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 - Jadyyn

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 51
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« on: July 01, 2016, 06:34:38 AM »
Uh, no, it looks exactly the way it looks in the videos, they're not altered, and I don't see how that's pareidolia. Poor excuse.

Look man, I'm too sleepy for insane stuff right now, I seriously can't keep replying.
I agree. A camera does not do pareidolia. This is really going out on a limb. My, my, what FEers will come up with to try to debunk reality.

Where the ISS is in the sky is CALCULATED and CONFIRMED. Astronomers travel to places on Earth where the ISS is supposed to cross the face of the Sun. They take ACTUAL pictures. They even take pictures of the shuttle docking with the ISS. So to say that (1) the ISS doesn't exist or (2) is pareidolia is just people putting their "heads in the sand" screaming "lalalalala - don't show me reality (the real world)! I don't believe it!" GET A TELESCOPE!

This is NOT pareidolia (shuttle docking with the ISS):
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65080.msg1736930#msg1736930

32
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wha's up with the compass
« on: July 01, 2016, 06:21:29 AM »
1) The compass is not the shortest route between two places but the great circle is.
Quote
Great Circle - a circle on the surface of a sphere that lies in a plane passing through the sphere's center. As it represents the shortest distance between any two points on a sphere, a great circle of the earth is the preferred route taken by a ship or aircraft.

2) Off hand, I don't see how it would prove/disprove a FE. If you keep due north on your right, you will travel the latitude (more or less, magnetic N is not true N) on both. Things would probably get funny near the S. magnetic pole as it is far away from true south and the S.Pole.

3) If you want to go absolutely E/W, you need to use the N.Celestial Pole (due north) and S.Celestial Pole (due south) to navigate. That is why sailors used the stars and sextants.

33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« on: June 29, 2016, 12:01:03 PM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?
You've been there, I take it?
Um... so you are demonstrating you have no logic or "common sense".

You don't need to be there. Everyone (~billion people) south of the equator can SEE (<- one of your senses) it. Furthermore, as it is in the SKY, we don't actually need to go to Antarctica to SEE the SKY above it. As I said earlier, a star's declination = latitude. So the stars BELOW the SCP are on the other side of the Earth from you. <--- logic, "common sense".

If this is NOT good enough for you, I really feel sorry for you. So, you don't believe countries and continents exist if you personally haven't SEEN them. Really?
I apologize, I misread your original statement as the South Pole, rather than the South Celestial Pole.

Again, you're conflating two ways in which something may conflict with the senses. The first way is a mere absence from the senses. For instance, infrared light or distant continents. This does not conflict with your sensory data; it is merely absent from it. It is not that your senses are saying "it is not there"; rather, it is that your senses are not saying "it is there." In the first way, your senses have formulated a belief about this-or-that; in the second way, your senses have not formulated a belief at all.

My senses have not formulated a belief that "infrared light does not exist," or "Africa does not exist," as these are absent from my senses completely. Hence, indirect evidence involving infrared light or Africa will not conflict with a prior belief. However, my senses have formulated a belief that the earth is a flat plane; indirect evidence involving its rotundity therefore will conflict with a prior belief.
The next question becomes what "aids" do you consider viable?

Since it is unlikely you will actually see cells in your body without a microscope, do you believe your eyes when looking through one? What about an electron microscope (pictures on a screen)?

Going the other way, do you believe what you see with a telescope? A telescope with CCD cameras/computers attached?

What about cameras and pictures you take? Where do you draw the line when others take them? Why?

For me, I have done amateur astronomy with several telescopes, binoculars and cameras. As my views/pics look very much like others in magazines and on-line, I have little doubt of their validity (i.e. I have somewhat of a measure of what "fake" may be). Sure, there are corrected pictures (that unless explicitly trying to force something, are usually OK because they are making pictures look as we would expect them - increased contrast, saturation, gamma correction, seams disappearing, etc.) and "Photoshopped"/"fake" pictures. But... not all pictures are "fake" and even enhanced ones are not necessarily fake (like the photos you take through your digital camera). So just because NASA or someone corrects images or even produces "fake" ones (sometimes for presentations or PR/advertising) that does not mean it does it to ALL pics. Also, unless you know what the pics are supposed to look like, you can't cry "fake" because they are not what you expect.

Also, EVERYONE has different experiences with what they used their senses for. So although YOU may not have seen, smelled, tasted, touched, heard something, some, perhaps many other people have.

People on this forum love to tell REers they have been lied to and indoctrinated - as if they haven't been by FEers. This is very insulting (I think it is a debate tactic to get a rise out of people - pathetic really). Many of the people here have tested stuff (like me and amateur astronomy). Sorry, but the things I have seen and measured independently (for me) verify my RE concept. I have not seen ANYTHING to make me even begin to take the FE concept seriously. Based on the stuff presented in this forum, I seriously doubt anyone in the scientific community would even seriously look at a FE - not because of indoctrination, but because there is literally nothing here. What would you write a scientific paper on? Sandokhan's copy/paste? Antarctica "wall" conspiracy? A flat horizon? John Davis' infinite plane with domes on it? ... to make it perfectly simple - no map, no model.

