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 - digitalartist

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunset/Sunrise
« on: July 08, 2017, 05:07:54 AM »
Refraction.  The sun simply appears to be lower than it is and appears to sink below the horizon.  You are not new here, and you have heard this dozens of times before.  But, you will play dumb and act like you did not get an answer the next time this comes up.
And refuted dozens of times.
Do you have to keep presenting thoroughly debunked rubbish?

Ski used to claim that there was no separate Globe Earth physics and Flat Earth physics, just physics.
It looks like with Ski gone we now have to contend with your fictitious Flat Earth Fizix as well.

I guess I'll have to try again with a bit of an earlier post.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Then you assert that "THIS ALSO EXPLAINS SUNSETS!!" No, it does not! The light is bent the wrong way for that!

Refraction usually makes the sun appear about 0.6 higher.
To even look as though the "Flat Earth" sun is on the horizon it needs to be brought about 18 lower.
So not only is typical (ie what we see on most days) refraction about 30 times too small, it is in completely the wrong direction!
On top of all that we clear see the sun disappearing bottom first behind the horizon! Like this:
           
No amount of perspective or refraction is going to explain that away.

Just get the message
  • Refraction from the less dense medium around the sun to the more dense atmosphere makes objects (like the sun, moon and stars)
    appear higher not lower!

     
  • The usual refraction near the horizon is only about 0.5, nowhere near enough to you sun set anyway.

So, jroa, it isn't refraction, like to try again?

If you have refuted it a dozen times, then why are you still here trying refuting it again?  Is that not the definition of insanity?

No Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

2
The sun shining on the underside of the clouds is an excellent example.

With the sun model used by the FET, the sun at 3000 miles above the earth never gets below the clouds that are at most about 5 miles above the earth.  Science says light bends about half a degree so it wouldn't bend sufficiently to light the underside of the clouds.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« on: January 26, 2016, 10:23:59 AM »
UA in the FE world is, as I understand it, acting upon the Earth itself but not upon things on the Earth.  This is why you don't stay at whatever height you jump to but the Earth catches up to you.

Two things would seem to negate this.

1. When you jump, you add additional speed to your body from the jump so you are initially going faster than the Earth.  In that case, the Earth should not catch up as quickly as it does.  It should be much more slowly because your speed does not immediately cease when you jump.

2.  Since there is no Gravity on a FE world, then the only weights are when the Earth pushes up against an object.  So if removed from the Earth nothing would be lighter or heavier than anything else.  A helium balloon floats skyward, but since UA does not act upon anything on the Earth and there is no Gravity, it can not be said to be lighter than anything so should not act as it does.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moon - Clear evidence of a round Earth
« on: February 22, 2012, 01:14:16 PM »

Please tell me what you disagree with about this post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The phase you see varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.

Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

Your post requires that each view be from a different direction, in the case of the moon it would have to be moon rise in one photo and moon set in the other but since both photos were taken of moon rise it would put both observations on the same side not different sides  and so the moon pictures should be identical.

In RET how is it physically possible for the moon to rise for observers in both Australia and the US? Australia is on the on the opposite side of the world than the US, underneath China.

You forget that in the ret the moon is not 3000 miles above the Earth so yes it does rise as evinced by pictures people have taken of it happening.   It does not rise at the same time in the U.S. and Australia nor did I indicate such, just that both pictures were taken at moon rise.  In a flat earth scenario the moon would look identical to anyone on the Earth who viewed moon rise regardless of when it occurred in their particular part of the world as they would all face east and see exactly what the others would see when the moon rises for them.  Since the images are 180 degrees out, something that would not happen on a flat earth it refutes the fet.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moon - Clear evidence of a round Earth
« on: February 21, 2012, 01:53:48 PM »

Please tell me what you disagree with about this post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The phase you see varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.

Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

Your post requires that each view be from a different direction, in the case of the moon it would have to be moon rise in one photo and moon set in the other but since both photos were taken of moon rise it would put both observations on the same side not different sides  and so the moon pictures should be identical.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moon - Clear evidence of a round Earth
« on: February 21, 2012, 11:09:05 AM »
Both pictures were taken at moon rise and both of a full moon sorry I wasn't more clear.  Since the moon was not overhead in either picture and both were rising in the east you could only view and photograph them by facing the east in each instance.  This rules out perspective.  The background objects (buildings in Australia and Hills in the U.S. rule out the picture being inverted or flipped.

On a flat earth each person that sees the moon rise will see the moon exactly the same as the other people.  There is no way for the image to be inverted on a flat earth.  That can only happen on a round earth.

