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 - Ellipsis

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
Flat Earth General / Re: Why RE will never win here
« on: July 24, 2010, 04:31:55 AM »
Since I'm sure you knew what I meant, you could have easily provided this response without having to run around in circles. It seems like there's a lot of that going on in this forum.

That's how things work here.  When they can't actually defend something, they're likely to run you around in rhetoric by nitpicking at your choice of words.  I think there are two or three actual believers, but the rest are just honing their argumentative skills by playing pretend and learning when to subtly slip in a fallacy.  Welcome to the forest of trolls.
Helpful hint: All FEers believe in their own particular brand.  They'll rarely if ever agree.  No matter how convincing your case, the ones to respond will likely be those who don't believe that specific facet of it (floodlight/skymirror/perspective/EA/gravity).

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flat Earth then eh? So where are the edges?
« on: July 24, 2010, 04:15:37 AM »
Note Australia in the bottom-right and Hawaii in the top-left...

Actual straight-line path...

This map is hilarious.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the Earth is flat...
« on: July 21, 2010, 12:47:58 PM »
For real fun, give them something in the southern hemisphere to work with.  It forces the conspiracy-with-absolutely-no-evidence card.

To sum up the thread: Bishop doesn't understand how existing at a point and existing as a limit approaching a point are different things.

Good thing where the "horizon" is, is in the top portion of the picture, so it's bending agrees with barrel distortion.

What?  You should fix that post.  I can't understand what you're talking about when you make no sense.

With the barrel distortion argument, if the picture were taken facing even slightly above the horizon, it would curve in the opposite direction, which is precisely why pongo's window lensing fails (though it is only one reason of many).  I guess people somehow missed this post:

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
« on: June 30, 2010, 10:57:24 AM »
I don't know that the density changes.

It would have to, or else the FE magnetic south pole would be much weaker than the magnetic north one.  You'd need something in the middle causing the initial magnetic field and some very coincidental geologic formation around the edge to redirect some of it.  Even if that were somehow the case, it wouldn't be able to redirect everything, so the magnetic north pole/middle would always be measurably stronger than the "southern" edge.

You need to decide what's magnetic here.  Mostly uniformly across the mass (like the early examples), the middle (like my later one), or just key areas (center/edge, as yours appears)?  Only the third would even begin to work, but even that is rather coincidental and still doesn't match what we observe.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
« on: June 30, 2010, 06:59:14 AM »
Why do they suddenly bunch up at the edge?  You seem to be arguing for two magnets: one in the middle, and a reversed ring-shaped one of equal strength around the border.  Isn't their strength supposed to decrease with distance?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
« on: June 30, 2010, 06:11:22 AM »
You seemed to be saying the major point of magnetism was at the center, meaning the entire surface isn't magnetic--just the one part of it.  How would you have drawn them?  All following the surface, and facing a point in the middle?  If so, I addressed why there are no magnets like that in the opening post.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Compass Doesn't Lie
« on: June 30, 2010, 01:46:38 AM »
Remember that FAQ is clear: the disc has its poles on the top at the NMP and the other on the bottom down (as in towards your feet, not south) from the NMP.

We still have a problem here...

Flat Earth General / Re: Why i DROPPED round earth!
« on: June 30, 2010, 01:37:43 AM »

\EM theory predicts that the LOFs will follow the surface of an magnetic object. Thus is a disc shaped model the LOFs run from the rim to the MNP on the up side of the FE. Aurorae are explained at both the MNP and the rim by the lack of LOFs running parallel to the surface--just like in RE. Remember that FAQ is clear: the disc has its poles on the top at the NMP and the other on the bottom down (as in towards your feet, not south) from the NMP.

What?  Try and draw this out if you can because I'm not really getting the argument.  How are you getting curved lines to move parallel along most of a surface that is flat if the pole is in that location and direction?

Flat Earth General / Re: Why i DROPPED round earth!
« on: June 29, 2010, 10:27:27 PM »
We've already shown the Earth to be round in numerous ways.  Here's an easy one:

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did I do it?
« on: June 29, 2010, 10:12:35 PM »
I think the intention is the confirmation bias of the site.  Whenever an FEer claims anything, all the others crawl out of their trollish caves and pat him on the back, whereas when an RE makes a claim they do nothing but try and pick it apart.  He was arguing for RE from an FE style.

RE: "Here's a bunch of evidence for a round Earth."

FE response: "No, you're lying, it's a conspiracy!!"


FE: "I just looked out my window and the ground was kinda flat."


Flat Earth General / Re: Denial.
« on: June 27, 2010, 09:41:11 PM »
Blah blah

Quotes were provided of him saying the ice wall is guarded.  Do you have a more recent one where he proclaims it isn't?  If not, then you're simply presuming his opinion's changed and he hasn't told anyone?

You "felt" no bending?

That's right.  I put my hand against the window and felt no bend.  I didn't see one either.

Highly viscous liquids still flow... I am not making this up...