Hey Jadynn. These questions are relatively easy to answer within the framework I've been proposing. Like I've said, I only find additional observations to be unpersuasive if it contradicts a prior observation that is immediately verifiable.

As such, the variety of experiences that other people have had are compatible with my theory of perception and epistemology. I welcome additional data about the world -- for instance, photographs of distant lands, journal entries of times long past, or other revelations concerning things which are not immediately present to my senses. I welcome these because, although you insist that my epistemology is inconsistent, they are not contradictory with what I've already seen. The idea that Africa exists on the other side of the ocean does not contradict what I've seen on this side... etc.

On the other hand, the earth's alleged rotundity does conflict with what I've already seen -- namely, its flatness. Africa can exist while I do not see it, but the earth cannot be round while I see it to be flat.

I'm not accusing you of indoctrination, and I'm not sure where that came from.
I thought I wrote the following in this thread so I will just link it to a different thread. This should conflict with what is seen/photographed south of the equator (the SCP part) on a FE vs RE:

(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67201.msg1794676#msg1794676)

34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« on: June 29, 2016, 11:26:23 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?
You've been there, I take it?
Um... so you are demonstrating you have no logic or "common sense".

You don't need to be there. Everyone (~billion people) south of the equator can SEE (<- one of your senses) it. Furthermore, as it is in the SKY, we don't actually need to go to Antarctica to SEE the SKY above it. As I said earlier, a star's declination = latitude. So the stars BELOW the SCP are on the other side of the Earth from you. <--- logic, "common sense".

If this is NOT good enough for you, I really feel sorry for you. So, you don't believe countries and continents exist if you personally haven't SEEN them. Really?
I apologize, I misread your original statement as the South Pole, rather than the South Celestial Pole.

Again, you're conflating two ways in which something may conflict with the senses. The first way is a mere absence from the senses. For instance, infrared light or distant continents. This does not conflict with your sensory data; it is merely absent from it. It is not that your senses are saying "it is not there"; rather, it is that your senses are not saying "it is there." In the first way, your senses have formulated a belief about this-or-that; in the second way, your senses have not formulated a belief at all.

My senses have not formulated a belief that "infrared light does not exist," or "Africa does not exist," as these are absent from my senses completely. Hence, indirect evidence involving infrared light or Africa will not conflict with a prior belief. However, my senses have formulated a belief that the earth is a flat plane; indirect evidence involving its rotundity therefore will conflict with a prior belief.
The next question becomes what "aids" do you consider viable?

Since it is unlikely you will actually see cells in your body without a microscope, do you believe your eyes when looking through one? What about an electron microscope (pictures on a screen)?

Going the other way, do you believe what you see with a telescope? A telescope with CCD cameras/computers attached?

What about cameras and pictures you take? Where do you draw the line when others take them? Why?

For me, I have done amateur astronomy with several telescopes, binoculars and cameras. As my views/pics look very much like others in magazines and on-line, I have little doubt of their validity (i.e. I have somewhat of a measure of what "fake" may be). Sure, there are corrected pictures (that unless explicitly trying to force something, are usually OK because they are making pictures look as we would expect them - increased contrast, saturation, gamma correction, seams disappearing, etc.) and "Photoshopped"/"fake" pictures. But... not all pictures are "fake" and even enhanced ones are not necessarily fake (like the photos you take through your digital camera). So just because NASA or someone corrects images or even produces "fake" ones (sometimes for presentations or PR/advertising) that does not mean it does it to ALL pics. Also, unless you know what the pics are supposed to look like, you can't cry "fake" because they are not what you expect.

Also, EVERYONE has different experiences with what they used their senses for. So although YOU may not have seen, smelled, tasted, touched, heard something, some, perhaps many other people have.

People on this forum love to tell REers they have been lied to and indoctrinated - as if they haven't been by FEers. This is very insulting (I think it is a debate tactic to get a rise out of people - pathetic really). Many of the people here have tested stuff (like me and amateur astronomy). Sorry, but the things I have seen and measured independently (for me) verify my RE concept. I have not seen ANYTHING to make me even begin to take the FE concept seriously. Based on the stuff presented in this forum, I seriously doubt anyone in the scientific community would even seriously look at a FE - not because of indoctrination, but because there is literally nothing here. What would you write a scientific paper on? Sandokhan's copy/paste? Antarctica "wall" conspiracy? A flat horizon? John Davis' infinite plane with domes on it? ... to make it perfectly simple - no map, no model.

35
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« on: June 29, 2016, 10:45:43 AM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.
Most of my examples in this forum are based on amateur astronomy (visual/photographic). Sorry, the heavens are the same in the real world. There are LOTS of pictures of them and LOTS of astronomers (probably no FEers though). Science works just like it supposed to. No amount of "egos" is going to change the sky.

The only "censure" and "lies" I see are FEers refusing to look at/photograph the sky and making up BS about it. A telescope is a bad/scary word to FEers. So I totally agree with what you said concerning FEers.
Just because you have been told to look at one thing, and been told that thing must mean the Earth is round, doesn't mean you haven't been lied to.
If the scientific community is so open and honest, why do they laugh at and refuse to honestly consider or develop a competing FE model?
Because THERE IS NO SINGLE FE MODEL and CAN NOT BE.

