographs of Earth taken from space.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky

« on: August 13, 2020, 03:58:13 PM »

Your problem is that you know they are satellites
because you know they are satellites.

Why is that a problem then?

According to your logic then when I look at the Moon I shouldn't be thinking 'hey look there's the Moon'.. I should be asking myself is that really the Moon or is it something else that just happens to look like the Moon. Because to me the sight of a satellite passing across the sky is as clear and obvious as looking at the Moon.

You know they are satellites so you don't care about any other possibility.
For those who do not accept the existence of satellites, they do not know they are satellites.

Well to those who don't accept the existence of satellites I would ask them simply why.  If FE 'logic' prevents you from accepting the existence of satellites then that's up to those concerned if they want to think like that. When you consider of all the aspects of life that rely on satellites. They are too numerous to mention.  You are just arguing about it for the sake of arguing about something.

While I absolutely agree that they are in fact satellites, I think where JackBlack and Bullwinkle are going is that the argument for FE is often "I see a flat ocean so Earth must be flat" which is comparable to "I know they are satellites therefore they are".

What makes them satellites? What I know is that they launch rockets from various places in the world and that you sometimes get live onboard footage and actually see the satellite being decoupled from the rocket that launched it. Also, GPS works and cannot be based on ground stations alone, since GPS works even in the middle of an ocean and on airplanes. So, GPS must be something else which logically is satellite based.

9

The Lounge / Re: RIP Mimi

« on: August 13, 2020, 11:23:33 AM »

Been to more funerals lately.  The thing that stands out to me is how similar it is to a party with a few random fits of crying.  Very different than how they're portrayed on TV.

Yes this is very true. My granddad died in January of this year and my niece was doing a talk about him and I was in tears but those were from laughing at all the fun memories. Indeed, as boydster says, celebrate their lives!

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky

« on: August 12, 2020, 02:45:53 AM »

For those in Europe that want to watch the ISS fly over, I am in the red area in the Netherlands (albeit so that I live very close to the sea which is yellow/green) and can see it fly over without trouble.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky

« on: August 11, 2020, 01:43:20 PM »

There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.

I accidentally saw the ISS fly over yesterday at about 4:30 local time. I went out to make photos of the night sky. Too bad I had just parked my car and had my camera not yet ready.

I've seen it about two dozen times now, sometimes I didn't look up the times and noticed it just looking up, other times I looked up when the next flyover would be and it would match the given times to the second.

Not that you would believe pictures anyway.

12

The Lounge / Re: RIP Mimi

« on: August 11, 2020, 05:11:05 AM »

Sorry for your loss.

13

The Lounge / Re: I have very good news to everybody!

« on: August 09, 2020, 05:00:41 AM »

Holiday from what?

lol good one

14

The Lounge / Re: I have very sad news. Rabinoz has passed away.

« on: August 07, 2020, 03:44:28 AM »

I have asked our son Tim to see if he can work out how to put a photo on the forum.  I guess there wasn't a eulogy as such.  His brother spoke of their young days, our two sons spoke at great length, our son-in-law had a few words to say, and our granddaughter finished with some quirky verse.  Our leader, a long-time friend of Ron's then read out a letter from another long-time friend who lives too far away to come to the funeral.

One of our grandsons, who couldn't come to the funeral because of Covid, put together around 18 minutes of photos, set to some of Ron's favourite music, Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves and Beethoven's Romance for Violin and Orchestra.  Another grandson, also stuck down south because of Covid, recorded a video of himself reading one of the Bible readings.  It was lovely that they could have a part, even though so far away.

Thank you for all the kind things you have said about Ron.  We will miss him so much.

Jan

This sounds like it was a beautiful thing in the saddest of circumstances ofcourse.

He must've been loved by his family dearly which is not always the case, so that's good to read.

Sending some hugs your way.

15

The Lounge / Re: Rabinoz Memorial

« on: August 03, 2020, 10:08:41 AM »

I'd like to link this topic as a sign of his understanding and intelligence:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85840.0

Just an overall fun topic to read. Obviously there's more.

16

The Lounge / Re: I have very sad news. Rabinoz has passed away.

« on: August 03, 2020, 03:46:44 AM »

Perhaps a memorial thread for such a long dear member is in order?

