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 - Ski

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 262
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debate
« on: May 28, 2021, 04:01:39 PM »
You wanted more exact numbers, you got them.
Your "best guess" is now an exact number? Is it any more reliable than your two previous best guesses, pray tell?

Quote
It's based on the height of the Himalayas and the curvature of the Earth. That works out to 156 miles.
Oh, I thought it worked out to 100 miles. Or was that 200km. I can't keep up.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debate
« on: May 28, 2021, 03:33:40 PM »
Quote
Yes, 36 thousand miles or 18 thousand miles is still far more than the 100 miles that the mountain completely sinks below the horizon at.
Quote
Huh, did you forget all the times I used 200,000km in the math?  That's 125 miles.



Doesn't exactly appear to be "completely sinking beneath the horizon" from 125 miles away, for starters. Can you pass a Turing Test?
Secondly, note the reason they give for not being able to see the range the last 30 years...  Or perhaps the Punjab region grew closer to the Himalayas overnight.

Where to even start with this. You're really fixated on this picture, ...

Well you got me, I was lazy when I rounded down to 100 miles when I was converting 200km in my head.  I'll make sure to use lots of significant digits when talking to you from now on.
So it sinks completely below the horizon at 200 km now?

Quote
lets see... my best estimate is 156 miles is when it will sink below the horizon.
Oh, you've made up a new baseless number now... That was a quick couple sentences away.   Perhaps you should spend less time doing math poorly and more time developing a coherent thought.

Quote from: JJA
Do the Himalayas vanish due to angular resolution, or not?

Quote from: Ski
It depends entirely on one's location. Am I a mile away? 200 miles? There are many reasons one might experience the Himalyas vanishing.

First, we know that objects closer to the eyeline recede more quickly than those apart from it.  So, yes, I believe at a sufficient distance, the Himilayas may become indistinguishable from the horizon.

Second, even if I accept your endless droning about classical art school perspective being more reflective of reality, the answer would still be "yes" anywhere the optical horizon is obstructed by an object of a greater angular diameter than the Himalayas in the direction of the same (as it is in the vast majority of the locations we inhabit as humans).

Third, the most common reason one cannot see the Himilayas is the opacity of the atmosphere regardless of it's angular diameter at one's distance.


3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debate
« on: May 28, 2021, 02:02:23 PM »
... that twice as much or half as much really doesn't change anything. Basic math.
Your math is at least as vigourous as your logic.

Quote
Yes, 36 thousand miles or 18 thousand miles is still far more than the 100 miles that the mountain completely sinks below the horizon at.
Quote
Huh, did you forget all the times I used 200,000km in the math?  That's 125 miles.



Doesn't exactly appear to be "completely sinking beneath the horizon" from 125 miles away, for starters. Can you pass a Turing Test?
Secondly, note the reason they give for not being able to see the range the last 30 years...  Or perhaps the Punjab region grew closer to the Himalayas overnight.

Quote
No, you complained about my "source's truism", ...
I no where complained about the truism. In fact, I highlighted that even it was vastly more accurate than your following math.


4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debate
« on: May 28, 2021, 11:56:05 AM »

So you're just going to ignore my question then?

Yes, I generally avoid your attempts to strawman an argument for me.

If I absolutely must, in order to get you to engage your brain, then: "Do you think people see the Himalayas vanish from sight due to their angular distance becoming too small for the human eye to see?"

It depends entirely on one's location. Am I a mile away? 200 miles? There are many reasons one might experience the Himalyas vanishing.

First, we know that objects closer to the eyeline recede more quickly than those apart from it.  So, yes, I believe at a sufficient distance, the Himilayas may become indistinguishable from the horizon.

Second, even if I accept your endless droning about classical art school perspective being more reflective of reality, the answer would still be "yes" anywhere the optical horizon is obstructed by an object of a greater angular diameter than the Himalayas in the direction of the same (as it is in the vast majority of the locations we inhabit as humans).

Third, the most common reason one cannot see the Himilayas is the opacity of the atmosphere regardless of it's angular diameter at one's distance.

Quote from: JJA
How very flat earth of you, completely ignoring the entire post to focus on the part that doesn't matter.
How true to form that you could haughtily volunteer to educate me and do the math for me, miss the true answer value by 100%, and then pretend that it "doesn't matter."

