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 - neimoka

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how evolution disproves space travel
« on: April 11, 2015, 02:21:22 PM »
Jrowe DELIVERS

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is the Earth really flat?
« on: April 10, 2015, 01:52:40 PM »
No fair! Where's the torus option?
A cylinder with a hole in the center and rounded a bit on the corners would be kinda like a torus, guess you have to go with that.

3
On the other hand Dino, NCP and SCP are at the opposite ends of the same axle so from our point of view all stars appear to rotate concentric to both.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: April 10, 2015, 01:43:52 AM »
Plant cultivation is a lie of the re nasa satanists?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 08, 2015, 08:48:48 AM »
neimoka, are you capable of making an argument without forcing your words into someone else's mouth? i am fully aware of what i am saying. the container is crucial, as it is the only time an end can exist, and that sides can exist.

Wrong. Read my previous post; the container is irrelevant. We are not specifically interested where it begins or ends, we are interested in how far light of different wavelenghts propagate in the medium. Neither are the sides of the container in any way relevant to what are the 'sides' where light scatters; light scatters 'to the sides' relative to the original direction of the light beam.

You can do the experiment completely ignoring the container by observing the color directly at the medium if you for some perverse reason want to insist that the container somehow affects the outcome, which it does not.

this is not the case in the atmosphere. it has already been shown that there is no straight path from the sun to the moon in the case of the lunar eclipse.

Irrelevant.

Perhaps I should re-word this;

What we're interested in here is the fact that blue light does not reach the other end, while red does propagate as far in the medium as red does. Do you deny this?

Happy?

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 07, 2015, 09:33:50 PM »
You're saying that light is aware of the shape of a container that it travels in? Use a non-tubular container if you think that's a problem.

edit, here's a pic of a rectangular container.
i'm saying the atmosphere is not even remotely a container. what does the containing?
Stop obsessing about the container, it is irrelevant. You thought it was somehow important that it's a tube, well it's not and now you're just trying to find something else to whine about while ignoring the actual observation. We are not interested in the container, it is there to store the fluid and nothing else. Put the light in there and make your observations from within as well if you want. What we're interested in here is the fact that blue light does not reach the other end, while red does. Do you deny this?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 07, 2015, 12:52:27 PM »
You're saying that light is aware of the shape of a container that it travels in? Use a non-tubular container if you think that's a problem.

edit, here's a pic of a rectangular container.


8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 07, 2015, 12:27:41 PM »
elimist, blue light makes it into the atmosphere: this is a fact. if it didn't, we would not be able to see a blue sky. as such, it does exist, it does not magically vanish.
i would suggest you look at those illustraions more atmosphere has to be crossed to get to a lunar eclipse, than in a sunset. that is a basic fact, because the light causing the lunar eclipse would have had to have caused a sunset as it goes past the edges of the earth. unless you are saying people who see sunsets live on the edge of the atmosphere, there is still the same distance out of the atmosphere to go.
red and orange light, which are not scattered, would not go that far: only scattered light could bend the degree necessary for the light to reach the moon: my diagram showed there is no remotely straight line to the moon. this directly implies light must be scattered in order to get around the earth to make it that far: and that means blue light.
Maybe you really should try the tank/tube experiment. What color of light manages to pass through the container? Hint: not blue. Identically, the color of light that has traveled through the atmosphere is not blue.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 06, 2015, 10:06:20 PM »
It is true that light from the sun does not reach the moon during a New Moon. Is that "the capacity" of which you refer ? Otherwise some light from the sun always reaches the moon.
Eh? You might want to re-word this?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: April 06, 2015, 02:05:17 PM »
sick llamas, you've been reading a different thread than the rest of us  if you see any fe win here.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 06, 2015, 01:46:55 PM »
Which part of 'to the sides' you have trouble understanding?

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 06, 2015, 01:38:08 PM »
elimist, how is that possible? given the dramatic effect on light in just a sunset, turning white to just reds and oranges, why wouldn't going through even more atmosphere (twice as much, out as well a sin) have more of an effect?

