### 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 - Megaman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!
« on: August 14, 2013, 06:20:35 AM »
Bumping this because this is a good question and it seems FE'rs tend to willfully misunderstand, ignore, or try to derail any good questions raised in the debate section.

2
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distance of the Equator
« on: August 14, 2013, 05:47:20 AM »
FET doesn't have a map. How can you say that the distance around the equator is wrong?

We understand that there is no "official" map but you could at least try to justify the bipolar one you claim to support.

Again, what map are you guys using? There are multiple proposed maps for FET. I support in the one where Antarctica exists as a continent, so you example is invalid.

3
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« on: August 14, 2013, 05:37:49 AM »
I'm glad that the two "FE supporters" who bothered to respond displayed complete lack of understanding of the experiment. I consider their logical and mathematical ignorance as further support for RE.

4
##### Flat Earth Debate / Problem with supported FE map
« on: August 14, 2013, 05:19:50 AM »
Dear everyone,

The following map can be found on the FES site:

Fervent supporters of FE endorse this map.

"Again, what map are you guys using? There are multiple proposed maps for FET. I support in the one where Antarctica exists as a continent, so you example is invalid."

-Tom Bishop

There is  glaring problem with this map. It can be seen if you consider the sun's path during the equinox in March. In order for the sun to move correctly over the map during this time it must effectively "warp" from the left side to the right.

FE maps 0 : Logic 1

5
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times
« on: August 14, 2013, 04:14:31 AM »
Yes, the layout configuration has many different possibilities, which is why there is no accepted map.

That is a serious problem. The fact that you can't make a map to fit simple zetetic observations doesn't bode well. It implies that some observations are in error. You guys should really get it together.

6
##### Flat Earth Debate / Rowbotham seems like a pretty dumb guy
« on: August 12, 2013, 05:46:17 PM »

CHAPTER XII: THE CAUSE OF TIDES.

1.)"1st. Spread out on a table a sheet of paper of any size, to represent a body of water; place an object or mark at each edge of the paper, to represent the shores. Now draw the paper gently upwards in the centre, and notice the effect upon the objects or marks, and the edge of the paper."

Rowbotham doesn't understand the definition of flood tide.

The author cites this as proof that the moon pulling on the ocean cannot cause the flood tide.

"flood tide also flood·tide (fldtd)
n.
1. The incoming or rising tide; the period between low water and the succeeding high water.
2. A climax or high point: a flood tide of fears."

Important point: The period BETWEEN LOW water and the succeeding HIGH water.

In order for the paper experiment to be accurate the paper must start in a downward drawn state. Then, the experimenter pulls the paper upward as described. The experimenter will observe that as the paper passes from a concave state to a convex state the marked edges or "shores" will expand and contract demonstrating the flood tide.

2.) "Facts 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16, show results that must necessarily follow this fluctuation of the earth. The velocity of the flood is greatest as it approaches land. If the waters were put in motion by the moon, the velocity would be greatest where the altitude was greatest or nearest the moon, and least the farthest from it or nearest the shores. The reverse is the case in nature."

Rowbotham doesn't fully understand his own thought experiment.

This statement is 100% false and can be disproved using the paper thought experiment.

The higher velocity has to do with the fact that if you take something concave and press down on the center (in order to make it flat) the edges of the concavity move away from the center faster than any other part.

Take the paper example that the author uses. Make the paper convex, then slowly press down on it. You can easily see that the center of the paper moves in the direction of the force you are applying (namely, down) and has zero perpendicular velocity. You can also see that at the edges of the paper have 0 downward velocity and that all of the movement is perpendicular to the applied force. This means that  the horizontal velocity of the object (paper, water, ooz) increases the further away the part you are observing is from the center.

3.) "In fact 15 we see what could not be possible if the moon were the cause of tidal action by lifting the waters underneath her from their normal position. If the moon's attraction operates in one place, what can possibly prevent its action in all other places when and where the relative positions are the same? No direct explanatory answer has yet been given."

