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 - DataOverFlow2022

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 135
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: Today at 03:57:19 AM »


That "hitherto unknown principle of nature" is the ether dome. It cancels out any red shifts, parallax angles and radar signals to the moon.


You didn’t address the ignorance of your argument.




The radar suffers from the same kind of problem once it reaches the ether dome.




The radar single wouldn’t return in the same clean frequency. 

Yet the radar single bounced off the moon didn’t suffer from a frequency change nor noise making the single unusable.

FE is stupid. 

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: Today at 03:50:34 AM »


That is the azimuthal Bessel fundamental geocentric plane method.


I tried to do my own with the crapy,  crude, and vague information from FE posts.

This is what I got…




With this explanation

Flat earther’s claim the sun has to be at an altitude to make the sun set due to perspective.  Then the moon I have read is the same altitude as the sun? Thank your buddy Turbs.  So it makes sense if you want to use the hack explanation the moon sets due to perspective.

So the moon’s shadow wouldn’t fall on a flat earth the size proposed by FE for the area in the ice wall.

Where the moon and sun are too far above the earth with the sun too close to the moon for the moon to cast a shadow on the known earth.

sandokhan, provide the data to prove this wrong. 

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: Today at 03:48:55 AM »

Both those methods do not take into consideration the existence of the ether dome,

Which doesn’t exist.

With everything from the ISS and satellites providing services that you can see with own eyes.  Satellites placed in orbit visibly changing the night sky.

With you sandokhan, playing the coward.  Where you will not give any statement on how far the moon is from the earth for the FE delusion.  You claim FE is a model, yet you can’t model anything resembling reality with it.


See your still ignoring this…

Again…




sandokhan, was the sun someplace other than directly above the area of Mexico as indicated for the map above for 3pm USA eastern standard time?   The only place totality could have been seen in your delusion for flat earth is in the area of Mexico, yet at 3pm local time the shadow of totality fell on the Midwest of the USA.





4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: Today at 03:18:17 AM »



There is a huge barrier of ether between our atmosphere and the second dome.

There is no evidence of that where in your delusion the moon is under the dome like earth. 

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: Today at 03:14:45 AM »


The radar suffers from the same kind of problem once it reaches the ether dome.




The radar single wouldn’t return in the same clean frequency. 

Yet the radar single bounced off the moon didn’t suffer from a frequency change nor noise making the single unusable.

FE is stupid. 

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: Today at 03:11:56 AM »

Let me explain something to you.


You’re not explaining anything.

Two different methods of visual angles and radar easily put the moon grater than 150,000 miles from earth even if you think in your delusion there is ridiculous error. 

Where you provide no counter distance and no proof of that distance.

With you not stating what the distance to the moon is for FE highlights how stupid FE is.  Or makes you a coward, because soon as you state a figure it will easily be debunked. It’s easy to see through FE or you’re a troll.


7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: Today at 02:10:56 AM »

You imbecile,

Again…




sandokhan, was the sun someplace other than directly above the area of Mexico as indicated for the map above for 3pm USA eastern standard time?   The only place totality could have been seen in your delusion for flat earth is in the area of Mexico, yet at 3pm local time the shadow of totality fell on the Midwest of the USA.



8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: Today at 02:04:44 AM »


But I have.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2252015#msg2252015





There was no color distortion in the moon seen in the imagine below.  No atmosphere conditions looking more or less straight up to cause the amount of refraction like looking at an object on the horizon.  With the moon looking crisp and clean another indicator there is essentially no refraction.  With two observes separated by great distance looking at the moon.  Not like the single observer in your meme.

With the slight bending of light that in no way throws off the overall distance to the moon of by 30 percent.





  sandokhan, if think this distance to the moon is off.  Then you need to state your own distance to the moon and prove it.  You will not do such a thing because you’re a coward. 


By the way.  One can measure the distance to the moon with radar…

Quote
An echo pip lasts for almost half a second, and for every radar pulse transmitted: a received pip - appearing at the same place along the base line, indicating a reflecting surface about 238,000 miles distant! An almost stationary image appears on the base line that represents - the moon!
Radar echoes from the moon!
No scientific dream this, no wild tale of phantasy.

https://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-news/radar-reaches-moon-april-1946-radio-news.htm#:~:text=Accurate%20timing%20of%20each%20pulse,reflecting%20surface%3A%20about%20238%2C000%20miles.
[/b]


9
Quote from: bulmabriefs144 link=topic=92285.msg2420910#ms

[list
[li]The brick is heavier than air therefore it sinks in the air (falls), and also heavier than water and sinks in water.[/li][/list]


The brink doesn’t “sink” in atmosphere.  It accelerates down.  How do you accelerate an object with no force? 

Not only that.  If I throw a brick straight up, it’s goes from higher pressure into lower pressure and lower density atmosphere.  The atmosphere should push it up.


We can change to a ping pong ball.  I can blow a ping pong ball around a table top with just my breath. In fact, you can “float” a ping pong ball with a steam of air blowing it up.