On this forum, pretty much everyone debating has their own model. Which one do you want REers to "honestly consider"?

You CAN NOT have a "competing FE model" because the SKY is incorrect.
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66454.msg1776164#msg1776164)

Then there are the Earth problems - why there hasn't been a FE map for THOUSANDS of years:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65369.0)

You can, and most threads here do, argue "**IF** a FE model EXISTED, what would UA/denpressure be like? What would the "dome"/"edge" be like? What would the horizon look like/from what altitude? etc." But there is no single model, just ad hoc explanations that (1) don't match the sky/heavens and (2) cause conflicting/contradictory problems with other ad hoc explanations and (3) most cause more problems than they sort-of solve and (4) are untestable/fantasy explanations.

To make a model work, at the VERY LEAST, it has to have people living on BOTH sides (so you have a SINGLE POINT S.POLE under the S. Celestial Pole). THAT has to be the VERY MINIMUM for a model to be even viable. I presented such a model here.
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66985.0)

Of course you have to assume 2 MAJOR things exist. (1) The atmosphere/world/your brain has to process FE sensory inputs and convert them into a spherical Earth and (2) you need a instantaneous teleportation wall around the equator. If you look a JRoweSkeptic's Dual Earth model (it has major problems), that is EXACTLY what his model uses (Aether for the warping and instantaneous travel between disks via zero concentration Aether). The magical mythical Aether does it all with several ad hoc contradictory properties and no evidence.

36
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« on: June 29, 2016, 10:06:29 AM »
Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.
Most of my examples in this forum are based on amateur astronomy (visual/photographic). Sorry, the heavens are the same in the real world. There are LOTS of pictures of them and LOTS of astronomers (probably no FEers though). Science works just like it supposed to. No amount of "egos" is going to change the sky.

The only "censure" and "lies" I see are FEers refusing to look at/photograph the sky and making up BS about it. A telescope is a bad/scary word to FEers. So I totally agree with what you said concerning FEers.

37
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« on: June 29, 2016, 09:51:40 AM »
Secondly, Theory is used because omitting the word implies that the idea is flawless with no room to improve or modify. To use the globe model as an example, when first proposed in Greece by philosophers it was a perfect sphere, and it wasn't until the 17th century that the theory it may be an ellipsoid came into play.
That's what I'm saying. It's pushed as a truth but shrouded by the word "theory", as and when change is required to further an agenda or if a flaw is picked up.
You mean like the whole FE FANTASY?

38
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« on: June 29, 2016, 09:48:24 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?
You've been there, I take it?
Um... so you are demonstrating you have no logic or "common sense".

You don't need to be there. Everyone (~billion people) south of the equator can SEE (<- one of your senses) it. Furthermore, as it is in the SKY, we don't actually need to go to Antarctica to SEE the SKY above it. As I said earlier, a star's declination = latitude. So the stars BELOW the SCP are on the other side of the Earth from you. <--- logic, "common sense".

If this is NOT good enough for you, I really feel sorry for you. So, you don't believe countries and continents exist if you personally haven't SEEN them. Really?

39
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this!
« on: June 29, 2016, 09:32:33 AM »
BTW if you play the 17 images, any of the clouds as moved or change shapes !

You can check image number 3 took at 07:04:31 GMT and image 6 10:20:54 GMT
and tell me that in a 3 hours gap clouds stayed at the same place and kept the same shape?

Common guys, stop telling yourself lies.
Those images are forgery and now you know it.
Yes, the clouds change from pic to pic.

"Finger" cloud under Korea changes in the pictures. 1st pic VERY definite. 2 pics later, gone.

40
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this!
« on: June 29, 2016, 09:25:48 AM »
You see stars at night because they are very faint. When there is another big light you can not see them (i.e. in daytime). The earth is lit right now, in order for stars to be seen the earth is too bright.
How do you know that? You sound like Flat earthers ;D, having a explanation for everything.

So basically you are telling me i can't see that kind of stars in space while watching directly the earth? even a bit


Sorry but i'm not buying it
The picture above is from a very nice dark site.

It's called exposure. Typically, exposures of stars take many seconds or minutes (like that above). Pictures of the Sun are typically through filters and still take 1/1000ths of a second. Moon pictures take < 1 second. The Earth, depending on clouds would also be < 1 second - so similar exposure. How long of an exposure do you take with a picture on a sunny day on the ground on Earth?

So, IF you wanted pictures of stars like above with the Earth during daytime (NOT nighttime), the Earth would be WAY WAY overexposed. Check out the exposure levels of the Moon (similar exposure level needed as the Earth) during a lunar eclipse (ONE exposure setting - normally they change this a couple times on single shots to get good pictures):

(http://www.astrosurf.com/comolli/eclun5e.html)

(http://nature-universe-photography.blogspot.com/2015_10_01_archive.html)

If you got the Earth right, say 1/8 second exposure, very few if any stars would appear. To get stars, the Earth would probably appear like this (ANY sunlight and forget it):



Instead of just BSing, why don't YOU take a camera and take some pictures (night and day) and check out exposures and what you get. Take them during the day (see how many stars you get), twilight and night (with and without the Moon), from a city (where you are lucky just to see the brightest stars) and from the country ("pitch black" where you can't see your hand in front of your face).

