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 - Rig Navigator

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 27
Once again just for those in the cheap seats. Light doesn't bend as required by FE'ers. And I'd love to see where you pulled that 1.57 * 10-7 m-1 from.

I am guessing that it matches the curve of the surface of the Earth since that is what they are trying to model with "bendy light."

Sunlight that does not reach the Earth gets bent in a big U-shape, and when the Moon is far away from the Sun it gets lit up by this light. Some of this light will, of course, be bent back away from us, but that which reflects at an angle significantly closer to vertical than its incident angle will not be bent enough to prevent it from reaching the Earth.

Sorry the geometry doesn't work.  The same light that is bent back to vertical to hit the bottom of the Moon because it "missed the Earth" would miss the Earth after being reflected.

You're not taking bendy light into account.

Can you explain how "bendy light" would allow the Sun to fully light the bottom of a sphere located below it?  And if "bendy light" can do that, how that reflected light can then reach an observer far below both light sources?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I wrote a paper...
« on: November 18, 2008, 03:43:45 AM »
So who went out and studied the position and angle of the sun at your different latitude?

How can you assume where the sun is at a certain latitude without any collected data or evidence?

I have done it.  If you want hard data, I can do it again today.

The author isn't claiming that it doesn't work because of the triangulated distance of the sun at different latitudes. He's questioning why the sun does not appear to change diameter as it recedes, a whole different subject.

It is a legitimate question.  Even if the Sun is a spotlight as hypothesized by the FES, it would have size change based on distance.

Imagine that you are in a dark room and your friend is shining a flashlight at you while you are standing next to a wall.  As your friend moves farther away, the  apparent size of the light would decrease.  This models a Sun with the light focused by a lens, but that isn't what we observe.

The author did not read Earth Not a Globe.

That probably wouldn't change his opinion since the claims in ENaG conflict with the observations that he has made. 

Where does ENaG discuss the fact that the size of the Sun does not change?  I must have missed that section.

That's why I only direct people to it if they did bring up a point discussed in it.  There are still a lot of people who ask how it's possible to circumnavigate the earth, for example, and the explanation for that has not changed in 150 years of FET.

I don't know, it gets referred to even when the FAQ does disagree with current FES thought.  There isn't a single mention of "bendy light" anywhere in the FAQ, but that seems to be a strongly supported theory at the moment.  It is probably time for the FAQ to be revisited and brought into line with the current FES beliefs so at least everyone is on the same page.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« on: November 17, 2008, 04:38:31 AM »
This is the opening statement of that book, but for FE to be accepted we have to accept that there is a Conspiracy for which there is no direct evidence, and which can only be admitted "for the sake of argument".

So to claim that there is a conspiracy is directly in opposition to the material that you supplied. If we are to accept the philosophy that you ahve direct us to, then we have to reject the concept of a conspiracy as there is no direct evidence. (and actually there is evidence against it  ::)  - specifically, economics).

I could grow to like this guy. ;)  You don't actually expect the FEers to conform to the ideas of Rowbotham do you? 

When his experiments are done, and don't give the results that the FEers want, then they drop him like a hot potato.  Look at "bendy light."  Observations of the Sun can't be rectified with the experiments of Rowbotham, so they had to make up "bendy light" to explain the position of the Sun in the sky and sunrise/sunset.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fiber Optic Latency on a FE model
« on: November 17, 2008, 03:41:32 AM »
by bottle-necking internet speeds the US military has an advantage over most countries in cyber warfare.

If I recall correctly, most, if not all, submarine cables are run by private companies.

Most of the telephone companies are a government supported or owned.  If you look at the companies that own the hardware, you will see that most are a part of the "clubs."  It wasn't until 2000ish that investor owned cables started making an appearance.

And I can't see a company agreeing to bottle-neck a connection between Europe and America. That's by far one of the busiest routes on the planet, and no company's going to want to run at a reduced throughput there.

Although there aren't bottlenecks between the US and most parts of the world, there are severe limitations on available channels (bandwidth) when you start looking at traffic between say Africa and Asia.  With the advent of private investors that only own the subsea cable this is changing because now the number of channels (bandwidth) is based on expected traffic rather than agreements between telephone companies (most of which are associated with governments).

