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 - Don Quichotte

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Don I cannot give you an explanation for what I see, I don't know how it works. So this is why I ask you to prove your claim without using diagrams. Of course you can make a diagram work, but in real life I have never seen ships sink on a millpond.

Alright well at least that's something....a millpond is usually not very large. So the effect of the curvature would be quite minimal. If you take that the earth has a circumference of 40,000 km, you can calculate that for every degree (circle has 360 degrees) you need to travel 111 km. But you can try...put a camera really close to the surface of the water and take a photo. Now place your camera higher and take another photo. Please take into account the scale when you do. One centimeter in height difference could mean tens of meter on the true scale. But you will see that the other side of the millpond disappeared slightly.

Anyway there is another way to show the earth is curved. Very long structure such as bridges. This one for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano%E2%80%93Narrows_Bridge

Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge—the towers are 1 5⁄8 inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases




2
I am not declaring "flat and glassy sea proves flat earth" so I don't have to do anything. Your the one sticking your chest out claiming" sinking ship proves round earth". As I have said I have seen sinking ship with swell but never seen sinking ship on a flat and glassy sea devoid of swell since you have could you show me some evidence.
Please don't include cartoons/diagrams.

Tappet, c'mon now....

Then explain to me...why would the swell be a factor? I've shown you with simple diagrams it's not. I'd like to hear/see from you now, why it should..

3
I will not be drawn into a debate drawing cartoons.  How can I debate against a cartoon they do not look like reality,  you can draw anything. You are telling me to stop playing around, and then you are  asking me to draw cartoons.
You are claiming sinking ship proves round earth by using a video with swell and cartoons. Show me the sinking ship on the millpond. Your the one making the big claim about your round earth with your ships sinking, and all I have said is I have never seen this happen on a millpond. So I ask again "Show me sinking ship on a flat and glassy sea devoid of swell".
I have already said I have no  attachment to either earth so why do I need to do a cartoon flat earth style.

Tappet, you should seriously learn the difference between a cartoon and a diagram.

Look, here's another diagram...

And you go complain..."Oh it's a cartoon...oh it's not real...." Of course it's not real, but it's a depiction of the real thing! The diagrams show you the principle. Everything has been taken into account that is of relevance. I've demonstrated you how swells can cause a ship to 'sink' closer to shore, but you'll see that under any conditions ship will 'sink'. In small swells, in very large swells. The swells have no effect at all. If you live near the coast, just keep your eye out for a flat glassy sea and make a video when ships do NOT sink when they're sailing towards the horizon.

I've demonstrated in countless ways that the swell is of no factor. Now you go demonstrate how it should be a factor!

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some questions
« on: November 09, 2013, 04:06:09 AM »


1. What proof do you have for a flat earth?
Have a look around.  Evidence of the Earth's shape is presented all the time.

Ever considered a large sphere can look flat from up close?


Did you ever consider that I meant look around the forum, not look around out your window?

Did you ever notice there are a lot of threads with unanswered observations which cannot be explained by the FET, but which can by the RET? To name a few: Southpole, flight paths, daylight, ship's over the horizon,...

2. What is your stance on gravity?
I don't believe in gravity.  UA makes more sense.  Gravity is just too full of holes and scientists can not even agree on what it is; they can only see it's affects and guess as to the details.

Gravity is not fully understood, but its effects are well observed. UA cannot account for different observations in the earth's gravitional field.

Yes, gravity is a terrible theory.  I agree.

Better to have a terrible theory than to have a false theory, which is the case for the UA (different observations in gravitational pull, remember? Not possible with UA

3. If the earth is flat why don't we fly off?
Why would we fly off a flat Earth?

He means if you take the same heading so you keep flying in a straight line, you would eventually fly off

Planes mysteriously go missing all the time.

Show me! Please don't give me bull shit stories. Evidence...plus, when you're going to look, check out their last known position

4. What about the pictures taken from space?
Virtually all pictures taken from space are doctored.  NASA even admits this.

I gladly see the evidence where NASA admits this

NASA admits that they doctor their photos.  Pictures of the whole Earth are admittedly collages, for example.

COLLAGES!!! So whenever I take multiple photos, for example which I can do to make a panorama photo, it is a fake photo? Cmon Jroa! I want evidence where NASA admits they FAKE their photos, not putting together photos they make..

