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 - Solarwind

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52
1
Flat Earth General / Re: THE 1ST DOME IS NOT AS HIGH AS YOU THINK
« on: July 30, 2021, 01:29:25 PM »
Quote
Aren't you at least interested in why he thinks this? How he may have arrived at it? I am.
Same here. I'd love to what evidence he has to support his claims. Beyond just his own personal beliefs that is. How did he come up with this so far apparently random figure of 17,000ft for instance? When I flew between LGW and JFK a couple of years back the maximum altitude shown by the screens on the plane showing the flight track data was 41,000ft and looking out of the window it was obvious that we were definitely a lot higher than 17,000ft! At no point did I hear or feel the plane collide with anything that could pass as a 'dome'.

We know how big an Airbus A380 (for example) is physically because the dimensions are freely available. For example the wingspan is just a few cm under 80m or 262.47 ft. We can work out what the angle subtended by the wings would be as seen from a distance of 17,000 ft from simple trig. Inv tan (262.47/17000) comes to 0.88 deg. So larger than the full Moon by some distance. Yet there are load of photos online showing an A380 passing across the Moon and visibly much smaller.

I can then use flightradar24 for example to identify when an A380 is due to pass over my location and observe the plane as it passes overhead at cruising altitude through my telescope. Next I can choose from a selection of eyepieces to give me a magnification that provides a view of the whole plane so it just fits into the FOV. From that I know the angular size of the aircraft on the sky and from that I can easily measure the height because I know what its physical size is.

Unfortunately as is often the case with flat earthers though, after publishing a couple of posts declaring this sort of thing, they then fall strangely silent when those claims are subsequently challenged.  Danang is no different.


2
Flat Earth General / Re: THE 1ST DOME IS NOT AS HIGH AS YOU THINK
« on: July 30, 2021, 08:12:56 AM »
Anyone is ultimately free to believe whatever they so choose to think. So if it suits Danang to believe what he claims as true then fair enough. Whether he makes these claims because it really is what he believes or simply to provoke others into replying I don't know.

But if he insists that there really is some sort of 'glass like' dome sitting 17,000 ft above the Earth and which partially hides the disk of the Sun when it is seen low down then it is up to him to prove it. Why the dome should only hide part of the Suns disk and not all of it is beyond me. Claims on their own prove nothing though. So until that proof comes I'm with TimeIsUp on this one.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: THE 1ST DOME IS NOT AS HIGH AS YOU THINK
« on: July 29, 2021, 12:22:23 PM »
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Danang suddenly started claiming support for the ancient theories about the cause of solar eclipses as being a dragon which is trying to eat the Sun and then spits it out again because it finds the Sun too hot to eat. 

4
Flat Earth General / Re: THE 1ST DOME IS NOT AS HIGH AS YOU THINK
« on: July 29, 2021, 09:37:42 AM »
1st Dome?  How many are there?!?

Danang always makes me smile when he comes out with his own 'alternative' explanations for something as routine as what the Sun looks like near sunset or sunrise.  For instance why should we believe that your account of the 'missing' section of the Sun is right over the other and more conventional explanation of low level atmospheric scattering due air particulates?

Why does the Sun look different during pretty much every sunset and sunrise?  If it was due to some 'dome' then there would always be a section of the Sun missing as someone else points out.

I think bodies such as the CAA and the FAA would be horrified to learn that the altimeters in all civilian aircraft are inaccurate to the extent that you are claiming they are. If that was found to be true then that would also make the ILS systems across the world unsafe and therefore unusable.

Why do these people come up with these wild and totally unfounded claims about stuff like this and then fall strangely silent after a couple of posts when the errors in their claims are pointed out?

Quote
Rethink about the data which you haven't verified
Nor have you from what I can tell.  If you have verified any of what you claim then please tell us how.

Quote
The 1st glass-like dome stays at 17,000 feet. No flight can go beyond such a dome. That also makes the sun look "cut".
OK so this '1st dome' is made of something (you don't say exactly what) which is 'glass-like'. In other words this 'dome' is transparent to visible light. The Suns diameter on the sky is 1/2 degree.   That photo of yours shows about 2/3 of the Suns disk with just the lowest visible 1/3 invisible.  Why then is the missing lower third due to the dome hiding it? Over such a small area of sky why should the dome hide only part of the Sun? What other variables in the atmospheric state might be at play here to cause this 'missing third'?