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The "True Earth Map"
« on: November 15, 2008, 10:06:53 AM »
Rig, is that supposed to be 6 days total or should it be 3 days total?

6 days total.  Three for each equinox.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Simple experiment to PROVE GPS is a crock
« on: November 15, 2008, 06:40:16 AM »
What sort of accuracy am I looking for?  I can measure distances with an accuracy of 50 feet using radar.

If I call another rig and get their position (which they maintain using GPS), determine what the distance should be if the world was round (using spherical trig) and then measure the distance using radar; would that be accurate enough or give you the type of data that you are looking for?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The "True Earth Map"
« on: November 14, 2008, 11:41:16 PM »
This is a fallacy. You are working under the false assumption that the Sun is directly over the equator for a non-infinitesimal period of time.

But each year, the Sun is within its 32 mile diameter (using the FE value since we are talking about a FE map) of the Equator for six days (1 1/2 days on each side of the equinox).  Now that seems to me to be a finite amount of time that the Sun is "over the Equator."  This means that the path that the Sun takes on that map has to be able to have a portion of itself over the Equator for at least that amount of time.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The "True Earth Map"
« on: November 14, 2008, 03:08:28 AM »
The more that I look at that map, the more absurd it is.  If you look at the path of the Sun throughout the year, it makes a figure eight pattern.  That in and of itself should be evidence that map doesn't represent reality in any fashion.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The "True Earth Map"
« on: November 14, 2008, 01:06:29 AM »
Australia still has a few problems on the true earth map.

Not nearly as many problems as New Zealand does on that map. ;)

But that distance from Sydney to Darwin is intimidating.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fiber Optic Latency on a FE model
« on: November 13, 2008, 11:52:48 PM »
The former:

The author doesn't tell us where he got his distance data from.

As far as we know he was tasked with writing this article for whatever reason and got his distances from a program like Google Earth for the distance between those landmasses.

From reading the selection, it looks like that information came from the company running the cable ships, but I would be mistaken.  Whether the information came from the company who owns the cable or the company laying the cable doesn't matter.  There numbers will match.

When a company is planning a seabed cable run, they do not get their distances from Google maps.  There are specialized companies that are responsible for planning the route and the accompanying surveys.  The company laying the cable will hire these companies who present them with the proposed route.  Once the cable layer has approved the route, then a detailed survey of the path will be made to determine the precise amount of cable needed.  In deepwater, this survey is accurate to 0.5% of the water depth and sidescan sonar is used in shallow water to actually make images of the seabed.

With cable costs at around $20,000 for one kilometer of cable, the error for a cable laid a significant distance (slack) must be very small.  For a transoceanic cable this is less than 1%.  In fact the tolerances in the length of the cable are so tight that there is not enough play to allow the cable to be hauled to the surface without cutting it first.

Because of legal compliance, the paths of cables are well charted.  The cable owner is liable for all damage to ship's gear (anchors, fishing gear, etc) that occurs if the cable is not in its charted position.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The "True Earth Map"
« on: November 13, 2008, 11:25:27 PM »
I wonder how long it will be before the new "True Earth map" will be posted as evidence by FEers.  It does have more visual appeal than the original MSPaint version.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and the Southern Cross
« on: November 13, 2008, 03:57:45 AM »
It's true that Tom has never said they are identical.  In fact he says that no one has noticed the differences because the astronomers from South America, Africa, and Australia all speak different languages.

Of course, he did choose to ignore this astronomer's site where he talks about his ongoing project of establishing observatories in Australia and Chile.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Continental Drift
« on: November 13, 2008, 01:40:08 AM »
Well, except for Tom's comment that RE theory can't account for an expanding Earth, which is easy to discount, because RE theory doesn't need to explain an expanding Earth because it isn't expanding; we are left with no FE explanations, denials or responses whatsoever.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and the Southern Cross
« on: November 13, 2008, 01:24:17 AM »
I've never argued that the gears were identical.

But they would have to be.  Otherwise an observer in Australia wouldn't see the same constellations as an observer in Chile or South Africa.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and the Southern Cross
« on: November 12, 2008, 11:40:51 PM »
There is no way that these people, even with bendy light, can be looking at the same patch of sky.