There are obvious differences in the intensity of the light shown in a sunset than in a lunar eclipse. A lunar eclipse is noticeably more red and less orange than a sunset, which it should be according to your observations.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Sunset_in_Zadar_2.jpg

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/010/275/i02/total-lunar-eclipse-june-2011-namibia-reserve-tucker-2.jpg?1308229613

do lies make you feel better?

Color in photographs is entirely a matter of interpretation, googling up pictures that suit your needs isn't constructive. In 9 out of ten consumer cameras there's a particular setting for photographing sunsets, guess what it does? Unless you have the raw data and often even then, accurate color assessment is not possible.

What part of the tube experiment did you not understand? Blue wavelengths are first to scatter to the sides, only long wavelengths pass through.

so photographs are ot reliable evidence? i'm glad a round earther admits that.

just look at the nex lunar eclipse, however. the colors are similar to a sunset, which is not what you'd expect.

yet again, the earth is not a tube. light that reaches the moon would be scattering out from the sides: that should make it blue. nothing matches up to your 'theory'
Photography is a reliable method of data gathering and documentation when it's carried out systematically and methods are documented; a snap off the net is not. This was directly implied by what I wrote, don't be an ass.

Colors are similar to a sunset with more emphasis on the longer reds, which is exactly what is expected. Unfortunately I have not seen a lunar eclipse myself.

Correct, Earth is not a tube, it is a spheroid. Light travelling from Sun to the Moon through Earth's atmosphere however, does not care if it travels in a tube or not. The tube or a tank of any other shape is needed only to contain the fluid so you can do the experiment. This is irrelevant.

Light that is not reaching the moon is scattered off to the sides of the light's path; towards the earth, and towards 'empty space'. This is why the daytime sky is blue, not the Moon. Longer waves scatter less and maintain their original, general direction; this is the light that does reach the Moon. Exactly as is demonstrated by the simple experiment I linked to.

Everything matching with commonly accepted scientific theory; another win for RE.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 06, 2015, 11:06:41 AM »
elimist, how is that possible? given the dramatic effect on light in just a sunset, turning white to just reds and oranges, why wouldn't going through even more atmosphere (twice as much, out as well a sin) have more of an effect?

There are obvious differences in the intensity of the light shown in a sunset than in a lunar eclipse. A lunar eclipse is noticeably more red and less orange than a sunset, which it should be according to your observations.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Sunset_in_Zadar_2.jpg

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/010/275/i02/total-lunar-eclipse-june-2011-namibia-reserve-tucker-2.jpg?1308229613

do lies make you feel better?

Color in photographs is entirely a matter of interpretation, googling up pictures that suit your needs isn't constructive. In 9 out of ten consumer cameras there's a particular setting for photographing sunsets, guess what it does? Unless you have the raw data and often even then, accurate color assessment is not possible.

What part of the tube experiment did you not understand? Blue wavelengths are first to scatter to the sides, only long wavelengths pass through.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 06, 2015, 06:16:20 AM »
neimoka, that was not what you gave. you may have posted the wrong link.

hmmm no,

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html

You can see how the shorter wavelength colors 'scatter' away first, red travels further.



It says

Quote
This can be demonstrated by shining a beam of white light through a tank of water with a little milk or soap mixed in.  From the side, the beam can be seen by the blue light it scatters; but the light seen directly from the end is reddened after it has passed through the tank.  The scattered light can also be shown to be polarised using a filter of polarised light, just as the sky appears a deeper blue through polaroid sun glasses.

This is most correctly called the Tyndall effect, but it is more commonly known to physicists as Rayleigh scattering—after Lord Rayleigh, who studied it in more detail a few years later.  He showed that the amount of light scattered is inversely proportional to the fourth power of wavelength for sufficiently small particles.  It follows that blue light is scattered more than red light by a factor of (700/400)4 ~= 10.


15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 06, 2015, 12:29:04 AM »

neimoka, none of that is what you promised.

A do-it-at-home experiment demonstrating how the blue end of the spectrum scatters away more readily than the red wasn't what you wanted?

Please refresh my memory on what was it that I have promised to you.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 05, 2015, 02:28:11 PM »
neimoka, i'm interested if you can provide any relevant examples. i know light may be split with, for example, a prism, but that wouldn't relate to the atmosphere, or how only one color reaches the moon.
i would also question whether observation alone is a good tactic. there are many forms of metal, and by observation it's only being told that the moon is rock that makes that sound like any kind of possibility.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html

You can see how the shorter wavelength colors 'scatter' away first, red travels further.

