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 - IOA

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
1
Both the celestial gear model and  the moonshramp model explain this.
Who lubricates those gears? And have you seen moonshrimp for yourself?

2
No. The critical factor here is that the earth depicted is not flat.
And neither is the Earth depicted by your flat earth model.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ISS, and other questions
« on: June 19, 2011, 06:40:59 PM »
Call me paranoid, but is this a role-playing website?

If you haven't noticed, they're all doing this to get a rise out of the visitors, and some have even openly admitted to being devil's advocates for this "Flat Earth Theory". Most of it is just practice in rhetoric and argument; the rest is just for lulz.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The movement of the Sun.
« on: June 17, 2011, 05:23:12 PM »
I don't recall saying that.
Ah, okay. Well then, gravity exists. Cavendish experiment.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The movement of the Sun.
« on: June 17, 2011, 03:57:16 PM »
Have you checked every single one, including yourself?
I don't need to.
Oh? But I need to check every single object on Earth (including Bananas) for gravity before you consider it something universal?

Do we have some sort of double standard here?

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ISS, and other questions
« on: June 17, 2011, 03:56:16 PM »
Quote
A telescope can magnify a body hundreds of times its size. A typical Newtonian can reach 300-500x magnification. I've never seen any camera lens which could do that.
My lens, with a teleconverter, is already close in league with your telescope with a magnification of 100x. Anything above 300x or so is a waste due to impurities in the atmosphere.

Quote
No one uses a telescope without a tripod. You still have to hand guide it.
Not necessarily. Some tripods have knobs instead of a stick, and some yet are electronically guided. In the latter case, you may never have to touch the tripod.

Quote
This is why it's tracking the movement of a plane by hand guiding the telescope is not doable.
Again, the video I showed you clearly demonstrates that this is possible. Maybe not with a telescope, but with a lens of sufficient focal length.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The movement of the Sun.
« on: June 17, 2011, 03:42:31 PM »
How do you know that all humans have brains? Have you checked every single one, including yourself?

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ISS, and other questions
« on: June 17, 2011, 03:30:23 PM »
Watch me, Tom. I can pick apart your posts, too.



Big difference. The fact that it's a lens just makes it easier to take videos with.

Yet my argument was that it was hard to track moving bodies with telescopes. I didn't say anything about camera lenses.
What is your point? A lens is a series of glass elements that focus light onto an imaging sensor. It's got a barrel and everything, just like a telescope does. And you can mount it on a tripod.

Quote
It's also easy to focus on a plane looking through a sheet of glass. Looking at a plane through a sheet of glass wouldn't compare to looking at it through a telescope.
You couldn't be more wrong about this. If anything, a telescope is a "sheet of glass".



As shown here, a modern telescope has only 3 optical elements (4 if you count the objective piece). Any modern lens has at least 8 elements or more, including aspherical and anti-reflective elements to prevent against aberrations from the light diverging.



As you can see, it's actually the telescope that's simply a "sheet of glass"; the lens is a piece of technology. Don't confuse that.
Quote
Quote
Also, with the right equipment (a very sturdy tripod), it might even be easier to shoot a video of a plane in the distance because it would appear to move slower than one flying straight above you.

No. The slightest tremors and movements of your hand prevent you from tracking far off moving bodies.

Clearly not.



And if it were out in the distance, with the right kind of tripod, you can get the plane in view with ease. It's much easier to focus on something not moving a lot, than something that is moving a lot. Right?
Quote
Quote
If you have a camera at the business end, then what's the difference?

Looking through a telescope exaggerates the slight movements of your hands and decreases precision of movement.
True. So do lenses. The difference is, telescopes tend to be larger and longer than telephoto lenses. The whole idea of a telephoto lens is that its actual length is shorter than the focal length. So what's your point? Tripods will solve the "precision of movement" problem.

Quote
Quote
A plane in the distance would be easier to track because it would appear to move more slowly than a plane directly overhead.

It would be harder to track because the telescope is focused on an extremely small area of the sky, which you need to track with millimeter precision.

Again, telescopes and lenses are basically the same thing, except lenses are made with more glass and refine the light before it reaches the image sensor.

Also, tripods.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The movement of the Sun.
« on: June 17, 2011, 02:00:24 PM »
I think the biggest flaw in the line of Zetetic, empiricist reasoning is the idea that you need to see something to believe it exists. I've never seen Tom Bishop's brain, and neither has he. Who is he to tell me (or anyone, for that matter) that I'm wrong about something if he doesn't even believe he has a brain?...

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ISS, and other questions
« on: June 17, 2011, 10:02:04 AM »
Big difference. The fact that it's a lens just makes it easier to take videos with.

