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 - Sam Hill

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
Those “100,000 flights” (surely a good deal fewer than that in reality) were specifically filtered to remove the ones in the Southern Hemisphere that reveal the earth to be non-flat, so it really doesn’t matter if he shares the data.  But if you have the time, I found the thread where a lot of it was discussed.  Funny how many Qantas flights are eliminated as ‘fake’ flights.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation tools disprove flat earth
« on: April 30, 2019, 04:43:54 AM »
I'm in no way a flat earther, I wrote the OP. I just do not think it is ever appropriate to be 100% certain of anything, that's dogmatism and that's what open minded people need to avoid.

Maybe, but as a fellow round earth guy, the way I read your OP it seemed 100% certain to me.  I mean, where is the wiggle room in these statements:

My claim here is that you can prove to yourself that the Earth is round by learning to navigate on it.

As a result of personally monitoring distances all over the planet, I can say with confidence that distances around the globe are consistent with a round earth.

Under a flat earth model, the distances in the southern ocean would be very much bigger than in the north and all my charts would be wrong. That is simply not the case.

There is no way a boat doing a max speed of about 35 knots could go around flat earth non stop in 42 days. Do the math yourself using whatever distances your flat earth model say the southern ocean should be.

I guarantee you you will then be able to see for yourself that the concept of a flat earth is simply nonsense. As a sailor, you will be forced to accept the fact that Earth is round.

I’m not disagreeing with any of those points.  I’m saying that having seen repeated evidence and practical demonstrations that something is true, it is not inappropriate to be 100% certain of it.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Physics Class
« on: November 20, 2018, 09:03:53 PM »
I'm having a little bit of trouble justifying falling objects
Good!  This is only one of the many things you should "have a little trouble justifying" in FE thought.  Notice as other things crop up.  Keep questioning, both what you "ardently believe" and what you are taught.  See which theory best fits the data.

4
can you share the location where that picture comes from. Seems Google Maps, so that should be easy.

Unexpectedly, he is using French locations for some of these.  I found the location of his "wow, how perfect" photo by searching for the restaurant visible in the frame.

Two others, he left enough info on the image to pinpoint their locations:
The girl on the bicycle
His "the sun is not the source of light" photo

Can't figure out the others.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distortion of science
« on: November 19, 2018, 02:38:44 AM »
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF

Have YOU done any experiments?  The equipment is well within the reach of the home hobbyist, as demonstrated by this guy


6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Apparent motion of the stars
« on: September 09, 2018, 05:52:47 AM »

Read the OP again:

Let's do that . . .


If I stand in the northern hemisphere and look up at the night sky, . . .

"Up" and "North" are not the same thing.
The OP said "Up" not "North".

You and JB are so glow-in-the-dark sure of your own superiority that you don't feel any need to pay attention to the actual words the OP used.

I did not expect this knd of childish wordplay from you.  Looking “up at the nigh sky” includes looking up (above the horizon) at Polaris

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Equator called in FE?
« on: July 06, 2018, 09:34:51 AM »
From the wiki, the FE equator is defined as the set of locations on the earth’s surface where the noontime sun is directly overhead on the day of the equinox.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Latest FE Map
« on: July 06, 2018, 09:27:40 AM »
Why are you trying to attack a model that was officially rejected by our society in the early 1900's in favor of a bipolar model?

Maybe it’s because “official” rejection notwithstanding, the amount of labor being poured into the map under discussion in this thread demonstrates that not everyone in your society has adopted the bipolar map.  As do the wealth of “how the flat earth explains things” imagery all over the site, and even in the wiki.  Circumnavigation for example.  Seasons for another.  Both of which appear at a glance as plausible explanations for those two phenomena, and both of which lack a corresponding illustration to explained them in the bipolar model.  People have been asking you to provide a sun-path above the bipolar earth for years, where is it?

Or maybe it’s because your own logo depicts the flat earth as monopole?  If the society has truly adopted the bipolar model, don’t you think it’s time to represent it in your own logo?

9
Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX: The Latest
« on: February 20, 2018, 02:22:11 PM »
He did link the article.  What did you think the blue text in his post was?
You misunderstand him.  He means "Thanks (not really thanking you)..."

10
Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX: The Latest
« on: February 18, 2018, 08:56:32 PM »
Cursing Elon, gimme a break. We are laughing at you and the Elon fanboys. I think is funny that you boys believe that his Tesla is flying in space. You are so brainwashed that you believe anything NASA tells you, and now you believe Elon. It is pitiful and funny at the same time.