Now of course, it could be claimed by FEers that the Star Dome is set up so that the same image is put there for both viewers (ie duplicate southern crosses), but this would not hold if more than 2 people looked south (say one in South America, one in Australia and one in South Africa). It would need to be repeated multiple times - at every possible location that someone can look south from in the southern hemisphere/plane and they would have to move independently of each other and the Northern sky.

However, the problem with this is that there would be locations on the Flat Earth where someone could see these southern skies (and their motions) while still being able to see the northern skies (and their motions), which would prove that the Earth was indeed flat.

Funny you should mention the multiple images, that is precisely what they have argued...

Big Gears in the Sky

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Circumnavigators
« on: November 12, 2008, 11:28:03 PM »
Ok, so it's not possible, what's your point?

If it isn't possible, I would think that the point was obvious...


In order to open up more of the FES "True Believers" threads up to discussion by the forums as a whole, I give you the non-existence of nuclear weapons by Sandokan...

Quote from: Sandokan
From ""Hiroshima Before and After"...

It seems hard to believe that less than 60 years ago we were naive enough to believe everything our government told us without question. It is even harder to imagine that today forces still exist in Washington who will stop at nothing to prevent the dissemination of pure, unadulterated Truth. It is time for the outrageous lies propagated for the past half century to be put to rest, and time for the real story behind one of the United States' greatest cover-ups to be told.

Here is a model of the general disposition of the blast area. Observe the water access (if someone wanted to import thousands of tons of TNT quietly) and the structures standing. The second model shows you a representation (I hope they were doing this to exact scale-down) of the damage after the blast. Compare the epicentre of the blast as shown with a red flag in the second model with the blast effects as depicted in the first black and white after photo at the top of this thread. The center is way off and it would be interesting to understand why each model seems to make a point of not showing the structures BEHIND the blast. Take the circle of smoke on the black and white photo on top and transpose it where the blast flag is located on the after model in this set and ask yourself where 40% of the destruction went and why are the blast depicted with such contradiction from one official model to the next?

Also recall that this Allied genocide masquerading as liberation firebombed Desden in February of 1945, firebombed Tokyo in March (100,000) 1945 and wrapped things up with the massive FIREBOMBING masquerading as atomic bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did you know that Nagasaki was one of the biggest Catholic stronghold in Japan at the time?

Keep an eye on the epicenter of the blast and the radius of damage. Both those models are missing about 40% of the overall blast area. Take another look at the devastation photos, the original black and white I mean, look at the roads.
Do you see what I mean, THEY ARE ALL HIGHLY VISIBLE, how is this possible when debris has been catapulted all over the place? The roads should have been covered in debris. The hoaxsters became negligent and thought they would control the flow of information forever.

Look at the photos depicting the blast. You see a nice column of smoke rising into the sky with a pretty musroom photoshop on top. How do you get such a cloud from an airburst 2000 (1850 to be precise) feet above the ground? Where is the big crater, so characteristic of the hype used to open the cah funnel, in the center of Hiroshima. According to the models you would think they were burning autumn grass or something. I am not prepared to say that the hoax was fabricated entirely, I think those poor people really got the rabbinical lessons GOOD. And I will bet it smarted too. Funny how most of the burn victims photos I have seen never have burnt hair. I someone has a picture something like that award winning picture of that small girl running from US napalm carrying her brother or sister in her arms. You could tell THAT was real because the hair was burned in a way one might think is consistent with intense heat. The Hiroshima survivors have such an astonishing array of burn marks and burn patterns that one could be forgiven for wondering what it was that exploded there. Did the rig the city like a synchronized demolition with conventional fuel bombs spread throughout the buildings.

I invite the curious to examine the buildings in the BEFORE model and see what size buildings would have been suitable storage places to set the charges of such large amounts of fuel explosive.

Also note with regards to the mushroom cloud. Most people were blinded and in shock. Most survivors would agree with whatever the skunk had photoshopped to portray the configuration of the blast and agreed with it. Making people believe the bomb was real was most important, the skunks thought that the world would never believe a test shot with experts. The first choice for the use of the atomic bomb was determined to be Kyoto by the Target Committee. It was believed that the highly literate and intellectual residents there would convey the sophisticated terror and people would believe them MORE, It is my contention that they DID NOT BOMB Kyoto for THAT very REASON. They feared the intellectuals would be believed if they detected clues that it was a hoax. People (did not need to be too smart to display terror) were ritually sacrificed by fire as described in the definition of the word holocaust. The Allies were great at killing holocaust-style, especially if there are zillions of dollars at stake..think about it.