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 07, 2021, 04:18:06 AM »
Quote
A "half moon" is when you close one eye when you are looking at it perhaps?
Love it!
Quote
In which case he actually thought that people saw different phases of the moon based on where they were in the world!!!  Seems he is retreating from this now, so maybe he actually learned something?
We can live in hope!  I wonder what he will come up with next?!?

I actually tested this with my partners brother who lives near Sydney in Australia and with a friend who lives in Texas.  We all took photos of the Moon within a few hours of each other and shared them with each other.  Not surprisingly all showed the same 'phase' of the Moon!  Of course the one taken in Australia was upside down compared to those that I took and the one taken from the States.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 07, 2021, 03:51:12 AM »
@Sobchak

Just to provoke an argument with everyone else in the world and feed our egos we could equally say from now on that we are going to call what everyone else calls green, blue and vice versa.  So according to us, everywhere in the world everyone sees the sky as green and the grass and trees etc as blue .  To everyone else that sounds completely ludicrous but to you and me we are entirely correct and of course we will stand by what we say.

It's up to Sceptimatic to re-define what 'full Moon' means if he so chooses.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 07, 2021, 01:07:57 AM »
It seems that some people (no names obviously) want to interchange the meanings of words like 'phase' and 'in direct line of sight' just to satisfy their constant need to believe they are right.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 06, 2021, 10:23:40 AM »
By making up his own definition of what he calls the 'full Moon' Sceptimatic seems to think that he can automatically lay claim to being right. It's a bit sad though when you are so committed in your beliefs that you have to resort to making up your own definitions in order to make it seem like you are right in what you believe.

To everyone else I have ever met the term 'full Moon' means we can see the whole of the Moons Earth facing side illuminated by reflected sunlight. Sceptimatic though seems to be redefining 'full Moon' as meaning something different.  When I see an evening crescent Moon re-appear in the western sky a few days after new Moon I can see the faint outline of the unlit portion of the disk as well.  But that doesn't make it a 'full Moon'. It is still a crescent Moon.

I'm still intrigued though how this phase cycle can happen if the Moon was some sort of reflected image of a hologram.  I guess Sceptimatic is the only person who can explain that!

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 06, 2021, 07:15:59 AM »
Quote
Every person sees a full moon somewhere on Earth, at all times.
Correct. Incorrect.
Quote
If I see a full moon then the full moon moves away from me, someone else sees a full moon.
Yes when you see  a full Moon that's because the Moon is full on that particular day. On that day astronomers could say the Moon is at opposition.  In so far as it rises as the Sun sets.  Hence the Moon is on the opposite side of the sky to the Sun.  Sun-Moon elongation = 180 degrees. As it sets from your location it is rising as the full Moon from somewhere west of you.

Quote
Someone is always seeing a full moon.
Not true.  We only see a full Moon on one day (or possibly two) days each month.

If you want to be pedantic about all this you could say that the full disk of the Earth facing side of the Moon is always visible to us. Hence when we see a crescent Moon we can also often see the outline of the full Moon due to Earth shine on the part of the Moons disk which is not in sunlight. But it is only fully illuminated (by the Sun) for one day each month.  The term 'full Moon' though relates purely to the phase cycle (as does first quarter, last quarter, new etc) and so it would be wrong to say that we always see a 'full moon'.

If your insistence that someone on Earth can always see a full Moon somewhere on Earth then that would immediately make every Moon phase timetable ever published wrong because they only ever specify full Moon on a particular day (or two) each month. Here are three examples...which all seem to agree with each other when you compare the phases and the dates each month.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/

https://www.mooninfo.org/moon-phases/2021.html

https://www.calendar-365.com/moon-calendar/2021/July.html

So which would you go for?  You are wrong or the timetables are wrong?

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 06, 2021, 12:49:37 AM »
Quote
Somewhere and that's the entire point.
And exactly where is 'somewhere' (as in somewhere on Earth) given that the current Moon phase from where I am is waning crescent? I saw the Moon just a couple of days ago and so my own eyes confirmed it.  I didn't need to be told that.

https://heavens-above.com/moon.aspx?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT

Notice the above link is generic.  I.e. not specific to any particular location.  It doesn't need to be since at any particular moment the visible phase of the Moon, as seen from anywhere in the world, is the same.  Just to make absolutely sure, try adding some different and random figures for latitude and longitude and see if the displayed visible phase of the Moon ever changes to full Moon.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 05, 2021, 11:32:51 AM »
Quote
Every person sees a full moon somewhere on Earth, at all times.
If I see a full moon then the full moon moves away from me, someone else sees a full moon.
Someone is always seeing a full moon.
Within a single 24 hour period each month, everyone on Earth sees a full Moon.  But only within that 24 hour period each month while the Moon is opposite the Sun in the sky.  That is why we see a full Moon.  Because the Earth facing part of the Moons disk is entirely illuminated by the Sun at that time.

