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 - Zogg

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 23, 2011, 11:34:21 PM »
Thank you for a mature approach. I admit that I misunderstood your claim about EAT. However, I think I'm still missing something. As far as my understanding goes, the very same would happen on RE:


This is a direct consequence of the concept known as parallax, which is used in RET to determine the distance of stars from the Earth.

You are absolutely right - but the parallax effect is very, very small, as according to RET, the stars are lightyears away. In consequence, at a given moment, the same star is seen  from everywhere on earth in the same direction, plus or minus 0.00000002°. That means, two stars have always the same angular distance, up to a tiny variation.


The perceived difference in the star's position come from the different orientations of the observers, not from different positions.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 21, 2011, 05:14:43 PM »

... As can be shown easily, its horizontal angular diameter would increase. ...

Not quite correct - the horizontal diameter would remain the same.

Actually, we were both wrong - it seems the horizontal angle would decrease as well. In consequence, the object would visually shrink in both width and height.



Not sure whether this would hold in any cases, I need to think some more about it...

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 21, 2011, 03:02:18 PM »
The same explanation as image:



As you see, α < β. Of course, an image is not a proof - but as long as FEers don't agree a formula for bendy light, you'll have to content with an image.

Note that the same effet holds with the vertical angular diameter of any celestial body. When a celestial body descends visually to the horizon, its vertical angular diameter would decrease. As can be shown easily, its horizontal angular diameter would increase. In consequence, a round (discoid or spheroid) celestial body would visually deform to an ellipse.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 21, 2011, 09:35:39 AM »
God, this is retarded!!!  I'm simply at a point where I just don't believe they think the earth is flat. ...
Yes, well done for realising it. Not a single person here thinks the earth is flat...

I agree, if you define "here" by "in Flat Earth Debate". (If you want to see what a debate with real FEers would look like, have a look to the "Believers" forum. Scary.)

I think most people here - FEers and longtime REers alike - consider it as kind of a game. One should not forget that the dice are loaded in favour of RET - to vary a Colbert quote, reality has a strong RE bias. It's like a sword combat where one side has wooden swords. Within the game, I am used to treat FEers like stubborn and narrow-minded children, but I actually have a great respect for some (supposed) pseudo-FEers who have skill to defend an actually undefendable position. For example Pizza who has raised confusion tactics to an art form and whose "RE metrics on FE geometry" approach has even some sort of internal consistency. (This is an outside-the-game remark, inside the game I never said that !!!)

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: R.I.P. Antartica
« on: November 18, 2011, 10:21:20 AM »
Why does it make sense to base our belief structure on a 19th century crackpot with a bunch of debunk ideas...?

The man was a genius! Not only he invented a wonder-cure for all illnesses, but also the life-preserving cylindrical railroad carriage!  ;)

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 18, 2011, 10:15:10 AM »
Fact is, the green line is actually the longest line.
Perhaps under RET geometry.

On the map. In centimeters. Or inches. Measured with a tape rule. Is it so difficult for you to compare the length of three lines on a plane? Any six years old kid could do that.

It's funny that a guy who can't even handle a tap rule is offering me psychological help for my supposed problems. No thanks. ;D

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Credibility of FET Science
« on: November 18, 2011, 09:56:11 AM »
Let me explain it another way. The tides come from the fact that the nearer one is to the moon, the stronger the moon's gravitational pull. So, the pull on the "moon side" is stronger than the pull at the center of the earth, the pull on the opposite side is weaker:


Note that the distance earth-moon on the image is not to scale, to better show the effect.

You might ask: When earth, with water and people and all, is pulled toward the moon - why does it not eventually crash into the moon? Well, it's the same reason why the moon doesn't crash into the earth: Centrifugal forces.

To illustrate this, imagine you are whirling a lasso around above your head, with an armadillo at the end. You have to lean slightly towards the opposite side of the armadillo, otherwise you will fall over:

The earth does the same thing with the moon, except that the armadillo is replaced by the moon, and the lasso by the mutual gravitational attraction. That means, the earth's center does a tiny rotational movement  around the common mass center of earth and moon (red circle in fig. 2).

I'm not sure what the correct english word for such a movement is (in German it's "eiern"). Maybe "wobbling". Let's stick with "wobbling". At the center of the earth, this wobbling centrifugal force counters the gravitational pull from the moon (green and orange arrow at the center of the earth).

