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.


Topics - Sam Hill

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / If satellites are fake, why are there secret ones?
« on: January 13, 2018, 04:53:17 PM »
We hear it all the time here, "satellites are fake".  Any photos of a round earth that come from satellites are rejected, because "satellites are fake".  Ask about a photo from the ground showing a specific satellite, like the ISS or Iridium flares, and no good explanation is offered beyond "I don't know what it is, but I know it's fake".  Bring up technologies that count on satellites to function, like GPS and DirecTV, and ask how they work if satellites are fake, and you get explanations based on balloons, towers, and airplanes.  Why is there such a huge effort to fake satellites?  So much is money spent on patently NOT fake rockets, facilities to build, test, and fly them, tracking stations, etc.  Some version of skimming money or saving face (we're six decades into the lie, can't stop now) is the usual explanation.

OK, suppose for a moment we accept that loose assembly of explanations.  Suppose there's no such thing as satellites.  If the point of creating all this "fake" evidence (producing photos, making sure that people will see lights in the sky at the right place, etc) is to prop up the fiction of spaceflight, what could possibly be the point of pretending we have all these spy satellites?  These are mission that do not produce public evidence (at least not very often), for which orbital data is not published, for which the only public acknowledgement is the launch itself (which cannot be disguised).  And yet we know "they" are still giving these no-public-info missions the full treatment: there is a small community of amateur observers who calculate where these secret satellites should be and attempt to track and observe them.  Why bother?


2
Suggestions & Concerns / Mobile version often only partial function
« on: November 28, 2017, 10:15:36 AM »
For several weeks (months, maybe?) the mobile version of the site is only partly functioning.  Usually the bottom right corner of a given thread has a “Go” button to return you to the forum list, but lately not for me.  Often when replying to a thread, the html edit option buttons (bold, italic, img, link, etc) are not available either.  This is only on iOS mobile for me, the ste works fine on my Chrome desktop.

3
Flat Earth Debate / How far away are the stars above the flat earth?
« on: November 27, 2017, 09:23:25 AM »
Presumably the stars are further distant than the generally accepted solar and lunar distance of 3000 miles ("generally accepted" by FE, that is), but I can find nothing definitive anywhere on this site.  The "stars" section of the Wiki is conspicuously silent on the subject of distance.  A thread in Q&A from eleven years ago received no answers.  Another thread a month later put forward a 3100 mile number (source unspecified) and held it up for ridicule, drawing zero response from anybody on the FE side.  Nobody rose to either support or refute the number.  The Search function throws out no other threads with relevant discussion.

Perhaps there were no FE who had thought about the issue back in 2006.  Perhaps there are more FE participating now, maybe some of you HAVE thought about it and now we can get an actual number.  So, FE (and please, round earthers, please stay out of it until we have some FE contributions to the thread):

How far up are the stars?
And how did you arrive at your number?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Danang says pi=3
« on: October 14, 2017, 11:43:55 PM »
Danang has proposed a revision of the value of pi, as well as new formulas for many things that usually include pi, and has also created, for no apparent reason, two new circle constants: the “dan” represented by the symbol “&” and having a value of 3/4, and the “phew” represented by the symbol “¶” and having a value of 3/2.

Now that I’m sure I understood correctly, I am starting this thread in the Debate section so I can disagree with him/her.

For starters, rather than actually measure the circumference and radius of any real world circular objects, Danang simply declares circumference as equal to six radii.  (When I asked “Are you saying the circumference of a circle is actually six times its radius?  Or is that an estimate?” he/she replied “C=4(&2r) >> C=6r...There is no estimation in math...the circle length is definite by calculation.”  Remember that “&” = 3/4) If this were true, then pi WOULD be three, math would be easy, and grade schoolers would rejoice; too bad it’s not true.  This is child’s play to disprove.  As a matter of fact, most people actually saw this disproof while they were children in school.  Here it is again, if you’ve forgotten:

The inscribed hexagon clearly has a perimeter measuring six times the circle’s radius, and is clearly a smaller distance than the circle’s circumference.  This should prove, with no additional effort required, that pi must be greater than 3, but in case it does not, consider this image:

An inscribed octagon in a unit circle has a perimeter of 6.122, while still being visibly smaller than the circle’s circumference, which means that pi must be larger than 3.06 let alone greater than 3 itself.  The more sides your regular polygon has,  the closer it gets to approximating the circumference of the unit circle and the closer its perimeter/diameter is to pi (the accepted value of pi, that is).  In fact, that’s one easy way to approximate pi to larege decimal places:

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Lancet March 14th, 1856 moonray experiment
« on: May 13, 2017, 04:37:08 PM »
Rowbotham makes the following claim in Earth Not a Globe:
Quote
In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.
This claim is repeated from time to time by modern day people.  I have never seen a link to the source Rowbotham claims.

So, Flat or Round adherents: ignoring the merits of the claimed experiment, ignoring the meaning or validity of the results (those are topics for the Debate forum, not the Q&A forum), answer ONLY this question:

Has anybody got a link to that issue of the Lancet?
Where we can read the particulars of these experiments?

I spent nearly two hours last night Googling variations on the terms Lancet, Moon, Moonlight, and 1856, and found nothing.  Maybe somebody here has better Google Fu than me.

6
There was much rejoicing on the Flat Earth side, both here and at the other site, when Shaq made his Flat Earth statement.  One person here even went so far as to claim that the movement was now "unstoppable" as a result.  I wonder what the Flat Earth side thinks now, after he has recanted and called those who took his statement at face value "idiots" (HIS WORDS, NOT MINE)  If Shaq's support was so important and valuable, is his exit important and damaging?  Or do you now take the same stance the Round Earth took from the beginning (and still do), that Shaq's opinion one way or the other is of very little consequence?

Please note: It is not my intention for this thread to debate the merits (pro or con) of Shaq's support, I chose the Q&A section instead of the Debate section on purpose.

Pages: [1]