5. What is the round earth conspiracy?
The conspiracy started with the space race.  Today, they funnel money from fake space projects and line their pockets and use the rest to further their agenda.

Even long before the space race people knew the earth is round.

Yes, that is evidence of...well...hmmm, oh, it is evidence of nothing.  Just because people were wrong a long time ago, that is not proof that they were right.

You say that the conspiracy started with the space race, then I wonder what those ancient people were part of...since there was no space race in those times
If you want more detailed responses, please ask one  question at a time.


Weak story Jroa...really weak!

5
Again, to all flat earthers....show me a diagram that does work with a ship/swell and the sinking effect.


6
Jroa firs this diagram, which is pretty self explanatory.


7

In my world with my eyes the ships near shore are big, the further they are out to sea the smaller they get until they are tiny dots on the horizon unless of course the swell picks up and they appear to sink. In in your cartoon world they stay the same size no matter how far out the ships are. You will never warp my mind!

The swells at a distance also get smaller due to perspective. So what nonsense arguement do you try to make here? Also, if you take out a binocular or  telescope you are able to spot lots of details again....so Tappet, just stop playing around and make a diagram that works for a flat earth, because nothing can. Or at least admit there is no way it can be explained for a flat earth.


8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites
« on: November 08, 2013, 04:30:11 PM »
What parts of Tennessee? I have an experience of going through a rather small valley and where I have lost my mobile phone signal, but still received GPS signal.

I think the first time was somewhere between Nashville and Jackson, TN.  The second time, I was somewhere between Jackson and and the Missouri state line.  I wish I could give you exact locations, but it did not occur to me to memorize my locations; and my GPS was not working so I did not really know exactly where I was.

I can not remember for sure if I lost signal while going through the mountains, though.

Well it could be you got enclosed by something, but this doesn't leave a lot of means for me to check how you've lost your signal. If you have a mobile phone with camera, next time make a video whenever your GPS singal gets lost.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some questions
« on: November 08, 2013, 04:11:12 PM »
While well intended, that is also low content.

1. What proof do you have for a flat earth?
Have a look around.  Evidence of the Earth's shape is presented all the time.

Ever considered a large sphere can look flat from up close?

2. What is your stance on gravity?
I don't believe in gravity.  UA makes more sense.  Gravity is just too full of holes and scientists can not even agree on what it is; they can only see it's affects and guess as to the details.

Gravity is not fully understood, but its effects are well observed. UA cannot account for different observations in the earth's gravitional field.

3. If the earth is flat why don't we fly off?
Why would we fly off a flat Earth?

He means if you take the same heading so you keep flying in a straight line, you would eventually fly off

4. What about the pictures taken from space?
Virtually all pictures taken from space are doctored.  NASA even admits this.

I gladly see the evidence where NASA admits this

5. What is the round earth conspiracy?
The conspiracy started with the space race.  Today, they funnel money from fake space projects and line their pockets and use the rest to further their agenda.

Even long before the space race people knew the earth is round.

If you want more detailed responses, please ask one  question at a time.

10
No, perspective makes thing in background appear to be smaller than things in the foreground, regardless of whether optic are used.

Binoculars/telescopes are known to magnify the objects, so you are able to see things far away in detail. Or do you even dispute that?

Anyway, perspective still does not account for bottom-up disappearances.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites
« on: November 08, 2013, 04:05:22 PM »
Was it cloudy?

Clouds don't have an effect. Tennessee however has lots of mountains. Probably he got enclosed by those.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites
« on: November 08, 2013, 04:02:41 PM »
I recently lost GPS signal for long stretches while traveling through remote areas in Tennessee.  I was on smaller highways.  I thought the GPS receiver was screwing up, so I pulled out my phone and found that I did not have a GPS signal on it either.  Curiously, I also did not have a phone signal at the same time.

How do the satellites keep their signals from reaching remote areas that phone antennas can not reach either?  Maybe their was a force field in these areas?

What parts of Tennessee? I have an experience of going through a rather small valley and where I have lost my mobile phone signal, but still received GPS signal.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolois effect
« on: November 08, 2013, 04:00:22 PM »
SeekerOfTruth is correct.

http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp

Yes I came to that conclusion also, but then you also admit that it goes unexplained for the FET?