Now, look again at fig.2 and consider the forces on the water on both sides:
  • On the moon side, the gravitational pull is stronger, and the wobbling centrifugal force is directed towards the armad... err the moon. Hence the water gets pulled towards the moon.
  • On the oppisite side, the gravitational pull is weaker than at the center of the earth, and the centriwobbling force is stronger, hence the water gets pulled away from the moon.

Hence the two tides.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: R.I.P. Antartica
« on: November 18, 2011, 03:13:12 AM »
Has this been going on since the dawn of time?

I find this very unlikely.

Then again, some FEers believe that the actual duration of our world history is not more than 500 years old, that Jesus was born 1680 AD and crucified in Troy before it was sacked, that the destruction of Pompeii by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius actually happened in the 18th century and that the Great Wall of China was built in the second half of the 20th century...  :o

I'm not making this up: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg854193#msg854193

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Credibility of FET Science
« on: November 18, 2011, 02:17:24 AM »
I'll have the math up today, I got sidetracked on some other things for Math Methods that had to be done.  I'll have the time today to do the proof.

Today? That was 12 days ago.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.
« on: November 17, 2011, 05:07:48 PM »
It's rather a question of: how can we prove FES that they are so obviously wrong?

We can prove it, and we did countless times, but they won't accept it. It's like a football (aka soccer) game without referee where one team scores goal after goal and the other team scores none, yet the second team keeps claiming that the goals are invalid and that they are winning the game.

Personally I percieve it as a minor victory when a FEer starts insulting me, as it means he feels cornered and doesn't find any better arguments. I stopped expecting more about a week ago.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 17, 2011, 04:57:19 PM »
Now you are saying that the longest line on the map is the shortest on earth
No, I am saying that you have marked the shortest line on the map as "even longer", without specifying what it is "even longer" than.

You need glasses. On the map, the green line is the longest of the three lines, as eyerybody can verify with a ruler. The left red line has a length of about 420 pixels, the right red line of 830, the green line of more than 1000. (The length in centimeters or inches depends on the screen size and resolution.) Yet you just called said 1000-pixel-long line "the shortest line on the map" - I have marked your sentence red for you - which is pure nonsense. As I supposed you are neither blind nor stupid, I supposed you were saying it's the shortest concerning the metrics on earth, not concerning the (euclidean) metrics on the map where it is the longest.

Once again you attempt to put words in my mouth.

Fact is, the green line is actually the longest line (1000 pixels > 830 pixels), and fact is that you called it the shortest. Did you mean the shortest on earth (in which case I didn't anything in your mouth) or on the map (in which case you are implying that 1000 < 830, and even 1000 < 420) ?

Does this problem stem from your childhood, perhaps? If you'd like to talk about it, I should be able to offer some help.

Once again you are using personal insults when cornered. Nothing new.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 17, 2011, 09:44:20 AM »
So, does the impossibility of a FE map means that FE is impossible?

I guess it depends how you define "flat".

If "flat" means "uncurved", then flat things are locally euclidean, which implies the existence of a flat, length-preserving map. Hence, if there isn't a map, there isn't any flatness. In consequence, the answer is "Yes".

If "flat" means "flatly flatish with flat flatness - but I'm not sure what this means, and I don't want to make any claims about curvature or decide on any particular geometry", then the answer is "No".

If "flat" means "I don't really believe this crap but I'm pretending to do so, as I consider defending an undefendable position a mental challenge", then the answer is "<insert confusing statement here>".

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 17, 2011, 04:10:09 AM »
Why have you chosen to follow such weird arched paths? No wonder your results don't line up if you're not following straight lines. Also, the "even longer" line is the shortest of the lines you've drawn. What is it "even longer" than?

EmperorZark asked for a length-preserving map. Tausami posted this map ans an answer, so I supposed it was thought to be length-preserving. Now you are saying that the longest line on the map is the shortest on earth - in other words, it's not length-preserving. Hence this is not the map we were asking for.

So, either give us the map we were asking for (such a map exists for all flat surfaces), or admit that such a map does not exist (which implies that earth is not flat).

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 16, 2011, 03:53:07 PM »
EmperorZhark asked in the opening post :

Using this:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0759496.html

Or any reliable source on distances between cities,

Find any FE map large enough to contains all continents, including Antarctica, consistant with the distances given above.

