### 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 - muggsybogues1

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
1
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:40:23 PM »
The fact that we don't know how something works is not proof against it's existence. All it proves is that we don't know how it works.

And if you cannot describe it, you should not be proclaiming it as a fact.

2
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Globe vs Map
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:37:31 PM »
In another effort to lighten up this thread I think The Flat Earth Society has admitted they are not as adept or have the manpower and skills as The National Geographic Society or Rand-Mc Nally  in making maps.
Not to mention that we still need to develop a way of mapping that does not rely on GPS or sextants.
What's wrong with sextants?
They rely on the Sun and stars of the RE model.

A sextant is an instrument used to measure the angle between any two visible objects. That is all. It does not have exclusive compatibility with spheres.

What two objects do you propose be used in the middle of the ocean?

ANY TWO OBJECTS

We're obviously talking about navigation here. Measuring the angle between two arbitrary objects is useless.

Yeah, I suppose it would be if you aren't interested in making sense of your observations.

Or if I understand basic trigonometry.

What are you trying to say?

You need more than just an angle to determine distance.

I'm still not seeing your point. Which measurement in particular do you have a problem with?

Do you know how a sextant works?

Of course I do. I know you need some distance to one of the objects. What I'm getting at is why do you think we don't have the distance to some other object?

For instance, I'm a trained weather observer. I'm trained to know what types of clouds are what and what distance they are from myself to within an accuracy of 500ft. My skills at this practice are confirmed using something called a PIREP. Also, ships in the Navy travel in a Battle Group and with that we know the distance to other ships in that battle group.
If you're in the Navy, you should know that the Pacific ocean is more than 500ft across.

3
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:34:56 PM »
And there is proof that it exists.
Such as...?
Three easily observable things that prove gravity:
1. We are pulled to the ground.
2. Orbits.
3. All of the other planets being spheres.

I know FE has explanations for these but this is proof that there is a force. We call this force gravity.

It cannot be created, no one knows how or why it should work, and apparently they're not even able to measure it accurately.

4
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Globe vs Map
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:29:51 PM »
In another effort to lighten up this thread I think The Flat Earth Society has admitted they are not as adept or have the manpower and skills as The National Geographic Society or Rand-Mc Nally  in making maps.
Not to mention that we still need to develop a way of mapping that does not rely on GPS or sextants.
Nonsense.  Surveying has been around since the time of the ancient Egyptians.
In the middle of the ocean?

5
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:26:55 PM »
And there is proof that it exists.
Such as...?

6
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Take two
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:25:20 PM »
I think it should help flat earther imagine what you are saying:

There is nothing wrong with my use of the word imagine here. All you really need to imagine is the scale. Using things like a baseball is only to help you because it seems like you can't make the model in your head.
Not so. Can you imagine an Earth that is flat?

Of course I can but when you consider the observations of the sun, moon and celestial objects the imagined flat earth models fall apart.
Actually the reverse is true. The average Round Earth Indoctrinated has had the crazy rules that govern their universe drilled into his head long enough that he actually starts thinking that they are true. It's no different than Mormons thinking sugar and caffeine are evil.

This indoctrination argument is just so weak. Please try harder.

You weren't indoctrinated? Where did you learn about things like gravity, satellites, NASA, and balls of nuclear fission burning billions of miles away?

School of course. Just like you, fortunately for me the items you've mentioned can be checked and proven true at least to an extent that is more convincing than the things you've been indoctrinated with such as an infinitely accelerating plane, an ice wall holding oceans in, a sun that emits a projection of light or a massive and astronomically expensive global conspiracy.

"Can be?" What have you done personally to confirm your doctrine?

I've gone into this on a few threads with others so I don't feel inclined to go into details again but essentially I'm a sailor in the Navy. My job title is a meteorologist and oceanographer and I have first hand experience in ship navigation, satellites, forecasting, ocean mapography or bottomography and much, much more.

What first hand experience do you have with a flat earth? The window thing?

I've performed multiple perspective experiments that confirm the horizon does not actually curve downward.

Just follow the steps described on the main page. I did it in order to confirm the results for myself. That's what a true Zetetic does: he is not simply spoon-fed his information.

7
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Globe vs Map
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:20:33 PM »
In another effort to lighten up this thread I think The Flat Earth Society has admitted they are not as adept or have the manpower and skills as The National Geographic Society or Rand-Mc Nally  in making maps.
Not to mention that we still need to develop a way of mapping that does not rely on GPS or sextants.
What's wrong with sextants?
They rely on the Sun and stars of the RE model.

A sextant is an instrument used to measure the angle between any two visible objects. That is all. It does not have exclusive compatibility with spheres.