Rowbotham doesn't understand proportionality of gravity.

Gravitational interaction is based on mass of interacting objects. None of the lakes on earth are large enough to have tides, in terms of the mass of their contained water.

Biggest lake in the world: Caspian Sea with an area of 371,000 km˛ (371,000,000 meters). Average depth= 187 m

Smallest ocean: Arctic Ocean area of 13,990,000 km˛ (13,990,000,000 meters). Average depth = 1,038 m

Volume of Caspian Sea: 69,377,000,000 meters cubed

Volume of Arctic ocean: 14,521,620,000,000 meters cubed

1 cubed meter of water has a mass of 1,000 kg

Mass of Caspian Sea: 69,377,000,000 kg
Mass of Arctic ocean: 14,521,620,000,000,000 kg

Arctic ocean has a mass that is 209314.6144 times larger than the Caspian Sea.

Highest recurring tide = approx. 16.3 meters

Gravity is proportional mass.

If the same gravitational force that produced this tide is applied to the Caspian Sea it results in a tide of .000077873 meters or 77.873 micrometers

Your author proves nothing by fact 15 above except that he doesn't actually understand gravitation.

Other problems I noticed:

CHAPTER III: THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION

4.)"Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. The same result would follow if the ball were thrown upwards from the mouth of a mine, or the top of a tower, on a stationary earth. Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two....."

In this and the train example the object being thrown is subject to air resistance which dampens its horizontal velocity. In RE the atmosphere rotates with the Earth which means that a thrown object would not be subject to air resistance unless it is a windy day. These are not accurate representations of a rotating Earth model.

5.)"A strong cast-iron cannon was placed with the muzzle upwards. The barrel was carefully tested with a plumb line, so that its true vertical direction was secured; and the breech of the gun was firmly embedded in sand up to the touch-hole, against which a piece of slow match was placed. The cannon had been loaded with powder and ball, previous to its position being secured. At a given moment the slow match at D was fired, and the operator retired to a shed. The explosion took place, and the ball was discharged in the direction A, B. In thirty seconds the ball fell back to the earth, from B to C; the point of contact, C, was only 8 inches from the gun, A."

This doesn't prove that the Earth is stationary. The cannon ball will not lose horizontal velocity unless something opposes  that velocity. Since the atmosphere moves with the Earth in RE, the only thing available to affect horizontal velocity is wind, which accounts for the results that the Rowbotham got.

6.) "When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun 1 be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter."

First of all, Rowbotham doesn't require that the railway carriage be moving at a constant speed, which is quite careless because in RE the Earth rotates at a constant rate. Therefore, in order for this to be analogous to a rotating Earth, it must have a steady velocity.
If you try this experiment at a constant velocity, you find that the ball or other projectile will go the same distance regardless of direction. His statement that it will go different distances is completely false.

Example: If you smoke or light incense in a car that has a steady velocity, with the windows rolled up and AC off,  you will find that the smoke rises straight up. It does not rise toward the back of the car.

Why do people support Rowbotham's theories? Can any Rowbotham supporters defend him on any of these points?

If so, please point out my errors.

7
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Longitude Lines
« on: August 12, 2013, 05:13:19 PM »
Then how do FE'ers navigate?

There are many different projections and layout the earth's configuration may take, and still allow for navigation.

The projection where Antarctica is a continent would make it impossible to travel from South America to Indonesia along the equator.

8
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE Logic?
« on: August 12, 2013, 04:48:09 PM »
When I watch a sunset I see the sun move below the horizon

That's funny. I've never seen the sun below the horizon. I have, however, seen the sun go into the horizon.

Well, considering the fact that the sun doesn't ever touch the earth, we can assume that it moves below it and not into it.

A receding airplane can fly away from the observer and into the horizon, despite being in the air at all times. It's called perspective.

The surface of a sphere can appear flat to an observer on its surface if the sphere is very very large compared to the observer.