You're famous, Hoppy!  Vice quoted you in an article called Flat Earthers Are Pissed at Elon Musk last week, I didn't see any mention of it on the forums yet.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Controlled opposition
« on: February 17, 2018, 11:38:52 AM »
If I was trying to deceive people, would I not have deleted my early posts from back before I saw the light?  The fact that I have studied flat Earth theory and came to the conclusion that the Earth is, in fact, flat, after giving up my roundy indoctrination should, in and of itself, be a sign of my ingenuous nature.

That’s a fair point.

What I don’t understand is why they stick around, those flatties who think this site is controlled opposition?  Why not leave, form your own website, reject the false flatties? 

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would it take?
« on: February 12, 2018, 09:31:20 PM »
So I turn the question around on round Earthers. What would it take to convince you that the Earth was flat?

How about finding the edge of the damn thing!  No penguins, no NASA armed guards, no magic perspective effect nonsense; just find the edge.


13
Quote
Who is the acknowledged master of Flat Earth Theory?
This question has no single answer, because there is no single Flat Earth Theory.

14
It could not be any more clear that at no point did they say it was a shportz kar stuck to a shpayze rokkit, yes.

You're just making the second bit up aintcha, S.Hill?
Suppose rain is forecast, and suppose all the streets and sidewalks in your town get wet but you don’t say specifically that it got rained on.  The rest of us wouldn’t say “Ah, but you didn’t say it was RAIN, I bet there wasn’t even a cloud”

Suppose you live in Philadelphia and a parade happens, after which you discover that a local sports team won a big game.  You wouldn’t say “Ah, I didn’t see a football player, maybe it was just some wierd traffic jam”

Suppose you get in a car crash, and suppose your neck is broken.  Nobody would say “Maybe that was like that before he left home”

Suppose an object is predicted to be flying through space nearby, and suppose a system designed for the sole purpose of detecting nearby objects flying through space suddenly detects something new, flying through space, nearby.  You can pretend all you like, but it isn’t unreasonable to correlate the observed object with the prediction.  Especially when the path of the observed object matches the ephemerides of the predicted object.

15
They aren't in the business of determining the shape and makeup of the objects they detect.  They are in the business of detecting objects.  The automated system found an object, calculated the path, and determined the object to be near the earth.  Which it was, quite near. Not "just a near earth object".  The fact that there is a near earth object exactly where the Tesla is expected to be, that's what is important here.  This is an automated system that wasn't looking specifically for the Tesla, and it accurately reported it as an object (type unspecified) that is near earth (which it was, it was only a few hours into its flight, it was VERY near the earth).  Exactly as you would expect it to do.

Okay... that may have made sense in your head, but now you've written it down do you still feel the same?

Yes.  It is an object, and it is near the earth.  Hence, a “near earth object”.  I really don’t know how that could be any more clear.

16
The University of Hawaiʻi ATLAS (Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System) telescope on Mauna Loa captured it during routine observing work and reported it as a “near earth object”


If they reported it as a near Earth object then why are you now claiming it's a shportz car in shpayze?

Oh right, your name - S Hill = shill.

Off you go then, Paul.
They aren't in the business of determining the shape and makeup of the objects they detect.  They are in the business of detecting objects.  The automated system found an object, calculated the path, and determined the object to be near the earth.  Which it was, quite near.


Who is Paul?


The observatory in Hawaii already said it was just a near Earth object.

No mention of a shpayze shportz kar.

And your video shows two objects, not one.

We done lying yet, muskbot?

Not "just a near earth object".  The fact that there is a near earth object exactly where the Tesla is expected to be, that's what is important here.  This is an automated system that wasn't looking specifically for the Tesla, and it accurately reported it as an object (type unspecified) that is near earth (which it was, it was only a few hours into its flight, it was VERY near the earth).  Exactly as you would expect it to do.

17


As I said, an object was spotted exactly were the Tesla should have been.

And spotted by more than one observer.  Here’s some imagery from Australia:




Here’s an image from Arizona.



And here’s a report from Hawaii.  The University of Hawaiʻi ATLAS (Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System) telescope on Mauna Loa captured it during routine observing work and reported it as a “near earth object”

18
You are not going to be able to discernibly resolve an object the size of an automobile at that distance.
How terrible, but I think I have to agree with totallackey.

There is the faint possibility that a reflection on it may show as a point of light, but I doubt it.

There’s no need for you to do something as extreme as agreeing with totallackey, just look again at the video from NAZA’S post.



https://www.space.com/39647-spacex-tesla-roadster-spotted-in-space.html

The object should be at a certain spot in the sky.  They took a big telescope and pointed it at that spot in the sky.  They found a point of light crossing the sky, a point which does not correspond to any other known object.  Nothing more is claimed.  They didn’t resolve the object, nor did they claim to resolve the object.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Data Manipulation and Hard Proof
« on: January 31, 2018, 08:40:04 PM »
I have already been to Antarctica, I was on a ship that sailed around the Antarctic Peninsula

I too have been to Antarctica, I was on a sportfishing boat in the Pacific Ocean off San Diego.

