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 - Josef

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]
211
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Horizont?
« on: August 08, 2008, 03:07:40 AM »
Bishop. Where are you?

212
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 08, 2008, 02:59:47 AM »
To be finicky, nothing can ever be completly certain..

213
The wall starts with the Arctica, so first you have to cross it. Get past the guards. Then climb the wall. Just to get the premises straight.

214
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Horizont?
« on: August 07, 2008, 03:39:03 PM »
More about bishops FE horizon..
On a flat surface, we can see further by fex highering ourself. Because the angle is changing, getting steeper (right word?).
When looking at fex a sailboat, the angle from view is different to the mast and to the hull. Because it has height.
When standing on a cliff thats higher than the boat. The angle from the eye to the hull is steeper than the angle to the masts. Thus, the hull should be visible longer/better.
When going into the horizon, the boat should start to dissapear, starting from the flag and then down. The last thing that dissapears is the hull.
Is this the case?


215
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Horizont?
« on: August 07, 2008, 03:17:51 PM »
Quote
When looking at an island that is "halfway over the horizon", it does NOT change when im looking at it binoculars. It is still half dissapeared over the horizon.

Have you studied the views of the island between the eye and binoculars closely? It's often difficult to tell how much of an island is covered up unless you were specifically looking for it. Much of the distant foliage of an island is featureless and hard to discern.
Distant foliage? Dude, I live in Sweden, there is no foliage on the islands.
Its not difficult to tell at all.

Quote
Adding to the case: The optics change the perspective, shouldnt that change how far you could look into and vanishing point? At least the magnification would..

It has been found that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

Thats a typical visual phenomena at sea. Its much like a mirage in a desert. (Sometimes it can be so strong that the most distant islands seems to float in air!)
You can try the same experiment at land, se if it is the same thing there. Look at two distant mountains fex. With and without optics.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.
Im glad to hear that.
How do you know that the hull wasnt visible at first because of well-known optical phenomena at sea, and then visible because optics make you see better?
Can a "fully sunken" ship be restored? Has that been tested? If a "half sunken" ship can be "restored", then a ship where only the flag is visible could also be restored easely right?
Why does the bottom of the ship dissapear first? Wouldnt the ship first become really really small? So small you cant see it? Is the hull much further away then the masts?

216
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Horizont?
« on: August 07, 2008, 02:57:43 PM »
Well, I'm going to stick my neck out and say that without magnification, what Tom is saying is correct. I mean, at open sea, I imagine a boat would become imperceptable through the limits of the human eye before it would vanish due to any curvature in the earths surface.

I too agree that on a perfectly flat surface, you can se further by being higher from the surface. As it, in theory, wouldnt be able to see more than nothing away when being exact level with the surface..

But, as you said, visual aid changes the distance you can see in such a world. So does how sharp ones eyesight are.

Can someone that are more skilled than me in math, physics and optical knowledge calculate how far one could see with the naked eye on a flat surface? From fex 3m height. To see if that distance is the same as the distance to the horizon from the same height.

I like the explanation with the bent light better. Its more theoretical and not as easy to puncture as bishops explanation.

217
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Horizont?
« on: August 07, 2008, 02:35:25 PM »
Quote
What do each of those lines in the diagrams represent?

They're perspective lines from a side view.

Here are some perspective lines from a front view:

http://www.ider.herts.ac.uk/school/courseware/graphics/one_point_perspective.html

Quote
And this is where your take on the argument is exposed as the nonsense it is.  It's a simple matter of logic that if this was the whole explanation we wouldn't go from seeing a whole boat on the horizon to half a boat on the horizon to no boat on the horizon the way we do.  The boat would continually appear to shrink until it is just too small to see.  Sorry, Tom, but there has to be some kind of atmospheric distortion effect at work here too.

On the topic of the sinking ship effect: As the boat recedes into the distance its hull is gradually and perceptively appearing closer and closer to the surface of the sea. At a far off point the hull of the ship is so close to the sea's surface that it is impossible for the observer to tell ocean from hull. According to the limits of the human eye, the two appear merged.