 You have 14.7 psia pressure trying to push the ping pong ball up into less dense and less pressure.  At 25,000 feet the pressure is something like 6 psia.  A differential pressure of something like 8 psia.

However.  You throw a ping pong ball straight up on a calm day. It slows down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  It stops.  Changes travel of direction 180 degrees.  Then accelerates down all the while the buoyant force it’s trying to push the ping pong ball up from greater pressure in to the lower pressure and density of the upper atmosphere. 

There is a force not buoyancy making the ping pong ball accelerate down against “ the buoyant force” which is trying to push up the ping pong ball from more pressure and density low in the atmosphere into less pressure and density up high.


10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 06:36:59 PM »

All you do is to deny these basic facts,


You mean on that you lie?

Anyway…





sandokhan, was the sun someplace other than directly above the area of Mexico as indicated for the map above for 3pm USA eastern standard time?   The only place totality could have been seen in your delusion for flat earth is in the area of Mexico, yet at 3pm local time the shadow of totality fell on the Midwest of the USA.


11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 06:33:12 PM »

For the parallax distances, here is something new: the effect of the ether drift upon such observations, the straight lines become curves, and the parallax angle will be wrong.


As is in “wrong” by a certain amount of error.

You’re avoiding the question.

They used normal “parallax” or the different in the angles from looking at the moon from different locations at the same time.  It’s used often to determine the location and distances in navigation.

Trying to make it look more than what it is makes you look stupid and disingenuous.
 


How is there more than 30 percent error in their estimation to the distance of the moon?


You have done nothing to prove this is off by more than 30 percent.  With you providing no FE distance to the moon to dispute it. 


12
You cannot put in a curved surface that isn’t there, isn’t seen, isn’t measured, by a bunch of lousy excuses.


Actually, it is measured by the dip of the horizon.


13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars
« on: April 12, 2024, 06:27:54 PM »
You don’t even have a shred of proof for their claims,

Such as you ignoring you can see the ISS for yourself, or other satellites?  The planet Jupiter and its moons?  The moons of Saturn?  Comets and meteorites?  The fact the moon is a satellite of earth. 

While there is zero proof of your delusional dome. 

14
Flat Earth General / Re: How can you dismiss all the space footage?
« on: April 12, 2024, 03:08:46 PM »

Different layers of air is consistent with buoyancy theory.

Ah, no.

It takes an ever increasing amount of force to push air molecules more and more together.

No force, air molecules try to equal distance themselves. 


The atmosphere is in equilibrium with gravity.  We know this because air molecules are bunched up at the earth’s surface to create a greater pressure down low in the atmosphere.  If there was no gravity, the higher pressure at the earth’s surface would equalise and flow up to the lower pressure of the upper atmosphere.  There is a force preventing high pressure from flowing to the low pressure of the upper atmosphere to equalise pressure potential. 


15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 12:34:38 PM »
Because just like this guy here, they used Kepler's laws and the parallax to calculate the distance:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92292.msg2418807#msg2418807

That is why the calculation is off by some 30%.

You have to offer to your readers the equations that they had used.

Once you use the fake Keplerian laws and fake heliocentric parallax you get shit for your results.


They used normal “parallax” or the different in the angles from looking at the moon from different locations at the same time.  It’s used often to determine the location and distances in navigation.

Trying to make it look more than what it is makes you look stupid and disingenuous.
 


You have done nothing to prove this is off by more than 30 percent.  With you providing no FE distance to the moon to dispute it. 


16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 12:13:15 PM »
The app  must include Kepler's laws and then the use of the parallax.

Exactly as this guy had claimed:



What app?

What you be babbling about, where you will not even provide a distance to the moon?


Quote
Measuring the Distance To The Moon Using Only A Smartphone Camera






 sandokhan,  it’s just the difference in viewing angles between two different locations.  Florida and Brazil.  I never said their measurement was dead on. 

Answer the question. 
Why would they be off more than say 30 percent? 


17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 11:32:08 AM »
I always provide proofs for my statements,

Which has nothing to do with what was asked…




sandokhan, was the sun someplace other than directly above the area of Mexico as indicated for the map above for 3pm USA eastern standard time?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 11:31:29 AM »
There is no such thing as a heliocentric parallax angle.

It’s just the difference in viewing angles from two different positions on earth for the moon. 

So your argument is stupid as usual.

And yet these guys did it.  With you providing no evidence or specs on the distance to the moon in the flat earth delusion.


Now, for the below.  Two people teamed up and got the viewing angle distance looking at the moon from Florida and Brazil.

Quote
Measuring the Distance To The Moon Using Only A Smartphone Camera






sandokhan, answer the question. 
Why would they be off more than say 30 percent? 



19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 11:10:23 AM »
I always provide proofs for my statements,

Which has nothing to do with what was asked…




sandokhan, was the sun someplace other than directly above the area of Mexico as indicated for the map above for 3pm USA eastern standard time?


