### 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 - Macpie

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
##### Flat Earth General / Re: If Earth was a globe...
« on: October 20, 2014, 11:28:53 AM »
How is it that UN Map is projection of spherical planet if clearly they show a flat a disk?
Oh, boy... Look up the word "projection". Basically it is a method of transforming dimensions or other properties of 3D objects to show them on a 2D surface. In this case, a 3D globe was "unwrapped" by keeping distances along north/south lines constant, the angles between north/south lines constant(centered at the north pole - which results in the opposite point, south pole, being stretched massively), and rescaling the dimensions along latitude lines to make them fit. There is a set of mathematical rules used to calculate this, it's not that difficult. Such map is not "false" in the sense that it "doesn't show a globe". It has its uses and doesn't contradict the globe model.

By the way, how is it that photos are projections of 3D beings if they clearly show flat 2D pictures? - it's the same logic.

2
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Homodyne
« on: October 20, 2014, 08:04:28 AM »
lol, something that rotates once every two seconds can detect the rotation of something that rotates once every 24 hours.
...and this is a problem because?

Not a problem.  Just a source of amusement.

You have just written that this is stupid. Crabby's question was directed at why does it look stupid to you. Why shouldn't it work? It's a bit like saying "what? Steel-and-rubber fists rocket-punching some bent bar can make a ton of steel go at tens of miles per hour?" when talking about a car engine.

3
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why has no one ever taken a trip whose route does not match the standard RE map?
« on: October 20, 2014, 07:59:12 AM »
Every day millions of people travel between cities by air, by sea and by land.  Whether the journey is from New York to Paris, Sydney to Capetown or Santiago to Tokyo, the following statement is always true: the distance, time and direction of travel always match the predictions of the round-earth globe.

And here is something that has never happened in, say, the last 25 years: you leave city A, traveling in the direction of city B according to the globe, and after traveling the correct distance, city B is not there.  When you finally find city B, you realize that it is far from where the globe said it would be.

These facts prove that our round-earth-base maps are correct.  And since a flat-earth map would have to be very different, no accurate flat earth map is possible.  Flat-earthers: please explain where you think I went wrong with this argument.
Which flat Earth map are you going off to see the errors?

That's the beauty of this idea: you don't need any FE map. If the Earth is flat, any map derived from the globe model should be fake/wrong(and vice versa). All you have to do to disprove the globular maps is not to find some distance which "fits an FE map". You only need to find a distance which completely does not fit a RE map.

4
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Prove the Earth is NOT a giant sphere
« on: October 20, 2014, 07:53:10 AM »
That's cute. But you know what? It looks brighter than if it was closer. Now tell me, why should the Sun get darker instead?

lol, you think the mountain is brighter?  Have you never heard of contrast?  This whole thread is hilarious.

jroa, please... Although I was being a troll here with this statement, the mountain does look brighter in this picture than the ground(forest?) closer to the camera. If you deny it, you pretty much must be blind or stupid.

And now that you mention contrast: so you say that the further away something is in air, the less "crisp" it is, and the more it "blends" into background and surroundings, right(as the air scatters light around and blurs the contours and softens colours, so it kinda averages everything at a distance)? I don't deny it, I just wanted to know if this is what you think.

5
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Homodyne
« on: October 20, 2014, 01:21:11 AM »
Cheap way to prove fe wrong.

http://www.pabr.org/copernitron/copernitron.en.html
InB4 "FAKE!!!11!1" and "it's stupid"...

6
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Equator" problem
« on: October 19, 2014, 04:25:54 AM »

Now this is moronic. You know why usually trails look blurry and jagged when the camera is moved? Because it shakes like hell while being moved. Earth is rotating as smoothly as possible - there is literally NOTHING to shake it while the long exposure is taken.

7
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Prove the Earth is NOT a giant sphere
« on: October 19, 2014, 12:46:39 AM »
But I know that I personally can see at least 149,600,000 km—which is the distance of the sun from the earth.

The sun also eventually disappears as it moves away from you.

This mountain is nowhere close to 149,000,000 km away from the camera, but it has almost entirely disappeared already.

That's cute. But you know what? It looks brighter than if it was closer. Now tell me, why should the Sun get darker instead?

8
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« on: October 19, 2014, 12:38:29 AM »
I did a 280 ft experiment today. I measured an upward curve of about 6.875% over 280 horizontal miles. This puts my calculation at roughly 4072 miles for a straight edge one direction or if I use pi about 25,576 miles around the Earth one full revolution using this simple surveying method. It should be at least 94% accurate.
Cool... How did you measure all this stuff? A simple description/diagram, maybe? I mean the 6.875% and 280 miles. What were those 280 miles? The distance you think to the horizon? And by the way, once more - how could the horizon even exist in your weird model?

