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 - 3 Tesla

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 26, 2009, 02:45:51 AM »
So, for the record, I am retiring from this debating forum because I am sick and tired of your rude and childish behaviour, not because I have been defeated by your intellectual brilliance.

But to everyone else (even Levee!) I repeat:

So long, and thanks for all the fish good debating!

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 26, 2009, 02:33:29 AM »
Quote
"Trolling and low-content posting will not be tolerated", right?
The problem is, as I see it, that ...
The former, as diplayed by Tom Bishop (stars are blue because they are blue) ...
Tends to provoke the latter, as displayed by everyone else (Tom Bishop is a stupid troll).
As the song goes: "You can't have one without the other".

If you knew the answer to "how we know" you wouldn't need to rattle around in your pram and link to irrelevant material and rely on ad hominin in an utterly obvious attempt to divert the issue.

Ad hominem (note spelling) - against the man ...

I think that there is always merit in weighing up the character of the people you meet in life.

(Even though from a pure debating point-of-view, and on an argument-to-argument basis it is strictly wrong.)

Nobody is going to vote for a politician who lies, cheats, presents false accounts, and welches on his manifesto promises after all.

If someone is repeatedly rude, devious, and stubbornly and pridefully refuses to admit when they are wrong ...

Then that person gains a reputation for untrustworthyness which reduces the trustworthyness of any of his future arguments.

So, for the record, I am retiring from this debating forum because I am sick and tired of your rude and childish behaviour, not because I have been defeated by your intellectual brilliance.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Star-trails"
« on: July 24, 2009, 08:31:38 AM »
The way that The South Celestial Pole is always reported as being due south ...

Is another example of how all Flat Earth models fall down around The South Pole.

The vast quantity of data from The South Pole - a single, unique point in space which has been visited many times by many people of many nationalities for nearly a hundred years now - cannot be explained by any Flat Earth Model ...

Therefore The Earth is round, not flat.

So long, and thanks for all the fish good debating!

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« on: July 24, 2009, 08:24:37 AM »
The vast quantity of data from The South Pole - a single, unique point in space which has been visited many times by many people of many nationalities for nearly a hundred years now - cannot be explained by any Flat Earth Model ...

Therefore The Earth is round, not flat.

So long, and thanks for all the fish good debating!

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite Infiniteness!
« on: July 24, 2009, 08:23:33 AM »
The vast quantity of data from The South Pole - a single, unique point in space which has been visited many times by many people of many nationalities for nearly a hundred years now - cannot be explained by any Flat Earth Model ...

Therefore The Earth is round, not flat.

So long, and thanks for all the fish good debating!

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 24, 2009, 06:55:55 AM »
Guys, a lot of you are posting in a manner which is unacceptable in D&D. This section is strictly moderated, so read the site and forum-specific rules. Any further infractions will result in suspensions.

"Trolling and low-content posting will not be tolerated", right?

The problem is, as I see it, that ...

The former, as diplayed by Tom Bishop (stars are blue because they are blue) ...

Tends to provoke the latter, as displayed by everyone else (Tom Bishop is a stupid troll).

As the song goes: "You can't have one without the other".

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 24, 2009, 06:27:08 AM »
How does the color frequency of a given body in the sky tell us that it's accelerating?

The missing frequencies (lines) are from the same chemical elements.

Assuming (reasonably) that elements stay the same throughout the universe ...

Their spectral frequencies should also be the same throughout the universe.

If those frequencies shift then the object must be moving relative to us.

Eight:

Lucky seven?:

For the sixth time I have to state:

Yet again I say:

Encore une fois:

Yet again I repeat:

Again I say:

Tom doesn't seem to know much about spectroscopy or astrophysics.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 24, 2009, 04:47:44 AM »
Quote
It is not the colour of the star that is important ...

It is the colours/frequencies of its spectral lines that tell us it is (probably) moving relative to us.

A body's color spectrum is its color. Please go back to school.

When you come back try to tell us again how a body's color tells us whether it is accelerating or not.

It's not the colour it's the frequencies which are missing which are important.

And your pathetic attempt at a "back to school" insult does nothing to enhance your standing or reputation.

Lucky seven?:

For the sixth time I have to state:

Yet again I say:

Encore une fois:

Yet again I repeat:

Again I say:

Tom doesn't seem to know much about spectroscopy or astrophysics.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 24, 2009, 03:39:16 AM »
So how do we know that the star is blue because it is accelerating and for no other reason?

You also appear to be confusing acceleration with velocity.

The Doppler Effect is to do with relative velocities, not acceleration.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 24, 2009, 03:36:34 AM »
So how do we know that the star is blue because it is accelerating and for no other reason?

For the final time, Tom:

It is not the colour of the star that is important ...

It is the colours/frequencies of its spectral lines that tell us it is (probably) moving relative to us.

