### 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 - ClockTower

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 207
1
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Answer me this
« on: April 28, 2012, 11:33:33 PM »
What would happen if i flew an airplane in a straight line due east. A straight line meaning a 180 degree horizontal  line.

would travel around the circumference of the earth and end up in the same place i started? if not why?

If you started heading East with no course corrections, you would eventually reach a point which no one has ever been.

Also, there are only a very few places you can start from on a RE globe and end where you started while always heading East.
Except for the NP and SP, what other places can't you go due east on the RE surface and return to where you started?

While always heading East?  Practically everywhere.
I think you've confused going in a straight line and only going east. If not, then please list one place, not the NP or SP, and explain how going east, but not always, east

2
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shining light on an old topic.
« on: April 28, 2012, 07:39:16 PM »
Pongo, you're assuming a spotlight sun, where, I guess, the sun somehow doesn't send out light in every direction.  How that happens and doesn't affect the apparent shape of the sun is another matter.

Anyway, if the sun's light does go out in every direction, we should still be able to see direct light from the sun when the bottoms of clouds are being illuminated.  In the traditional explanation, it's the atmosphere (or atmolayer if you prefer) that's limiting the distance the light of the sun can reach.  The problem with that is that the light being reflected off the clouds is traveling further than the light coming directly from the sun, so the sun should still be visible.
well atleast you understand what im getting at

pongo you have just explained whats happening in my picture perfectly, thanks. now can you actually enlighten me on how we can see light reflecting off clouds, yet we cant see the sun? the light is coming from the same place. so why cant we directly see the sun?

Okay, I've thought this over for a couple days and I'm still not sure how you don't understand. Light bounces off the Earth and hits the clouds.  The light rays bounce off and are traveling way above your head. I'm not sure why you would expect to see the reflected light or the sun as you would both be outside the spotlight and below the reflected light.

The only thing I can think of that is preventing you from seeing the solution is that you are having difficulty thinking in FE terms. Try mentally visualizing the flat Earth when you think of being both outside the spotlight and under the reflected light.
Oh so wrong. Please read about albedo. Go outside just 15 minutes before the Sun sets. Stand in a grassy field. Don't use anything like a mirror. Hold you hand flat, palm down, level with the ground, at eye level. If you're right the top of your head will be less illuminated that the bottom.

3
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Answer me this
« on: April 28, 2012, 07:28:00 PM »
What would happen if i flew an airplane in a straight line due east. A straight line meaning a 180 degree horizontal  line.

would travel around the circumference of the earth and end up in the same place i started? if not why?

If you started heading East with no course corrections, you would eventually reach a point which no one has ever been.

Also, there are only a very few places you can start from on a RE globe and end where you started while always heading East.
Except for the NP and SP, what other places can't you go due east on the RE surface and return to where you started?

4
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The "psuedolight line in Antarctica" and sat. dishes
« on: April 27, 2012, 10:55:40 PM »
No FE'ers have satisfactorily explained this:
<image>
Are you claiming there is such a huge swell of water that it obscures the cloud base?

Clouds touch the ground all the time, we generally call it fog. Ask any mariner if they have seen fog on the sea. It's quite common.
Are you saying that there is fog in the photo? Well, if so, you'd be wrong. Fog is a stratus cloud. The photo shows cumulus clouds on the horizon.

5
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Please Explain.
« on: April 27, 2012, 10:44:01 PM »

6
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The horizon is curved.
« on: April 27, 2012, 09:28:53 PM »
False, you can see the Earth curve away and downward (from your perspective), as the photo demonstrates.
Yes. It's as simple as tilting your perspective.

<image>
Red: horizontal
Green: Straight (as straight as it can be, considering the low resolution of the picture) line connecting points A and B, coincidentally happens to correlate to the horizon.
Please do pay attention. That is not the direction I said.
Cop is right points A and B should be lower than the center of pic, unless you are advocating cylinder earth theory.
Obviously false. I can take a photo angling up at 10o and the horizon would be lower than the center of the pic.

7
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Please Explain.
« on: April 27, 2012, 09:22:14 PM »
if you flew north you would eventually reach the center of the disc. North is inward, south is outward,
west is following the sun and east, the opposite.
Okay, this game about directions is really getting old. The plane flies north to the NP, then south to the SP, then north to Denver--all approximately on the same meridian and anti-meridian.

Oh and it's been done. Here's one documented flight from 1977: http://www.wingnet.org/rtw/RTW006U.HTM. Yes, PTM has a killer argument.