7
Flat Earth Debate / The Moon - Clear evidence of a round Earth
« on: February 21, 2012, 07:12:51 AM »
I was visiting some friends who got back about  recently from a visit to Australia and like all good tourists took photos.  He prefers his old 35mm camera to digital ones.  I was there and he even let me watch when he developed the film rolls since he has his own darkroom.  Once completed and dry, we took them out to the living room to have as look at them.  In one was a picture at dusk of the skyline (local buildings) and the moon rising in the background.  I looked at it and it looked strange.  After checking some old photos he had from the U.S. we both could see that the moon shows upside down in Australia (the Southern hemisphere) as opposed to how it shows in the Northern Hemisphere.  Something that can only happen if the Earth is a globe and not flat.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pendulums.
« on: October 10, 2011, 04:39:14 PM »
Please provide a real world example of a pendulum swinging off its axis.

http://www.sdnhm.org/about/pendulum.html

9
I have a few problems with your logic. 
1. Saying that there is no conspiracy is essentially a null hypothesis.  You can only logically prove that there is a conspiracy. While I agree that there is a incredibly high probability of there being no conspiracy you can't logically prove it. 

Proving a negative, that something doesn't exist, is an impossibility.  You can, however, take evidence presented to support the existence of something and dispute it.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Recent trip to space by a civilian
« on: September 20, 2011, 05:28:47 PM »
It's mainly run by NASA and other Satanic Space Agencies. One can only speculate about their goals, but it has been suggested that they are profiting by keeping the funds given to them for a space program that does not exist, or are hiding some form of power source provided by the acceleration of the earth through space.

This is of course where a big part of the FET falls apart.  A Theory must stand on it's own to be valid.  When a conspiracy is necessary to cement the theory together or to try to exclude facts that not only counter the theory but can completely devastate it, then the theory fails.

You do realize they could have told the people the world is flat and still raked in tons of money making fake space flights don't you?  In fact it is counter productive, monetarily to hide something like the shape of the world as they would spend a great amount of their money doing so.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Could someone demonstrate a photoshop magic?
« on: September 19, 2011, 10:52:23 PM »
Check the exif data of a digital image and it will tell you if it's been photoshopped.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 19, 2011, 10:40:42 PM »
The Folding at Home project does not use the Scientific Method when conducting trials. It tries all possibilities until the best answer becomes apparent. It might find answers which sort of work, answers which kind of work, and answers which sometimes work. It might find answers which are entirely wrong and answers which are 98% effective. Only through an assessment of all possibilities can it discover the best solution.

If it followed the Scientific Method the Folding at Home project would do a few dozen trials and then stop once it found something which looked like an answer. This method leads one to half truths and bad science. It is an inferior method. The Scientific Method does not involve looking for better answers or attempting to prove your hypothesis wrong or inferior. It is bad methodology and needs to be tossed to the curb as the junk science it is.

Guess the FET was not done like the folding at home project then.  Rowbotham performed his first experiment and proclaimed the wold flat then followed with other experiments.  it fits exactly what you describe as half truth and bad science.  He certainly didn't try all possibilities prior to coming to his conclusion.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The problems with bendy light
« on: September 19, 2011, 10:09:52 PM »
If bendy light exists, what bends it? 

If it is the atmosphere that bends the light why isn't laser light affected equally? 

If bendy light exists, Rowbotham would have never seen the ship in the distance in his experiments as the light from the ship would have bent away before reaching him.

If bendy light exists then light that never reaches the ground but bends back into space would allow someone in a plane to look at the ground and see the sun.

That's why we prefer the explanation of atmospheric distortion.

So I ask again why isn't laser light affected?

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Questions for all the FE believers
« on: September 19, 2011, 10:05:37 PM »
The form of the Earth is as follows.

At the centre of the Earth is a vast tidal ocean, an icy depth, bounded by an inner wall of ice. From this central ocean, and its icy perimeter, span three vast spokes of land, terminating in the lands we know as South America, South Africa, and Australia.

Beneath the vast oceans and continents, radiating from the central ocean, spans a honeycomb network of large tunnels; these same tunnels were used by Alexander the Great in his conquests. And beneath these tunnels lies the molten inner world, rich in iron, which is known variously as Tartarus, Hades, The Centre of the Earth, Hell or Sheol.

Above these hollows, and above the surface I have described, three celestial bodies rotate, two of them emitting light (one hot, one cold), and the third, the great Antimoon, emitting no light whatsoever. Beyond the cyclical twizzlings of these sky bodies, and bounding everything I have so far described, is a vast icy wasteland, known as Antarctica or The Ice Wall. This extends beyond the human countenance into unspeakable darkness beyond which all things are lost to the perceptions of man.