A week beforehand within a 24 hour period, everyone sees a first quarter Moon.  No one will see a full Moon when there is only a 90 degee angle between the Sun, Earth and Moon.  It is physically impossible. You will never see a first quarter Moon in the morning sky just as you will never see a last quarter Moon in the evening sky.

The only time we don't see a Moon in the sky is at or very near to new Moon when the Moon lies directly between the Sun and the Earth.  Again we cannot see a full Moon because the sunlit part of the Moon is facing directly away from Earth.

That is not just 'what we are told. The evidence is up there in the sky for us all to see.   It ain't hard!  It is directly observable evidence for the fact that the Moon orbits the Earth once a month.

If you want to conjure up some other explanation because you believe we are all being misled by those in 'power' then that's up to you but I like to keep things simple and to explain the Moons phases as I have described above is logical, simple and it works!

You can argue about this as much as you like and you no doubt will because you want your beliefs to be right and all of us to be wrong.  But quite obviously it is your beliefs about the Moons phases that are wrong in this case.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 05, 2021, 01:30:33 AM »
Quote
Can any rational person see what I'm saying about someone somewhere on Earth will always see a full moon?
Probably not because any rational person will realise that we only see a full Moon once a month. Or very occasionally twice - hence the term 'once in a blue Moon' because the second consecutive full Moon in the same month is called a blue Moon.  If what you say is true actually was true then that would immediately render this term meaningless for obvious reasons.  As you probably know the full Moon of each month has its own name - e.g. harvest Moon, hunters Moon, strawberry Moon etc.

Obviously you have your own explanations for how the Moons phases work so in your world I have no idea how that would work.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 04, 2021, 03:39:04 PM »
Quote
YourThe moon doesn't have an atmosphere.
For once I agree with Sceptimatic on that one.

Quote
Could I see a half moon and someone else be seeing a full moon?
The simple answer is......yes.

Quote
Well that's clearly bullshit. IF you were correct then you should be able to provide Moon phase tables that are specific to a region. In the real world however, everyone sees the same phase at the same time and phase tables work regardless of location.
As someone who has lived in the UK all my life I used to subscribe to two US based astronomy magazines.  In every edition I received the pages that showed the Moons phases for each day of the month (as seen from all over the US) were identical to the phase that I saw here in the UK.

My partners brother lives in Australia.  He also sees the same Moon phase that I do on any given day.  Only difference is that compared to what I see, he sees the Moon inverted. He also sees the Moon transit his north meridian whereas for me I see it transit through my south meridian. We both see the Moon rise in the east and set in the west.

So that is the same Moon phase on any given day as seen from the UK, the US and Australia .  I'd say that's pretty conclusive wouldn't you? If Sceptimatic somehow knows of a place on Earth where the Moon shows a different phase from anywhere else on Earth then he had better be able to present us with some evidence. Simply what he believes or thinks does not qualify as evidence.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 04, 2021, 08:43:42 AM »
Quote
Same type of places you got yours from.
I wonder which one's are correct?
So how come your figure is an order of 10 larger than any of the website (places) I got my 300-400 litres per hour from?

BTW have you ever noticed where the Sun is in relation to the Moon in the sky every time you see a full Moon? What does that tell you about the full Moon?

15
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 02, 2021, 06:00:33 AM »
Quote
Quote from: JackBlack
The surface of the moon has a similar brightness to the surface of Earth.
Not judging by the pictures/video we are all shown. Absolute utter nonsense.
How are we making the comparison here?  The apparent 'brightness' of the surface is given by the geometric albedo, i.e. percentage of incident light which is reflected. In which case Moon = 12%, Earth = 39% (remember the Vangelis Album 'Albedo = 0.39') while Venus is almost 70%.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 02, 2021, 03:59:58 AM »
I just wondered where you got the figure of 3000 litres an hour from because all the websites I checked out seemed to be pretty consistent with 300-400 litres per hour.  Your claim is an order of magnitude more so bit of a difference!  Or did you just conjure up 3000 off the top of your head?

Nah not trying to help anyone really.  I don't think they need it. 