And another: http://www.elgenlong.com/content.php?view=rtp_high

8
##### Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« on: April 27, 2012, 09:07:56 PM »
Alternatively, he didn't warn TK because he was tired of doing so, and was hoping that he might actually get through to him. Then that conversation died, the thread was starting to get back on topic, and you rederailed it by continuing it. He warned you, so you proceeded to freak out and force him to ban you. Now you're back and are continuing to over-react.

Your interpretation is blatant favoritism.  My "freaking out" was an explanation in the clearest terms I could manage of what I really meant -- a misinterpretation which was the basis of the warning. The only thing you could reasonably fault me for was posting my clarification in that thread while I could have made a new thread here instead, but then again, Wilmore was in the midst of setting the example by breaking his own rules in that area.
I agree with zarg. Tom Bishop is permitted to call us retarded children without in-thread warnings. He regularly memberates without consequence. When will FES learn to stop this blatant favoritism?

9
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The horizon is curved.
« on: April 27, 2012, 02:59:11 PM »
Visible curvature at or near sea level doesn't make sense, no matter which model you're using. Just think about it.
False, you can see the Earth curve away and downward (from your perspective), as the photo demonstrates.

10
##### Flat Earth General / Re: why?
« on: April 27, 2012, 10:02:22 AM »
Same deal. The darkness of the earth is modified by the illuminated area.
How does that help you? The curvature is clear. The Earth's horizon is over the Pacific Ocean. There are no clouds. The Sun is below eye-level. The camera is above almost all of the atmosphere.

Since FET can't argue that it's the spotlight's circle of illumination, This thread disproves FET.

11
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon shrimp
« on: April 26, 2012, 08:02:08 PM »
So, how many pages have you managed to get scanned so far, good fellow?
I think he's gone--without producing the promised book.

Archibald is breaking character?

Yes thes most excellent fora provided humor for me during times at work while I was up to my typical recumbency.  I wanted to reveal myself before I departed as I feel this forum has reached its peak value in terms of humorous entertainment.

12
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon features
« on: April 26, 2012, 07:54:24 PM »
No where does Wilmore state that he believes shrimp are living on the moon.
I guess you can't use the Search function.

Moon Shrimp is the layman's term for what modern science calls Luna, a species of shrimp-like bacteria found on the Moon.

13
##### Flat Earth General / Re: why?
« on: April 26, 2012, 07:48:17 PM »
The earth clearly dips into the illuminated area. One merely has to watch your video and take note that there is a similar high contrast illuminated area, which the earth dips into, on the images with the alleged curvature.
Do tell us how you determined that you see the Earth dipping "into the illuminated area". Your "vision" and "reasoning" amaze me!

Let's try another ballon, watching the sunset this time:

Reference: http://www.pacificstarflight.com/Site/Space_photos.html#grid and" class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> at 2:01 and 2:14.

14
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon features
« on: April 26, 2012, 05:16:54 PM »
The comical answer to this - and yes, this is really the best answer they have - is that the moon is covered with glowing shrimps ("moonshramp") which migrate back and forth to simulate the phases.

You know that no one believes in shrimp on the moon, and that "moonshramp" were an invention of fools like you trying to make us look bad, yet you still persist in spreading this nonsense as truth. Stop.
Demonstratively false.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38615.msg1005462#msg1005462

Quote
I remain convinced that what we see is the activity of the moon's lifeforms. The moon darkens, flushes red, and then brightens again.

15
##### Flat Earth General / Re: why?
« on: April 26, 2012, 05:11:48 PM »
<image>

The ones which look like this are a result of the sun illuminating a portion of the earth with its bright splotch of light, creating uneven terrain, not the earth's "curvature".

Notice that the pictures with supposed curvature all have illuminated areas which the earth dips into.
Ahh... No. There's cloud coverage in that image to all the way to the horizon. The notch is simply a break in the clouds.

Since you can see uneven terrain in that photo, I believe we know not to trust your vision. After all, you see impossible distances with binoculars.

16
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Major Flaw in FAQ
« on: April 26, 2012, 01:26:17 PM »
Oh, I'm sorry but I was under the impression that you knew all there is to know about the EA.  My mistake.

You must be religious because you were very quick to assume my omniscience regarding EA.

Well, you seem to be pretty confident of what EA does and doesn't do.  I figure that either you are quite knowledgeable about the properties of the EA or you're just full of crap.  Personally, I think that answer is pretty obvious.
More evidence for the latter. Rushy can't say that the Bishop Constant isn't zero. Rushy can't provide any reason to believe otherwise.