Beyond this great icy circle is another deep ocean, and beyond this ocean the mystical land of Antichtone, where still the great woolly mammoth roams free across the steppes and plains.

Beyond the southern and outermost shores of Antichtone lies another ocean, and beyond this another great icy waste. Beyond this icy waste no man has ever laid eyes, it extends infinitely in indescribable darkness and cold.

There are a few errors with your concept

There is no inner wall of ice in the Arctic

Were you to remove all the oceans of water you would not find spokes of land but a solid mass with areas that would be above water and those that would not be

While it is true that Alexander the Great used irrigation and storage tunnels and created some of his own in his conquests, there is no evidence for a honeycomb network of large tunnels under the earth's surface.

Radar has been used to map the moon not just by military but by college professors and students.  If there were two other bodies at the same or close to the same distance from the earth as the moon, radar would also detect them regardless of whether they emit light or not

Beyond the supposed ice wall there is no sunlight hence no steppes, no plants and no animals as the sun is a necessity for survival.

Antichtone is a fabrication by some of the members of the flat earth society seeing as there is no reference for it outside the society

Everything beyond the supposed Antarctic ice wall is lost to the perceptions of man.  Which means no one would have seen or known what was beyond so even if there were an ice wall no one would have knowledge of what lies there so all of your descriptions of the land, water, flora and fauna is baseless and not grounded in fact.

James Clark Ross supposedly discovered the Antarctic ice wall you refer to.  The account can be found here http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/antarctic_ships/erebus_terror_antarctica.htm

Looking at the following 2 maps.  The first map shows the general area of Antarctica detailed in the account (circled in red).  Map 2 shows a closer view with the volcano referred to visible on the left and the area the actual wall of ice he saw based on the latitude given by him (also circled in red). 
Map 1
Map 2

With all the information, the following can be determined.
Antarctica has been circumnavigated, visited by tourists and occupied by scientists and technicians making it a continent and not the ice wall believed in by the FET.
The location detailed in the Ross expedition places his ship at Antarctica and not the supposed ice wall

Conclusion:  The FET ice wall concept is based on the Ross expedition and since it is definite that Ross was at Antarctica when he described the supposed ice wall and Antarctica can't be the supposed ice wall, an actual ice wall surrounding a flat earth does not exist.

15
Flat Earth Debate / The problems with bendy light
« on: September 19, 2011, 01:36:15 PM »
If bendy light exists, what bends it? 

If it is the atmosphere that bends the light why isn't laser light affected equally? 

If bendy light exists, Rowbotham would have never seen the ship in the distance in his experiments as the light from the ship would have bent away before reaching him.

If bendy light exists then light that never reaches the ground but bends back into space would allow someone in a plane to look at the ground and see the sun.

16
Flat Earth Debate / The problem with UA
« on: September 19, 2011, 08:33:14 AM »
First the basics and some FE'r can coorrect me if I'm wrong.

UA is a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s2.  With no counter force acting in the opposite direction the Earth's speed is constantly increasing.  UA does not directly affect anything on Earth which is why if you hold and release a rock or ball or if you trip it gives the appearance of the object/person falling to the Earth.


If that is correct then UA is it's own worse enemy.  With increasing speed the force of the impact with a stationary object would be greater in the future than it is now.   

Take a tennis ball to a flat surface such as a basketball court.  Hold it at a measured height above the court and release it noting how high it bounces.  That distance would be based on the impact of the stationary ball being hit by the moving Earth.  Now repeat the same experiment with the same ball in the same place on the same court releasing it from the same height above the court.  Notice again the height of the bounce.  It should be greater because the speed of the Earth would have increased over that weeks time.

Take a 5 pound stone outside and release it over dirt.  Measure the impression it leaves in the ground.  Repeat the experiment 1 month later then compare the depth of the impressions you recorded both times.  The second impression should be much deeper because the speed of the Earth would have increased in that month making the impact greater.  In fact over time the rock should become so deeply embedded in the ground you would not be able to retrieve it without equipment to excavate it.

Now look at the injuries a person who is standing still receives when they are hit by a car.  The faster the car is going, the greater the impact and the more serious the injuries.  Since the Earth has been constantly accelerating since day one, it's speed is so many more times faster than a car that the impact with a person whose feet have gone out from under them and who we say is falling should be so great as to pulverize them on the spot.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The flat earth theory is complete hogwash, proof 2
« on: September 19, 2011, 07:37:48 AM »
Again, I anticipate bendy light here...