I'm not arguing against that.  What I argued against was Levee's idea that plane windows bending due to air pressure was the cause for an apparently curved horizon, which failed on multiple levels.

Some flat earthers here say that the atomolayer is a dome. This would certainly account for above cloud level pictures of the horizon showing a curve horizon.

Some flat earthers say the moon is alive.  It's a fun story, but until there's something to back it up, that's all it is.  If someone can show how a dome-shaped atmosphere would affect the path of light from numerous directions, they're in business, though still with most of their work still ahead of them.  Until they can make consistent accurate predictions that stand to scrutiny, a story is all it will be.

There are other materials in the glass that could flow to great a bulge.

Straw 1.  Have any evidence?

There could be inherent window manufacturing flaws that create imperfections in the windows that lead to the bulge.

Straw 2.  In every single window of every single passenger plane?  Evidence?

It is also possible that the atmolayer is convex, creating the illusion of a curved horizon.

Straw 3.  Evidence?

Well, since you've grasped at all of them with sheer conjecture and have pretty much given up on actually demonstrating or proposing anything substantial, I have one more question; could you please explain to me why I felt no bend in the window whatsoever in either time I've flown across the Atlantic?  Your "convex atmolayer" thing seems to be all that's left, but you've yet to back it up or even explain the principle behind how it could be functional.  I already destroyed the trolling OP.  The least an FEer could do here is come up with an alternative.

I'm still a little disappointed with the "it's all a conspiracy" thing Jo pulled after he was shown to be wrong.
Boy, this conspiracy sure covered all its bases!  They even manipulated data on the properties of glass.

Sadly, that's the best they can do.   :-\

"Here's some evidence to back up my claims.  What do you have to refute it?"
"It's all propaganda and conspiracy!  My tin foil hat itches!"


Yvonne Spokes is part of the conspiracy, the Royal Society is a propaganda machine.

In your own words:

Proof or go home.

Flat Earth General / Re: If the world is Flat
« on: June 27, 2010, 05:20:41 PM »
So if we stand on our heads, they should disappear from their top to their bottom.
Maybe someone should try... oh wait, I forgot zetetics don't perform experiments.

This is not correct information. Old vertical glass sheets are visibly thicker at the base than they are at the top.

No, those imperfections are due to old glassblowing techniques of the time.  In a Science News Magazine, June 1999, the time estimation was made by Yvonne Stokes of the University of Adelaide, who reported it in the Proceedings of the Royal Society the following month.  It's also not very relevant anyway, considering passenger airplane windows aren't glass in the first place.

Unfortunately, the flowing rate of glass is so slow you'd need 10 million years for any perceptible change at all.  ::)
Also, the fact that the Earth still demonstrates that curve in new airplanes is detrimental to the FE argument here.

True, though that wouldn't explain why people with upward-facing windows never report any strangely upward-curving horizon, and still leaves the problem of why there isn't any distortion (which would be plainly evident) when the plane leans into turns.

Which you'll read is one of my points.  A bulge (which Levee claims from the differing air pressures) wouldn't create such an effect at all, but even if it did we wouldn't observe what we do.  He's doubly wrong.


Flat Earth General / Re: Denial.
« on: June 27, 2010, 02:35:41 PM »
...nobody subscribes to the idea the ice wall is guarded anymore.

Except for James.

Where has he stated that?  ???

..., where has he stated recently that the Ice Wall is guarded?

"See these goalposts?  I'm moving them."

Flat Earth General / Re: If the world is Flat
« on: June 27, 2010, 02:30:29 PM »
[Read ENaG for more info.

Oh, that book that says objects travelling parallel to a line of sight can somehow pass the vanishing point and show up on the other side, which was exactly what I refuted?  Yeah, I've heard of it.

Flat Earth General / Re: Denial.
« on: June 27, 2010, 02:28:09 PM »
...I've seen photos of the Earth. I've seen satellites. I've seen eclipses. You can call "fake!" "corruption!" "bribes!" on these...

I've used geostationary satellites twice, both different ones and for a few months at a time.  They will outright say you're lying.  They don't care what the truth is.  There may be a handful of believers, but it's mainly all trolls here.

Flat Earth General / Re: If the world is Flat
« on: June 27, 2010, 02:11:22 PM »
It's a perspective effect.

A fixed perspective causes things to appear smaller when further away, not lower::)
The only case where an object would appear to become lower would be if it was entirely higher than the PoV's vanishing point when it began, while things lower than the PoV's vanishing point appear to rise.  Things to the left begin moving right and things to the right begin moving left (seeing a pattern yet?).  When travelling in a line parallel to the PoV's line of sight, all objects appear to approach the vanishing point from wherever they are (they certainly DON'T cross it), and lessen in speed by their apparently closing proximity to it; this causes the effect of objects moving further away appearing to shrink.  You lose, roundy.

Apparently no FEers actually finished the game, since after the credits the view pans very high as Link and Tetra sail towards the horizon, revealing obvious curvature.

Even with the lame idea of a game somehow being a better portrayal of reality than reality itself, you still lose.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16