31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites/Conspiracy
« on: June 10, 2007, 10:41:36 AM »
Sorry, Divito, but any thread in which you intervene inevitably turns into an insult battle..
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.
Yes, but there's a difference between fading and sinking.You seem to forget that eventually the whole ship disappears and not only its lower hull.
And this is where the atmospheric distortion comes in. Over greater distances, the semi-opaque air between the observer and the ship eventually renders it invisible (to the naked eye, the effect is also enhanced by the perspective effect (the tinyness of the ship in the viewer's vision - hence the reason it is sometimes possible to see ships which are not visible to the naked eye with the use of a telescope).
Just gonna say, someone call me when you're done BSing each other and we get some people with Ph.D's in here rather than hobbyists.
First of all, I want to say that I appreciate the fact that Dogplatter actually has the balls and integrity to come back and continue to debate a post, unlike our dear friend Tom Bishop. Dogplatter, I still disagree with you, and I will show you why in just a moment, but I do think it's a nice change for an FEer to come back and continue a debate.You make a good point, but here's what I've done:
Now for my rebuttal.
I've put together a simple diagram which will help aid me in my argument.
Its purpose is to sequentially illustrate what an object would look like moving farther away from an observer in two scenarios - on a globe, and indeed as it does in reality in reality (Fig 1) or on a flat plane (Fig 2). The dark blue represents the sea as you may have guessed. With the light blue line, I am accounting for your "wall of water", purely for the sake of argument. Again, I believe there is an error here, and previous threads have dealt with it. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it is there. Let's say that there is this compound effect that rises slightly above and obscures the true horizon. Now this ultimatelly changes nothing, as you will see. Before I move on, I would like to point out that in both scenarios, the object has reached the distance at which it would begin to 'sink' on the RE model.
On a globe, the effect you see (be it with a 'sinking' ship or a setting sun or whatever) is the one depicted in Figure 1. Once the object reaches a certain point (i.e. the horizon) it begins to 'sink' suddenly and distinctly and the effect does not last long. However, on a flat plane this would NOT be the case. On a flat plane, the object would continue to get smaller and smaller. Yes, given this 'wall of water' it would eventually be obscured, but it would be obscured by "shrinking" into the waves, not "sinking" into them. The same would be true for a sunset. I really don't know if I can be any clearer about this. It's really not rocket science.
Can someone explain how seeing this 'ISS' is somehow magically proving an RE? That would be like arguing seeing a plane overhead proves outer-space flight or something. You'll have to do better than that.
You're silly.
But you kind of piss me off sometimes.
It's like you come on these forums to prove everything wrong but nothing right.
I guess I can't criticize that, but it annoys me.
I'm sorry I annoy you.
I don't try to prove EVERYTHING wrong, but if I see someone making a dumb statement, and foregoing logic, I'm going to bug them about it. You can't argue or get a point across when you can't communicate effectively, and they shouldn't be using common sense or their preconceived notions to do the battles for them. They just get lazy.
And, I wouldn't be able to prove everything right. While I have about 5GB of math/physics books, there's no way I'm going to sit and learn all this stuff to start proving stuff for an RE or FE. I really don't care what shape the Earth is. I'm only interested in the conventions of debating and helping people to use their brains, and to stop them from being stupid. If I help RE'ers make a good point, or I help an FE'er make something more clear, I'll be satisfied.
When I make a mistake, please criticize me! No one should be spared.
And again, no one answered my question. Convenient.
QuoteI'm still confused about this. Tom says there is gravity, just not on earth. You say there is none. What do the sun and moon orbit? What about all those billions of galaxies out there spinning exactly according to gravitational hypotheses? There can't be orbits without gravity.
I'm pretty sure Tom is the only Flat Earther in the world who believes in gravity.
The sun and moon don't orbit, because the concept of orbit requires a non-existent force: gravity, as you just pointed out. The sun and moon circle above the equator (roughly - their positions change somewhat).
And what do you see when you look across the room at your TV but the light FROM the TV. I'm not sidestepping the issue at all. I just think you're confused. We can see very far indeed. You've confused vision acuity with vision distance.I can see Polaris on most any clear night. In RE that's about 2,200,000,000,000,000 miles. In the FE (FAQ version), it's 3100 miles.It's quite simply because the higher you go, the thinner the atmosphere is. Atmospheric distortion is the reason we can't see past a certain distance.
This is by far my favorite answer from the FE camp. They simply, and I mean this with pure contempt, REFUSE to acknowledge why this response doesn't hold up.
Atmosphere or not, the HUMAN EYEBALL CANNOT SEE PAST A SET DISTANCE. Period. end of fucking discussion.
We are not bald eagles. We are not giant squid. We are primates.
