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 - trig

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 74
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Proof the Earths Round (For kids)
« on: September 05, 2012, 04:36:39 PM »
I believe if you teach a kid from birth that the earth is spherical, that is what they will most likely believe that it is until they die, just as if you teach them if its planar that is also what they will hold through a lifetime.
I think a small percentage of these kids will question either theory, do research, perform their own experiments.
The kids are Zetetics, and they are our future.
You have a very small view of kids and adults.

It is true that, if you are a farmer in medieval times, you will hear someplace that the Earth is round, or square, or triangular and you will believe it for the rest of your life. But if you are a reasonably well educated person in current times and you hear about a hovering Sun, you ask questions.

You ask why Einstein thought Mercury orbits the Sun at enough speed to have relativistic effects, while Rowbotham's Mercury is exactly as fast as the other planets. You ask why the Sun sets in the West and not the North West. You ask yourself what the Conspiracy really should do to get the whole world fooled.

In the end, evidence of a round Earth is far too overwhelming to deny.

What you FE'ers do is called a non-sequitur: you start from the true statement that most people would not be able to demonstrate that the Earth is round and conclude that people are being fooled.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth's rotation
« on: September 05, 2012, 12:43:45 PM »
No complaints about my post. I wasn't the butt of the joke. Seems plenty of people across the web are still puzzled by the glass thread. You guys never gave a definitive and convincing argument. Obviously. I guess neutrals weren't buying "The glass company are liars" as a proper answer.

I thought you'd be particularly irritated as you were so vocal about how wrong I was. +1 for FET in the end.  But anyway, this thread is about earth's rotation - well actually lack of, so lets steer it back on course. :)
It is a sad day when you have to defend yourself with "no, I was not the butt of the joke". You know you are the butt when everyone else is laughing, except you.

No, wait, it is a happy day, for some.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth's rotation
« on: September 05, 2012, 11:53:59 AM »
Lol. It seems I'm mentioned on the same page.

Quote from: http://www.homedefenceuk.com/hobbies_loadfive.html
Thork wants to know "how the round-earthers explain the manufacture of industrial flat glass,

using the float process?" Dammit, I'm a Round Earther, and I can't answer that.  He's helpfully

provided a handy link as a reminder for those of you who might be rusty on industrial glass

manfacturing processes.  As you can plainly see, this method is impossible on a globe, and he's got the maths to prove it.  Bazinger,

he's got me already.  Other sceptics aren't so easily swayed, and the argument continues for a further 29 pages.
Me and my famous glass thread. :P trig will be furious when he sees this.

Having trouble recognizing real reporting from satire, lately, Thork?

Following his own link (curiously named "hobbies_loadfive") the very first thing I see is:
Quote
Home Defence UK is a satirical news website.  That's pretty obvious.  The real news wouldn't ask me for
pictures of:

- A UK student demonstrator immolating themself.
- A naughty, saucy Carry On-style policeman
- Dave out of Chas N' Dave painting a gypsy caravan

So, Thork's claim to fame is by being the butt of a satire. Figure how furious I am.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: When did the conspiracy start?
« on: September 05, 2012, 07:53:14 AM »
You could, in fact, do the test in a lab, making a ray of light travel one kilometer a thousand times, or something like that.
How many labs do you have access to, that are over 1 km in length?
And you are the one who was talking about 500 meter long pieces of glass?

Use your imagination. Put a mirror on a mountaintop with a view towards your lab. Real scientist have to solve everyday problems all the time and don't cry because their labs are not a kilometer long. Only couch scientists like you would despair because all of the equipment should be actually inside their labs.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: When did the conspiracy start?
« on: September 05, 2012, 07:06:13 AM »
I challenge that. It is not possible to see 1000+ km away through the atmosphere.

Tom, you have unwittingly admitted that you actually consider the Earth to be a globe.  Case closed.
No, he unwittingly slipped on a simple problem of trigonometry. Because the Earth is round and the atmosphere is so thin (you are almost out of the atmosphere climbing just 100,000 feet) there is no place where you can have a straight stretch of 1000 km of atmosphere. You could, in fact, do the test in a lab, making a ray of light travel one kilometer a thousand times, or something like that.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth's rotation
« on: September 05, 2012, 02:40:27 AM »
Barrel distortion from a wide-angle lens would flatten any curvature in this photo:
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg

It would not create curvature in the direction(s) seen here.
Don't you know that there is positive and negative barrel distortion? And, anyhow, you are trying to bury the real demonstration of divergence or no divergence of the stars. The telescope with Equatorial Mount has been in use for centuries and our astronomers know really how much the stars diverge. And you can find out for yourself, for a meager 200 dollars or so. Even less if you look for a second hand telescope. Or ask Tom Bishop for a night of exploration with his two state of the art Celestron and Orion telescopes.