Living in Colorado, I've gone up in the mountains far away from cities where it was "pitch black". WOW!!! You can just about read by the light of the stars and the Milky Way looks like your picture. In Denver... eh... Daylight... nothing.

41
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« on: June 29, 2016, 07:44:17 AM »
Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

42
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Timezones?
« on: June 29, 2016, 07:28:59 AM »
Light bouncing off the Moon...

For the high and low tech people reading this post, here is a setup for finding the distance to the Moon:


Although you may laugh at this, the question remains... If you shoot lasers at the Moon, anywhere and nothing happens, then shoot them where Apollo put reflectors and get something back (that takes > 2 seconds - repeatable), how is that possible?

Those Moonshramps know how to use lasers?

43
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Felix Baumgartner Pictures prove Flat Earth
« on: June 29, 2016, 07:19:38 AM »
FYI, regardless of lens type, the position of the horizon in the frame does affect the curvature of the visible horizon:


As I stated above, it is ALWAYS a circle. Its height below horizontal changes the higher you go.

44
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites and the space station
« on: June 29, 2016, 07:11:29 AM »
My question was actually how does the sun and moon floats?
If nothing else can
Because the sun and the moon are reflections from what creates them, which is from the centre of the Earth, which is not a globe.
Their images are reflected back to us.
Where is the center of the Earth?

The only thing FEers know is that the N.Pole should be in the center (assuming conspiracies... http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65369.0). They don't even know where the equator is (half way to the "edge"?)... nor if the "edge" exists and where it is. Since there is no actual map, FEers don't even know where THEY are on Earth. Since they don't know where anything is on Earth, they don't know distances between places (e.g. between say London and Sydney).

So, where is this supposed center of the Earth? What is there that is being reflected? How?

45
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth
« on: June 29, 2016, 06:53:29 AM »
So one huge problem I have noticed with the whole hypothesis is that there are a huge amount of assumptions. For example, the earth is flat, gravity is fake, the earth was created by a creator, the earth is infinite, there is a huge, impossible to reach ice wall, the list goes on. Seems to me that the more assumptions you have to make, the worse off your idea becomes.
It's all assumptions until concrete proof can be had. The real issue is in being allowed to show what concrete proof is and having it accepted.
An instance is the Bedford level experiment. It should constitute concrete proof but it's not allowed. Why?
The answer is simple. Because mainstream supposed science does not allow this type of evidence. It's frowned upon and people are ridiculed by the brainwashed masses, instigated by those higher up.

The  supposed globe is saturated with assumptions, lies and total areas of misinformation/disinformation, yet it's allowed into mainstream as a theory that is known as scientifically correct, until something in time scuppers it.
The beauty about the "scientific THEORY"  is, they can peddle it as a truth whilst having the word as a contingency word of a guess if the shit hits the fan.

All flat Earth/alternate theorists/hypothesisers/assumers, etc, have is their own logical free thinking minds that will never be accepted as a thought if it goes against the preferred scientific fantasy/fiction.

The real truth about it all is, the entire make up of the entire world and whatever is beyond, is assumptions for anyone.
The key to gaining some semblance of understanding of a potential make up of Earth and beyond, is to make many assumptions and see which one's can actually make a fist of a potential reality and which one's can be discarded based on complete nonsense.

The globe model is one that I can cheerfully and easily discard as being a sci-fi set up, which includes a lot of utter gunk about supposed amazing machines that can weigh up to 3000 tonnes, being sent into the sky with men sitting atop.
You know, stuff like that. Clear and utter crap that only requires a leisurely argument about, against those that have been brainwashed so severely that they absolutely refuse to take a peak outside the box, never mind take a tentative step out of it.

Globalists assume flat/alternate Earth theorists are stark raving mad. Tin foil hat wearing idiots. Mainstream media provided the channel for words like these to be used  by those who want to keep bull crap hidden by smothering it with cream and strawberries so the gullible will ravenously gobble it all up and never pay much attention to the shitty aftertaste.

The only way to pick the bones out of it all, is to actually pick the bones and not just grab a chunk of meat then hide in the corner.
Concerning the Bedford experiment. It was done in a canal right? Water flows in a canal right? Then how can it be level/flat? Read Method (last sentence) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment.

THAT is why it is not accepted/allowed. It was considered, remeasured with more accurate equipment and falsified. Only FEers don't want to BELIEVE it and keep trying over and over and over again to bring it up.

On a lake though, it can be level. The same type of experiment was done there and got different results (you can start around 3:00):


Why don't FEers "allow" this proof/evidence?

Also, you say FEers are "logical". Fine. Apply your logic to this:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67201.msg1794676#msg1794676)

46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this!
« on: June 29, 2016, 06:32:29 AM »
Here's a question for you. Why should I trust indirect evidence of the earth's rotundity over my direct, first-person, evidence of its flatness? Why should I distrust my immediate appeal to the senses in favor of a more distant appeal to those same senses?
Senses are OK sometimes (they can be tricked) but then you need to use "common sense" and logic (i.e. your brain).