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I was thinking this as well and maybe we could also do something like "The top 10 quotes that made us laugh"

17

The Lounge / Re: I have very sad news. Rabinoz has passed away.

« on: August 02, 2020, 10:09:19 PM »

RIP Rab. My thoughts go out to his family and friends.

As I said to his son over a PM, I respected Rab for always educating others. And this makes me so sad, even though I did not know the guy in real life. If you have contact with someone on a forum for a few years you still get to know them. Computers are wonderful for that.

18

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Dragon returning, current livestream

« on: August 02, 2020, 02:00:08 AM »

I watched the undocking and that was pretty cool. Looking forward to the splashdown tomorrow. I was trying to explain to my youngest why this was a big deal, and suddenly she remember watching the launch earlier this summer and it clicked. So she got her tablet out and started taking pictures of the TV screen that was playing a YouTube live stream. You know, for archival purposes. She'll be a great person to have on IT staff one day to help them appreciate redundant backups.

That's a smart kid! 

19

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Dragon returning, current livestream

« on: August 01, 2020, 02:22:51 PM »

This is going to be interesting again. The Crew Dragon is returning to Earth. Currently live!

20

Flat Earth General / Re: CAD

« on: July 30, 2020, 11:54:19 PM »

I may end up forming my own anti-dinosaur group.

To what end? All the dinos died a long time ago, have you not heard the news?

We still have dinosaurs but now we call them birds.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again

« on: July 27, 2020, 10:02:27 AM »

I could intervene right now and point out the inconsistencies of the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet wormhole theory. Continue your research (Einstein-Cartan wormholes, conformal Weyl spaces wormholes, Kaluza-Klein theory wormholes).

Inconsistencies because of it still being theoretical yes.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again

« on: July 26, 2020, 06:24:21 AM »

My advice to the RE is for them to start to research the quantum rotating wormholes subject.

The most cited paper on arxiv is J. Maldacena's paper regarding ER=EPR (from Princeton's Institute of Advanced Studies).

Theoretical.

Not anymore:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2272439#msg2272439

That livescience link does not mention anything about wormholes. It is not even suggesting that. Wormholes remain theoretical. If you discover them make sure to make it public since it will make you famous.

To add: yes, the MIT article does mention wormholes. But they mention it as a suggestion.

The problem for a dome covered world is that we cannot know if wormholes exist in space, since space would be fake. Surely, you seem to forget this a lot.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Curvature in Cold war nuclear test videos

« on: July 25, 2020, 02:05:18 PM »

Hello. So, i was watching few nuclear tests on youtube and intresting idea came to my mind. Can we use said videos to analyse how much shoud be hidden?

For example, start vith video 1.



It is Grable test, and we can see entire "base" clearly. Camera is on some kind of hill, so it isn't problem. How far is camera, remians mystery. Shoud we see bottom, i don't know?

Seriously? If we don't know how far away the camera is we cannot do calculations. Plus, as you mention the camera is on an elevation. That means that you can see more of the ground.

Example 2.

RDS 37




So, entire base is visible too in this video. But this is high-yeld bomb, so it isn't close as in before. Commenter ask us for distance, and 2 comments came by:

60 km and 150-200 (guess). Now, W-39 had 4 megatons. RDS 37 had 3.


Form nukemap, W-39 got termal radiation (basicly, burns, so camera most likly isn't there ) radius of 20.6 km.) But it most likly is between 30-100 km. So, can curve be seen here?

Looks like the view of the ground is obscured at the base of the explosion.

Last one. Tsar bomb.




This one is tricky. Around 2:07 we see bottom of bomb.Clearly. So, nukemap again:

Thermal radiation:58 km
Air blast (27 psi) 26.3


It most likly isn't closer. Atleast something shoud be hidden by curve? 

Images are not clear plus it does not show the ground.

Why use these old, unclear films, when there are tons of photographs and videos that do show curvature? What are you going for with this?

Edit to add: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64904.0 this gives you the proof that stuff is hidden from sight behind the horizon due to curvature.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again

« on: July 24, 2020, 01:50:31 PM »

You really need to find out how RET got started.

You won't believe the extent to which Kepler had to fake/fudge the data in order to invent an inexistent elliptical orbit.

"RET" did not start with Kepler. It started with ancient Greece or perhaps even longer ago. May I also say that the T in RET is not necessary. Daily observations show us that the round earth is not a theory.