PS. Don't you think that in a photo without significant distortion the buildings would look, actually, vertical? If there is a distortion that changes a building to a wedge, why are you even claiming to know what tricks the photographer used?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite TV
« on: September 05, 2012, 02:28:11 AM »
All you've "proven" is that one would need more stratellites than satellites to provide service to customers. Congratulations on "proving" a point we've already made.
You are not even trying to deny that your "more" is really "some stratellites per square kilometer". That is, in general terms, tens of millions of them, just to cover the USA. That is, in fact, billions of stratellites for the complete solution. Even if every one of them costed a measly 100,000 dollars (which it would not), you are saying that your stratellites would have to cost more than the added GDP of the US of all its history. Just to avoid the billion dollars or so that the real voyage to the Moon costed in that time.

If the Conspiracy wanted to save money they would not have invented fake satellites in the first place.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth's rotation
« on: September 04, 2012, 03:17:29 PM »
http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/03/16/0001233916/5hOHPsanterne.jpg
For example, this dramatic 5 hour long exposure was made on February 24 from Haute-Provence Observatory (OHP) in southeastern France. Actually a composite of 300 consecutive 1-minute exposures, the image nicely shows stars near the celestial equator tracing nearly straight lines in projection, while stars north and south of the equator, respectively, appear to circle the north and south celestial poles.

How is a time-exposure distorting the paths of the stars?  ???
Again and again, it is not the fact that it is a time exposure, it is the extreme wide angle that some photographers use, just because circular star trails are boring. And in some cases the way in which the camera is moved to compose neat effects.

If you find that a telescope with a correctly set equatorial mount cannot stay pointed towards one star, to within less than half a degree of error, then you are in the fast track towards a Nobel Prize.

Otherwise you can continue playing the game of pretending surprise at the distortions on photos you did not take or check how they were done.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth's rotation
« on: September 04, 2012, 01:51:36 PM »
What does that have to do with the fact that the stars are clearing converging/diverging as viewed from the equator? ???

They are not. It is an artistic layout attempting to show the curvature and rotation of the Earth by showing how the viewpoint would change as you move north/south.

The picture is a fake then?
It is a fake if the author explicitly declares that there is no distortion in the paths of the stars that are being shown. It is not a fake if, as I am sure is the case, he used an extreme wide angle lens to get a nice effect, and did not hide it.

The real way to see if the stars are diverging or not is to use a telescope with equatorial mount and follow any star. You will see that, if you correct slightly (less than 0.5 degrees in altitude) for stars close to the horizon, there is no divergence between the stars. Every one stays at the same declination and right ascension all night long.

But Tom Bishop should know this by heart. He owns two computer controlled, state of the art astronomical telescopes. He is talking about photographs but he could be measuring the divergence of the stars with better than one arc minute of error. Why does he waste his time and ours with artistic photos?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite TV
« on: September 04, 2012, 01:55:38 AM »
Define radio...

FM radio broadcast perhaps? 100+ MHz maximum.

With 300 MHz I meant the maximum technically observed frequency. What goes around the world consistently, day and night, are frequency ranges below 300 kHz.
Now go ahead and tell me that a digital TV frequency with multiple channels is carried by a signal of less than 1 MHz...
In fact, the lowest frequency for a TV signal, in VHF (far below the typical frequencies of satellite transmissions) is 54 MHz. And it is physically impossible to carry a TV signal below 1 MHz. With the best compression technology and a low pixel rate you could go into the low MHz ranges, but only in a cable. If you want to transmit a signal from a satellite or stratellite you have to go to the high tens of MHz or low GHz ranges (at least). Otherwise the signal would be too unstable to be useful.

Physics are what they are, not what a few Conspiracy Theorists want them to be.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth's rotation
« on: September 04, 2012, 01:40:32 AM »
And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above.

Well I guess this photograph disproves your model then, doesn't it?