9
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: 10 Reasons Why Flat Earth Is True, Please?
« on: October 18, 2014, 01:49:23 AM »
Einstein quite correctly said that "common sense is what tells us the earth is flat".  He never once said that he believed that the earth was flat.

He didn't have to.  It was coded into his work.  Relativity makes no sense unless you take the Earth as flat.

So you say "he didn't write anything like this, but I know he thought that"? Cool

10
##### Flat Earth General / Re: In 1901, a star (GK Persei) exploded?
« on: October 17, 2014, 10:43:01 AM »
Well here's a little clue to be getting on with. By what we are told to believe, this star is seen by us 1,300 years ago. We supposedly see it as it was 1,300 years ago.

Now tell me this. How in the hell are they stitching together a 58 year timelapse video of this star exploding?

As Markjo said - by simply turning photographs into a short movie, frame after frame. You do realise light takes a while to get here, right?
So they tell us, yes. About 1,300 years with this little bastard.
And your problem with this is...? What? Light doesn't travel instantaneously, why would it be impossible for it to travel from that far away? Right now you are saying something along "it's bullshit because it's bullshit".
Ok let's get to some questions. Are you seeing that explosion as it happened 1,242 years ago - coupled with that 58 year timelapse carry on?
I am not sure if I understand you correctly... I believe we see what has happened those ~1300 years before each photo was taken, as that is how long the light took to finally reach Earth to be captured.

11
##### Flat Earth General / Re: In 1901, a star (GK Persei) exploded?
« on: October 17, 2014, 10:15:40 AM »
Well here's a little clue to be getting on with. By what we are told to believe, this star is seen by us 1,300 years ago. We supposedly see it as it was 1,300 years ago.

Now tell me this. How in the hell are they stitching together a 58 year timelapse video of this star exploding?

As Markjo said - by simply turning photographs into a short movie, frame after frame. You do realise light takes a while to get here, right?
So they tell us, yes. About 1,300 years with this little bastard.
And your problem with this is...? What? Light doesn't travel instantaneously, why would it be impossible for it to travel from that far away? Right now you are saying something along "it's bullshit because it's bullshit".

12
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Prove the Earth is NOT a giant sphere
« on: October 17, 2014, 10:10:18 AM »
Scepti, seriously? (s)he asked what experiment do you think would be enough to prove FE, and your answer is basically "you are a moron, no such experiment can be conducted". We don't want you to conduct it personally, just to describe one that would work IF it was conducted.

13
##### Flat Earth General / Re: In 1901, a star (GK Persei) exploded?
« on: October 17, 2014, 09:43:17 AM »
Well here's a little clue to be getting on with. By what we are told to believe, this star is seen by us 1,300 years ago. We supposedly see it as it was 1,300 years ago.

Now tell me this. How in the hell are they stitching together a 58 year timelapse video of this star exploding?

As Markjo said - by simply turning photographs into a short movie, frame after frame. You do realise light takes a while to get here, right?

14
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Circumnavigation
« on: October 16, 2014, 10:38:09 PM »
Circumnavigation is possible on flat-earth. We call it hubbing.

Can you please cite a reference that defines "hubbing" as it's a geophysical term I'm unfamiliar with.  Or post a diagram illustrating the procedure?
Don't be an asshole. You know they say you can go around a pole not in a straight line, but by slowly turning as you go and following a circle(either consciously, or by following "fake" navigation).

15
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« on: October 16, 2014, 01:01:47 PM »
Can you prove that the satellite communication is actually signals coming from space and not from another place on Earth? How exactly do you determine it is coming from space, do you follow the signal?

Well, we pretty much can. That is the whole point.

Satellite dishes are rather sensitive as to where they are pointed(a few degree deviation significantly lowers the signal strength), so it is a safe bet that they point in the direction from which the signal comes. A simple matter of checking where satellite dishes from a sufficiently large area point makes it obvious it is not a ground based station, but a fixed point somewhere very high in the sky. For obvious reasons it can not be some kind of a building.

16
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Simple experiment that proves Earth doesn't move.
« on: October 16, 2014, 09:49:09 AM »
Fine. I did it a while ago, and guess what? Whichever star was directly above me, stayed directly above me. What was this supposed to prove, other than the stars are so far away that such movement doesn't matter to how they look?