While the sails of the ship may still be visible while the hull is perceptively merged, it's only a matter of time before they too shrink into the vanishing point which rests on the surface of the sea and becomes indescribable from the surface of the sea.

Tom. I live close to the sea on top of a height. I watch the horizon every day. We also have islands and such. And I do a lot of sailing. I own binoculars. I can testify that the horizon does not look like its dissapearing into distance evenly. It really looks like dissapears due to curvature. This also applies when im looking in my binoculars.
When looking at an island that is "halfway over the horizon", it does NOT change when im looking at it binoculars. It is still half dissapeared over the horizon. It does however look much closer, and the perspective is decreased, but thats the point of binoculars. Adding to the case: The optics change the perspective, shouldnt that change how far you could look into and vanishing point? At least the magnification would.. 
I have also watched a lot and lot of sunsets all year round, where they both go down "in the sea" and over land. Same thing there.
Please explain.


218
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« on: August 06, 2008, 01:04:05 PM »
Gravity

FE: "the earth accelerates upwards"
RE: "a super-mysterious fabric, much like the force, that binds all things to existence bends around like it is playing twister and creates potholes where massive objects are attached, these potholes represent gravity because if you place a ball on the fabric, the ball will naturally gravitate roll down due to gravity fall into place because of gravity something but this fabric is super invisible and only comprehensible by super smart people like Einstein, which makes it true also gravitons"

Earths Heat

FE: "heat comes from beneath us"
RE: "heat comes from the sun, but the earth mostly gets heated from the inside out because light warps into the middle of earth and works it's way out. But all heat comes from the sun, except in the shade. But it's still really really hot in deep mines because they get a lot of sunlight."

Constant acceleration

FE: "We undergo constant acceleration upwards"
RE: "We undergo constant acceleration inwards, but even though the outer rim of earth is accelerating inwards it maintains it's shape because we stop accelerating when we are touching the ground, even though we still feel the force of acceleration working on us."

The oceans

FE: "The oceans stay in place because the earth is accelerating into them"
RE: "The oceans stay in place because, even though water is weightless in it's own medium, the oceans have a high pressure system of air above them that keeps the even higher pressure system of water below in place."

Global Warming

FE: "heat comes from beneath us, any reflective materials in the atmosphere would trap the heat inside."
RE: "heat comes from the sun, any reflective materials in the atmosphere would keep the heat of the sun out. Since this is not seen, global warming is actually climate change, and if anything changes it proves that both climate change happens, and the earth is round"

Earths Curve as a sum of its parts

FE: "The earth is flat, just like how it appears"
RE: "Even though the earth is flat everywhere, it is actually round due to large curvatures occurring in the earths surface in the deep unexplored areas of the ocean. This is where the curves must occur, because the earth is flat when I go outside."

Surface tension of individual water molecules

FE: "Works as demonstrated in modern journals."
RE: "Even though the fluid (gas, liquid) water molecules undergo constant gyroscopic acceleration due to the earths spin, the fact that these molecules should spin fast enough to counter their own magnetic field can be ignored because we have no theory to explain this"

Our atmosphere

FE: "it stays there because the earth accelerates into it."
RE: "As earth spins very rapidly, the atmosphere keeps from floating into space by grabbing the pertruding rods of earths merry go round very tightly."

Snowfall

FE: "It falls straight down (neglecting wind of course)"
RE: "It falls down and wedges tighter and tighter the closer to earth it gets but does not build up in higher densities at lower altitudes because of wind, and rainbow magic."

Extending planes

FE: "Neighbors can always level their homes with each other."
RE: "Neighbors cannot level their homes with each other, because that would prove that since the earth's curve is the sum of it's parts, it would be all level. So don't even try it, you will lose your home because of poor craftsmanship and you will die in a fire."

Gravitons

FE: "Don't exist."
RE: "They exist as unmeasurable, invisible, perfect things that are not matter or energy that travel at a speed defined by distance/0 and also make super-massive objects instantly change their acceleration without giving them any energy to do so."