Also, with the right equipment (a very sturdy tripod), it might even be easier to shoot a video of a plane in the distance because it would appear to move slower than one flying straight above you.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ISS, and other questions
« on: June 17, 2011, 09:52:00 AM »
No, it's impossible to look at a plane in the distance with a telescope.
Really? This guy did a pretty good job:


12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please, give me solid proof.
« on: June 17, 2011, 09:47:47 AM »
Why are we discussing a completely unproven set of hypotheses? The only "evidence" provided is a few drawings and poor guesswork.
False

Justify this statement.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ISS, and other questions
« on: June 16, 2011, 09:15:17 PM »
I own a 2600mm F/32 lens for a Nikon camera. I'm going to see if I can get some video of the ISS passing by my house, and then perhaps a follow-up video of the ISS as I stay in Germany over the summer. You can all consider me part of the conspiracy then.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please, give me solid proof.
« on: June 16, 2011, 09:11:38 PM »
Why are we discussing a completely unproven trip? The only "evidence" provided is an animated GIF.
Why are we discussing a completely unproven set of hypotheses? The only "evidence" provided is a few drawings and poor guesswork.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ISS, and other questions
« on: June 16, 2011, 06:56:41 PM »
I look forward to your findings and your posting pictures in this thread. Until then, you have no evidence to make a zetetic conclusion.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please, give me solid proof.
« on: June 16, 2011, 06:54:34 PM »
Quote
That certainly wasn't documented on his trip.

You're right. I guess your little globe animation is wrong then.
I suppose you're right if you're looking to support your own hypothesis and not the search of objective truth, for which Zetecism seems to so passionately strive.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ISS, and other questions
« on: June 16, 2011, 02:31:12 PM »
If you don't believe them, you can look out your window on a clear night and see it for yourself.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please, give me solid proof.
« on: June 16, 2011, 02:27:08 PM »
Quote
The path didn't follow a longitude. They zer zig-zagging all over the place.
It's still impossible on a flat earth.

His path would look more or less like this on a flat earth, with him teleporting mysteriously from Cape Town to Auckland.



That certainly wasn't documented on his trip.

Quote
So... where's the evidence? All I see is more claims.
It's actually quite ironic that you say that...perhaps you ought to look at the URL on your browser.
Quote
Quote
Also, in the case of longitudinal circumnavigation on a flat Earth, there are no flat earth "hypotheses" that support this.
Incorrect.
Well? Do you even have a model of how the above image could work? I'd love to see your teleportation device.

Quote
Incorrect. You tossed your boomerang and you now must catch it at your drawing board.  That is where your task begins again.  My task has been completed.
Do you have any evidence for this outlandish claim?

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please, give me solid proof.
« on: June 13, 2011, 10:56:38 PM »
All of the following is completely irrelevant to the thread.



The voyage displayed above has been superimposed onto an earth shape that does not exist. 
You claimed it. Now prove it.

You have claimed that somebody had longitudinally circumnavigated the Earth.
Right so far.
Quote from: PizzaPlanet
You have also claimed that it's impossible to accomplish on a flat Earth.
Bingo.
 
Quote from: PizzaPlanet
What you forgot to do is to provide evidence for either claim.
I did provide evidence for at least one of the claims, so in this case, it is in fact your wording that is faulty. Lurk a little.

--> http://www.transglobe-expedition.org

Also, in the case of longitudinal circumnavigation on a flat Earth, there are no flat earth "hypotheses" that support this.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please, give me solid proof.
« on: June 13, 2011, 12:28:22 PM »
This is an awfully strange topic; I remember the OP sceptically asking for proof...and then the claimant tried to say it wasn't his place to prove it?

Burden of proof, anyone?

How do you have 487 posts, and I've never even heard of you?
Absolutely irrelevant, but I used to come here every so often to see what you guys were up to and to see if anyone could prove you wrong.

The last time I left was when I showed that somebody had longitudinally circumnavigated the Earth; something that is impossible on a flat Earth.


21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please, give me solid proof.
« on: June 08, 2011, 12:38:27 PM »
This is an awfully strange topic; I remember the OP sceptically asking for proof...and then the claimant tried to say it wasn't his place to prove it?

Burden of proof, anyone?

22
Flat Earth General / Re: You guys are awesome
« on: February 22, 2011, 07:41:18 AM »
Lol. The comedic effect of this website is directly proportional to how many times I log in.

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does light bend and what are its exact properties
« on: February 22, 2011, 05:45:53 AM »
Well, a single observation that debunks Flat Earth hypothesis would be the direct observation of Earth itself. However, that's apparently not valid evidence. In the same light, you shouldn't take Flat Earth's observations as valid evidence either.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Mount Everest and the Sun
« on: February 21, 2011, 08:10:39 PM »
Ah, that one's easy. Light bends for absolutely no reason.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does light bend and what are its exact properties
« on: February 21, 2011, 08:08:11 PM »
Tom, have you ever observed the Earth in its entirety?

26
So longitudinal circumnavigation has occurred. The Earth is round. Any rebuttals, Flat Earthers, before we call this a Round Earth Victory?

27
PizzaPlanet, I'm interested too. What kind of geometry does your model use?

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does light bend and what are its exact properties
« on: February 19, 2011, 09:43:03 PM »
Your own convictions seem to be remarkably fluid, always changing to fit into whatever thread you're arguing in. All I'm asking for is some consistency.
My model is perfectly consistent with itself and reality. The perceived position of the Sun is exactly where you'd expect it to be.
Have you directly observed your model? I assume you've measured the "bend" of the circle that the sun casts?

29
Why do Flat Earthers think Ranulph made a mistake, when his complete path has been tracked and verified?

30
Why do Flat Earthers think Ranulph made a mistake, when his complete path has been tracked and verified?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17