The damage is severely inconsitent with linear shock waves. The damage inspires me to believe the fuels were spread by explosive dispersion and ignited much like the moderbn DAISEYCUTTER incendiary cluster the Army has now. Hiroshima may have been a testing ground for the Daiseycutter, like a scaled down version of the vapour/fuel nightmare they mounted in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Desden, Tokyo and later in Vietnam. Fire is a big preoccupation with these superstitous skunks. Their has to be a big fire componant in the ritual killing. Like 9/11, the Ford Pinto.

The Nuclear Weaponeer narrating parts of the Trinity movie said that the most devastation comes from the low altitude blasts because the pre-cursor wave effect lifts everything off the ground. The simulation offered in T2 judgement day whereby the bomb is going off, you can see the precursor wave lift everything up into the air, cars, busses. You can see in this simulation, a great deal of care in accurately portraying the forces at work. Unlike the Hiroshima model, I find the T2 model more believable. You may have see some of the airbursts tested in the US proving grounds. They don't have much of a mushroom cloud. The mushroom cloud becomes more distinct as the charge gets low to the ground. In Hiroshima the smoke was everywhere. Smoke without wind. Look at the photos of the city after the explosion and ask why the roads are so clear. They never said anything about the bomb they used on Hiroshima as NOT having a wind componant. Look at the depicted damage and ask if this appears more consistant with firebombing then with atomic armaggeddon.

What is the same about Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that they were ALL firebombed (incendiary/holocaust-style).

TriNitroToluene and liquid gas incendiary devices radiate like hell too. The evidence supporting actual radiation sickness in Hiroshima looks more like evidence of cancers and burns consistent with conventional explosions.

I have examined before and after aerial reconnaissance photographs of the damage inflicted on Dresden and Tokyo. I have examined mushroom clouds from napalm bombs.

You see concrete extremely damaged in Dresden and Tokyo and Grozny, Chechnya but you don't see as much concrete in Hiroshima. Which brings me to include building configurations and volatility amongst the Target Committee's priorities. Most of the theatre for the Hiroshima bombing was to be razed to the ground to simulate A-bomb design parameters.They did a very crappy job but the public bought it anyways. For a while that is. Kyoto may have had too many hard targets and hard targets mean high survival rates and more chances for noisy and embarassing leaks. These, I would think, are critical considerations when pulling a hoax of this magnitude.

Neutrons WERE NOT the magic bullet, near-absolute synchronicity in the discharge of the shape charge plastiques HAD to be the cornerstone of that game of numbers.

And guess what happens after that? The chain reaction, if successful at all, consumes the fissionable mass before it can become critical and contribute to the exponential and very rapid expansion of the release of thermonuclear energy. Recall the experts explaining that BARELY ONE GRAM of the so-called weapon's grade uranium in Little Boy was converted to useful energy. In the VERY HEAVY load of 'lead' in Little Boy bomb ONLY ONE GRAM DID ALL THAT DAMAGE. One gram of fissionable uranium converts to 10 million degrees and million pound winds and the equivalent of 20KT of TriNitroToluene. They really wanted to play the Greek Gods.

Here are my reasons for believing the atom bomb and the rest of those clusters are bogus lies and illusions.

Item 1)

The historical seismograms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have mysteriously vanished. If not only for the sake of war-era memorabilia, that information should have been everywhere in the museums and in the press. Hiroshima is located in a highly volcanic zone called the Honshu Arc and those active volcanoes were under constant seismographic surveillance during that period and log before that. The so-called atomic blast at hiroshima was estimated to be the equivalent of 6.2 on the Richter Scale but no seismological outpost in the world appears to have noted it. The Russians said they exploded the biggest atomic bomb ever made (50 megatons) at Novaya Zemlya in northern Russia. That is hundreds of thousands of times more powerful than what they say exploded over Hiroshima yet again, not one seismic needle moved at all. How is that possible I ask?