So please, by all means, enlighten us all as to the REAL reason for this unending bullshit response?
Wrong.
You see the light FROM Polaris. Again, sidestepping will not save the day here. Answer the fucking question, or GTFO.
Nice try, but no. I am talking about the excuse given dealing with atmospheric hindrance of our ability to see a satellite. There is more involved and the answer is a blanket statement, and was intentionally avoiding the actual question, and as of today, I will no longer sit silent and allow such inanity to continue unchallenged.
I am not calling into question the reasoning behind the answer, nor am I calling the post I am referring to as wrong, I simply am sick of you high and mighties refusing to answer a question without any shred of logisitical data, and merely "because it is, because it is". I want to see it. I am tired of half answers. The answer given is one I agree with, but it's half assed and meant to speak on something monumentally important to many, many folks. Stop half assing, and start actually speaking at length.
Some of them will call names, some will say "you're retarded". I will point out exactly what the problem is. Dodging it will not make it go away any longer.
... Of course, Round Earthers don't have anything tangible, anything experimental - just a few mosaics originating from a shady source. A bunch of rubbish, really. ...Please explain the reason you've not refuted SunSpots.xlsx. How is this not experimental evidence? Re predicts the location of the sun in the sky. It predicts the time of sunrise and sunset. It predicts the shape and size of the Sun and Moon throughout the day and night. It predicts the phases of the Moon, the Sun, and the inner planets. FE does not. It seems to us that you're the one talking rubbish, really!
BTW, your wave is higher than the ship's hull. It's a tsunami.
I've never seen a small barely blinky thing in the sky, and I used to have a great view of the sky.If I may, Mr. Ireland, satellites are readily viewable for the patient observer. You can see the ISS, the space shuttle, and many objects with a little knowledge, a lot of patience, and a decent observational vantage. I use this great site myself: http://www.heavens-above.com/. In particular I recommend observing a flare from one of the antennas of one of the Iridium communication satellite.
For all you people that are smart enough to say an FE is so outlandish, you really do have a hard time reading and comprehending the simple logic contained in the FAQ. It's simply amazing.
Je suis brun.I most certainly am not a man whore!
Parler Vous Fracais?I'm assuming you mean to say "Parle-vous français?"
No, no, you see, if you ask a government official what shape the earth is, he'll respond by telling you that there's a conspiracy, but it's really flat.... For proof of the Conspiracy simply ask a government official what the shape of the earth is. ...How is that proof? It seems to me that you've confused proof with an observation.
What makes you so sure?QuoteGranted not all FE proponents here are religious fundamentalists.
Most FE proponents are atheists.
QuoteBecause FES is ultimatelly no different than a religion. All the evidence in the world won't convince the few true believers that they're wrong.
You're right, of course. This situation is exactly like a religion. However, I would compare Round Earthers to a fundamentalist Christian group who passes around pictures of a piece of toast which resembles the Virgin Mary. This image, and other similar ones, somehow "proves" the existence of God and the truth of the bible.
Of course, Round Earthers don't have anything tangible, anything experimental - just a few mosaics originating from a shady source. A bunch of rubbish, really. It is surprising how dogmatic the common Round Earther is. He is entirely unwilling to doubt his own belief system. His beliefs are cemented in as much blind faith as any religion.
Instead of beginning to seek the truth for his own self, he chooses to follow media hype like a dog to the whistle.
How can FE'ers still exist?
Because FES is ultimatelly no different than a religion. All the evidence in the world won't convince the few true believers that they're wrong.
I mean force, and every serious scientist does, also. Centrifugal force is a pseudo-force, but gravity is not.Only the layman thinks that gravity is a force, as every serious scientist knows otherwise.
Only four fundamental interactions are known: strong, electromagnetic, weak (unified into one electroweak interaction in 1970s), and gravitational (in order of decreasing strength).
Gonna move my original post subject to here:
How does one explain sattelites and sustained Orbit? If satellites do not exist, under your understanding of alernate physics (ie sustained space flight) then explain to me how GPS and Spy Sattelites work?
Yeah he just owned everyone....in March.
QuoteStars are just "suns" far away. Once again, we have proof for this, do you have any proof?
Been to a star have you?
QuoteThe fe earth is moving at .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c right now. You guys don’t believe in aerodynamics.
The FE Earth does not have a speed. Speed can only be meaningfully applied in relation to other stationary objects, of which there are none. The FE Earth has an acceleration. Don't act all high and mighty when you evidently don't even understand the theory.
QuoteGravitation states giant bodies have to be round. And despite what my sig says, there is no magical dirt.Well yeah, but as you might have gathered during your time on this site, we don't believe in gravity.