I'm sure if I had said the answer was zero (100% error in the opposite direction), that you would be just as generous in arbitrating that we not "focus on the part that doesn't matter".    ::)



Quote
Yes, 36 thousand miles or 18 thousand miles is still far more than the 100 miles that the mountain completely sinks below the horizon at.
You should probably notify all those Indians, that they cannot see the Himilayas in the right conditions from more than 100 miles away...
Himalyas Seen from 125 Miles Away]
Quote from: CNN
People in the northern Indian state of Punjab are reacting with awe at the sight of the Himalayan mountain range, which is now visible from more than 100 miles away due to the reduction in air pollution caused by the country's coronavirus lockdown.

Quote
You asked for the math, I gave it to you
Yeah, great job there. I cannot imagine the circumstances which would make me proud of that "answer" such as it were.


Quote
You complained about my source, so I reframed the example to not require the source that YOU didn't like.
I never complained about your source... I  pointed out your patronizing manner of answer and how badly you subsequently failed to educate me with your "new math".


Quote
You have yet to actually engage with the substance of my argument here.
You would have to have substance to engage with.




*Edited earlier bit about angular diameter as it was misstated in my haste.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debate
« on: May 28, 2021, 07:43:54 AM »
Why don't you:  A) Go try to see them,  B) Show me the math that allows the angular resolution of your eye or a telescope would be sufficient to discern the Himalayas

Then we can discuss the opacity of the air between you.

How about you show us your work first before anyone goes through the trouble.

How exactly have you determined the angular resolution of an 'eye or a telescope' is insufficient to resolve the Himalayas at a distance?

Lets keep it simple, how far away will the Himalayas become invisible to the human eye? Please show your math.

I guess you aren't willing to show your work as to why you think you somehow can't see the Himalayas due to angular distance.
I actually made no claim. I asked him to demonstrate why I should could consider his claim. I'm sorry this distinction taxed you.

Lets clear this up right now since you're playing games. Simple question.

Do you think people see the Himalayas vanish from sight due to their angular distance becoming too small for the human eye to see?

Yes, no, or you don't know.

Quote
Ok, I'll bite for your B challenge and do your work for you.

Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 radians, which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance. (Source)

The Himalayas are 8,800 meters high.

Using basic geometry we can determine that with a 0.0003 radian resolution, an object 8,800 meters high will vanish at 58,666,666 meters away.  (36,000 miles)

You asked to show the math, here it is: 8,800 / sin(0.0003/2) = 58,666,666

That destroys your 'angular resolution' argument, which you would have known yourself if you had done the math as you asked.

Might want to check that...

Spot your problem yet?

It would have been nice if you actually showed your math, but yes I do see my problem! My answer is twice what it should be,
Oh, your answer was only off by 100%, don't be too hard on your self. You were only trying to ... show how much smarter you were than everyone else...






Quote
No matter how you do the math, there is no way that an eight thousand meter tall mountain is going to get too tiny for our eyes to resolve at the distance where it vanishes from sight. It's not even close.
Now you've reframed the discussion around where it disappears from sight? Okay, please demonstrate when the Himalayas disappear from sight.
Why do you all present extravagant claims as truths with out evidence?

6
Flat Earth General / Re: The Flat Earth Dilema
« on: May 28, 2021, 07:18:49 AM »
The “who do I work for quote” that is just a demonstration of paranoia imagining that anyone who does not believe in your “self proclaimed greatness” is somehow an agent of .... I’ll let you pick what best fits.
Or, it was a joke with you appearing like governments and religions that want to hide all their bad parts and instead just focus on the good parts.

People give governments too much credit. They to have their fair share of fools and idiots.
Thank you for making that obvious for us.



7
Flat Earth General / Re: The Flat Earth Dilema
« on: May 28, 2021, 07:10:31 AM »
Feel free to demonstrate your greatness, show me some examples of why we should put trust in you.
I'd be hard pressed to find something I'd less like to do. Good heavens, trust is the last thing I'd ask you to do. You seem to find "trust" entirely too easy. I'd be far more likely to ask you to rediscover the sacred ability to doubt.


Quote
Here is a opportunity for you to demonstrate your “greatness”.
Projection?


Quote
With all the scientists in the world taking an opposing view it’s all they are left with!
That's not true at all. There are several scientists here who disagree. I know you trust Science, but nothing is monolithic, I'm afraid.

8
The horizon is very evidently a mirage under certain circumstances.  For some reason, globularists are immensely satisfied with refraction being an explanation for the impossible under some circumstances when they need it, but howl in derision when it occurs elsewhere.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: The Flat Earth Dilema
« on: May 27, 2021, 11:05:04 PM »
It is no more than the most blatant cherry picking, searching for those tiny morsels that suit their cause to try and undermine the very system that created it.