This at least demonstrates we're living on a spinning world.

I want to give you props for acknowledging this, I think it happens far too seldom on this forum.

I also want to reiterate that I do believe the effect to be real. It has been measured on large scales.

Whereas I agree it is consistent with RET, this only means to me that FET must present an valid interpretation also. And until then, it is a problem of FET -- an inconsistency, if you will.

The coriolis effect has demonstrated opposite effects on the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere.

If the effect would be unilateral, so either clockwise or anti-clockwise it would be possible on a flat earth. That would mean the flat disc is spinning. It would also be possible on a flat earth if the part below the equator would spin in an opposite direction in respect to the northern part. Nobody ever observed this, so it becomes quite impossible.

It also not just an inconsistency, but one of many. Others include, the flight paths of aircraft (great circle, rhumb line), the daylight differences between northern and southern hemisphere, the compass pointing to north-/soutpole, the ISS (which can be seen from earth) in space, ships appearing to sink bottom-up at the horizon, different stars visible at different locations on earth, the problem with UA, the sun, moon, other planets observed a spheres (so why wouldn't the earth be?),  ...... (what else?). There is a whole list of things pointing towards a spherical earth. In the PM discussion I have explained that we still cannot be 100% sure about it, but everyting so far points to that direction.

It would be a great deal if anyone here could just admit that..

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites
« on: November 08, 2013, 03:47:18 PM »
Why would the GPS only screw up in valleys and around tall building?  Is this some kind of built in feature?  Your statement is simply ridiculous.

It wouldn't screw up near one tall building, but if you're surrounded by tall buildings, yes it can.

Just like in a valley, if you're too close enclosed you may also lose signal.






15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolois effect
« on: November 08, 2013, 03:25:57 PM »
SeekerOfTruth is correct.

http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp

Yes I came to that conclusion also, but then you also admit that it goes unexplained for the FET?

This at least demonstrates we're living on a spinning world.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites
« on: November 08, 2013, 03:22:13 PM »
GPS does often loose signals in valleys.

Also, moved to Q&A.

It doesn't lose signal, unless something overhead is covering your GPS receiver. If you're referring to navigation equipment and sending people off course, that is because their navigation equipment is faulty and do not have all the roads, etc accounted for. The GPS itself however is still being received. GPS is used to very precisely pinpoint the location of ships and even in aviation GPS is used. 

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites
« on: November 08, 2013, 02:48:54 PM »
Hi, I'm new to this forum but am very interested in this concept. I'm an open minded philosopher, not a scientist, and never been to space so I personally can't disprove this theory. BUT I have a question...  What about satellites? GPS? How is that explained per the flat earth model? Thanks guys. -- Steve :)

The FET says it the GPS transmitters are all located on earth. Which by the way would cause problems in valleys and other locations obscured. You will have GPS signal pretty much anywhere.

Anyway, looking up in the nightsky will tell you there are satellites and even the ISS. The ISS can be spotted with help of a telescope. This confirms humanity can go and have things up in space.

18
Your drawings do not take perspective into account.

Perspective can be overcome by binoculars or telescope. Furthermore on a flat earth, the ships would fade away in the thickness of the atmoshpere and that still does not explain ships disappearing bottom-up.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolois effect
« on: November 08, 2013, 02:43:56 PM »
Never mind I have been reading into this. The video does not show the coriolis effect caused by the earth, rather the pouring skills of the man. However the coriolis effect is a very real phenomena which still goes unexplained by FET, but which can be explained by a round earth. So can we be 100% that we're living on a spherical earth? No, but everything points in that direction.

20
When I see sinking ships on the horizon  there is always swell the ships are as big and close as your picture and you can see them with the naked eye, no magnification is needed.
When sea's are flat glassy without swell ships are a shapeless dot on top of the horizon which you then need to zoom in with magnification.
Silverdane gave me an explanation which explains how I see what I see.
At no stage have you explained to me how I see what I see all you are saying is that I am wrong and my eyes are not working correctly. All you are trying to do is tell me something occurs when it does not. You are trying to tell me how a ship  would sink on flat glassy sea with no swell, I have never seen this neither have you and I am calling bullshit here.