For heaven's sake, don't question the clergy of science. You know how it upsets the masses.
For Heaven's sake, do question the clergy of science. And stop these low-content posts in upper fora. Do you have any evidence that the compilation of photographs that was made here, with no concern at all for covering the fact that this is not a straight, simple long exposure, was anything other than an artistic endeavor?

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth's rotation
« on: September 04, 2012, 01:32:46 AM »
And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above.

Well I guess this photograph disproves your model then, doesn't it?
The distorted composite of several photographs that shows totally distorted buildings is not a proof or disproof of anything.

If anything, it is indirectly proving that you will use any graphic material, with no concern at all for the circumstances, technique or equipment used, to try to save your dead theory. In a photograph that looks a lot like this one the photographer explicitly told that it was a composite of many photos, compiled into one for artistic purposes. And I showed the link to this information in this forum.

Now that another artistic compilation of several photos appears in this forum, showing totally distorted buildings, you should have the decency to show the information about the photographer, the technique and the equipment used. Or are you telling me that a building with 15 degrees off-kilter walls and straight shadows really exists?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite TV
« on: September 04, 2012, 01:08:58 AM »
With an estimated coverage area of 325,565 sq km per stratellite, I'm not seeing this as the same obstacle you are, apparently.
When the satellite has to be in a specific direction from the ground, with less than a one degree tolerance in height and direction, and with an approximate height of some 70000 feet (some 21000 meters) and assuming the stratellite is 45 degrees above the horizon, it would cover an area of some (21000 m * sin(1 degree) * arctan(45 degrees)), or some 500 meters.

Even being very optimistic, we would need four stratellites per square kilometer, or some 7 stratellites per square mile.

If you want to use stratellites to replace some of the functions of satellites you can cover several square miles with one stratellite. If you want to use stratellites to fool people into believing in the existence of satellites you will need several sratellites per square mile!

I have no intentions to tell where I live in an anonymous forum, but I can tell you that the results you can see in the site http://www.dishpointer.com/ for coordinates 0 N 75 W and 0 N 76 W are perfectly consistent with what I see in my own satellite dish and in the other dishes I see in my city:

At 0 N 75 E, pointing towards Echostar 18 (119 W DirectTV 7S):
    Elevation 39.5 degrees
    Azimuth 269.7 degrees

At 0 N 76 E, pointing towards Echostar 18 (119 W DirectTV 7S)
    Elevation 40.2 degrees
    Azimuth 270.2 degrees

If the TV signal was non-directional, you might be right and one stratellite could fake a satellite for some 300 square miles (I have not checked your maths) but when the TV signal is so directional that a 1 degree error makes you loose the signal completely, a stratellite is totally useless as a fake satellite.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite TV
« on: September 03, 2012, 11:13:20 PM »
All you've "proven" is that one would need more stratellites than satellites to provide service to customers. Congratulations on "proving" a point we've already made.
The question is, how many more? Instead of just one satellite covering a country like mine (and many other countries at the same time), you need hundreds just to cover one big city. In fact, you would need a stratellite for a handful of clients in zones in with less than 20 people per square kilometer, which is typical in more than 40% of the land of all of South America.

In fact, to have a stratellite within a degree of the direction where every antenna is pointing, you would need several stratellites per square kilometer. So many that you would be able to just point an antenna to almost any direction and get the signal from one stratellite or another. You would be able to find several of them just by playing with your own satellite dish.

I have witnessed the installation of bigger 3 meter satellite dishes and I can assure you there is no blanket of stratellites around to just point to any of them. You have to scan a section of the sky a few degrees wide and there is just one satellite there.

Maybe you could fool people from a very densely populated area with several stratellites over Los Angeles, for example. But you cannot fool all of the population of an oil exploration rig, for example, who might be the only group of more than 100 people in the surrounding 20 square kilometers or so. Having a stratellite for every two or three users is just too expensive.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth's rotation
« on: September 03, 2012, 05:24:03 PM »
The RE'ers here are posting nonsense. Even in RET the stars are moving in circles around the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial pole. Therefore there will be divergence at the equator, where the stars seem to be rotating away from each other.
This is, as everything Tom Bishop says, just the poorly analyzed imagination of an intellectually lazy person with a pet theory.