Terrain on Moon looks to me like it's rocky mountains, valleys and craters. Which is ofc what it it, as confirmed by the numerous spacecraft that have landed there. Not at all like any metal that I've smelted or otherwise worked with.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 05, 2015, 01:18:03 PM »
Because the moon has no atmosphere to cause the light to behave in such a way.

well neither does the earth, but still, i'll accept your model here. so, the sun's light goes red when it travels through the earth's atmosphere? that is evidently untrue, just look out your window.
or, if the angle is somehow special, why does the majority of the moon often go red, rather than just the edges? and why is there no rainbow, as misero implied there should be?

What Misero said is that the same principle that causes rainbows to be formed is the same principle that causes red light to hit the moon.

so, the sun's light goes red when it travels through the earth's atmosphere? that is evidently untrue, just look out your window.

Looking out my window at the sunset, and I see red/orange. So I guess it is true.

or, if the angle is somehow special, why does the majority of the moon often go red, rather than just the edges?

Refraction.

so the other colors are scattered, and somehow they don't scatter to the moon, that's exclusively where red light goes. you haven't even begun to answer how the light reaches all of the moon rather than just the edges or none.

Quote
so the other colors are scattered, and somehow they don't scatter to the moon, that's exclusively where red light goes
The other light has shorter wavelengths, so they are scattered. Red/orange light has longer wavelengths, so it isn't scattered.

Quote
you haven't even begun to answer how the light reaches all of the moon rather than just the edges or none.

The atmosphere causes the light to refract toward the moon.

scattered implies it goes somewhere. where does it go? or are you bidding a farewell to any physics and saying it gets destroyed?
and would you care to provide more than "it just does. uhhh?" how does the atmosphere 'refract' light so it bends around a huge spherical object to reach all of the much smaller moon? are you now endorsing bendy light?

as it is, neimoka, those photos look exactly like cooled metal. surely you can see that?

Shorter wavelengths scatter all around - longer ones are less affected, and continue more or less in the general direction they were headed, some of it ending up on the moon. There are easy methods you can use at home to test how different 'colors' or light scatter, if you're interested.

I've done a good bit of metal working, and have observed the moon through a telescope, and in my opinion the moon does not look metallic, be the metal heated or cooled, liquid or solid.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: lunar eclipse, round earth explanation
« on: April 05, 2015, 01:09:13 PM »
Because the moon has no atmosphere to cause the light to behave in such a way.

well neither does the earth, but still, i'll accept your model here. so, the sun's light goes red when it travels through the earth's atmosphere? that is evidently untrue, just look out your window.
or, if the angle is somehow special, why does the majority of the moon often go red, rather than just the edges? and why is there no rainbow, as misero implied there should be?

What Misero said is that the same principle that causes rainbows to be formed is the same principle that causes red light to hit the moon.

so, the sun's light goes red when it travels through the earth's atmosphere? that is evidently untrue, just look out your window.

Looking out my window at the sunset, and I see red/orange. So I guess it is true.

or, if the angle is somehow special, why does the majority of the moon often go red, rather than just the edges?

Refraction.

so the other colors are scattered, and somehow they don't scatter to the moon, that's exclusively where red light goes. you haven't even begun to answer how the light reaches all of the moon rather than just the edges or none.

Shorter wavelengths 'scatter' more easily than long wavelengths, which is why sunsets (and lunar eclipses) have a reddish color.

Eclipsed moon does not simply turn red, it becomes much dimmer than usual - the exposure on the photograph you posted is very different from what would be used for a normal full moon. Here's a collage of different phases of a lunar eclipse; you can see how the part shaded by earth loses it's normal luminosity, appearing black. Top row is exposed for normal luminosity, bottom row for 'earthshine' so we can see detail and color during totality.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
« on: April 04, 2015, 05:56:54 AM »
i don't know of any intelligent flat earther

Me neither.