The swelling is a factor how close to shore the ship appears to sink, but the sinking effect is still caused by the curvature.

Check out my diagram, which speaks for itself.


21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolois effect
« on: November 08, 2013, 01:05:52 PM »

I am not saying it isn't real, I am saying it cannot affect systems such as these. Look into this: google it, read a physics text on it. There is no physicist on the face of this planet that would disagree with me here. The rotation you see in the video is probably due to the initial conditions.

Look up the derivation for this effect. Plug in some numbers. You will be unable to keep your current point of view regarding this if you do so. There is no shame in this, MANY people are under the false impression about this effect. Understanding it is not trivial.

Bathtubs, etc have different shapes, so there it isn't conclusive evidence. Here they're using the same bowl with the same hole and he demonstrates the differences at three different locations.

Anyway my main point is going about the coriolis effect, which I don't see how this could be possible on a flat earth. The round earth theory again can, among other pieces of evidence (they've been discussed and are being discussed in different topics).

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolois effect
« on: November 08, 2013, 12:23:57 PM »

This is most certainly not the coriolis effect. It is a common myth that this effect determines the rotation of water (e.g. in sinks or toilets). In reality, the effect is much too small to observe in systems such as these. To wit: the coriolis deflection of an object falling down a 100m mineshaft at about 45 degree latitude would be 2.2cm. Hence, if you had a toilet 100m high, this deflection would easily be canceled by frictional forces of the water itself. You would see no rotation. 

I am surprised to see you post something like this.

They use the same equipment at three different locations (northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere and at the equator). Furthermore is the coriolis effect a very real effect.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Coriolois effect
« on: November 08, 2013, 12:03:27 PM »
Here you go...someone demonstrating the coriolis effect. Southern hemisphere vs northern hemisphere and at the equator.


#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Coriolis Effect Demonstration

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Compass heading
« on: November 08, 2013, 11:50:27 AM »
This issue hasn't been addressed yet. Where is the southpole on a flat earth?
There isn't one.
Actually, the (flat or round) earth's south magnetic pole is located at about 64.4 S latitude, 137.0 E longitude.
The south pole is under the north pole sun, or what's known as the north pole.

The flat earth cannot account for a south pole...you will run into contradictions. It cannot be anywhere, because it will always run in weird phenomena which do not match the real world observations.






25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How far could you see?
« on: November 08, 2013, 11:34:31 AM »
Jroa, you still haven't shown a diagram that works.

26
You can actually see the agitated effect of the atmosphere, this creates a mirage, because it's reflecting.
Like I said, the atmosphere of the flat earth can play many tricks and this is just one of them.

As you see it is mirroring the top part and it is floating above the horizon. It still does not account for the sinking effect.
Please make a diagram that shows how this is supposed to work.
Make a diagram of how what's supposed to work?

Of how a ship can appear to sink on a flat earth.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
« on: November 08, 2013, 10:00:47 AM »
...

Could you just cut the analogy and get straight to the point you're trying to make? I don't have time for fairy tales.

28
You can actually see the agitated effect of the atmosphere, this creates a mirage, because it's reflecting.
Like I said, the atmosphere of the flat earth can play many tricks and this is just one of them.

As you see it is mirroring the top part and it is floating above the horizon. It still does not account for the sinking effect.
Please make a diagram that shows how this is supposed to work.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Compass heading
« on: November 08, 2013, 09:52:08 AM »
The south pole is beneath the north pole.  Stand a magnet up and move a compass around the north pole.

Although this seem to be a possibility in theory. In practice you run into contradictions with the observed world. You see, the magnetic north pole and magnetic south pole are not located at the true geographic location. How would I know? Since in navigation there is the difference between these two that need to be taken into account. If it weren't true, these calculations take you somewhere else then were you intend to go. The calculations are accurate, so is the difference between true and magnetic poles.

Also, if you take a magnetic bar and put it at an angle below the earth's disc. You run in the problem I addressed earlier





30
Flat Earth General / Re: Compass heading
« on: November 08, 2013, 08:36:23 AM »
This issue hasn't been addressed yet. Where is the southpole on a flat earth?
There isn't one.

This is quite problematic, since the compass points to either the north or the south. Watch this video

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Magnetic Fields

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8