As told earlier, the stars, all of them, make a circle on the sky at the rate of one full circle per day. All those circles are concentric (no divergence). And the only divergence comes from the distortion caused by the atmosphere from some 15 degrees above the horizon down to the horizon. And this distortion is a lot less than what is seen in the "photograph" seen above. The maximum divergence is about a half of one degree (too small to see in a photograph taken without camera movement).

16
Flat Earth General / Re: North star easily Proves Flat earth
« on: September 03, 2012, 10:58:55 AM »
Guys,

I think theoretically it is possible to see Polaris in the Southern hemisphere (only just, near to the equator), due to atmospheric refraction

The reason is that just like the sun is still visible after it has physically set (due to refraction), so the Pole Star should be visible if it is physically just below the horizon.  Any comments?
In the best conditions possible this is true, but we are talking about half a degree or so. Maybe even a degree, if you are on a very high mountain overseeing lowlands or the sea, but that is a mighty difficult scenario to find.

From what Tom Bishop said, it seems that the originator of the story called the so-called Southern Pole Star (Sigma Octans) the "pole star". Since nobody has made this claim in some 150 years, even if it is not a mistake in somebody's re-telling of the story, the story is not worth the paper it is written in.

I live close to the Equator and I can tell you that under more normal circumstances, without a strategic place to look from, you cannot even see Polaris from a few degrees North of the Equator.

"In the Times newspaper of May 13, 1862, under the head of "Naval and Military Intelligence," it is stated that Captain Wilkins distinctly saw the Southern Cross and the polar star at midnight in 23.53 latitude, and longitude 35.46"

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth's rotation
« on: September 03, 2012, 09:30:47 AM »
Note the divergent paths of the stars at the equator:

This photograph, as well as many other similar ones, are not made by simply opening the shutter and waiting a few hours. Until a few years ago every single photo of this kind you could find showed the stars moving exactly as expected: drawing concentric circles.

The photographer here did not even try to conceal the fact that he did much more than placing a camera on a tripod and opening the shutter. Notice how the buildings do not appear vertical?

I do not know the exact details of this technique, but it is not designed to show exact paths of stars, it is designed to be art. It is, in reality, a digital composition from multiple shots, and I have shown the explanations of the photographers of similar photos in this forum.

Now, get us a photo with the photographer's explanation of the technique, or take a photo yourself.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite TV
« on: September 03, 2012, 08:33:00 AM »
I was addressing the anger in that post, not the content.  When I read your posts, I see nothing but anger and frustration.  I would never continually go to a website which would get me worked up.  I am confused about why you would.
So, please get back to the content. Nobody has even addressed the fact that TV satellite antennas require only infrequent adjustments of less than one degree (anything larger would have to be done by a Maintenance man on your roof, physically rotating the antenna, since they do not have pointing motors) and are all pointed to the same two spots in the sky. One provider uses one satellite, the other uses another.

I can see a lot of these antennas around my city, some of them several kilometers away, and all of them point to only two places. If we had stratellites or the like in the atmosphere they would be drifting all the time and the antennas would all have to be pointed in significantly different angles, since the stratellite would be just 60,000 or 70,000 feet above the city.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« on: September 03, 2012, 05:26:27 AM »

http://www.realityreviewed.com/


This website is a load of shit and hatred. I'm not going to take into consideration anything said by it.

Let me quote:

"There is a very real and serious danger that the Zionist/Nazi regimes of Britain, the United States and so-called 'Israel' are going to commit another false flag atrocity in London, with a view to pinning the blame upon Iran/Syria and/or Venezuela and thus starting World War III."

"Zionism is a Vatican/Jesuism plan"

Etc.
The only redeeming quality it has is it tries to give a mathematical formulation of something. In this sense it rises the bar a few meters above levee's inconsequential tantrum. The bar is still very low, however.

I think you are right, though, in not spending one more second in a Zionist Conspiracy Theory hate publication.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« on: September 02, 2012, 03:40:05 PM »
Have you ever heard of the restoring forces paradox? It seems not, otherwise you would have not opened this thread.

http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

This is the only part of this wall of blabber that even deserves a second look (but not a third).

Why on Earth did the author decide that one of the forces on an individual molecule in the air has to be counteracted by one force in the opposite direction? In fact, the two forces the author mentions are some of the least important in defining if the molecule will stay in the atmosphere or fly away to outer space. What real physics say is that the sum total of forces on the molecule define whether it will stay or fly away.