A) Experiments that you can do at home to "see" (a sense) what is true:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)

B) Then APPLY that. You can "see" the S. Celestial Pole (SCP) in the sky (southern star trail long term photos):


C) Every celestial object (e.g. stars) has celestial coordinates (declination and ascension) that correspond to Earth coordinates - specifically declination (sky) = latitude (Earth) EXACTLY - see Declination Wiki. This means that the farther south the declination of the celestial object is the farther south on the Earth it is. The North Celestial Pole (90 N) is a SINGLE POINT in the sky corresponding directly with the SINGLE POINT N.Pole (agreeing with (A) above). The Celestial Equator (0) is the largest circle (star trail) in the sky and over the Equator on Earth that should be the largest circle on Earth. The SCP (90 S) is a SINGLE POINT in the sky that should correspond directly with the SINGLE POINT S.Pole (agreeing with (A) above). The farther south you go from the Equator, the higher it should get until it is directly overhead (90 S) at the S.Pole - and that is what happens in the real world. The S.Pole is not at the "edge" of a FE (largest circle) but the Celestial Equator (equator) is. The true S.Pole on a FE is under the N.Pole underneath the disk/plane. It can NOT be seen from above the disk/plane. There is no SINGLE POINT S.Pole on the top side of a FE.

D) To support this, per declination/latitude, when you face the SCP, you are facing due south everywhere. When you draw a horizontal line through the SCP in the image above, ALL the stars BELOW it are on the OTHER side of the Earth, per declination/latitude. These would be 10,000+ mi BEHIND you. How can you see them?

So USE your senses but also USE your brain. USE "common sense" and logic.

47
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Felix Baumgartner Pictures prove Flat Earth
« on: June 28, 2016, 06:05:23 AM »
Why does this issue keep coming up? IT IS ALWAYS a circle and NEVER flat.
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66717.msg1779776#msg1779776)
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67101.msg1791834#msg1791834)

Correct images all you want, but HAS TO BE a circle - ALWAYS!

48
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Willfully ignorant vs...
« on: June 27, 2016, 09:24:27 AM »
So let's ask a couple questions and I'll use small words, for obvious reasons.
1. If the FE sun never sets and circles the earth, with a minimum view angle of 20 degrees: Then when it disappears at approximately 6000 miles away, why can't I see it 1 minute later with binoculars? It would be less than 20 miles further away.
2. Why isn't there one credible photo/video of the "ice wall"? Not a picture of a hundred miles or so, of the close side. A picture of the far side, the actual edge?
3. Without some "theory", what the the actual FE proof for a lunar eclipse?

Where I'm from, a "couple" refers to a pair, which is definitely two things. Married people are considered a couple, as are dating people for that matter, and let me tell you... "couple" doesn't ever mean three. Make that mistake once and have things go poorly when the date begins, and you'll remember.

What were the obvious reasons? I could guess, but my first guess would be because you don't want to use words that people might not understand the definition of. But based on your use of the word "couple," I'm sure I am wrong.

Here's my best guess at the FE answer to your questions. I'm far from an authority, but based on what I've read so far this is I think a fair answer for some FEers. Keep in mind, there's not a single cohesive theory or set of ideas that tie all FEers together. No consensus at all on many (possibly most) issues.

1: Bendy light and perspective
2: I think you are asking for something that, by most FEers definition is impossible to reach and, thus, impossible to photograph.
3: Moonshramp or the Shadow Object
1. If Bendy light is more than made up words it would seem to react like refraction. Is there any physics explaining Bendy light? Is the bend effected by any atmospheric conditions? Science has confirmed refraction is based on variables. Bendy and refracted light would cause the sunrise and sunset to have variables. It does not. The suns daily cycle is very consistent.
2. Your(most FE's) saying the ice wall may be impossible to reach? How about the northern edge then. The part closest to South America(600miles?), to South Africa, Australia and all around the world. To claim humans can't fly and circumnavigate the 60th latitude S is ridiculous. While doing this, on our RE, one could travel due east or west(by compass) and circumnavigate the earth. On  FE, the compass heading would change to w, n, e, s. The distance on a RE is, approx 12,500 miles, around the 60th latitude. On a FE is estimated at 60,000-80,000 miles. Is it your contention that humans have not yet enough knowledge to confirm a compass's accuracy or measure distances? Oh wait, humans have flown this latitude, many times. There are many pictures showing the convex arc of the Antartic. Or what would be explained as a southern "island continent". Where are the FE pictures of a concave arc, coastline, for tens of thousands of miles? None?   
3. FE's would have us believe that humans don't have the ability to go into the lower atmosphere. So how could anyone make up words explaining the moons composition?
Or define a celestial body that has characteristics found no where else in our solar system?
I call Shenanigans.
When someone does research, ignores the empirical evidence, makes up magical answers and comes up with the wrong conclusions, that is just foolish.
What FEers do not say is that there is REALLY nasty "bendy light". They like the "spotlight" effect to explain how the whole world does not see the Sun ~3000 mi up. The truth is, that EVERYTHING in the sky would need to have the "spotlight" effect depending on its declination/latitude and the latitude of the observer. For example, since the Moon and planets travel in basically the same part of the sky as the Sun (the Ecliptic), they too must have a similar "spotlight" effect or they would be seen EVERYWHERE on Earth. This "bendy light" has to be an atmospheric (atmoplanic?) phenomenon. How does the "spotlight" create a "perfectly" straight line at the equinox?