That’s REALLY far off San Diego...

20
And people who use compass also use magnetic declination maps and know what corrections they need.
They know how to use magnetic compass correctly.
Magnetic declination maps are public and available, so everybody knows what compass readings really mean.
Everybody who really wants to know.

This is literally easy enough that you can teach a child how to do it.  In the US, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are taught this when they are around ten years old.  I'm sure it's the same all over the world, where ever you find outdoor activity clubs for children.

21
You've proven that latitude is not the only factor in a city’s weather.  This should not be a surprise.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar Eclipse (Earth vs. Jupiter)
« on: January 28, 2018, 11:30:47 PM »
Very well Mr. Hill, but according to your spinney pear model, it would have moved around the sun during that time, so Earth in that diagram would be at a slightly different angle in the lower vs upper drawings.  LIES!
Ah, but I meant solar days, not sidereal days, you see!

Ok, I'm done being a flat Earther.  That was kind of fun though.
I wouldn’t make a habit of it, the cognitive dissonance is unsettling.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar Eclipse (Earth vs. Jupiter)
« on: January 28, 2018, 10:54:50 AM »
Right you are JackBlack.  I should also point out that nary an hour has passed on Earth between the two diagrams, yet the moon has rotated around half it's orbit.  This makes no sense.  You RE'rs need to figure your BS out.

Or maybe an integer number of days has passed.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« on: January 27, 2018, 10:06:18 AM »
If the FE side could produce an “accurate” simulation of the earth, moon, and sun that matched the literally thousands of years of observation, I would take their demands for accuracy more seriously.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« on: January 26, 2018, 08:21:04 AM »
Flatties who count on curving light beware: if curving light is a thing during an eclipse, it is a thing all the time and invalidates your ‘distance to the sun’ calculations.  Remember that math is based on the quite reasonable assumption that light travels from sun to observer in a straight line.  If it does not, you have no way to know the light’s path, you have know way to calculate the sun’s position.  It could literally be behind you, the light curving past you and back again.

As to the little-known (outside the physics community) quantum effects like Aharonov-Bohm, if that effect had macroscopic, visible effects like wrapping the sun’s light around the moon, it wouldn’t require a difficult experiment to verify, and would be cited as a factor when calculating eclipse shadow paths.  After all, every single time we have a total eclipse, the 1919 observations of gravity warping space is brought up.  Why is A-B never mentioned, ever?  Because it is irrelevant, that’s why.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What you are told VS Personal experience
« on: January 25, 2018, 10:54:32 PM »
My question is: "Do star constellations change their viewing size as they come from the horizon and pass over head?
The answer is “No, they do not”


27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« on: January 25, 2018, 10:05:43 PM »
I disagree with the sun being 1.3 times the angular size of the moon. Where did you get that number?
He made it up.
But that is the least of the issues.






The largest angular size of the sun, divided by the smallest angular size of the moon?  That ratio is only 1.11, not 1.3 as he stated.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA Secretly Uses Kinda Phew Flat Earth Map
« on: January 25, 2018, 05:58:11 AM »
Phew FE Map Logic is so *strong*.. like Hercules ~

Would you, please, be so kind to explain where is North pole on your map?

Anyone may differently define where North Pole is situated according their location.

"North Pole" (NP) is just an expression which doesn't represent the meaning of either "north" or "pole", for NP is not an axis nor a definite location.
NP is either lands or sea which circles the FE and "has not revealed yet" due to the sun's limitation to illuminate locations beyond its ability to reach.

I tend to perceive what Admiral Byrd described "a continent larger than America" (CMIIW) as the one situated on "north pole". Precisely beyond Arctic sea.
It's likely still kinda 'secret' among certain governments.

No, even among your fellow flatties that’s not true.  The North Pole is the center of the sun and moon rotation, if nothing else.

(FE in a nutshell, that post: anybody can redefine anything, supporting evidence is not yet revealed, and conflicting evidence is a government conspiracy)


29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« on: January 25, 2018, 05:32:31 AM »
How do a Sun and Moon of identical size produce both total and annular eclipses?

The sun has to be slightly larger than the moon in order for annular eclipses to work.  The FE sun and moon are each “about 32 miles across” (emphasis on the “about” term) so if the sun is closer to 35 and the moon closer to 30, then you might have geometry that supports annular eclipses.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« on: January 25, 2018, 05:24:48 AM »
Yes, if you assume the Sun is that much further than the moon, your results will give you that, it is not in line with observable reality.

We aren’t assuming anything, the distance to the moon has been measured with radar, the distance to Venus has been measured with radar, and the distance to the sun has been calculated from the geometry of the earth-sun-Venus triangle.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21