Item 3)

The so-called nuclear industry, be it weapons or so-called commercially viable nuclear reactors is the hoaxster's paradise. The whole ripoff scheme is shrouded in national security protocols and security bonding which means you can't discuss your work outside the plant if you don't want to incur the wrath of the NSA and risk jailtime for attempted so-called nuclear terrorism. The whole scam is compartmentalized so Sam doesn't know what George is up to.

Item 5)

The mushroom cloud thermodynamics of the atom bomb hoax have also been examined. The first problem the competant examiner notices with the mushroom cloud photographed on the day Hiroshima was attacked is that the sun is shining brightly overhead at the noon position. The bombing was said to have been at 8:15 am. I have heard it argued that this was the Nagasaki cloud but it has been used by the hoaxsters themselves for Hiroshima and Justin Raimondo had this exact cloud for his essay, Hiroshima, Mon Amour. Why would the jews want to say it is Nagasaki if they have nothing to hide? I went to the public library in downtown Montreal as a youth and I looked at microfilm of newspapers for that day in 1945 and the picture I enlarged taken from the microfilm was the cloud at noon and it was Hiroshima indeed. So, more evidence of a hoax?

Item 6)

The firebombing of Tokyo March 9-10, 1945-100,000 dead. M-69 aimable cluster firebombs reduced 26 square kilometers of that city to ash using a few hundred U.S. Air Force B-29 bombers. Aside the cost of the aircraft when initially built the cost of destroying all that section of Tokyo was a little more than a million dollars. So, why build anything that costs billions to destroy a fraction of the land those B-29 bombers could have destroyed in under less than a million dollars? Because the atom bomb was a lie and those cities reduced to ash by M-69 firebombs and that also explains the mysterious vanishing of the historical seismograms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are they hiding the fact that there was no shock wave? Is that why the trees were still standing charred and many building facades still standing?

Item 7)

Hiroshima was not evacuated and life came back to normal very quickly. This is inconsistent with the models presented by the experts that said nothing would grow for 70 years and nobody could live there for a very long time. One week after the so-called atom bomb, oleanders were growing everywhere. The hoaxsters started stories of a miracle. More contradiction and nonsense from the jewish hoaxsters.

Item 8-

The pilot of the B-29 they said dropped the so-called atom bomb on Hiroshima is a known Hollywood insider and his B-29 crew was totally segregated on an island with the pilot Commander Tibbits fully in charge of security and everything. He had full autonomy and discretion. I believe his crew of talmudic cowards was near 200 aircraft when they sortie'd on Hiroshima then later on Nagasaki. Another brilliant example of the secrecy and security shroud of compartmentalization over the whole hoax. Why would this dumbass put his mother's name on an instrument of utter genocide if it were not that his mother gloats without end at the hoax accomplishments and mass murder that she would be pleased to figure prominently on the nose of that beast of destruction and mass murder. How can anyone believe such a mess of contradictions when it is obvious they would have been nuts not to exploit the means they had at their disposal under those circumstances. They pulled it off while everyone on earth was in a state of shock and would have believed anything these conspirators said just to stop the ignited gasoline showers?

Item 9)

Items said to be radioactive have in fact been doped with x-ray radiation for periods of time corresponding to the hoax expectations. At the Pantex assembly plant in Amarillo Texas they have a very powerful x-ray machine they say they use to look inside decomissioned so-called atom bombs before they open them up. That is totally rediculous because why would anything be wrong inside a bomb watched by the military night and day. I say the x-ray machine is there to dope the materials they assemble so that the x-ray detectors they call rad meters can read something expected from the mathematical models. When a rad meter is picking up x-ray radiation it is seemlessly and logarithmically converting this sampled energy and reporting the results as rads instead of x-ray energy that it is. When a student examines a sample said to be radioactive it is a sample irradiated prior using a high intensity x-ray machine. Again compartmentalization plays a key role here at the Pantex plant. Coincidentally they are the only plant in the US authorized to make the final assemblies of so-called nuclear bombs. What else could they be using that huge x-ray machine at Pantex if it is not to create illusions of atomic radioactivity?