17
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« on: October 16, 2014, 07:48:47 AM »
You cannot prove the Earth rotates either. It is impossible regardless of how many Foucault pendulums you believe in. It is impossible to experience it. You need to believe in it. So please cut the arrogant "scientific" smartass attitude

Great... So, how do you think would it be possible to fake these results? To me the pendulum is the most obvious and simple evidence that Earth rotates. If you have other explanation for it, I will gladly read it.

18
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: October 15, 2014, 02:37:09 PM »
I've gone full lunatic!

See? Even the name fits

By the way, I wonder what do these moon-will-kill-us-all guys think causes the moonlight to be so "harmful". Is it some weird frequency/wavelength? Polarization, maybe? Or does it contain some "moonar" spores which can infect us and make us sick?

19
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: October 15, 2014, 02:25:08 PM »
So guys, back to the subject.
When can I expect to become a werewolf or grow an autism or whatever happens with long term exposure to the moon? Including supermoons by the way.

It's been pretty well a month or so. Can I call this sufficiently BS, or is there something I'm doing wrong?

Can't you see it? It has already happened! You have spent all your life walking under the Moon just like that, and now your small, moonlight-fried brain makes you believe in RE! Despite all the evidence for FE!!!1!

20
##### Flat Earth General / Re: If Earth was a globe...
« on: October 15, 2014, 08:45:05 AM »
Ok I'm going to start questioning a few things to get a full insight into this globe.

On March 22nd you should be able to see the sun in the north pole and also the south pole, if you were stood in the centre of both poles. Is this correct?

It looks like they will, yes. Neither of the poles will point "towards" or "away" from the Sun at that time(which would let night happen on the one pointing away), as happens at almost any other time of the year.

And why did you side-step from our explanations of how the sunlight's angle works?

21
##### Flat Earth General / Re: If Earth was a globe...
« on: October 14, 2014, 12:01:08 PM »
This case is far from closed
Wrong, but since you brought up a few more things...

Quote
and also while I agree that white reflects and black absorbs, it does not cover a snow and ice filled pole to with a sun like that, as we are led to believe.

Quote
There's only one way that the so called pole can be full of snow under those conditions and that is, if the pole was really at a serious height, as in, like snow covered mountain height above sea level where the air in thin and cannot be agitated enough to microwave the ice.
It could be 135 degrees.  The air isn't microwaving the ice.

I live at 300 feet and sometimes we'll have snow on the ground for awhile with no clouds and sunny days for a week or more.  Anyway, if you're now saying it's the air temperature that melts the snow and ice, that's easy.  It's cold in the polar regions.
Yes but it shouldn't be freezing in those polar regions in what's known as summer if the sun is what we are told it is.
It should be bathed in heat and light from a sun that is allegedly over 850,000 miles in diameter.

Once more - it is the angle from which the Sun shines on the ground which determines how much energy overall will the area get from it. The RE's rotation axis is tilted a bit relative to the Sun, hence the seasons and variable day times, but it is far from enough tilt to compensate for the fact that the poles are pretty f*cking far from the optimal position(equator and stuff around it) relative to the Sun all year round to get plenty of energy from it. And why do you keep bringing the longer/shorter days up again? Total day and night time on Earth through a full year is the same everywhere, so it shouldn't affect these specific zones in some weird way.

22
##### Flat Earth General / Re: If Earth was a globe...
« on: October 14, 2014, 11:23:40 AM »
Strange isn't it?
No, not really.  The equator gets 'direct' sunlight.  In the middle of the day it ranges from 66.5 to 90 (directly overhead) degrees.

At the poles at the middle of the day it ranges from 0 to 23.5 degrees above the horizon, and then down to 23.5 degrees below the horizon during the winter.

The shallower angle means the same of energy that heated 1 square mile at the equator now has to heat several square miles at the poles.
Your sun is over 850,000 miles in diameter, isn't it?
Are you telling me that it can't heat up one pole considering that pole is getting walloped with the radiation?

When one pole turns to face the sun, it should be getting blasted more severely that the equator because it's constantly in it's path once it points to that direction.

Something is seriously wrong.
Scepti, your understanding of flux and flux density is seriously wrong. You can check for yourself that this angle is very important, both in theory and in practice, whatever you would like more. The most obvious practical way to see this(and it even also involves solar radiation "heating" stuff at a distance) is sunbathing. If you lie flat all day, you should get tanned pretty evenly. If you burn a little, it would probably be spread all over your front/back(depending how you did it). But if you, say, walked around without shirt for a few hours near mid-day(let's say it's a really hot day), you would get tanned or even burned only around your shoulders - they would be close to perpendicular to the rays shining from the top, while the rest of your body would be illuminated at a much shallower angle. Another example: if you come in from outside in winter and want to warm your hands to a stove, radiator or something similar, you hold them perpendicular to it, not pointing fingers at it - this way you "catch" much more energy.