Also, all those nice little formulas ignore a very simple fact: the atmosphere is very thin compared with the radius of the Earth. (R + h) is almost exactly the same as R, so the whole argument is about minuscule differences in minuscule forces, ignoring the really significant forces on the molecule.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explanation of FE gravity requested
« on: August 21, 2012, 04:18:36 PM »
We can see germs in a microscope and waves in the double-slit experiment. Not so with gravitation or bending space -- they have yet to be seen or detected. They are entirely undiscovered and mysterious in science.
You can see electromagnetic waves in a slit experiment? Boy, what I would like to have glasses like yours. Each individual wave measures about 600 nanometers, so I think you should sell your glasses to NASA for a gazillion dollars. They would gladly pay.

Light is a form of EM waves.

Quote
What you really see in the slit experiment is the aggregate result of countless waves, or countless photons. You deduce from a mathematical model applied to the resulting patterns of light and darkness that photons were waves in this experiment (but not in others).

Right. that's what I said. you see waves in the double slit experiment. That they are formed of countless photons is no different than ocean waves being formed of countless water molecules. Ocean waves are still waves, and light waves are still waves.

You have no problem with only seeing the result of trillions of photons, not being able to see any of the individual waves, but you have a huge problem with seeing only the aggregate result of trillions of gravitational waves, not being able to see any of the individual waves. How hypocritical.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explanation of FE gravity requested
« on: August 21, 2012, 05:22:31 AM »
We can see germs in a microscope and waves in the double-slit experiment. Not so with gravitation or bending space -- they have yet to be seen or detected. They are entirely undiscovered and mysterious in science.
You can see electromagnetic waves in a slit experiment? Boy, what I would like to have glasses like yours. Each individual wave measures about 600 nanometers, so I think you should sell your glasses to NASA for a gazillion dollars. They would gladly pay.

What you really see in the slit experiment is the aggregate result of countless waves, or countless photons. You deduce from a mathematical model applied to the resulting patterns of light and darkness that photons were waves in this experiment (but not in others).

Exactly the same happens in the Cavendish experiment. You see the aggregate result of countless gravitational waves or pulls (or whatever you want to call them). You deduce from this and a few other known physical facts that one weight produced a gravitational pull on the other.

Your notion of what should be called "seeing" and what not is totally driven by your word games, not by physics.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explanation of FE gravity requested
« on: August 21, 2012, 02:11:28 AM »
It's a matter of visible vs. invisible. I believe in the visible, while you roundies believe in the invisible.

So I take it you don't buy into the nonsensical germ theory of disease?

I can't see any damn viruses making me sick, you're not going to fool me into getting an injection.
Or  electromagnetism. If you don't see the waves, they don't exist, so the computer Tom Bishop is writing on must be an abacus.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« on: August 20, 2012, 06:56:17 AM »
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.
I completely agree with you. FET has just one hole: the complete and total incapacity to come up with one single prediction that is better than what real science predicts. Even the "the Earth looks flat" thing only comes up equally good as real science, and only if you are looking towards the sea or large lake from a place lower than 40000 feet or so, and you ignore the fact that the border between water and sky looks perfectly sharp.

And real science has more holes than anyone can count. If the number of holes was relevant in any way, FET would be unbeatable. Thankfully, the number of holes is irrelevant.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« on: August 17, 2012, 05:12:28 PM »
The Orthodoxy, as you put it, is constantly being questioned.  Change can be slow because scientists require more than telepathic contact with luminous moon creatures to completely rewrite everything.  They need reproducible demonstrations of shortcomings in existing models and new models that match with our observations better than existing ones.

It's happened in the past and continues to happen today.  Once again, I don't see the problem.
Also, only Ski is claiming that the ideas of Dark Matter and Dark Energy are part of the beliefs of the "Orthodoxy". Neither Einstein nor any other scientist has been shown to even talk about Dark Matter or Dark Energy in any way consistent with the idea of "orthodoxy".

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« on: August 17, 2012, 01:14:50 PM »
With dark matter, for example, they'd need to actually find evidence for the existence of these massive, weakly interacting particles that it's supposedly made up of.

They'd need to actually find evidence to continue to believe in these things, but not to currently believe in them?  :-\  Do you still fail to see where Orthodoxy has turned "Science" on it's head?