The Bishop constant doesn't exist and therefore it doesn't really pose a problem to anything I say.

Quote from: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator
β - the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Dr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy. When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally.

Is it really a new concept to you that not all Flat Earthers are in agreement with one another?
No. Is it really a new concept to you that if one FE defines the Bishop Constant then it exists?

17
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Major Flaw in FAQ
« on: April 26, 2012, 12:54:39 PM »
Oh, I'm sorry but I was under the impression that you knew all there is to know about the EA.  My mistake.

You must be religious because you were very quick to assume my omniscience regarding EA.

Well, you seem to be pretty confident of what EA does and doesn't do.  I figure that either you are quite knowledgeable about the properties of the EA or you're just full of crap.  Personally, I think that answer is pretty obvious.
More evidence for the latter. Rushy can't say that the Bishop Constant isn't zero. Rushy can't provide any reason to believe otherwise.

The Bishop constant doesn't exist and therefore it doesn't really pose a problem to anything I say.

Quote from: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator
β - the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Dr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy. When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally.

18
##### Flat Earth General / Re: why?
« on: April 26, 2012, 12:50:48 PM »
Let's remember Tom Bishop's claim:

yes we know its the ISS, but just to repeat myself again its the best clear shot available

There are no clear shots of this effect from amateur high altitude enthusiasts outside of NASA because it doesn't happen.

Well, after Tom Bishop's wild attempt to salvage FET from squevil great analysis, I think I can spring the trap now (1:04 starts the FET death knell.): " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">.

Yes, it's definitive proof. Yes, the Earth is round. Thanks for playing!

19
##### Flat Earth General / Re: why?
« on: April 26, 2012, 12:05:44 PM »

Quote from: Clocktower
Nope. You're just wrong there. You can't conclude that in the Russian example there is not curvature, but then claim there is in the MIT example. You're grasping at straws.

The Russian example just above the clouds is much lower than the MIT edge of space example, yet the Russian image displays more curvature. Clearly distorted.
Saying it does not make it true. You don't now the height of both experiments at the time the two photos were taken. Again, why is the Sun below eye-level?

Quote from: Clocktower
So I didn't say "circle of darkness". I thank you for admitting your failure. If you wish to debate the circle of darkness with TK, feel free.

You replied to the subject. It would be kind of you to stay on topic.
I am on topic as presented by the OP.
Quote
Quote from: Clocktower
So in FET: the Sun is 3000 miles above the FE; Clouds' maximum height is less than 5 miles; The maximum distance from an observer to the point on the FE directly under the Sun would be less than 7,000 miles. So why is the Sun below eye-level? Using simple trig, the steepest angle the Sun could present to the clouds would be arctan(7000/3000) = 67o, not enough close to the alleged very swallow angle.

You forgot about perspective, refraction, etc, which limits how far bodies are seen across the surface of the earth. Please purchase a copy of Earth Not a Globe.
Nope, I didn't forget. Perspective fails miserably in general, and here especially as the horizon is below eye-level. Refraction fails miserably as the experiments are above almost all of the atmosphere.

20
##### Flat Earth General / Re: why?
« on: April 26, 2012, 10:57:58 AM »
Quote
So tell us how you determined that both experiments took pictures of clouds whose tops were at the same height from the same (camera) altitude. You're just making things up again, aren't you?

The MIT picture was taken from the edge of space. There are no clouds at the edge of space. Clouds are far lower. Yet there is more curvature in the cloud picture than the edge of space picture -- clearly the result of a distorted lens.
Nope. You're just wrong there. You can't conclude that in the Russian example there is not curvature, but then claim there is in the MIT example. You're grasping at straws.
Quote
Quote
Show me where I said "circle of darkness". Please do pay attention.

You were replying to the subject of circles of darkness with a purported example. Kindly reads posts before you reply to them.
So I didn't say "circle of darkness". I thank you for admitting your failure. If you wish to debate the circle of darkness with TK, feel free.
Quote
Quote
Again, tell us why there is darkness below the edge when looking toward the rising Sun. If you can see the Sun, shouldn't all the Earth between you and the Sun be lit, especially close to the horizon?

The light is hitting the clouds from the side or from a very shallow angle.