Again, solution:  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50732.0

The problem with bendy light is that if it did exist, Rowbotham would have never seen the ship with his telescope as the light would have bent away before reaching him and thus there would have been no flat earth hypothesis.  Since he did see the ship, his experiment negates the bendy light hypothesis.

18
As said above there are other ways to determine distance, mechanical ones that do not rely on light in any way so whether the light were bendy or not would have no impact.  There is also the time it takes to traverse a set distance.

In the FE map it shows the southern hemisphere continents larger than in the RE maps.  If this were true then the distances would be noted on the odometer of a car.  This is not the case so the land masses must be the same size. 

So that must mean that the ocean distances east to west are larger than depicted on a RE map.  This would mean that the time for travel by boat or plane between South America and Africa would be far longer than calculated for a RE.  However, say for plane travel between those two continents at a constant speed, the time to travel between them is far shorter than the FE calculations would show.

19
Flat Earth General / You need to correct the wiki
« on: March 01, 2011, 08:41:52 AM »
I'm starting to look through the wiki more thoroughly and have found an error that needs to be corrected

In the section on foucault's pendulum, found at:  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Foucault+Pendulum  It says:

Quote
Summarily, the line of the pendula must be 25 meters in length to get the minimum effect, and so by necessity, Leon Focault's original experiments between latitudes were conducted outside hung from a tree exposed to the elements. Dr. Rowbotham finds that the variations of the pendulum by latitude are caused entirely by the contraction and expansion of its line due to temperature variations upon the earth's surface in relation to the nearness of the Sun. These variations match up perfectly with the official published results of Focault's experiments.

Please compare that with the information found on page 90 of Moving the Stars by Christian Doppler 

http://books.google.com/books?id=heDNmF9UZ6gC&pg=PA90&dq=foucault+cave+experiment&hl=en&ei=MB5tTdunCIGC8gaQrLWNDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=foucault%20cave%20experiment&f=false

As you can clearly see, of the 3 experiments, none were conducted from a tree, none were exposed to the elements and 2 of the 3 experiments had lines shorter that what is declared as the necessary length.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some one pease explain this!
« on: February 28, 2011, 05:56:11 PM »
how do you explain how a jet can start at one point on the earth, and if it keeps fyling straight it will eventually go back to the same spot. Because if the earth was flat it would never return?



Aeroplanes are designed with one wing shorter than the other, causing them to turn slightly over long distances.

Replying with a fallacy only tends to undermine your position

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The moon
« on: February 28, 2011, 05:53:48 PM »
The concensus is that there is a shrimp-like bacteria, this is the edict of cutting-edge science. It is worth noting that the globularist hegemony roundly rejects every true theorem which I have advanced.

Edict  From dictionary.com

1. a decree issued by a sovereign or other authority.
2. any authoritative proclamation or command.

No such edict has ever been issued.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Empirical evidence for moon shrimp
« on: January 14, 2011, 01:39:03 PM »
I see evidence of the moon shrimp right now as I look into the sky.

Actually you believe that the moons light is coming from moon shrimp, but, that is not evidence any more than those who see a face in the moon means there is a man in the moon looking down on the earth.  Modern, powerful telescopes have seen no indication of life on the moon and in fact, if there were moon shrimp, shadows of mountains and hills seen on the moon (in the exact same places each day) would not exist as the moving shrimp would fill in those places at times and the shadows would cease to exist.

The areas that you think of as shadows are really just environments that are uninhabitable to the moon shrimp at certain times of day.  Perhaps there are natural predators, like moon bats that hunt the moon shrimp in these "shadowed" areas at different times of day.  Naturally, a moon shrimp colony will avoid these moon bat hunting grounds at all costs.

funny thing, during a full moon some of those shadowed areas don't exist.  Guess the moon bats die out there for awhile.  No if there were moon bats preying on moon shrimp there would be shadow areas where there are none now.  It's funny though.  The population of an unsubstantiated species of moon shrimp being controlled by an unsubstantiated species of moon bat.  I can't wait till someone introduces moon cows.  :LOL

23
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: bible
« on: January 14, 2011, 01:28:39 PM »
Quote
People don't worship "mother nature".

Yes they do. I see plenty of people worshiping the "awe of nature". Entire television channels are dedicated to it.

See: Discovery Channel

So based on that, Ahem, logic,  There must be a great deal of medical and [police gods for those shows far outnumber the shows about nature.  Oh and being in awe of nature is not worshiping it any more than being in awe of a large construction means you worship the building.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Empirical evidence for moon shrimp
« on: January 14, 2011, 01:04:18 PM »
I see evidence of the moon shrimp right now as I look into the sky.