17
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: July 02, 2021, 02:18:27 AM »
Quote
How much oxygen does a human need every hour, and what is your justification for this number?[/b]
About 3000 litres....unless you're on about liquid oxygen from a tank and underwater. What?
Where do you get 3000 litres per hour from?!? The average human being consumes 11,000 litres per day and clearly 11,000 / 24 does not equal 3000 does it.
Actual amounts obviously vary according to activity rates but hourly rate is typically 300-400 litres per hour. 

Quote
It would also mean no moon vision...but there it is.
If you were standing on the Moon then yes I think you would be able to see it.  At least a very small part of it within direct visible range.  You would also see the Sun and stars in a black sky. As markjo correctly says.

Obviously not in your world Scepti because in your world there is no such thing as space, the Moon does not exist as a physical body and so no one could ever stand on your Moon.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 28, 2021, 04:50:03 AM »
Ok so you absolutely don't believe you can see the outline of the ISS through a simple pair of binoculars.

Try it for yourself and you will find that you can. It's not a case of believing. It's a fact. I've seen it dozens of times myself through my own binoculars (15x70s) and so could you if you own a pair.

And of course if you could be bothered to try but you won't will you because your own binoculars would show you you are wrong. So you'd rather just plead ignorant instead and carry on with your beliefs regardless instead of facing reality.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 28, 2021, 04:26:17 AM »
Quote
There's something moving up there but it's not in space and it is not a shape other than a blob of light.

Rather than argue it I'll just say to you, whatever it is, it's not in space and it is not manned.

You cannot prove anything to the contrary.
So you obviously haven't looked at the ISS through binoculars then?  Because then you could see for yourself that it is more than just the blob of light you think it is. 

I don't need to argue anything because I've seen it for myself.  You could as well if you could be bothered.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 28, 2021, 01:19:51 AM »
Quote
You are not looking at any space station, in my honest opinion.
Of course you would say that because the very existence of the ISS is incompatible with what you would like to believe. 

But you can see what I recognise as the ISS pass over where ever you live just as easily as I can.  If you have a pair of binoculars just aim them at that bright star in the sky as it moves across the sky and you will see exactly what I do.  Obviously you can accept that it is the ISS or not as you wish.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 27, 2021, 08:55:34 AM »
Quote
No, I've never seen a space station through a telescope and I don't believe you have, either.
I don't believe you've taken photo's of it and I don't believe you've simulated its orbit.

I do suspect you've followed the accepted line of reasoning for all of the above and just went with it.
You don't even need a telescope to see the ISS. You can see the basic and familiar shape of the ISS through a simple pair of 50 ($70/58EUR) binoculars.  Have you got binoculars to hand?  If not I'm sure you could afford a pair. Great thing about binoculars of course is that they are not just useful for observing the sky but can be used for a wide range of outdoor activities. 

Next use any one of the many websites or apps which are freely available which will tell you when the next pass occurs visible from your location and then aim your binocs at the very bright star (about on par with Venus which makes it magnitude -4 at max for those familiar with the astronomical magnitude system) moving from west to east. A decent pass will take around 10 minutes.  You will see the solar panels and basic shape of the space station quite easily.  No navigation lights of course and the solar panels have a bronze tint to them.

Sometimes the ISS does not make a complete pass but seems to vanish or suddenly 'switch off' part way across the sky.  Why could that possibly be I wonder?!?

Quote
I do suspect you've followed the accepted line of reasoning for all of the above and just went with it.
What...  even when you can see it with your own eyes?

I suspect that if I told you that the ISS was a real space vehicle which was the collaboration between several countries and is now the largest man-made object put into space orbiting Earth every 90 minutes at an average height of 400km you would say 'absolute nonsense'.  But if I said the ISS was some sort of projected image or hologram onto your dome you would quite happily go with it simply because the latter is more compatible with what you would prefer to believe. 

 

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: June 16, 2021, 12:47:03 PM »
According to the psychologists, pointing out discrepancies between what conspiracy theorists believe is true and what everyone else believes has absolutely no effect on changing their beliefs. If anything it only serves to reinforce them.

Most of the flat Earth believers here have clearly read the conspiracy theory manual and are following it chapter and verse. That is somewhat paradoxical really given that most of them seem to apply the same to us as far as 'indoctrination' is concerned about our following of conventional physics.

There is nothing to be gained from arguing with conspiracy theorists.  In this case 'flat Earthers'. This is ultimately a flat Earth website obviously and so obviously you would think that the majority of its members would be flat Earth believers. Yet it doesn't always feel like that. Not that those who are of a certain mind will mind that of course. To them the more 'globalists' they come across and can argue with the better as far as they are concerned.