"Stop showing examples of our failures, and instead concentrate on how much we should be trusted and how great we are"

Do you work for a government or a religious institution, per chance?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debate
« on: May 27, 2021, 11:00:34 PM »
Why don't you:  A) Go try to see them,  B) Show me the math that allows the angular resolution of your eye or a telescope would be sufficient to discern the Himalayas

Then we can discuss the opacity of the air between you.

How about you show us your work first before anyone goes through the trouble.

How exactly have you determined the angular resolution of an 'eye or a telescope' is insufficient to resolve the Himalayas at a distance?

Lets keep it simple, how far away will the Himalayas become invisible to the human eye? Please show your math.

I guess you aren't willing to show your work as to why you think you somehow can't see the Himalayas due to angular distance.
I actually made no claim. I asked him to demonstrate why I should could consider his claim. I'm sorry this distinction taxed you.


Quote
Ok, I'll bite for your B challenge and do your work for you.

Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 radians, which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance. (Source)

The Himalayas are 8,800 meters high.

Using basic geometry we can determine that with a 0.0003 radian resolution, an object 8,800 meters high will vanish at 58,666,666 meters away.  (36,000 miles)

You asked to show the math, here it is: 8,800 / sin(0.0003/2) = 58,666,666

That destroys your 'angular resolution' argument, which you would have known yourself if you had done the math as you asked.

Might want to check that...

Even just using your source's truism that requires a .3 m minimum size at 1 km, you can do easy math to show 50,000 km requires an object larger than 15km in size...

Spot your problem yet?

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone spilled the beans yet?
« on: May 18, 2021, 07:46:39 PM »
If you are always at war with your neighbours you don't start handing tea and biscuits over the fence to each other and you certainly do not go on holiday together, nor have sleep overs.

However, if you're all in bed together then what happens in that bed, stays in that bed.

By that argument, Russia & China should have outed NASA decades ago. Strangely, that didn't happen.

"The Soviets and US would never cooperate at the height of the Cold War", said the historically illiterate.



I'm the Premier of the Soviet Union. The US has just said they're going to start sending men to the moon. I tell the head of the Kosmicheskaya program, "Hey, tovarisch -- we can't let those nekulturny bastards beat us to space! Get to work." 

I don't know how space travel works (or doesn't work, as it were). The head of the Kosmicheskaya, being very cunning says, "Well, sure, but it's going to cost a lot of rubles." So we give it to them and they use some of it and graft from the balance. Then they say, "We've had some technical problems. If we're going to beat the US we're going to need even more rubles. We don't want them to beat us do we?"  And I say, "Hooy na ny! Ty chyo, blya? Here's some more scratch -- I want results!"

Incidentally, when the Soviets "delayed" too long and NASA beat them to the moon, the Premier pulled the plug financially. So they came up with new goals. Like SpaceLab/Mir, etc.  And the game continues as they fake progress and keep the balance... Now they're all working together on the ISS -- how convenient!


12
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone spilled the beans yet?
« on: May 18, 2021, 07:33:02 PM »
Quote from: JJA
You seem to be trying to avoid directly addressing the issue here, that no country has ever admitted they faked their entire space program, and no country has accused anyone with a space program of having faked it.
Why on earth would you expect them to?

You think if Australia discovered the entire space industry was fake and a massive worldwide fraud and conspiracy, they would just keep quiet about it?  What possible reason would they have?  Why on earth would you expect them to join the conspiracy?  Do they get a gift basket for joining?

I'm ashamed to admit but Australia is just another arm of the USA. Everything our government does is at their behest

That's why our fat arse PM tried to be best buds with Trump. That's why our fat arse PM is antagonising our biggest and most important trading partner, China. Even talking about a war with them

Australia also has a facility 'Pine Gap' which is critical to Americas spying operations in the Pacific

God damn America
To say nothing of the operations at Woomera and the influence of the Crown. You'd think nations never cooperate or keep secrets.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone spilled the beans yet?
« on: May 17, 2021, 05:51:58 PM »
Quote from: JJA
You seem to be trying to avoid directly addressing the issue here, that no country has ever admitted they faked their entire space program, and no country has accused anyone with a space program of having faked it.
Why on earth would you expect them to?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debate
« on: May 17, 2021, 05:45:44 PM »
I do know what the words "logical" and "test" mean, and when to not use them if I want to be taken seriously...


15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debate
« on: May 17, 2021, 02:24:07 PM »
If this "test" does not give any meaningful result, of what value is this "test"?  Apparently, about as much value as your "logic".