He probably meant heliocentric model.


But this doesn't explain Kepler's lies



And in many threads it have been posted that sandokhan isn't right since he didn't publish paper or something of sort

So, here is example of 4chan (yes) user founding something new to science, which is proven correct

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-things-that-4chan-has-done-to-the-world/answer/Nicholas-Patrick-21?ch=10&share=10ad5222&srid=jZL6o

If he can, sandokhan can too

The thing with providing new stuff to science is that other people can reproduce the experiments, as was done with the mathematical issue that they talk about in the link you share. So far, everything that Sandokhan does is trying to counter scientifically proven points. And so far, all of the points -that Sandokhan is trying to make- were debunked. No matter how often they are repeated, they will not magically become the truth.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again

« on: July 24, 2020, 01:28:43 PM »

You really need to find out how RET got started.

You won't believe the extent to which Kepler had to fake/fudge the data in order to invent an inexistent elliptical orbit.

"RET" did not start with Kepler. It started with ancient Greece or perhaps even longer ago. May I also say that the T in RET is not necessary. Daily observations show us that the round earth is not a theory.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again

« on: July 24, 2020, 11:45:37 AM »

My advice to the RE is for them to start to research the quantum rotating wormholes subject.

The most cited paper on arxiv is J. Maldacena's paper regarding ER=EPR (from Princeton's Institute of Advanced Studies).

How do you have wormholes if space is not real and we are all trapped inside some dome?

PS wormholes are speculative. They are not (yet) a proven fact.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA EPIC LIES

« on: July 21, 2020, 09:24:00 AM »

Ah, so the astronauts are still alive. Got it.

A quick change of subject to hide that you otherwise have to agree is a common tactic here. So yes, he agrees.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Neowise

« on: July 21, 2020, 09:22:45 AM »

I question only whether it exists and why it was claimed discovered on 27 March

Two very simple questions to answer. 

1. Yes it most definitely does exist.  There are a lot of people now who can confirm that.
2. It was identified by the NEOWISE Near Earth Object survey satellite on March 27th.

Nope. NEOWISE Near Earth Object survey satellite is a name of a project, not a comet. Giving it same name only aims to confuse people between these two same name and claim its existance at March 27th. It's just like similarity between Samuel Shenton and Daniel Shenton. They aren't relative, but it comes to mind.

It's just an easily recognizable name. It's official name is C/2020 F3. But you could have figured that out yourself by simply typing "neowise" in google.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Neowise

« on: July 20, 2020, 01:08:22 PM »

I'm sure that JJA will be able to relate to my frustrations about satellites when it comes to looking out for the Perseids in August.  They are frigging everywhere! Especially along the Milky Way corridor from Aquila, through Cygnus and onwards towards Cassiopeia and Perseus itself. 

When you are actively looking for anything that moves your eyes zero in on to all the satellites as they pass by.  Some are bright, some are dim while others dim and brighten as they go.  You even see some disappear into the Earths shadow from time to time.  That confuses people.. when satellites just disappear!  That fires up those with a vivid imagination and they see something they cannot explain.  That is clearly the origin of many a UFO report.  Many people obviously spend hardly any time looking up in the sky.  I was waiting to go into a theatre show once.  Queuing up outside I saw the ISS pass overhead.  I think of all the people in the queue I was the only one that was even aware that it was there!  A lovely bright moving 'star' passing overhead.

When I was looking to watch the comet last saturday night along with my sister, she mentioned that we would also have a flyover of the ISS. So, we had the ISS fly over from southwest to northeast, at an angle of over 70 degrees so we saw it for a few minutes. And we saw a satellite moving over as well. Have seen the ISS fly over a dozen times before but it feels like a bonus every time I look at the sky when it happens. Even though I know when it happens beforehand.

I think the ISS is the most bright object one can watch at night except for the moon.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Neowise

« on: July 20, 2020, 09:07:57 AM »

I have seen it with the naked eye. And the reason he asks for video is a troll question. With a video you cannot get the exposure time required to film it clearly and he knows it.

Wise, please just take my advice to look from the mountains or whatever you have close. Top of a high building would also work I guess. It is getting more faint by the day. I looked saturday and saw it with naked eyes but with binoculars it was a bit more clear.