Item 19)

Mushroom clouds do not grow out of radial airbrust explosions. The mushroom cloud needs to be seeded from the ground. The thermodynamic conditions caused by a circumferential airburst explosion would superheat the air all around and send radial shock waves emanating from the center outwards like the popular festivity fireworks and that would negate the conditions required for a mushroom cloud to grow normally. A mushroom cloud grows from the ground up in a predictable circular pattern that develops and flows through a relatively cool and stable upper air mass because the explosion was at the ground level. Who can deny that mushroom clouds can't grow out of radial airburst explosions?

The people who projected the ILLUSION THEY HAD THIS AWFUL WEAPON hoped they had imagined a weapon that would SELECTIVELY put an end to HUMANITY'S HOPES FOR THE FUTURE. This HOAX, it was hoped, would reap untold treasures for it's authors.

Just ponder the MINDBOGGLING ARRAY of possibilities if one accepts that the ABOMB IS A HOAX. When you accept the idea that it was a HOAX you can fully understand how it changed the world and our lives. Seeing it for the hoax it is gives one a feeling of freedom and understanding. One thing SEEING THE HOAX will not do is MAKE CONVENTIONAL WARFARE GO AWAY.

This confusion on the part of the Japanese was NO CONFUSION AT ALL.

They had been firebombed thousands of times by B-29s raids before, during, and after the HIRO/NAGA combination blasts. The reason the Japanese did not understand the difference IS THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had both likely wreaked the odor of spent gasoline and napalm fumes. I think the Japanese people WERE CONFUSED BY THE A BOMB STORIES, they could not distinguish the damage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with that of the thousands of other cities bombed to saturation with flammable ordinance. The confusion WAS NOT WITH THE FIREBOMBING, people could SEE THAT, it was the weird ATOM BOMB twist to these stories they could not understand.


Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« on: November 12, 2008, 08:50:14 AM »
Of course, you are forgetting that the FES has denied the existence of nuclear weapons ( or why not deny the existence of the Cold War.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and the Southern Cross
« on: November 12, 2008, 08:43:57 AM »
Once again Tom, I'll ask you to confirm that Polaris can be seen at 21O from Sydney Aus. This is the position predicted by FE Theory.

A similar calculation could be made for the Southern Cross being visible from anywhere in the northern hemisphere. New York say.

You are forgetting the "celestial haze" that is strong enough to obscure the Sun.  What are the stars of the Southern Cross compared to the Sun?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the sun setting.
« on: November 11, 2008, 11:51:15 PM »
The next time you observe the sunset notice how the sun is much hazier, diluted, and less intense than when it is overhead at noonday. This is a telltale sign that its rays are passing through a thick horizontal atmosphere, much like the light rays from a distant street lamp. The sun's intensity is so diluted when it is low in the sky that it is possible to look directly at it without squinting.

If you observe the Sun one hour before sunset it is the same size and characteristics as it is at noon.  According to the rules of perspective, even if it is a "spotlight," it would appear smaller because in FE mechanics it is farther away.  Even according to your above post there should be some difference because of the difference in distance between my observation at noon and one hour before sunset.

If you've ever seen a city at night you would know that distant light sources appear magnified from afar because they are shining though an atmospheric medium. The farther you move away from the source, the more medium you put between you, the more magnified the lights appears. As you move towards the source the magnified lights shrink in appearance. As you move away the lights grows in diameter again.

For example,

. You will immediately notice upon looking at the image that the distant lights in the scene appear magnified and intense, particularly the white ones in the upper left of the image. You should note that most of the the orange lights in the background are about as big as the orange lights in the foreground. This is entirely contradictory to what one would expect. The background lights are much farther away and the distant bulbs are all smaller than a single pixel of the screen. The orange lights maintaining their size in foreground and background is a great example of the magnification effect of the atmosphere balancing out the natural shrinking to perspective.

and because of perspective, the lights that are farther away from the observer are closer together and blend together.  Notice how the lights in the foreground are clear and you can make out the individual streets in the city across the harbor.  In the town (city?) in the background, you cant make out separate streets and the towns on the horizon are blobs of light.

As an analogy for the enlarging of the sun at sunset, lets imagine that we are in a dark room with a flashlight. We shine the light upon the wall, creating a distinct circle of light. If we walk backwards and recede away from the wall the spot of light grows in diameter. When we walk towards the wall the spot of light becomes smaller again.