BTW, with a RE, the straight line is the terminator (the plane that cuts the Earth in half as viewed edge on). It is ALWAYS a straight line. The Sun ALWAYS lights up half the Earth.

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Willfully ignorant vs...
« on: June 27, 2016, 09:13:39 AM »
I guess everyone look at the finger, none at the moon.

if you did follow the moon trip for an entire night, you will "discover" that the moon does the same trip of the sun in slightly less time...
they tell us the moon does move 12 a day, because it completes its 360 trip in 29/30 days, so it passes over your head once in a month... I can clearly see, and everyone can, that it indeed does not work like that.
also, tides are working on a daily base cycle it seems, not on a monthly base cycle.

YOUR theory of eclipses is totally false. the solar system is a hoax.

and you shills should really get a life. you're wasting yours but despite that, you keep on. losers.
Then what you think you see is wrong. The Moon moves relative to the stars - measurably, verifiably. Every astronomer knows this. They don't rely on what YOU think you see.

As I keep saying, celestial objects have coordinates (declination and ascension). There are charts, similar to the one below, that tell you where they are when. Below, you will see where planets and the Moon are (at a specific hour). It is NOT someone pointing at the sky going "gee, that doesn't look right":

(http://niftyastrotechnicals.blogspot.com/2012/10/nifty-astro-technicals-for-oct-15-to-19.html)

Moon parallax  - same day, same time as viewed from 3 places on Earth (how does FE explain this? What height does the Moon and sky (stars) have to be?):

(http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2004/12/lunar-parallax.html)

Seriously, why doesn't ANY FEer get a telescope. People 1000's of years ago watched the sky and the Moon and planets moving among the stars with the naked eye. They made valuable contributions. Based on the speed of movement among the stars, they even figured out that planets and Moon were at different distances (FEers throw this out with their planets stuck in the "dome" garbage). With the advent of the telescope, astronomy leapt by MILES. People could see planets (spherical) rotating with their own moons. Today, with really great affordable telescopes and even CCD cameras/computers, we can do things that people in the past could only dream of. And... this is AMATEUR stuff.

Yet FEers don't even want to look/photograph through them. That says something. They do NOT want to know the truth. They only want a FE FANTASY world as they believe it SHOULD be - only in their minds. They say silly things like the Moon doesn't move correctly? Based on what? How would you know when you don't even do what people did 1000's of years ago?

50
You have to get the sky/heavens correct, or the Earth model is useless...

Celestial objects have coordinates (declination and ascension) that correspond to Earth coordinates - specifically declination = latitude EXACTLY. (See Explanation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination).

1) Please explain, based on geometry and rotating bodies Earth/sky (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0), where the SINGLE POINT S.Pole is that the S. Celestial Pole (SCP) needs to be over (90 S) per declination/latitude. Per declination/latitude, you are looking due south when looking at the SCP. ALL the stars BELOW the SCP (draw a horizontal line through it), are on the OTHER SIDE of the EARTH, per declination/latitude, BEHIND you 10,000+ mi. How does the Celestial Ocean Theory solve this?


2) IF we were just talking about some STARS, we might consider sonoluminescence. But there are galaxies, star clusters and irregularly shaped nebulas that I do not believe sonoluminescence covers. Please explain. For example:


PS... It does look like a face - tongue in cheek...  :P

51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earthers - explain this? (plus, hello!)
« on: June 26, 2016, 04:05:53 PM »
Since I mentioned this above...

For me, "common sense" would suggest that THE first step in demonstrating "proof of concept" - "life can come from non-life", would be to take a living cell, selectively kill it (so you can revive it "easily"), then revive it. Viola! Life from non-life in its simplest form. The cell, alive a short while beforehand, has all the physical things it needs to work ("live"). If "life" is a spiritual quantity (Biblically the breath of God), this will not be possible unless you can instill the cell with some kind of spiritual essence. If scientists can not even revive a cell that was alive a short while earlier, why bother with step two - creating a cell from scratch THEN trying to make it live?

synthetic live has been created in lab conditions, syn3.0 is one example, one of the most basic forms of live having just enough processing power to reproduce and keep itself fed. With genes numbering in the hundreds.
http://gizmodo.com/mad-scientists-created-synthetic-bacteria-with-only-473-1766686722

BTW, if you wonder what this has to do with the OP (Earth spinning), if the Earth is only ~6000 yrs old, with its mass, it probably would not slow down much.
My concern with the above is:
Quote
The experiment proved that genomes can be designed in a computer, then chemically created in the lab and transplanted into a recipient cell, and that these cells retain their capacity for self-replication.
Is this recipient cell already/still "alive" (like implanting/replacing the nucleus into a female egg)? Viruses (DNA code) can't live outside a cell but are added to an already living cell and use its functions to replicate. "Retain" implies it already had this capability. Also, if they were creating "life from non-life" it would be a BIG deal and would be noted I would imagine.