And who says scientists absolutely believe in dark matter and/or dark energy? This is a total fabrication from you. There are no scientists declaring that either dark matter or dark matter exists. And no real scientist has closed his mind to alternatives. No real scientist will tell you that he is completely comfortable with either. It is clear that there has to be some big and yet unknown phenomenon that keeps these two problems open.

Of course, if there is a possibility that this matter is out there and is somehow detectable somebody will dedicate his career to the search, but that does not mean that they will ever claim its existence as fact. This "orthodoxy" you mention just does not exist.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth's rotation
« on: August 17, 2012, 08:43:18 AM »
Maybe I'm missing something but I saw nothing in mach's principle that would account for a Foucault pendulum having different rotational periods based on its longitude.
Yes, you are missing the fact that FE'ers do not understand Mach's Principle enough to make their case. They can only say "look at Mach's Principle", just like they would say "look at that ink blot test until you see a butterfly". To my knowledge, Mach's Principle has never gotten to the point where a specific experiment can either falsify or verify the principle. It is not like Special Relativity or General Relativity, which are inspired in the Mach Principle but are falsifiable and have been tested with experiments or observations.

In particular, Mach's Principle does not even give a hint at exact formulas to predict Focault's Pendulum's movements, but the simple Laws of Motion by Newton, plus the known facts about the Earth and its motions, accurately predict the movements of Foucault's Pendulum. GR would be an improvement, but it would be such a small one that it is not worth the trouble.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« on: August 17, 2012, 08:04:08 AM »
First of all, my intention is not to burn anyone at the stake, nor do I have any vendetta against you or any FE'er.  I'm simply asking what is the reason for someone w/o a pre-commitment to an inerrant authority to believe in a flat earth.  All I've see is anecdotal evidence from this site.  There may be something bigger and better that I've missed, and that's what I'm asking for.

And second, you have to admit that whether right or wrong, there's a huge difference between how these two groups prove their beliefs.  Scientists do not have to resort to apologetic tactics for at least two reasons.  1) There simply aren't enough FE'ers offering challenges to be worth the time of scientists.  2) There's a mountain of positive evidence that can be pointed to, like photographs of a round earth, space travel to the moon and mars, even simple plane travel, etc. etc.  When faced with positive evidence like this, the FE response appears to be to dismiss it all as a conspiracy, even though there's no believable explanation for how it could be carried out so consistently across the entire earth.  And apparently nobody has been able to photograph the edge of the earth either.  So there's a huge difference here, as I think would practically go without saying.
You obviously have spent enough time on the site. Not only did you list things that are evidence of a round Earth (like plane travel, for instance), you went on to say that FET has no evidence. Its exactly what a scientific person such as yourself would do, cling onto evidence.

Or maybe you were spoon fed the idea of a round Earth (most of us were) and then found for yourself some evidence that corroborates the notion of a round Earth,

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth's rotation
« on: August 16, 2012, 03:30:14 PM »
Quote
Further terrible arguments against the Foucault Pendulum are that every single one ever constructed has been built with a faking mechanism implanted by the Conspiracy in order to create the effect. I'm not making this up, that was the best they could do.
No, you were told and still refuse to believe that the large museum pieces all use electromagnets that kick them at a set interval. You are making things up, and your next vacation may be longer than your last few.
No. You are the one who wants to see something strange in the electromagnetic mechanism that is needed so you don't have to give the pendulum a push every few hours.

You can make your own pendulum and not put any electromagnetic mechanism to counteract drag. In the few hours it takes to settle, the pendulum will have already shown you if the Earth is flat or round, and it is a relatively inexpensive, simple experiment to do in any school or university, especially if you live in Europe or the US.

30
[
From Chapter 5 from the Perspective Handbook we read:


As usual, Tom Bishop tries to mix Physics with Drawing Techniques!

The complete name of the book he quotes is "Perspective Drawing Handbook"! Nobody cares whether your horizon gets drawn a millimeter too high or a millimeter too low in a drawing you are making. Drawings are not photographs and in many cases you will, in fact, do a better drawing if it does not mimic reality as well as photographs do!

The very fact that people still do drawings instead of taking photographs is because drawings exaggerate, twist, delineate or otherwise accentuate desired aspects of the image. Drawings are not photographs and Drawing Techniques are not Physics.

And vanishing points are part of a drawing technique, not of a Physics model.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 74