What two objects do you propose be used in the middle of the ocean?

ANY TWO OBJECTS

We're obviously talking about navigation here. Measuring the angle between two arbitrary objects is useless.

Yeah, I suppose it would be if you aren't interested in making sense of your observations.

Or if I understand basic trigonometry.

What are you trying to say?

You need more than just an angle to determine distance.

I'm still not seeing your point. Which measurement in particular do you have a problem with?

Do you know how a sextant works?

8
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Take two
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:17:17 PM »
I think it should help flat earther imagine what you are saying:

There is nothing wrong with my use of the word imagine here. All you really need to imagine is the scale. Using things like a baseball is only to help you because it seems like you can't make the model in your head.
Not so. Can you imagine an Earth that is flat?

Of course I can but when you consider the observations of the sun, moon and celestial objects the imagined flat earth models fall apart.
Actually the reverse is true. The average Round Earth Indoctrinated has had the crazy rules that govern their universe drilled into his head long enough that he actually starts thinking that they are true. It's no different than Mormons thinking sugar and caffeine are evil.

This indoctrination argument is just so weak. Please try harder.

You weren't indoctrinated? Where did you learn about things like gravity, satellites, NASA, and balls of nuclear fission burning billions of miles away?

School of course. Just like you, fortunately for me the items you've mentioned can be checked and proven true at least to an extent that is more convincing than the things you've been indoctrinated with such as an infinitely accelerating plane, an ice wall holding oceans in, a sun that emits a projection of light or a massive and astronomically expensive global conspiracy.

"Can be?" What have you done personally to confirm your doctrine?

I've gone into this on a few threads with others so I don't feel inclined to go into details again but essentially I'm a sailor in the Navy. My job title is a meteorologist and oceanographer and I have first hand experience in ship navigation, satellites, forecasting, ocean mapography or bottomography and much, much more.

What first hand experience do you have with a flat earth? The window thing?

I've performed multiple perspective experiments that confirm the horizon does not actually curve downward.

9
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Globe vs Map
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:11:23 PM »
In another effort to lighten up this thread I think The Flat Earth Society has admitted they are not as adept or have the manpower and skills as The National Geographic Society or Rand-Mc Nally  in making maps.
Not to mention that we still need to develop a way of mapping that does not rely on GPS or sextants.
What's wrong with sextants?
They rely on the Sun and stars of the RE model.

A sextant is an instrument used to measure the angle between any two visible objects. That is all. It does not have exclusive compatibility with spheres.

What two objects do you propose be used in the middle of the ocean?

ANY TWO OBJECTS

We're obviously talking about navigation here. Measuring the angle between two arbitrary objects is useless.

Yeah, I suppose it would be if you aren't interested in making sense of your observations.

Or if I understand basic trigonometry.

What are you trying to say?

You need more than just an angle to determine distance.

10
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Globe vs Map
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:04:22 PM »
In another effort to lighten up this thread I think The Flat Earth Society has admitted they are not as adept or have the manpower and skills as The National Geographic Society or Rand-Mc Nally  in making maps.
Not to mention that we still need to develop a way of mapping that does not rely on GPS or sextants.
What's wrong with sextants?
They rely on the Sun and stars of the RE model.

A sextant is an instrument used to measure the angle between any two visible objects. That is all. It does not have exclusive compatibility with spheres.

What two objects do you propose be used in the middle of the ocean?

ANY TWO OBJECTS

We're obviously talking about navigation here. Measuring the angle between two arbitrary objects is useless.

Yeah, I suppose it would be if you aren't interested in making sense of your observations.

Or if I understand basic trigonometry.

11
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Take two
« on: September 06, 2013, 12:02:03 PM »
I think it should help flat earther imagine what you are saying:

There is nothing wrong with my use of the word imagine here. All you really need to imagine is the scale. Using things like a baseball is only to help you because it seems like you can't make the model in your head.
Not so. Can you imagine an Earth that is flat?

Of course I can but when you consider the observations of the sun, moon and celestial objects the imagined flat earth models fall apart.
Actually the reverse is true. The average Round Earth Indoctrinated has had the crazy rules that govern their universe drilled into his head long enough that he actually starts thinking that they are true. It's no different than Mormons thinking sugar and caffeine are evil.

This indoctrination argument is just so weak. Please try harder.

You weren't indoctrinated? Where did you learn about things like gravity, satellites, NASA, and balls of nuclear fission burning billions of miles away?

School of course. Just like you, fortunately for me the items you've mentioned can be checked and proven true at least to an extent that is more convincing than the things you've been indoctrinated with such as an infinitely accelerating plane, an ice wall holding oceans in, a sun that emits a projection of light or a massive and astronomically expensive global conspiracy.