If you cared to calculate how much energy does a flat shape "catch" from a radiating source, you would also see it varies greatly depending on the angle it is placed at. Solar panels work way better if they track sun than if they don't. Flowers and such also sometimes rotate to face the sun longer for a reason. Works the same for things like flat sail in the wind, fishing nets in a river etc.

All areas of Earth have a pretty similar total sunlight during a whole year. The main difference is what has been mentioned earlier - the closer to the equator you are, the more "vertical" this mean sunlight gets. As the ground is closer to perpendicular to the rays, it absorbs much more energy than at the poles, where the ground is lit at a much shallower angle.
We are talking about a sun that is 850,000 miles in diameter, as we are told. The difference in distance from the Earth from the equator getting it to the poles, is around about 6000 km...basically in the grand scheme of things...nothing, yet the poles are ice and snow.
If you look at the mock ups' of Earth's rotation around the sun you will see that the poles actually get hit direct for a good while. They should be baked, not iced up.

I was not talking about any "distance" at ANY point here. Now, would you kindly answer me why do you think this different angle thing is bullshit? I have posted a few examples where it is obvious that it works like said. You have tried derailing this line of thoughts. Why do you think something with effect this powerful is definitely not the reason why it is colder the closer to the poles you are?

And yes, I know that "poles get hit direct" for a good while. Why mention it again, if this is the exact same thing I have written at the end of my post you quote?

Edit:
I think I get this "distance" thing you might've gotten wrong earlier. Is it the "closer to perpendicular" I have used? If yes, I meant "closer" not as "nearer to the location", but as how large the angle between ground and oncoming sun rays is. By closer to perpendicular, I mean closer to 90* angle.

23
##### Flat Earth General / Re: If Earth was a globe...
« on: October 14, 2014, 10:32:18 AM »
When one pole turns to face the sun, it should be getting blasted more severely that the equator because it's constantly in it's path once it points to that direction.
As I already stated, and you didn't bother to comprehend, sunlight is at a shallow angle at the poles.

Something else I forgot to mention, all that snow and ice results in a higher surface albedo.

Shallow angle? It's the pole. It's at the top or bottom isn't it? It moves around your sun and at times of the year it is more than in sufficient position to get plenty of radiation.
At some times in the year they get more radiation than in other times, but it still is a very shallow angle at best compared to other places on Earth. What do you not understand here? Do you even have a vague idea what is the RE supposed to look like? And by the way, if you don't believe this "different angles, different overall temperatures", what would be your explanation for how climate zones on Earth are located in a pretty, circular way, and seem roughly symmetrical around the equator?

24
##### Flat Earth General / Re: If Earth was a globe...
« on: October 14, 2014, 10:13:51 AM »
Strange isn't it?
No, not really.  The equator gets 'direct' sunlight.  In the middle of the day it ranges from 66.5 to 90 (directly overhead) degrees.

At the poles at the middle of the day it ranges from 0 to 23.5 degrees above the horizon, and then down to 23.5 degrees below the horizon during the winter.

The shallower angle means the same of energy that heated 1 square mile at the equator now has to heat several square miles at the poles.
Your sun is over 850,000 miles in diameter, isn't it?
Are you telling me that it can't heat up one pole considering that pole is getting walloped with the radiation?

When one pole turns to face the sun, it should be getting blasted more severely that the equator because it's constantly in it's path once it points to that direction.

Something is seriously wrong.
Scepti, your understanding of flux and flux density is seriously wrong. You can check for yourself that this angle is very important, both in theory and in practice, whatever you would like more. The most obvious practical way to see this(and it even also involves solar radiation "heating" stuff at a distance) is sunbathing. If you lie flat all day, you should get tanned pretty evenly. If you burn a little, it would probably be spread all over your front/back(depending how you did it). But if you, say, walked around without shirt for a few hours near mid-day(let's say it's a really hot day), you would get tanned or even burned only around your shoulders - they would be close to perpendicular to the rays shining from the top, while the rest of your body would be illuminated at a much shallower angle. Another example: if you come in from outside in winter and want to warm your hands to a stove, radiator or something similar, you hold them perpendicular to it, not pointing fingers at it - this way you "catch" much more energy.

If you cared to calculate how much energy does a flat shape "catch" from a radiating source, you would also see it varies greatly depending on the angle it is placed at. Solar panels work way better if they track sun than if they don't. Flowers and such also sometimes rotate to face the sun longer for a reason. Works the same for things like flat sail in the wind, fishing nets in a river etc.