Now have your friend hold the flashlight and you stand against the wall.  As your friend walks closer, the apparent size of the light gets larger, and as they walk away the apparent size gets smaller.

Unfortunately for your analogy, we are the ones standing at the wall seeing the light source grow bigger and smaller, not the person with the flashlight.

The same effect happens with the distant sun at sunset. Instead of a solid surface, however, the rays of light are shining upon the semi-transparent fog of the atmosphere between the observer and the sun. The natural shrinking of the sun due to perspective is counteracted by the enlarging effect of its light upon the horizontal strata of the atmosphere. This is how the sun's diameter is maintained throughout the day.

Sorry, this doesn't match the observations of the Sun.  It doesn't disappear "in a haze" like you are suggesting.  Watch a car's headlights on a foggy day as it approaches.  They don't just appear.  You see the glow from them in a circle around where the headlight will show up.  Then, once you can see the headlight, its apparent size grows as the car approaches. 

This is opposite of what FE proposes that we should see with the Sun at sunset.  In FE mechanics, the Sun is getting farther away, but there is no change in size.  Lights in fog have change in size, so that mechanism can't be accounting for the lack of visible change.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: About the sun setting.
« on: November 11, 2008, 11:39:14 PM »
*yawn* Any new, interesting or even valid points here? No. I'll save you some time. If a thorough read of the FAQ, EnaG and a good search don't answer these points, you read them wrong.

No, it looks like they read them correctly.

In ENaG, Rowbotham states that the Sun "disappears" due to the effects of perspective, and the FAQ backs that up.

The OP said that his observations, and those of most people, doesn't have the Sun shrinking down to a point where it is not visible any more (as perspective says it should).  Instead, the OP sees the Sun disappear behind the Earth bottom first at sunset.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fiber Optic Latency on a FE model
« on: November 11, 2008, 11:34:55 PM »
Where's the data?

Well, I know people that work for Tyco Marine on their cable laying vessels, but the ship's logs are usually not available to public.  I have a feeling though, that even if I was able to produce the logs, you would claim that they were somehow falsified or other such rejection.  Based on that, it isn't work the effort.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars and the Southern Cross
« on: November 11, 2008, 11:23:10 PM »

During my career I have measured the altitude (height above the horizon) of Polaris (North Star) hundreds of time with the same results.  The farther north I am, the higher above the horizon it is.  At the equator, it is just above the horizon, and is not visible beyond about 0? 15' south latitude.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The "True Earth Map"
« on: November 11, 2008, 11:19:25 PM »
I don't think that's Tom on the .net site.

No there is a Tom on the .net site too.  This was originally posted by Sandokan who seems to only lurk in the "true believers" section where he protected from ridicule unless threads are copied out to a discussion thread like this one.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evidence
« on: November 11, 2008, 11:12:01 PM »
Depending on how many people they get to help and the weather, they could do this in a week or so, so it wouldn't take long either.

Go ahead and set something up.  I can make celestial observations, and have in the past.  Not that they have done any good.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The "True Earth Map"
« on: November 10, 2008, 08:26:36 AM »
Yes I sure would like to see somebody draw the great circles on this map, as well as all the timezones.

Forget all of that "complicated" stuff.  Lets start with the basics like the equator or Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.  Once we have those we can start to have a discussion of the geography of that map, and maybe get into something complex like the Sun or time zones.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fiber Optic Latency on a FE model
« on: November 10, 2008, 01:57:53 AM »
Listen, I am going to put some numbers in here that are the result of dice rolls:

6 3 4 6 2

...You are telling me that, as this message is sent to the server from my computer, that there is any system that could predict those numbers before they are received?

Not to mention, you have to predict that data is about to come.  When will I hit the submit button?  What's going to predict that?

That would, of course, be impossible to solve in that form. But by encoding it as binary and predicting just one bit at a time, we can improve the odds of getting it correct to 50%. If we have rules for this prediction (based on past data received), we can infer what we think the next bit will be without just guessing, and improve accuracy even further.

That does nothing to explain the issues that he mentioned at the end of his post about having to predict when he was going to hit the submit button.  It doesn't even answer the issues of predicting the randomly generated numbers that he typed in the post.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 27