20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 11:08:32 AM »
I always provide proofs for my statements,

No.  You Frankenstein and cherry pick other people’s data together leaving out critical bits to create a false argument.

Now, for the below.  Two people teamed up and got the viewing angle distance looking at the moon from Florida and Brazil.

Quote
Measuring the Distance To The Moon Using Only A Smartphone Camera






Why would they be off more than say 30 percent? 



21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 10:59:51 AM »


 Sirius

Nobody gives a damn nor asked about Sirius.

We asked the distance to the moon..

Funny.  A quick a dirty measurement of the distance of the moon between observes places the moon farther out…

Quote
Measuring the Distance To The Moon Using Only A Smartphone Camera






22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 10:55:35 AM »
If the earth was flat, and a “dark” object directly under the sun, the eclipse totality shadow should be in the area of Mexico for my local time of 3pm in the mid west.

Your statement is worthless, as you have no proof for it.




Which would be false…




sandokhan, was the sun someplace other than directly above the area of Mexico as indicated for the map above for 3pm USA eastern standard time?


23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is he serious?
« on: April 12, 2024, 10:51:19 AM »
You can't just read the rings, read the references on the difficulties and the issues involved.

You will really need to take some aspirin now. Absolute proof that Sirius is orbiting at a distance of less than 50 km from the surface of the Earth (FET):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92401.msg2420848#msg2420848

Funny.  A quick a dirty measurement of the distance of the moon between observes places the moon farther out…

Quote
Measuring the Distance To The Moon Using Only A Smartphone Camera






24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 10:39:36 AM »

And the data is this:



You are spamming the thread again.



However, once we transfer the data onto a globe, you will also get distorted sine waves

Straw man argument.

This is actually all the shadow coverage of the eclipse at the instance of totality for me around 3 pm.  In the Midwest.




It shows the area the sun is directly over for my local time of 3pm.

If the earth was flat, and a “dark” object directly under the sun, the eclipse totality shadow should be in the area of Mexico for my local time of 3pm in the mid west. 

  sandokhan, why wasn’t totality in the area of Mexico 3pm my local time if the earth was flat.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 09:22:58 AM »
Your data

Asked you a few questions..



However, once we transfer the data onto a globe, you will also get distorted sine waves

Straw man argument.

This is actually all the shadow coverage of the eclipse at the instance of totality for me around 3 pm.  In the Midwest.




It shows the area the sun is directly over for my local time of 3pm.

If the earth was flat, and a “dark” object directly under the sun, the eclipse totality shadow should be in the area of Mexico for my local time of 3pm in the mid west. 

 

26
There is only one eclipse,


Turbs, I stated a thread about solar eclipses, are you going to post about star atlases in that thread? 

Seriously, no need to derail this thread.  There are like four or five eclipse threads now. 

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat earth solar eclipse sun/moon data
« on: April 12, 2024, 09:04:56 AM »
Feel free to spend a few hours searching online



Tom Bishop, is the below the working model for what a solar eclipse is for FE?

No. In the correct FET, the Moon orbits at an altitude a little less than the Sun, but during a solar eclipse it goes behind the Sun. The solar eclipse is caused by the Dark Body which passes in front of the Sun (a slightly smaller diameter).

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 08:05:38 AM »


However, once we transfer the data onto a globe, you will also get distorted sine waves

Straw man argument.

This is actually all the shadow coverage of the eclipse at the instance of totality for me around 3 pm.  In the Midwest.




It shows the area the sun is directly over for my local time of 3pm.

If the earth was flat, and a “dark” object directly under the sun, the eclipse totality shadow should be in the area of Mexico for my local time of 3pm in the mid west. 

 

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 07:56:24 AM »
No. In the correct FET, the Moon orbits at an altitude a little less than the Sun, but during a solar eclipse it goes behind the Sun. The solar eclipse is caused by the Dark Body which passes in front of the Sun (a slightly smaller diameter).




No evidence of the dark object what so ever.  How would it not reflect the sun light what so ever.  To it would have to block the views of stars at night.

You
“the Moon orbits at an altitude a little less than the Sun, but during a solar eclipse it goes behind the Sun.”

How does the moon have a lower orbit than the sun, but then go behind the sun.


FE is stupid.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 12, 2024, 07:41:15 AM »

The FE setting works out perfectly, 100% of the time, while the RE setting results in distorted sine waves.




What settings?

Again..

How can it be determined if it’s accurate for flat earth when you provide no actual data on distances and sizes.

Flat earther’s claim the sun has to be at an altitude to make the sun set due to perspective.  Then the moon I have read is the same altitude as the sun? Thank your buddy Turbs.  So it makes sense if you want to use the hack explanation the moon sets due to perspective.

So the moon’s shadow wouldn’t fall on a flat earth the size proposed by FE for the area in the ice wall.

Where the moon and sun are too far above the earth with the sun too close to the moon for the moon to cast a shadow on the known earth.




sandokhan, provide the data to prove this wrong.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 135