Well, let's mark two of the distances in said source on your map:


According to the source, the distance from LA to Cairo is longer than the distance from Sydney to Cape Town. On the map it's waaaay shorter - even if you pass on a "direct line" over Asia and Africa. Hence the map is not what we were asking for.

Try again.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 16, 2011, 03:21:31 PM »
Also, I'm pretty sure that according to RET the Google Maps representation of Australia. I am basing this off your own claim that it's impossible to project Australia on a flat surface without distorting it; and yet, you didn't notice that, and decided to use it as your template. Perhaps it's not so outlandish of a claim that people wouldn't notice, after all?

Of course, in RET, any map of Austrialia has some distortions. But first, distortions of local maps (projection on a plane tangential to a point at the center of the observed area) are small and far from factor 2, and negligable for relatively small areas such as the Sydney airport. Secondly, the distortions are well known and considered in length calculations done by professional carthographers, airline experts etc. 

16
Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.
« on: November 16, 2011, 02:51:19 PM »
My speculation is that most FE'ers are religious. 

My speculation is that the most active "FEers" in this forum are actually REers who do this just as mental exercise.

(I am even tempted to join them, as soon as I've fleshed out bendy light and found a workaround on my own objections.)

Note that most "FEers" who post here are not the same that post in (and are allowed to) the "true believers" forum.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how is this flat?
« on: November 16, 2011, 02:43:32 PM »
The wiki is down. Tom might have it.

That's a new one. "Where is the evidence for FET?" - "Errrrr, the Wiki is down..."  Hahahahahahahaha!  ;D ;D ;D

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 16, 2011, 02:23:52 PM »
Look at the other one I posted. It's hard to miss.

Well, let's look at the other one you posted, and compare the shape of Australia with "official" maps:
If your map is length-preserving, that means that "official" maps would be distorted by more than the factor 2, including roads, flight distances, crop fields, streets, large buildings etc.

Do you really think nobody would notice?

Edit: Take for example the Tallaringa Conservation Park, located above the letter "S" of "South Australia" on the Google map. On the Google map, its" N-S-diameter is larger than it's E-W-diameter; on your map it would be the other way round.

Another example is the Syney airport which has an east-west runway and a north-south runway. On Google maps, the latter is longer, on your map it would be shorter.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 16, 2011, 02:05:26 PM »

Happy?

Depends. Is this map length preserving?

If it isn't this is not what we asked for.

If it is, Australia is stretched in east-west directions by a factor of about four, compared to official local maps. Do you really think Australians won't notice?

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 16, 2011, 01:52:09 PM »
Well, yes, the fact that you refuse to accept certain facts and cling to your religion of mathematics does make it quite tedious. But hey, I can say it for the n+1st time. Your RET assumptions do not apply outside of RET.

Saying nonsense n+1 times doesn't make it less nonsense. "Flat -> Gauss curvature zero -> euclidean -> flat map" holds for any surface and doesn't use any RE assumptions. 

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 16, 2011, 01:40:30 PM »
I've already shown you a few maps...

I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as asked for in the opening post. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)

This thread has no reason to be more than 3 posts long. I'll say it again: it's only wrong because you make assumptions which are not true. The distances in FET are different from the ones in RET.

If this thread is so long, it's because FEers still haven't posted said map. Instead, they are making excuses after excuses why such a map doesn't exist in FE geometry, but without ever establishing this geometry (They can't even determine it's curvature).

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellites?
« on: November 16, 2011, 11:17:28 AM »
FET : everything is possible and please don't try to have a unified theory!

Rather have a toolbox of vague hypotheses, fuzzy enough not to allow any predictions (thus not falsifiable) and contradictory enough to counter all kind of arguments. Btw, when cornered by REers, a well-sorted toolbox of fallacies may also come in handy.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 16, 2011, 11:08:32 AM »
Which observed result of Michelson–Morley supports the existence of aether?  ???
The Michelson-Morley experiment allows two possible conclusions. One of them is that luminiferous aether doesn't exist. In an attempt to encourage people to read about the experiment, I won't post the other possibility here, but I'll PM it to you. I would appreciate it if you kept it to yourself.

No need to play the mysterious patronizing supermind: Those who know the Michelson-Morley experiment are aware that it's based on the assumption that the earth rotates - an assumption that is accepted as fact by REers but doubted by FEers. So, for a FEer, this experiment neither proves nor disproves ether.