So are all these people doing is removing things it does not need in an currently living cell? If so, it was alive and after removal, remains alive. A cell needs to be verifiably/certifiably dead for "life from non-life". In fact, it seems that in their quest to remove things, some things (that they do not know the function of) were required to keep it "alive". This would indicate it was never dead.

It's like a car that runs but you remove the radio, seats, etc. to get to a minimal version of a car, but it was never "dead"/nonfunctioning. It never stopped working.

52
Flat Earth Debate / Re: water always finds level?
« on: June 25, 2016, 08:57:04 AM »
If you scaled the earth to the size of a large bowling ball, the average depth of the oceans would be 0.00248 inches or about 2.5 thousandths of an inch.
Also, on such a small amount (depth) of water, you have to take into account forces that do not scale such as evaporation and water surface tension and the size of atoms/molecules.

Evaporation would probably get rid of the water in a minute (oceans don't do that) and surface tension would probably be 1000's of times more important than gravity.

I have a great idea for anyone who wants a scale model - why don't you first demonstrate a scale model of a human at that size with functioning systems (e.g. circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, etc.). After all, size doesn't matter does it? If you can make a human 100 nm tall (scale model), I will believe humans exist.

53
Flat Earth Debate / Re: here's some actual pictures of the earth.
« on: June 24, 2016, 05:16:03 AM »
Your images are explained (RE) and not explained (FE) here: (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)

54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
« on: June 22, 2016, 09:28:21 AM »
your point being that on round earth, atmosphere and gravity effects are so that the earth acts just like if it was stationary.

because it is? no, thanks to magic gravity and atmosphere. impressed. but nonsense nonetheless.
I would suggest you get a telescope and look at Mars. A day on Mars is ~23 hours, 56 minutes relative to the Earth.

We can SEE the ground on Mars and it changing in the course of a night - rotating. It also sometimes has clouds. These rotate with the ground. By your reasoning about the Earth, why are the Mars atmosphere and clouds moving? Why aren't they stationary while the planet spins under them or doesn't spin at all? Stationary relative to what?


We SEE the atmosphere around Jupiter spinning in ~10 hrs. In a night, you can just about see it go through one Jovian day. Why isn't it stationary? Relative to what? BTW, every planet that has an atmosphere has it spinning - not stationary.


If the Earth is spinning, why would the atmosphere not be? Why would it be stationary? Relative to what?

Is this because the non-existent FE model says so? And... believing in a non-existent model is not nonsense?

55
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why a sphere?
« on: June 21, 2016, 12:50:20 PM »
Amateur astronomy (visual/photographic) supports/proves or falsifies/disproves/ destroys/annihilates any Earth model. You can have a disk or a plane, whatever. Unless you can explain the sky/heavens (what amateur astronomers see and photograph), it doesn't matter.

All celestial objects (e.g. stars) have celestial coordinates (declination and ascension) that match Earth coordinates - specifically Declination = Latitude EXACTLY (See Explanation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination). They are overhead based on their declination and the observer's latitude. A star with declination of 40 N will "draw" the 40 N latitude on Earth in 24 hrs. The N. Celestial Pole (90 N) is a single point over a single point N.Pole. The Celestial Equator (0) is the largest circle (star trail) and is over the equator - not some "edge". The S. Celestial Pole (90 S) is a single point over a single point S.Pole (where is it exactly on any FE model?) (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)

When looking at the S. Celestial Pole, everyone everywhere is facing due south (per declination/latitude) - just like when looking at the N.Celestial Pole, everyone is facing due north.

How do people south of the equator see the S. Celestial Pole rising higher and higher the farther south they go? Why is it a single point (that implies it is a single point on Earth per declination/latitude)? How can you see the stars BELOW it (draw a horizontal light through any image of it) when they are on the other side of the Earth 10,000+ mi behind you as you face south?


So arguing gravity or UA or other things are not even important if you can't get the sky right (i.e. the Earth model is wrong). On a FE FANTASY world, ANYTHING goes. You don't have to prove ANYTHING.

BTW, THAT is why the Earth is a sphere - because the sky WORKS.

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water is Level
« on: June 19, 2016, 08:11:43 AM »
I have recently (yesterday) performed an experiment, the results favor a Spherical model.   8)

I am attempting to measure the dip to the horizon and the accosiated distance to prove a globe model.
An observer close to Earths surface can only see a limited area, bounded by a circle centered on the observer. This circle is called the horizon.

In the spherical Earth model a point on this circle is slightly below the plane drawn through the observer and perpendicular to a line from the observer to the center of the Earth. The angle between this plane and the line from the observer to a point on the horizon is called the dip of the horizon.