The far away clouds are lit up, but as clouds are not entirely transparent, the light dimms out into darkness as they approach the observer.
So in FET: the Sun is 3000 miles above the FE; Clouds' maximum height is less than 5 miles; The maximum distance from an observer to the point on the FE directly under the Sun would be less than 7,000 miles. So why is the Sun below eye-level? Using simple trig, the steepest angle the Sun could present to the clouds would be arctan(7000/3000) = 67o, not enough close to the alleged very swallow angle.

21
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What if I fly due south?
« on: April 26, 2012, 10:40:57 AM »
Do you mean 'addressed' as in FEers have provided enough evidence for this part of the theory to convince an independent reader that's it's plausible without relying on magic, or as in you thought about?

Seriously, Tom Bishop, you really fail at addressing points. Relying on magic, like gears or sky mirrors or the Conspiracy, means you fail again.

You've got a problem with the bipolar model. You need to address it. I've listed the conditions of the conflict clearly.

You've never addressed the problem that the Sun is in the opposite direction, not the problem that the Sun should light most off the Europe, Asia, and North America when it swings rapidly faster than the observed speed around above the NP (in the summer), not the problem that you now have reason that we can't find the edge, and many others.

Unknown != Magic.

We can empirically observe the movements of celestial bodies, but we do not observe the cause of their movements.

We do not speculate on the invisible. See our opinions on Gravity for example. When we step off the edge of a chair and go into free-fall we see that, physically, the earth is moving upwards towards us to meet our feet. This is empirical evidence that the earth is moving upwards. We do not observe invisible puller particles, invisible bendings of space, or any other invisible nonsense, as disreputable scienticians speculate on. Hence we cannot come to those conclusions.
That would be your problem. Concluding that the evidence suits your theory without mentioning the alternative and that you can't tell the difference, you fail again..

Oh, and the challenge is about observing celestial bodies that directly conflict with your theory. For example, on December 23, 2012 00.12UT an observer in Monterey, CA, US still sees the Sun to the west when your theory would have it swinging around the SP.

22
##### Flat Earth General / Re: why?
« on: April 26, 2012, 10:19:02 AM »
Quote
First, How much curvature at cloud level is too much? The height of clouds is relative to the sea level, so why wouldn't the clouds curve with the curved horizon?

Considering that there is more curvature in that cloud picture than what is seen at the edge of space in the MIT balloon experiment, we can see that one of them is flawed. The answer is that the image at cloud level is flawed, as there is not that much curvature at cloud level.
So tell us how you determined that both experiments took pictures of clouds whose tops were at the same height from the same (camera) altitude. You're just making things up again, aren't you?
Quote
<irrelevant text snipped>
Quote from: Clocktower
Second, The curvature is not the issue. The issue is that we see curvature looking toward the Sun and darkness below. Please do pay attention. I refer you to the OP.

Curvature is the issue. A circle of darkness should be impossible on a Flat Earth. But the picture you presented is taken through a warped or wide-angle lens. Hence any purported "circle of darkness" is discounted.
Show me where I said "circle of darkness". Please do pay attention.

Again, tell us why there is darkness below the edge when looking toward the rising Sun. If you can see the Sun, shouldn't all the Earth between you and the Sun be lit, especially close to the horizon?

23
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What if I fly due south?
« on: April 26, 2012, 10:11:05 AM »
Your fourth post provides no explanation, relying only on the magic of 'gears'. How does that post even address the Sun is closer in the opposite direction problems?

Dodging questions and running from threads, you fail again.

The subject was addressed. Kindly post less often.
Do you mean 'addressed' as in FEers have provided enough evidence for this part of the theory to convince an independent reader that's it's plausible without relying on magic, or as in you thought about?

Seriously, Tom Bishop, you really fail at addressing points. Relying on magic, like gears or sky mirrors or the Conspiracy, means you fail again.

You've got a problem with the bipolar model. You need to address it. I've listed the conditions of the conflict clearly.

You've never addressed the problem that the Sun is in the opposite direction, not the problem that the Sun should light most off the Europe, Asia, and North America when it swings rapidly faster than the observed speed around above the NP (in the summer), not the problem that you now have reason that we can't find the edge, and many others.

24
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Moon's Craters could be Bubbles
« on: April 26, 2012, 10:02:53 AM »
...
An interesting notion.  However, I think the gasses being released at this point on the moon are too slow to cause "bubbles" as such.  I'm definitely going to examine available data again however to review this.
It's been done before. Even with just air percolating up through fine sand is enough to create "craters"; however, these other methods all failed to explain the central peak uplift of complex craters. The impact theories however do so.