9
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE Logic?
« on: August 12, 2013, 04:41:34 PM »
When I watch a sunset I see the sun move below the horizon

That's funny. I've never seen the sun below the horizon. I have, however, seen the sun go into the horizon.

That's weird 'cause it totally looks like half the sun is below the horizon.

10
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Longitude Lines
« on: August 12, 2013, 04:22:10 PM »
What evidence do you have for your assertion?

How about the distance from Sydney to Perth, in Australia? That's a bit more than 30° South, and the distance is less than half what it would be on a flat earth (well, a flat earth where trans-pacific flights that cross the international date line are possible at least).

What map are you using? There are multiple proposed maps.

What evidence do you have for your assertion?
Well, when  Fedor Konuykhov sailed all the way around Antarctica, he did so in less than 12,000 nautical miles. Since such a journey crosses all 360 degrees of longitude and it was substantially less than that of the Rutan Voyager, which crossed all 360 degrees of longitude near the equator and took 25,000 miles, I think it's safe to say that the distance between lines of longitude decrease as you move south from the equator.

Again, what map are you guys using? There are multiple proposed maps for FET. I support in the one where Antarctica exists as a continent, so you example is invalid.

But the standard response to that claim is to question whether this "Konuykhov" character traveled the entirety around Antarctica, or just traveled partially along the coast for the requisite distance and turned Northward in search of warmer waters, claiming that he had just circumnavigated Antarctica.

Do you have an image or link to this map where Antarctica exists as a continent? I would look upon it.

11
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Longitude Lines
« on: August 12, 2013, 05:47:12 AM »
Has anyone from FE been able to explain why the distance between longitude lines doesn't increase dramatically in the southern hemisphere?

12
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Putting the flat earth map to the test
« on: March 02, 2013, 12:48:46 AM »
Hey guys, let us not derail this thread.

As of yet, FE theorists have not been able to explain weight differences or the problem of distance in the southern hemisphere.

I challenge any of them to do so.

They will not succeed.

13
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: bendy light?
« on: March 02, 2013, 12:36:48 AM »
I've been following this thread and I have a question.

How does "bendy light" behave when the sun is directly overhead? Does it still bend?

14
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: weight differences on Earth
« on: March 02, 2013, 12:01:27 AM »
Hey everybody im new here and am interested in learning more about flat earth theory...

anyway there is one thing that is bothering me, that is that an object's weight is not exactly the same everywhere on earth. It has been proven at high altitudes an object weighs less; also different tectonic activity can alter weight.
Also during eclipses "gravity" has been measured to be less (the sun and the moon both pull on the earth according to RE theory)

I was wondering how flat earth theory adressed the variations in the force of weight across earth

P.S. seals make barking noises too! (dumb security question :/ )

15
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Whats the motive
« on: March 01, 2013, 11:46:32 PM »
We're not literally claiming that the Earth is egg-shaped.  The purpose of that article is to criticize the evidence for RET supposedly offered by those photographs, and the title is just an attempt to add some humor.
There isn't any particular article in there. It's a title with some pictures of the earth showing curvature. Hence the reason for my using the word "page" instead of "article".

They don't know that the Earth is flat because they haven't been to space, and they haven't been to space because they're keeping the money for themselves.  The FAQ apparently needs some revision.
The FAQ and wiki do indeed need some revision, as many people come in with questions based on that FAQ and then are told their questions are already asked frequently. For a "Frequently-Asked-Questions" page, it doesn't do a very good job of answering them. The wiki isn't much better in providing logic-based and clear answers. Many people on this forum openly disagree with parts of the wiki pages (as FE-ers) and have chastised people. Perhaps it can be edited to acknowledge the dissent among the ranks of FE-ers as well as noting that they are not definitive on the subject, are constantly changed, and are frequently not worked out fully or even much at all. I'm not saying this because I'm a RE-er, but based on the constant contradictions in what FE-ers have said on this forum. I'm sure you're aware of them.