All areas of Earth have a pretty similar total sunlight during a whole year. The main difference is what has been mentioned earlier - the closer to the equator you are, the more "vertical" this mean sunlight gets. As the ground is closer to perpendicular to the rays, it absorbs much more energy than at the poles, where the ground is lit at a much shallower angle.

25
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tamarack Mines Mystery... Plumbline Experiments Prove Earth Concave/HubCap...
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:44:52 AM »

1.  Yes, 100 years ago they were capable of measuring things down to .0001 inches.

2.  The same way we measure things today.
You do realise it was not a matter of accurately measuring that something was 0.0001 inch/cm/whatever, right? This is done in a fairly simple way, using a micrometer screw(or whatever this device is called in English) or similar finely-threaded contraption. It was a matter of measuring something with was hundreds of meters long with a precision of a few centimeters. 8 inches out of 2/3 mile is about 0.000189. While such ratio is easily measurable on a small scale, on a large scale one would have to use a completely different way of collecting data.

So, could you please tell us how such a measurement can be accurately conducted without things like radars or laser meters? I am pretty sure there were no such devices back then. And I don't believe taking a yard-stick and placing it end-to-end hundreds of times would give a reasonably accurate result.

26
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« on: October 12, 2014, 11:01:50 PM »
For the time being, I will only address one point from your last post(I'm quite busy):
refraction will only make higher things appear higher and lower things appear lower, so in theory if refraction effected the day when it started it would also effect it when it ended counter-balancing the difference
No, it wouldn't. In case of sunrise/sunset there is no "higher/lower", as they are more or less symmetrical and the same. What is the difference between, say, 10 minutes after sunrise, and 10 minutes before sunset, regarding the angle above Earth? Nothing. Refraction doesn't involve some time shift; it involves angles and atmospheric conditions. If the Sun is at the same height above ground at these two times of day, why do you expect this to work differently?

27
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Gene Cernan (Apollo 17)?????????????
« on: October 12, 2014, 04:32:32 AM »
It burns its engines away from the earth and towards the moon.
Not really, if we assume a roughly circular starting orbit, then the burn is almost exactly horizontal(I mean perpendicular to the "down" direction to the ground). What you proposed would be incredibly fuel inefficient compared to tangent burn.

Come on people you can do better than this.

What do you mean? What in my description looks wrong to you? An honest question.

28
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Gene Cernan (Apollo 17)?????????????
« on: October 12, 2014, 03:23:07 AM »
As most of you will know, Gene Cernan was allegedly one of the last men on the moon on his Apollo 17 school project contraption made from cereal boxes.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand.
Cernan said that they took off from Earth, then got into orbit, the circled the Earth (about) one and a half times before heading to the moon.

I have a few issues with this that maybe some of you moon boffins can clear up.
We are told that satellites and the space station, are orbiting the Earth at speeds of 17,000 mph and such like and that Earth's gravity supposeldy tries to pull them back to Earth but their speed keeps them from doing so, as if they are on an invisible rope.

If that rope snaps, we know that on Earth, as in a swing ball tennis ball snapping from a string in circular motion, it will take a straight line trajectory. Fair enough I say, it's what does actually happen, on Earth. We know this as centripetal force, right?

Anyway, if Apollo 17 circled the Earth about one and a half times under the influence of this magical gravity and centripetal force, who cut the  magical string to allow this craft to change from a 17,000 mph orbit to sling shot out to the moon?

What possible force was applied to snap this invisible string?

Just to clarify, the invisible string has to snap. How does the craft manage this?

It doesn't need to, and as far as we know, cannot, snap.

As the orbiting velocity is changed by burning fuel, you are kind of "catapulted" into a new orbit of a different shape. If you burn "forward" from a circular orbit(increasing the orbiting velocity), like they most likely did, you would get an elongated orbit with the closest point roughly where in space the burn happened, and the most distant point on the opposite side of orbit from where the burn happened.

29
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).
« on: October 11, 2014, 02:53:18 PM »
you would have to look down at the horizon (at a 45 degree angle from the horizon).
Boo-hoo. The only case where it would look like this, would be if you were (sqrt(2)-1) times the RE's radius tall. You would have to have eyes at around 2637km above the sea level. Do you? I don't think so.

30
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity / Acceleration
« on: October 11, 2014, 02:45:31 PM »
Velocity is unapparent without an outside FoR.
Acceleration is apparent in your local FoR, because it is felt as a force.

I agree with the first line here, but as for the second one - have a look at the short conversation I have quoted at the top of page 4 of this thread. Acceleration isn't always possible to be felt or measured in a closed set-up.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9