"Can be?" What have you done personally to confirm your doctrine?

12
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Globe vs Map
« on: September 06, 2013, 11:48:07 AM »
In another effort to lighten up this thread I think The Flat Earth Society has admitted they are not as adept or have the manpower and skills as The National Geographic Society or Rand-Mc Nally  in making maps.
Not to mention that we still need to develop a way of mapping that does not rely on GPS or sextants.
What's wrong with sextants?
They rely on the Sun and stars of the RE model.

A sextant is an instrument used to measure the angle between any two visible objects. That is all. It does not have exclusive compatibility with spheres.

What two objects do you propose be used in the middle of the ocean?

ANY TWO OBJECTS

We're obviously talking about navigation here. Measuring the angle between two arbitrary objects is useless.

13
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Take two
« on: September 06, 2013, 11:37:37 AM »
I think it should help flat earther imagine what you are saying:

There is nothing wrong with my use of the word imagine here. All you really need to imagine is the scale. Using things like a baseball is only to help you because it seems like you can't make the model in your head.
Not so. Can you imagine an Earth that is flat?

Of course I can but when you consider the observations of the sun, moon and celestial objects the imagined flat earth models fall apart.
Actually the reverse is true. The average Round Earth Indoctrinated has had the crazy rules that govern their universe drilled into his head long enough that he actually starts thinking that they are true. It's no different than Mormons thinking sugar and caffeine are evil.

This indoctrination argument is just so weak. Please try harder.

You weren't indoctrinated? Where did you learn about things like gravity, satellites, NASA, and balls of nuclear fission burning billions of miles away?

14
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: End of the Monopole Model
« on: September 06, 2013, 11:11:25 AM »
Yes, and my diagram covers that (note the different angles for which the sun is visible). The problem arises from the fact that in the winter the sun rises and sets much farther away than it does in the summer. Since sunrise and sunset are supposedly caused by the sun passing a certain distance from the observer, that distance should always be the same.
Correct, and that's why on the equator you always have the same amount of daylight, whereas the northern and southern hemispheres experience seasons.
If you agree that sunrise and sunset are caused by distance, than you have to throw away the monopole model of the Earth because it says that, during the winter, I can see the sun from farther away than I can in the summer.
I still don't know where you're getting that, but it's irrelevant as the Sun could change altitude throughout the year.

15
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Globe vs Map
« on: September 06, 2013, 11:09:55 AM »
In another effort to lighten up this thread I think The Flat Earth Society has admitted they are not as adept or have the manpower and skills as The National Geographic Society or Rand-Mc Nally  in making maps.
Not to mention that we still need to develop a way of mapping that does not rely on GPS or sextants.
What's wrong with sextants?
They rely on the Sun and stars of the RE model.

A sextant is an instrument used to measure the angle between any two visible objects. That is all. It does not have exclusive compatibility with spheres.

What two objects do you propose be used in the middle of the ocean?

16
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Take two
« on: September 06, 2013, 11:08:56 AM »
I think it should help flat earther imagine what you are saying:

There is nothing wrong with my use of the word imagine here. All you really need to imagine is the scale. Using things like a baseball is only to help you because it seems like you can't make the model in your head.
Not so. Can you imagine an Earth that is flat?

Of course I can but when you consider the observations of the sun, moon and celestial objects the imagined flat earth models fall apart.
Actually the reverse is true. The average Round Earth Indoctrinated has had the crazy rules that govern their universe drilled into his head long enough that he actually starts thinking that they are true. It's no different than Mormons thinking sugar and caffeine are evil.

17
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Globe vs Map
« on: September 06, 2013, 11:04:23 AM »
In another effort to lighten up this thread I think The Flat Earth Society has admitted they are not as adept or have the manpower and skills as The National Geographic Society or Rand-Mc Nally  in making maps.
Not to mention that we still need to develop a way of mapping that does not rely on GPS or sextants.
What's wrong with sextants?
They rely on the Sun and stars of the RE model.

18
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Take two
« on: September 06, 2013, 11:03:05 AM »
I think it should help flat earther imagine what you are saying:

There is nothing wrong with my use of the word imagine here. All you really need to imagine is the scale. Using things like a baseball is only to help you because it seems like you can't make the model in your head.
Not so. Can you imagine an Earth that is flat?

19
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Globe vs Map
« on: September 06, 2013, 11:01:20 AM »
In another effort to lighten up this thread I think The Flat Earth Society has admitted they are not as adept or have the manpower and skills as The National Geographic Society or Rand-Mc Nally  in making maps.
Not to mention that we still need to develop a way of mapping that does not rely on GPS or sextants.