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone spilled the beans yet?
« on: May 17, 2021, 02:22:24 PM »
Your incomprehension doesn't make something wrong.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debate
« on: May 17, 2021, 02:18:45 PM »
Quote
He said if the Earth is flat, why can't he...

Great, so he can as I suggested go on to demonstrate that A) he can/cannot see the Himalayas from such a site, and then we can address why he can/cannot see them.


Quote
He is clearly setting up a logical test,

There are several reasons why he could or could not see them. The vast majority have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. He's made no attempt at anything resembling coherence. He's done nothing to demonstrate a simple If/Then argument would be coherent. He's left to ponder C, D, E, F, ...
Except he didn't even seem to comprehend that C, D, E, and F might exist, so I'm a little underwhelmed with the strength of your "logical test" which ignores all context to reduce the "then" to a "the earth cannot be flat" -- especially when he's done nothing to demonstrate the "If" even exists. 
It's a cheap sophomoric word game to try to score a point, or most probably worse. Shame on both of you for pretending it's anything like a "logical test".


18
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone spilled the beans yet?
« on: May 17, 2021, 09:28:36 AM »
Not a single country has admitted their space program is fake.

May as well say, "Not a single suspect has admitted to robbing a bank", yet beyond that, it is hardly inconceivable that "the country" is the bank, unaware of the fraud.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debate
« on: May 17, 2021, 09:24:56 AM »
He asked, "Why can't I..."

How should I know that he can or cannot? How about he makes an attempt before making an assertion as fact?

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: debate
« on: May 16, 2021, 03:08:06 PM »
if the earth is flat why can't I go on the top of a tall mountain with a telescope and see the Himalayas

The air is not 100% clear. Pollution fog, particulates all build up over the long distance.

That's just one reason to kick-start the conversation
exactly like go on a really tall mountain above the clouds and bring a telescope why couldn't you see them?

Why don't you:  A) Go try to see them,  B) Show me the math that allows the angular resolution of your eye or a telescope would be sufficient to discern the Himalayas

Then we can discuss the opacity of the air between you.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone spilled the beans yet?
« on: May 16, 2021, 02:48:30 PM »
It's not the same bank. It's just the same methodology.

22
The Lounge / Re: Ruin a first date in 4 words or less
« on: May 04, 2021, 10:07:28 AM »
The title says it all. You have 4 words at most to turn a potentially great first date into a train wreck. Go!

 "My name is Boydster."

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A question
« on: May 04, 2021, 10:06:26 AM »
Quote from: Joe
What would they stand to gain?
There is power in entrenching any new paradigm.

Power aside, NASA alone is proposed to get 25 Billion dollars next year.  One year. One country.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Should I Believe the Earth is Flat?
« on: May 04, 2021, 10:00:17 AM »
They already have too much belief and not enough doubt.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone spilled the beans yet?
« on: May 04, 2021, 09:51:45 AM »
I guess North Korea is part of the conspiracy now, as they are 'faking' their satellite launches just like NASA.

If I rob a bank and you rob another, we are not co-conspirators.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone spilled the beans yet?
« on: May 04, 2021, 09:50:09 AM »
Where would you expect to hear this? On the news?

No, more like a firsthand anonymous account from an actual employee who finally want to reveal whatever truth they may hold
Where would you expect to stumble across this?

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone spilled the beans yet?
« on: April 29, 2021, 12:57:33 PM »
If only there were some kind of technology that allowed anyone to make whatever information they like accessible to the whole world.
I am sure that with enough time and effort you and I can find people on the internet professing almost anything.

What reason do I have to believe that you would A) likely hear of it, and B) find it credible?

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just out of curiosity...
« on: April 28, 2021, 09:45:52 PM »
1. According to google maps, this travel would take around 22 hours. Now, on that flat earth model, using the same route, the trip would either have to take twice as long at normal speed or the plane would have to be travelling twice as fast.

*Citation needed.

Quote
2. Why don't they just travel over the north pole? It would be much quicker, cheaper, and efficient.
Are you capable of identifying anywhere on any sort of map?

Quote
with a plane traveling along that intensely curved route, wouldn't the passengers be consistently dumped on their sides for the vast majority of the ride, seeing as in order for a plane to turn it must bank?
Flying does not work that way.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone spilled the beans yet?
« on: April 28, 2021, 09:39:59 PM »
Where would you expect to hear this? On the news?

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Should I Believe the Earth is Flat?
« on: April 28, 2021, 09:38:56 PM »
It's as simple as this: convince me.

No, thanks.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 262