When you read back through not just this but other discussions on here you cannot help but see a few parallels between the nature of the comments people post here and the typical levels of discussions you will encounter in the average school playground.  Only difference is on here those discussions are (one assumes) taking place between mature adults. But then of course we are all children at heart aren't we!

I came here to learn a bit more about the mindset of flat Earthers and I guess in some ways I have achieved that.  Has any of that made any difference to my own mindset? Not a jot!

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: June 16, 2021, 04:00:49 AM »
Oh boy indeed.  I really do hope not. But obviously flat Earthers are basically just conspiracy theorists and as we know they will 'question', deny or ignore anything they don't believe in.  Let 'em believe if it makes them happy!

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: June 16, 2021, 02:38:21 AM »
If you are already wearing an extra-vehicular mobility unit (as both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were when they descended the LM) then why would an airlock matter to them?

As you say answer already provided by JB.

25
Absolutely.  And if you have a permanently mounted and aligned telescope you can look at stars 'out of season' whenever you want.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: The Flat Earth Dilema
« on: June 11, 2021, 07:22:10 AM »
Electromagnetic Acceleration a flat Earthers classic. Designed to make anything appear to work which is otherwise impossible through conventional physical laws of light behaviour. A clear and deliberate fudge intended to provide a convenient way of avoiding having to admit they are wrong.

The diagrams of EA 'in action' under the 'phases of the Moon' section of tfes Wiki is something I am trying to work out.  Loads of lovely parallel arcs  but that's about it.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: The Flat Earth Dilema
« on: June 11, 2021, 01:01:33 AM »
Different people will always hold different opinions about stuff and that includes the shape of the Earth.

Those people who believe the Earth is flat will always have their own reasons for doing so and claim to have the definitive 'proof' that shows that they are right and everyone else (i.e. the RE side) is wrong. It is easy to be selective about what evidence we accept and what evidence we don't accept.

There are so many different versions of 'flat Earth model' though that any attempt to understand exactly what is accepted and what isn't is destined to be futile from the start.  On the 'other site' it seems Rowbotham is king and anything in his books must be true, no further questions your honour.  Here it seems opinions differ.

28
To Danang I would say this:

1 and 2 are both partially true.  Light pollution and/or atmospheric transparency both have an effect on how well the stars can be seen lower down towards the horizon.

The degree of refraction of starlight varies (increases) with distance from higher up to lower down in the sky and software that I use to control my telescope mount uses an all sky mapping system which compensates for this.  I could write a book about how this works but I will spare you the details.

In reality the discrepancy between actual and observed position of a star is very small but is nevertheless significant in long exposure imaging.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: June 09, 2021, 01:57:26 PM »
Quote
Do you believe the earth is flat?
No.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: The Flat Earth Dilema
« on: June 09, 2021, 01:51:03 PM »
Yes you and I know that but in common with most other conspiracy theorists, flat Earth believers will see only what they want to believe. Actual real hard evidence will be ignored or simply misconstrued in such a way that it seems to fit in with their beliefs. Eons ago when our ancestors were alive it would have been very difficult if not impossible to come to a formal conclusion about what shape the Earth is.  But we live in the 21st century now and we have more resources and more verifiable data available to us.  That data of course to a flat Earther is just part of the conspiracy.  Whatever.

Obviously when you insist that Earth is flat has the knock on effect of having to find alternative 'explanations' for all sorts of common phenomena as you point out.  OK so they will insist that the Sun is just 32 miles across and 3000 miles away or whatever.  So that means they must believe that the Sun and Earth are much younger than RE because there is no way a 32 mile diameter Sun could sustain itself for over 4 billion years.  Or of course if you are Sceptimatic that problem is 'solved' simply by insisting that the Sun is actually just a reflection of the Earths internal heat and light.  Fair enough. He obviously hasn't watched sunspots traversing over the Suns disk over 27 days. When asked about what the age and power source is for their 'Sun' they will simply tell you this information is 'unknown'.  Yet they will still ridicule any suggestion of the Suns real age.

I have pointed out that on a flat Earth, equatorial mounts, as they are used by astronomers all over the world simply would not work. Yet that doesn't seem to matter to them.  I came to this forum with an interest to understand what lies at the foundation of flat Earth belief.  I can't say I am any the wiser now but clearly when conspiracy theorists say they are seeking 'the truth' what they mean is the 'truth' as they believe it to be.  In the case of flat Earth. good luck with that!

I'm over it now.  I will leave them to believe in whatever makes them happy. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52