As head editor, I'm open to suggestions for further questions to add to the FAQ

Awesome! I would like to submit the following for your consideration:

1) If the Earth is actually flat, why has no one noticed that the distance between longitude lines continue to increase as you head South past the equator.

2) How does FE explain Foucault pendulums?

3) Are FE believers aware that any curved surface will appear to be flat when viewed in a small enough reference frame and if so, why do they insist on using "Look outside" as evidence?

4) How does FE explain the tides? Rowbotham attempted to do this with a FE model but failed miserably.

5) Can use of the FE model accurately predict celestial events? If it can, why has no FE believer put forth work in this area?

6) If FE believer's claim to base their beliefs on simple observations, why does the "Bendy Light Theory" exist? It's very existence goes against the principals of believing in only that which can be simply observed.

16
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hair and UA
« on: March 01, 2013, 11:22:22 PM »
What happens when something accelerates in this way.

Asymptotically? Basically it means that the object is always accelerating, meaning that the object is always going faster at time t+1 than it is at time t, but that acceleration is always decreasing in such a way that it never reaches a certain point. Just as the series (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32...) gets ever closer to 1 with the addition of each term, but never reaches it, so an object would continually accelerate but never reach c.

UA is pushing earth at 9.80665 m/s2, the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. What stops earth from eventually reaching the speed of light? Don't say relativity, what is it is that relativity theory insists stops some object from reaching the speed of light?

I might be misunderstanding relativity but I think it might be the distortion of time that causes this. From an outside frame of reference, Earth's acceleration would appear to decrease, but the measured time it would take for Earth to travel from point A to point B would *not* be the same from the outside frame of reference as it would be on the Earth itself. Time would basically slow down in such a way that the observed acceleration on Earth would be faster than that observed from the outside frame. I think.

Yes YEs YES!!!!

17
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Priority of Perception
« on: March 01, 2013, 04:42:36 AM »
In regards to the OP, it is odd that the objective reality of an earth that appears flat whilst standing on it is held so highly by a theory than invokes a myriad of optical illusions to explain sunrises, sunsets, the movement of the stars, objects disappearing below the horizon and the curvature of the earth when seen from very high altitudes.

Best point ever raised on this website!!!!

18
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: If a ship/plane travels across the earth
« on: March 01, 2013, 04:39:37 AM »
I guess FE'rs can't defend their model on this.

Hmmm....

19
##### Flat Earth General / Re: North star easily Proves Flat earth
« on: March 01, 2013, 04:36:59 AM »
Cool, so FE hasn't rebutted this yet.

20
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hair and UA
« on: March 01, 2013, 04:32:12 AM »
mass becomes light once it reaches the speed of light.

What?

Yeah man. It's impossible to reach that speed, but if you ever do you have to be light. Like really light....like as light as a photon.

21
« on: March 01, 2013, 04:21:34 AM »
My question could be extended to ocean currents.

The Humboldt current runs from the South Pole to the equator. All that water needs to be sped up from idling to almost 1000 mph.

Where does this energy come from? We are talking about billions of tons of water being moved to fantastical speeds. The whirling ball theory is laughable.

Dearest Thork,

I see you have never been on a merry-go-round. If you had, it would be glaringly obvious to you rotation actually helps water flow from the South pole to the equator.

Sincerely,

You think Coriolis is caused by centripetal force?

Nope. I never said it did. I'm just pointing out that your statement:

"The Humboldt current runs from the South Pole to the equator. All that water needs to be sped up from idling to almost 1000 mph.

Where does this energy come from? We are talking about billions of tons of water being moved to fantastical speeds. The whirling ball theory is laughable."

:implies that particles (or objects, or people, or cats) on a spinning object don't naturally move away from the center of rotation. There's a thing called centrifugal force which, judging by your statement about water needing to be sped up, you don't seem to understand.

22
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« on: March 01, 2013, 03:57:30 AM »
The flat Earth models (if you are so bold you call them models) that you see in this forum are all falsifiable, and have been falsified a long time ago. They all predict specific apparent positions for the Sun, Moon, planets and stars, for any given day and time. They all predict specific distances between known places on Earth. And that is just the short list. The long list is far too long to even make it.