20
How many miles up does a rocket have to be to escape gravity?
it's not so much a matter of 'how high' but 'how fast'; look up escape velocity. In a nutshell it's a point at which the sum of an object's speed and the gravitational 'pull' working on it equals zero; exceed that velocity, and the object will escape the gravity well it's in.

edit, typo

21
jroa: I am still waiting for you to name a single company that is making stratellites today, or show any evidence that any company has ever made a stratellite.

AeroVironment
Are you referring to 'Global Observer' craft? Wiki says that they have flown a prototype that crashed and developement has since been abandoned. Do you mean another craft?

I was asked for a single company that is still making them.  I named one.  Just because a single prototype for a single model crashed, that does not mean they are not still making them.

....so are you now saying that you know that that company is in fact making or at least still developing a stratellite-like craft, or are you just saying that I can't prove to you that they're not so they must be?

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: April 03, 2015, 09:48:21 AM »
Never mind Alpha, geometry stays the same, if not even worse than in previous case:


Can you explain again why line of sight would have to pass through earth? Totality was not visible in Colorado. Why not instead of looking through the earth, look at the setting moon as one usually does?

northwestern North America saw a partial eclipse of a setting moon (wiki)

For the same reason you "can't" see Polaris below the Equator!

aha, but I the thing is that I can see Polaris from anywhere north of the equator, no need to look through earth. Just like there was no need to look through earth to see the Moon at the time of that eclipse since it was above the horizon. Your answer really didn't help to clear the confusion  ???

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Commercial jets on a full tank of fuel
« on: April 02, 2015, 02:17:16 PM »
Richard Salbato is possibly one of the most psychotic of the whack-job brigade currently infesting the interwebs.

Check out one of his sites HERE which is incongruously titled "True Science".


I especially like how the link titled "Best Education System in the World" gives a page not found error. =D Didn't even try any other links after that.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: April 02, 2015, 02:11:55 PM »
Never mind Alpha, geometry stays the same, if not even worse than in previous case:


Can you explain again why line of sight would have to pass through earth? Totality was not visible in Colorado. Why not instead of looking through the earth, look at the setting moon as one usually does?

northwestern North America saw a partial eclipse of a setting moon (wiki)


25
jroa: I am still waiting for you to name a single company that is making stratellites today, or show any evidence that any company has ever made a stratellite.

AeroVironment
Are you referring to 'Global Observer' craft? Wiki says that they have flown a prototype that crashed and developement has since been abandoned. Do you mean another craft?

26
Fine, keep thinking that rockets should go straight up. It's wrong, but suit your self, you don't want to learn then there's nothing anyone can do about your ignorance. FE ftw, yay.
They go straight up, get to a point where they cannot go any higher, curve and come back down.
You can see this in your videos.
You guys make up funny stories for what is actually going on.
That's about it.
In what "my video" a space rocket goes straight up and etc? Lie moar.

27
Fine, keep thinking that rockets should go straight up. It's wrong, but suit your self, you don't want to learn then there's nothing anyone can do about your ignorance. FE ftw, yay.

28

Yes.  If you don't believe me, throw a ball up in the air and see what it does. 
I threw a ball straight up and it came back down and hit me on the head.
Is there anything in particular I should have noticed?
Good! Next you can try throwing it up even harder; does it behave the same? What if you threw it up *really* fast, so it went say 100km up, would it behave any different?

Once the above is established, we can move on to throwing the ball horizontally.
How does throwing a ball have anything to do with a rocket going into space?
Principle applies, whether you throw a ball or fire a rocket and throwing a ball gives us an analogy that anyone can try effortlessly at no cost. Did you figure out the above scenarios?

29

Yes.  If you don't believe me, throw a ball up in the air and see what it does. 
I threw a ball straight up and it came back down and hit me on the head.
Is there anything in particular I should have noticed?
Good! Next you can try throwing it up even harder; does it behave the same? What if you threw it up *really* fast, so it went say 100km up, would it behave any different?

Once the above is established, we can move on to throwing the ball horizontally.

30

(and about that rocket just going straight up, it still cant get you into an orbit, only out of earth's sphere of influence. And by the way, I dont think we have any rockets that have enough fuel to do something like that.)
Pioneer, voyager..

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24