For the sixth time I have to state:

Yet again I say:

Encore une fois:

Yet again I repeat:

Again I say:

Tom doesn't seem to know much about spectroscopy or astrophysics.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 24, 2009, 02:48:27 AM »
What? I don't get your point. Are you saying that the thickness of the lines has got something to do with it? C'mon, Tom, this basic atomic physics! The Bohr atom! Changes in the orbit cause light to be emitted or absorbed at certain frequencies. On a spectrum, their position is the important thing, not anything else. Since you've agreed that the spectral lines are in the same place, we can assume that naturally blue objects are not blue-shifted.

They aren't in the same place. Blue stars have a blue dominated spectrum, which is why they appear blue.

They aren't in "the same place" therefore the spectral lines have different frequencies ...

Therefore the star's constituent atoms are either fundamentally different to those of other stars (unlikely) ...

Or the star is moving.

Yet again I say:

Encore une fois:

Yet again I repeat:

Again I say:

Tom doesn't seem to know much about spectroscopy or astrophysics.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 24, 2009, 02:18:55 AM »
Actually, this is a good thing.
People will come to this site ...
Experience how stubborn and dumb Tom is ...
Then go away again concluding that Flat Earthers are all stubborn and dumb.
If I was a mod' here I'd ban him for life for repeatedly bringing FET into disrepute!

See also:

Edit - please see Tom's stubborn and ignorant "contributions" to the following recent threads:

Ham Radio and Moonbounce
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.0
08/06/2009+

Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30251.0
04/07/2009+


13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 24, 2009, 02:18:06 AM »
Blue things also have a light spectrum which is shifted blue. Because they're blue.

Actually, this is a good thing.

People will come to this site ...

Experience how stubborn and dumb Tom is ...

Then go away again concluding that Flat Earthers are all stubborn and dumb.

If I was a mod' here I'd ban him for life for repeatedly bringing FET into disrepute!

I agree!  Few people have done more for RET than Tom Bishop!  Hooray for Tom! (do you ever wonder if perhaps that is his actual, secret purpose?)

Are you suggesting that he's a Round Earth double agent?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 24, 2009, 02:05:46 AM »
Blue things also have a light spectrum which is shifted blue. Because they're blue.

Actually, this is a good thing.

People will come to this site ...

Experience how stubborn and dumb Tom is ...

Then go away again concluding that Flat Earthers are all stubborn and dumb.

If I was a mod' here I'd ban him for life for repeatedly bringing FET into disrepute!

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 24, 2009, 02:03:07 AM »
Blue things also have a light spectrum which is shifted blue. Because they're blue.

Encore une fois:

Yet again I repeat:

Again I say:

Tom doesn't seem to know much about spectroscopy or astrophysics.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lighthouses (with apology)
« on: July 24, 2009, 01:41:26 AM »
I apologize for merely giving a link to the Round Earth Site; I guess I got a bit lazy,

I can't believe the thread was locked after only three posts.

Such rudeness (Tom), such arrogance (Raist) ...

I ran into this little gem by Robert J. Schadewald while perusing the Internet that I thought might be of interest.  It shows the inherent dishonesty of FE'ers and Samuel Birley Rowbotham in particular.

Yeah, I remember reading that - thanks for highlighting it.

Classic selective reporting of results - one of the tools of the pseudo-science brigade!

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 24, 2009, 01:36:38 AM »
Quote
I don't know about sound, but for light it's easy. The line spectra of the elements will be shifted towards the blue end.

So would blue stars.

Yet again I repeat:

Again I say:

Tom doesn't seem to know much about spectroscopy or astrophysics.

Tom is either an exceptionally rude/stupid/stubborn fool who cannot understand basic science ...

Or an exceptionally rude/annoying/stupid "troll" who likes to wind people up.

Either way, debating with him is a pointless and highly distasteful exercise.

He is either the kind of gullible moron that Rowbotham used to prey on in the 1800s ...

Or he is the kind of mallicious charlatan that Rowbotham was ...

Either way, debating with him is a pointless and highly distasteful exercise.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 23, 2009, 03:55:52 PM »
Quote
No, it's not, because we see emmision spectra blueshifted, and i hope that you're not saying that all chemists are in conspiracy

Right. The star is tinted blue. How does that tell us anything about it or what it's doing?

Again I say:

Tom doesn't seem to know much about spectroscopy or astrophysics.

The star's "tint" is irrelevant ...

The fact that it's spectral lines - which are related to fundamental properties of its atoms - are shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum tells us the star's velocity relative to us.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes
« on: July 23, 2009, 09:53:03 AM »
Quote
Doppler shift is an astronomical observation which could come under any number of different interpretations. For example, if someone sees a blue star it's not a given that the star is accelerating towards the earth, or anywhere. The star may just be blue.
No, it's not, because we see emmision spectra blueshifted, and i hope that you're not saying that all chemists are in conspiracy.