25
##### Flat Earth General / Re: why?
« on: April 26, 2012, 09:58:10 AM »
Thanks for admitting you don't have any evidence to support your outlandish claim, once again.

Quote from: ClockTower
http://pics.livejournal.com/nightnat/pic/0043hyw4

http://netwind.ru/

Here's the live journal page for that amateur mission:

http://nightnat.livejournal.com/197536.html

Look at how much curvature is displayed at cloud level:

<image>

The camera is clearly using a distorted or wide angle lens, and can thus be discounted.
Again, your lame excuse of discounting "distorted" lens is really lame this time.

First, How much curvature at cloud level is too much? The height of clouds is relative to the sea level, so why wouldn't the clouds curve with the curved horizon?

Second, The curvature is not the issue. The issue is that we see curvature looking toward the Sun and darkness below. Please do pay attention. I refer you to the OP.

...
figure 3. dawn photo taken from a high altitude

<image>

however in figure 3 we now see the light from another angle and now it looks as if the shadow is convex and the 'spotlight' is concave in shape.
as sunrises and sunsets happen simultaneously we must concluse that the spotlight effect is both concave and convex at the same time depending where the observer is
....

26
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What if I fly due south?
« on: April 26, 2012, 09:49:22 AM »
Tell us how the Sun magically jumps on the equinoxes around 12.00UT. Tell us how before local noon at 180o longitude those east of the meridian have to look west to see the Sun, but its actually across the disc?

How and why the sun switches gears is, of course, unknown.

As astronomers we may observe that it happens, but we cannot observe the reason behind it.

Kindly lurk more and post less frequently in the future.
Your fourth post provides no explanation, relying only on the magic of 'gears'. How does that post even address the Sun is closer in the opposite direction problems?

Dodging questions and running from threads, you fail again.

27
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wiki Critique: Occam's Razor
« on: April 26, 2012, 09:46:10 AM »
Quote
Quote
Are you suggesting anything that you don't understand is nonsense?

Quote
I refer you to your Wiki. [...] You might notice that reference in the title of this thread as well.
You need to learn the difference between me, a thread title, and a wiki. Hint: neither the thread title or wiki-page can be assumed to speak on my behalf.
I made no such assumption. You however assumed that 'you' mean you personally, not FEers in general. You might want to check your ego at the door.

If you don't care to stay on topic of the Wiki critique, then please start another thread to provide a relevant forum for you points. Thanks.

*I am not a mod.

28
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Moon's Craters could be Bubbles
« on: April 26, 2012, 08:04:48 AM »
I have a theory that the "craters" on the moon are actually bubbles that formed during the moon's construction. I don't think the moon is a sphere because it is fixed and does not rotate. In my opinion, the moon is a semi-transparent lens and the shadow is caused by something on the other side of heaven (sky dome) to mark the seasons.

Also if the moon is fixed towards the earth then how did it get hit with craters on the side facing us? Did an asteroid pull a curve ball and swoop in? The craters look more like heat bubbles that dried similar to paint.

<image>
The Moon does rotate, but it does keep approximately the same face toward the Earth. You can look up the references to 'libration' after seeing it here: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> for further information.

1) the Moon's rotation has slowed on the eons.
2) Yes, objects do curve in their approach to larger objects. Try tossing a ball upwards at 45o. Note it's curved path.

29
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Community Project: NASA source code
« on: April 26, 2012, 07:32:14 AM »
stop harassing NASA and the good hard working people that work for it, and other space agencies.
Who exactly is harassing NASA?
Here's one harassing post:
How do we know that this is the actual source code and not merely the source code for the training simulator that simulated the craft?
I imagine we would find that out while working with it.  NASA is prone to mistake.

30
##### Flat Earth General / Re: why?
« on: April 26, 2012, 06:48:19 AM »
yes we know its the ISS, but just to repeat myself again its the best clear shot available

There are no clear shots of this effect from amateur high altitude enthusiasts outside of NASA because it doesn't happen.
Then please provide your evidence that sunrise from a high altitude looks differently--or should we just conclude that you're making things up again?

It's up to you guys to demonstrate that it happens. I have seen hundreds of amateur images from the edge of space where it does not.

See the MIT Space Camera balloon experiment, for example. Nope. No shadow of darkness. It looks as if we're looking down at a circle of light.
Thanks for admitting you don't have any evidence to support your outlandish claim, once again.

http://netwind.ru/

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 207