(On a side-note, I always find it strange when FEers argue in terms of Relativity Theory, for exemple by explaining that the earth accelerates but never reaches light speed, despite the fact that on a non-rotating earth, Michelson-Morley would not lead to the questions that eventually led to the Relativity Theory.)

If I ever start pretending to be FEer, just for fun, I will possibly build my argumentation around the lines of "Flat Earth is more plausible than Relativity, thus Ockham's Razor favours FET, bla bla bla...". Which would be complete nonsense, of course.

Back to topic: Can we see a map ?

24
- how comes that it still disappears?

Because the earth is round and the bottom is behind the curvature :P

I agree, but I would like to see an answer of FEers.

25
In addition, Row-the-boat-tam's argument is based on his claim that the ship hull visually disappears because it's angular size drops below a minute of a degree. Now, seen through binoculars and telescope it's angular size at the hoizon raises waaaaay above this treshold - how comes that it still disappears?

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how is this flat?
« on: November 15, 2011, 05:03:33 PM »
It's clearly another poorly made video from the Conspiracy (NASA, KFC). They do this all the time.

So, the argumentation is that this video doesn't show what you would expect according to FET, hence - as FET is true - it must be fabricated, hence it confirms the conspiracy theory, hence it indirectly confirms FET?

What a flawless logic!

P.S.: I didn't know Kentucky Fried Chicken is involved, as well. I'm shocked.

27
Let's consider Rowbotham's argument: In fig.1 (below) we see that the hull is visible under a smaller angle (green) than the mast (red). Rowbothams argument is that this smaller angle is why the hull disappears before the mast. (ENAG, Chapter XIV: "Any distinctive part of a receding object becomes invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same object.")

However, in fig.2, the hull appears under a larger angle than the mast and funnels. Does this mean that in this case, the funnels disappear "before any larger part", in particular the hull?


28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how is this flat?
« on: November 15, 2011, 04:23:13 PM »
The curvature of the horizon might or might not come from the lense - but the video shows more than that. It shows the continents appearing at the horizon (thus it's not the border of the earth disk). It shows polar light from below near the horizon - something that wouldn't be the case if the earth was flat. And last but not least, it shows a frickin' SPACE STATION actually doing sustended space flight - something that is impossible due to FEers!

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 15, 2011, 10:43:41 AM »
Your rhetorical confusion smoke bomb "it's not a smooth surface" is getting old.
Are you saying that the Earth is smooth? Why, my friend, have you ever seen a mountain or a valley?

You are saying that the Earth is flat? Why, my friend, have you ever seen a mountain or a valley?

What you are actually saying by "earth is flat" is that (A) Earth can be approximated by a flat surface. My claim is that (B) Earth can be approximated by a smooth surface. (Note that if (A) then (B), so if you say that (B) is wrong, (A) must be wrong as well.)

"The Earth is not "flat" (an abstract concept, entirely unobservable in reality). The Earth is the Earth (a real body that actually exists and can be observed)."
An example of something flat that can be observed very easily is a closed book. It is not abstract at all.

Even the flattest book has some surface structure, at least at microscopic level, and isn't 100% flat. However, it's

Can you show me a "Riemann manifold" in reality...?

I show you a Riemann manifold in reality when you show me a plane in reality.

...and explain some of its common properties?

Let's consider only two-dimenstional manifolds for simplicity.
  • A manifold is something that can be represented by a collection of overlapping maps. Each map maps is a continuous 1:1 relationship between an area on the manifold and an open subset of the plane, each point in the manifold must be on at least one map. An example would be the chassis of a race car covered entirely by brand logos - each logo maps an area of the chassis onto the plane.
  • A differentiable manifold is the same thing, with the additional condition that transitions between overlapping maps are sufficiently smooth. The transition may be distorted but must be differentiable (no "sharp bends"). In our example, if you draw the  last "I" of "PIRELLI" in the corner of the Shell logo and it has a sharp bend, it's not a differentiable manifold.
  • A Riemann manifold is the a differentiable manifold with a notion of length and angle concerning "direction vectors" anchored in any point (for ex. velocity vectors). In consequence, you can compute length of lines on the manifold, compute their curvature and say at wich angle they intersect onter lines. For example, you can say that the vertical line of the first "L" of "PIRELLI" is 10cm long, a little bit bent to the right and orthogonal to the horizontal line of the "L".

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tides?
« on: November 15, 2011, 06:44:27 AM »
Could someone explain me why in FET, the moon is pulling the water up, but the water isn't pulling the moon down ?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4