Tom doesn't seem to know much about spectroscopy or astrophysics.

(It can be absorbtion specta - missing black lines - too, by the way: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070624.html.)

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« on: July 22, 2009, 06:07:38 AM »
Of course not.  :)

:-)

I only asked as a simple way of "bumping" the thread (it had "sunk" onto page two) ...

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« on: July 22, 2009, 05:35:41 AM »
Whilst there is no real South "Pole", there will be a "Southern Circle/Tropic" on which you would always measure your position as 90 degrees south (by star or Sun) so that could be where Scott and Amundsen went (etc.).

A slight problem with this is that Scott and Amundsen set out from different points on the Antarctic coastline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TerraNova2.png

So if they both headed off due south towards a point on your "Southern Circle/Tropic" they would have arrived at widely different locations.

But we know that Scott arrived at exactly the same point as Amundsen because he (disheateningly) discovered a Norwegian flag waiting for him.

This evidence would suggest that The South Geographical Pole is a real, unique point and not a "Southern Circle/Tropic" that your model predicts.

There is an awful lot of evidence out there that The South Geographical Pole (90 degrees south) is a unique, single point in space rather than a circle or tropic.

Please see the logs of Scott and Amundsen (1912), the logs of Ranolph Fiennes, et al. (1979-1982) and a host of data from the Scott-Amundsen South Polar Station.

Edit - see also the logs of Fuchs, et al. who walked across the whole continent 1955-1958:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition

Would the OP like to comment about this issue (the South Pole apparently being a point, not a circle)?

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite Infiniteness!
« on: July 22, 2009, 05:31:00 AM »
Did we ever come to a conclusion / concensus on the Antarctica question?

Is it an "Ice Wall", or is it a finite continent?

Does the South Geographical Pole exist as a single, unique point, or is "90 degrees south" a circle?

This thread now seems to marry up with a newer one:

Measure Antarcticas Coastline. Simple Proof.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30812.0
21/07/2009+

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Some simple tests for FE, RE, and EA
« on: July 22, 2009, 05:27:42 AM »
How are plans coming along for these experiments, Mr. Pizza?

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« on: July 22, 2009, 05:26:23 AM »
I'm back Tom.

Have you received an adequate Flat-Earth explanation for your "trans-global" radio wave propagation yet?

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA and Asteroid Impacts
« on: July 22, 2009, 04:34:13 AM »
We need to bear in mind that asteroids (or perhaps comets) also keep impacting onto Jupiter too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_2009_impact_event

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9#Impacts

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA and Asteroid Impacts
« on: July 22, 2009, 04:28:03 AM »
That generally means I am going to get an answer, willy. you got one?

Don't diss the mod's dude!

:-)

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA and Asteroid Impacts
« on: July 22, 2009, 03:03:09 AM »
In FE where do asteriods come from?

Could they just be chunks of The Moon which fall off?

Why would they fall to earth, though? (Why would they cease to feel the full upward acceleration of "The UA"?)

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure Antarcticas Coastline. Simple Proof.
« on: July 22, 2009, 02:21:55 AM »
If the world is flat like in your standard model with Antarctica stretching around the rest of the world,

Flat Earthers have (at least!) two maps which they seem to interchange to explain various things.

The one on the left below has a finite Antarctic continent, you see, just like on The Round Earth.

Edit - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection


29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Uniform theory
« on: July 21, 2009, 01:37:31 PM »
I am sure that this was done an awful lot during the 1800s by The Royal Geographical Society (just read some of their proceedings online as I have done) amongst others.

Possibly by The Royal Astronomical Society too:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29767.msg722656#msg722656

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Uniform theory
« on: July 21, 2009, 01:24:09 PM »
we have set of all points A and B on the earth that A!=B and that they are on same continent. We have for every pair of these points a set of curves that are connecting these points(if there is no any - we are not considering that points) touching earth in every of it's point. now, lets say that a is the real distance between these points(on FE) and b is the distance that is claimed by maps. lets sat that k=a/b. whats the biggest and smallest k for considered points?

A question about surveying, in essence.

Imagine you survey the land from Cairo in Egypt to Cape Town in South Africa - a survey starts and ends at sea-level.

If you were to plot out all of the distances, bearings and elevation angles from Cairo to Cape Town you would end up with Cape Town being several thousands of km below the elevation of Cairo, yet both are, in fact, at the same elevation: sea-level.

How can this be true unless The World is a sphere?

I am sure that this was done an awful lot during the 1800s by The Royal Geographical Society (just read some of their proceedings online as I have done) amongst others.

Please try explaining this from a Flat-Earth point-of-view without using the word "conspiracy".

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27