In a FE model, many FEers claim that the horizon raises to eye level. (Impossible)

I decided to get hold of a theodolite and make some measurements across a bay in south wales The area has some costal cliffs, And a set of ramps/steps down to the beach . I had a theodolite, and Altimeter, a 10m tape measure and I am measuring the angle the horizon is below the theodolite and the distance that the horizon is away.
The results I am going to show almost certainly show  that the Earth is (approximately) a sphere:

Experement 1

Measure the dip to the horizon at altitudes of 2,5,10,15, 20, 30 and 40 meters altitude
Theodolite set to standard atmosphere for all readings above 5m and sea level (1/7) setting for on the ground at the waters edge and 2 meter reading. remember we have to also allow for refraction, which was visually low on the day.

sea level    = 0.01- 0.03 degrees (reading unstable)
2  m    = 0.04 degrees
5  m   = 0.07 degrees
10 m  = 0.11 degrees
20 m  = 0.17 degrees
30 m  = 0.24 degrees
40 m = 0.32 (Horizon contrast not clear enough for accuracy as hazyness was present)

Experement 2

Measure the Distance to the Horizon in Kilometers from a known altitude

2m   = 4.67
5m   = 8.03
10m = 11.36
20m = 16.05
30m = 19.64
40m = 22.10

Extra
Measure the elevation angle of Polaris
Result: 51.42 degrees

Of course this will be ignored, or called fake.  :-*

More results to come soon, along with Pictures of ships over the horizon complete with measurements, two synchronized videos of sunsets from 2m and 30m altitude and other fun stuff!

Quick question to ponder. If I measured between 3 points in a triangle, why would the measured angles add up to more than 180 degrees?
Bravo! You just added measurements to what I have been saying all along when the "curved horizon" topic keeps coming up:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66717.msg1779776#msg1779776)

57
Simply put, there is no FE map because a FE is a FANTASY.

The only thing FEers know - sort of - is the location of the N.Pole (in the middle). This is based on a conspiracy at the S.Pole/Antarctica. No conspiracy - N.Pole in the middle, not necessary. If the S.Pole is in the middle, the FE concept goes to hell really fast:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65369.0)

FEers don't know where the equator is either. Is it half-way to the edge? Are latitude circles equidistant? What makes the equator special (e.g. the star trails in the sky suddenly start shrinking south of it back to a single point when the "S.Pole" is supposedly a circle 50,000+ mi in circumference - really it should be the Celestial Equator - https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)?

FEers don't know where or even IF an edge exists (disk vs plane model).

In short, they don't know where they or anything is on their model. As a result, they can't measure distances or tell you what a person would see. So the typical debate tactic is not to prove FE (it is a FANTASY) but to disprove RE (reality (the real world) by rejecting images, math, science and history).

We use the azimuthal equidistant projection (U.N. map) as a reference. But when fallacies are demonstrated, they cry that it is NOT the FE map, just a wrong RE projection. Considering the FE has been around for THOUSANDS of years, longer than the RE globe with its projections and known distortions, this is very surprising. Not being able to map a 2D Earth to a 2D piece of paper for THOUSANDS of years is very telling.

The only place a FE exists is in the minds of the FEers as a FANTASY or here as a debate position whether you believe it or not.

BTW, the strongest arguments against FE are based on amateur astronomy (visual/photographic) in general. Pretty much just pick one.

58
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water is Level
« on: June 17, 2016, 04:54:23 PM »
How do you explain the results? This is a repeated and verified experiment. It has been published many times over the years, often with photographic evidence.

The Earth is Flat, and that is that.
I would dispute your statement. If the Bedford Experiment is real why do these people get different results? (minutes 4-9 at least)

59
Flat Earth Debate / FE Quest
« on: June 17, 2016, 06:38:32 AM »
As pointed out below, the FE people can't just live on one side of a disk/plane because of the nature of rotating bodies/heavens. Apparently the DE model is not going forth and people are still trying to use a single sided model. So what will it take to make it work? (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)

Amateur astronomy (visual/photographic) supports/proves or falsifies/disproves/destroys/annihilates any Earth model. It is hard to fake and any model must demonstrate what we (laypeople) see everywhere on Earth.

The quest is to show how easy or hard it is to make a WORKING single sided FE model. As pointed out here, there really is no reason for the N.Pole to be in the middle of a FE model: (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65369.0)



So to demonstrate what is necessary on Earth and in the sky, I have decided to "simplify" the concept. Simply, make the S.Pole azimuthal projection (SPAP) "work". If you can make the SPAP work, you can make the NPAP work the same way. It has the same problems and distortions as the SPAP. As 80%+ of the people live north of the equator, your explanations can be verified much easier.

Unfortunately, you will not have thousands of miles of uninhabited oceans to help. Just make the shapes of Europe, Russia, Alaska, Canada and Greenland correct. Make the distances from Europe to Alaska correct (not ~25,000+ mi with it being shorter to go through the S.Pole). Explain how we view the N. Celestial Pole and Polaris due north everywhere on Earth. Explain how we see the stars below the N. Celestial Pole when they are on the other side of the Earth.

Here is my attempt that can be applied to this situation:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66985.0)

60

Or it's all a computer simulation. Naaaaa.       
I really enjoyed Elon Musk's little rant about the likelihood of us living in a simulation. It seems very reasonable, actually. Not sure that it ultimately makes much difference either way.
Actually, we all are living in a type of simulation. I started to try to explain it a while back but instead of considering the concept, people didn't want to listen to it. Oh well...

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 51