Actually you believe that the moons light is coming from moon shrimp, but, that is not evidence any more than those who see a face in the moon means there is a man in the moon looking down on the earth.  Modern, powerful telescopes have seen no indication of life on the moon and in fact, if there were moon shrimp, shadows of mountains and hills seen on the moon (in the exact same places each day) would not exist as the moving shrimp would fill in those places at times and the shadows would cease to exist.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Empirical evidence for moon shrimp
« on: January 14, 2011, 12:48:42 PM »
I have spoken with these beings many times in my dreams, but also in my waking life through telepathic communication. I have also heard accounts of their falling to Earth.

Dreams of communicating with shrimp as an indicator that it actually happens is no more valid than dreaming of communicating with cupcakes means that cupcakes can communicate.

You state that you can telepathically communicate but there is nothing to lend credence that you can do this.  However, even if telepathic communication were possible, there would be no way to know that you weren't communicating with earth based shrimp as opposed to moon based shrimp.  The most you would get would be instinct not coherent communication of ideas and concepts.

You must have heard about the falling shrimp from some other flat earther as they are the only group that I have found that believes in moon shrimp.

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Basic Question About FE
« on: January 14, 2011, 11:54:48 AM »
The Earth is of infinite horizontal extent to the best of our knowledge.

To some there is belief that it is an infinite horizontal extent but there is no knowledge that this is so.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Please explain what changes the suns speed
« on: January 14, 2011, 07:40:39 AM »
In the FE model, the spotlight sun, covers the Earth in a 24 hour period.  In the northern hemisphere the circumference of the earth is smaller than it is in the southern hemisphere.  So as the sun moves directly over the southern hemisphere during the change of seasons, it's speed would have to increase to finish in the same 24 hour period.  Please explain to me what force speeds up the sun as it moves over the southern hemisphere and slows it down again as it moves over the northern hemisphere.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy
« on: December 28, 2010, 09:24:29 AM »
The moon's distance changes. Sometimes it's closer and sometimes it's further. That's why it appears bigger at times. However, its average distance is the same as the sun.

Can you please explain the mechanics of that?  When the moon rises above the sun it moving with UA and when it descends below the sun it is moving against UA.  So please enlighten me as to what force is powerful enough to move it against UA and why that force suddenly stops and doesn't push it right down to the earth.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: We Don't Need to Disprove FE.
« on: December 27, 2010, 09:01:38 AM »
First of all, you can't prove a negative so trying to prove that something doesn't exist is a waste of time.  

The world is round with plenty of proof (far too much to put in one post) but examples include photos from space and that the North Star is only visible from the northern hemisphere.  This proof is of course not accepted as anything other than fabrications and false by the FES but with no evidence to back up those FE views it does not invalidate the proof of a round world.

While there are many proofs that the earth is round there is an appalling lack of proof to support the FET.  It seems that other theories are being bused in an attempt to bolster the FET (Ex: the bendy light theory), but you can not truly support one theory with another.   This is not to say that some haven't tried to supply experiments and other information as evidence but it falls short of the support needed to bring the FET out of the theory stage.

@ Ichimaru Gin:  Claiming victory because no one posts what you want is like going outside and yelling Santa Claus exists, not having any of the passersby contradict you and claiming Santa is real based on that.  Your time would be better spent with fewer flippant and useless remarks and more searching for something, anything that would help support the FET.

@ Tom Bishop :  Claiming that those who believe in a round earth can't produce a model because there isn't one, based on the lack of a post,  is no more a valid statement than if there were a nuclear physicist, who does not reply to a post asking for a valid model of a nuclear reaction indicating that such a model doesn't exist.

As with any theory, it is up to those proponents to prove that their theory is more than just a theory.  To those actually on the course and working hard to prove the FET whether it is ultimately possible or not, I salute you for making the effort.  For those who sit back and come up with theories without trying to validate them and to those who sit at their computers waiting to make flippant, useless posts, why are you wasting your time?

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Flight Times Prove a Flat Earth
« on: December 24, 2010, 08:06:17 AM »
Actually UA can be discounted with a simple experiment.  If UA exists it moves the earth but not those objects on the earth.  This can be seen as a person can jump up and will return to earth.  If UA was affecting the person as well, they would not return to earth but would remain above the surface.  Now for the experiment, fill a small balloon with helium and release.  The balloon floats upward until out of sight or pops.  Since UA doesn't affect the balloon, how does it move away from the surface?  The answer is it wouldn't anymore than a ball or some other object would.  This conclusively proves that UA doesn't exist.

Pages: [1] 2