The true test for a scientific theory is not just that there are clear ways to find that it is wrong (falsifiability) but that those ways have been tested to a good level of certainty and found not wrong (non-falsified).

In another attempt at replacing science with word games, the flat earthers sometimes talk about falsifiability but do not give a clear model where anything falsifiable really exists, and other times they give something a lot closer to falsifiable, measurable models but do not talk about falsifiability.

This

23
« on: March 01, 2013, 03:29:40 AM »
My question could be extended to ocean currents.

The Humboldt current runs from the South Pole to the equator. All that water needs to be sped up from idling to almost 1000 mph.

Where does this energy come from? We are talking about billions of tons of water being moved to fantastical speeds. The whirling ball theory is laughable.

Dearest Thork,

I see you have never been on a merry-go-round. If you had, it would be glaringly obvious to you rotation actually helps water flow from the South pole to the equator.

Sincerely,

24
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Flight from Argentina to Australia
« on: March 01, 2013, 03:12:08 AM »
Flat Earth arguments are always blind. lol

25
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Is Not On Your Side
« on: March 01, 2013, 02:34:28 AM »
G = 6.673×10-11 N m2 kg-2

Other wise known as G
Not to be confused as g

Thork can't answer because his figure for the UA needs to be in metres per second per second, and he can't get that from your units. You have effectively demonstrated my claim that Thork doesn't understand the meaning of constants in this context. Thank you!

Indeed!

26
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hair and UA
« on: March 01, 2013, 02:02:09 AM »
I'm having a devil of a time understanding how you could think that was ever my point.

It is accelerating in any FoR.

It was not explicitly your point but it is required (i.e. implied by your beliefs) if you wish to believe that the earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 and that mass becomes light once it reaches the speed of light.

Perhaps you don't understand how frames of reference work.

27
##### Flat Earth General / Re: How about a fun challenge?
« on: March 01, 2013, 01:44:54 AM »
I'm going to hold off on photoshopping my own earth.

Until then, I'll post a couple of NASA's photoshopped earths.

The first one is an older picture, and the second one is from 2012.

Now look at the size of Mexico in each of those pictures, and try explaining how Mexico suddenly grew twice as wide! They don't even try to hide the fakery... it's right there in your face. The second one doesn't even look like a sphere. It's a complete and utter fabrication.

You're right, the second one is 'fake'. In fact, if you scroll down in your link just a little bit it says:
Quote
This composite image uses a number of swaths of the Earth's surface taken on January 4, 2012.

Maybe you should try a little harder next time.

The first one is a fake too.

Good comeback bro! Diversify those bonds.

28
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Facts you may have forgotten
« on: March 01, 2013, 01:39:08 AM »

I bet you can't tell that from looking at it, can ya!
This shouldn't be too hard to observe and document.

Someone in the north at a latitude where the sun is directly overhead during the summer solstice timing how fast the sun moves across the sky,

And the someone in a southern latitued where the sun is directly overhead during the southern summer solstice timing how fast it moves.

767mph vs 1308mph should be somewhat apparent.  That would be a fairly significant victory for FET.

"victory for FET"....lol

29
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 2 sunsets
« on: August 25, 2012, 12:57:01 PM »
I see that I've presented evidence for what Ski and I have been saying. I don't see any evidence presented for your side of the argument.

1:0

Tom, all of your posts use skewed logic.

You sit on a throne of lies.

30
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 2 sunsets
« on: August 24, 2012, 11:32:34 PM »
Quote
In addition, Rowbotham's explanation for this only addresses lensed instruments, not the variety of digital theodolites that are used by today's architects that can be used to calcluate the 'dip' in the horizon.

What evidence do you present that those digital theodolites show a dip?

What evidence do you have that digital theodolites don't have lenses? My digital camera and digital camcorder have lenses.

Tom, just stop trying.

Everyone knows that you are trolling.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5