20
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Take two
« on: September 06, 2013, 10:58:14 AM »
I think it should help flat earther imagine what you are saying:

21
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: End of the Monopole Model
« on: September 06, 2013, 10:54:38 AM »
Yes, and my diagram covers that (note the different angles for which the sun is visible). The problem arises from the fact that in the winter the sun rises and sets much farther away than it does in the summer. Since sunrise and sunset are supposedly caused by the sun passing a certain distance from the observer, that distance should always be the same.
Correct, and that's why on the equator you always have the same amount of daylight, whereas the northern and southern hemispheres experience seasons.

22
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: End of the Monopole Model
« on: September 06, 2013, 09:18:02 AM »
...and is this not expected? Days ARE longer in the summer and shorter in the winter (when the sun is farther away).

23
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity
« on: September 06, 2013, 08:55:55 AM »
What do you consider accurate? I think our measurements of the value are rather precise, though they can be improved upon. The reason it is extremely difficult to measure is because you can't cancel gravity like, say, the electromagnetic force. Everything in the lab, as well as the entire universe, is effecting the results.

I think the reason it is difficult to measure is that there is no proof that it exists in the first place.

24
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity
« on: September 06, 2013, 08:18:43 AM »
Not really. The fact that G has been measured for 200 years and comes to within 240 parts per million (that's 0.024% error) implies there is something going on, but we just don't know the exact value of it.

But why can't it be accurately measured? Take any other constant--the speed of light perhaps. I haven't heard any groundbreaking developments in the measuring of the speed of light lately.

25
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity
« on: September 06, 2013, 08:05:20 AM »
This is a major challenge how?
The centuries-old failure to measure the imaginary force the Cult of Gravity worships.

26
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Take two
« on: September 06, 2013, 07:19:31 AM »
I am never going to see the earth from a distance

Why do you believe in things you cannot, and will never, see?

I need my imagination to see how it would be all possible

That seems like some sound methodology there.

Your logic here is an argument from incredulity...that you cannot believe something is possible therefore it is impossible. The logic here is not limited, merely the imagination.
Furthermore, there are many observations both on earth (I refer you to any number of alex's experiments) and in space (such as the fact that astronauts from various countries have indeed seen the curvature of the earth). Additionally, if you claim the astronauts are part of some conspiracy, than your own logic invalidates your claim as you have never seen the conspiracy so how can you know its there?

I don't follow your logic. Are you saying that if something seems like it's impossible that it's true?

27
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What causes the tides?
« on: September 06, 2013, 07:13:21 AM »
Try skydiving with your little tea saucer...once you reach terminal velocity you will find that it no longer tilts from side to side.

Another thought-experiment.

28
##### Flat Earth Debate / Gravity
« on: September 06, 2013, 06:58:26 AM »
Here's a major challenge for the Cult of Gravity:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/

For 200 years, they've been trying to figure out how to measure something that doesn't exist.

29
##### Flat Earth General / Re: The FE map
« on: August 02, 2013, 11:13:20 AM »
Ok so let's do it your way.

The world will always be flat so it actually doesn't matter when the map gets made. Why don't you guys start saving up in some sort of trust? Then in 10 20 30 years you can get the map made?

This is a much more reasonable plan.  I have no idea if it will ever happen.

I don't think it's reasonable at all. I doubt there's a cartography shop in the world that could make a map without GPS or sextants. Also, I re-iterate that monetization of the results is highly unlikely.

30
##### Flat Earth General / Re: A Question for the Flat-Earth Society
« on: August 02, 2013, 11:03:52 AM »
I have personally performed many of the experiments and confirmed that the claims made on this website and elsewhere stand up to scrutiny. It's comforting that many of them are simple to do and validate the obvious truth. Contrary to what you state, I've found that the Round Earth Indoctrinated are the ones that fail to perform the experiments instead resorting to dogma or thought experiments to confirm their doctrine. Their suggestions for confirming Round Earth Doctrine generally involve climbing in a space shuttle, getting a job on the International Space Station, or traveling to the South Pole.

You hardly have to travel to the South Pole to see the sky rotating around what is evidently not Polaris, just the southern hemisphere.

You could also do the experiment in this thread and post the data received.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59240.0.html

Neither of those require anything near getting into space, although such a thing would be a good way to prove the Earth's shape.

I read that post, and it seems to support Flat Earth more than Round Earth.

The post isn't meant to be in favor of one view or the other, that's what the experiment is for.  If you believe the experiment gives results in favor of a flat Earth, do it yourself and post the data you received.  Alex has, and his numbers seem to be more concurrent with a round Earth, so if you post your data and they conflict then we can identify an issue in someone's data.

I see no point to doing this experiment. It doesn't show anything one way or the other.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20