Up

FE: "Is up."
RE: "Is up in the states, down in India, across in Belgium, forward in the antarctic, and whatever the states say in england. We have a table of conversions in the public library if that helps."

Shoe molding

FE: "Walking on a flat earth leads to flat shoe bottoms"
RE: "Yes, its true the average shoe bottom is flat. However, we are convinced that people who wear shoes do not live in the ares of the world where the earth has a curve."


index

This is the biggest Troll-talk I have ever read. Don't feed him. Please.

219
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Belief
« on: August 06, 2008, 12:56:51 PM »
The funny thing is that no one actually believes that the earth is flat. Even the people who argue that it's flat are just playing Devil's Advocate. What's even funnier is the way evidence to the contrary of there being a flat earth is just ignored!

lol

Whereas in RET, you ignore what you can see with your own eyes. And I am not playing 'Devil's Advocate', and I know there are several others here who also genuinely believe the earth is flat.

I can see with my own eyes that the earth is round.

220
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why do you argue this?
« on: August 06, 2008, 12:55:39 PM »
Instead of arguing about this on the internet when the UN and NASA etc are just going to deny it, why don't you pool your money together, build a rocket (or become a NASA or Soyuz astronaut) and take your cameras up and prove to people that it is flat?

They don't even have to go up in space..

221
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« on: August 06, 2008, 10:11:25 AM »
What if we all pitch together and buy narc a couple of airline tickets? We have to make sure its a window seat.. And also give him a watch, a round earth globe and a measuretape. Just to make sure.
If thats not enough convincing, and we are a lot of people, we can buy him a boat and let him do some around the earth traveling by himself. Narc, be sure to bring a knot-meter.

Since he only believes what he can see and experience for himself.

Or. This is his hidden agenda to get at a free boat. Then he's really smart.

:)

222
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 06, 2008, 09:53:35 AM »
How can this force be applied perfectly evenly to the disc, so its allways is being pushed in the exact right direction? And the disc not being pushed more or less in any part?

The same reason that a baseball hit into space would continue to travel in the same direction with as even a force as it left Earth with.
Yes, but the baseball isn't accelerating.


Thank you. Is this the viewpoint of all or most of the FE'ers?

Not really sure. I'm not an FEer and not everyone has stated their beliefs in regards to DE and such, so I can't really say.
I really thought you where an FE'er.  :o
So what's your agenda?

223
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 06, 2008, 08:14:14 AM »
I guessed that the dark energy (or dark matter?) was located in space hehe. But I wondered where in space. It surely has to be right below us, because thats the way we are being pushed right?

It's in all empty space. So, beside us, beneath, above. This is why things "above" us are also accelerating; some faster and some slower.
Fair enough.

So, what keeps the disc from not being pulled unevenly?

Pulled?

Imagine the Big Bang initiating an explosion of matter, this big chunk of rock (Earth) being shot straight upwards. At the initial spot of the explosion there is also acceleration to the sides and below, but everything that we see and experience is dealt with for the most part, is going in the same direction as us.
I mean pushed. Wrong word, english isnt my mother-tonge.
So big bang started with a really big piece of rock? I chunk of that became the earth? :) Just kidding..
Being serious: The disc being "shot-away" in a constant speed trough space, that I understand. And it even doesnt matter because that speed wouldnt be noticable here on earth because it would be constant.
My question remains, for acceleration, a force need to be applied. How can this force be applied perfectly evenly to the disc, so its allways is being pushed in the exact right direction? And the disc not being pushed more or less in any part?

I want to clarify. You do believe in dark energy and dark matter. And you believe that this have inverted gravity. That it pushes instead of pull?

I don't believe in DE or DM, but I can use their properties to explain things. It's not really inverted gravitation. Things still have gravitation and such, but the acceleration in space is still apparent despite that.
Thank you. Is this the viewpoint of all or most of the FE'ers?

224
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 06, 2008, 07:09:52 AM »
Thanks divito.
So its dark energy hu?
That leads to: where is this dark energy located? And, is that energy in it self moving or constantly increasing? (to account for the constantly added and even force?

It's located in "empty" space. It has negative pressure to explain the acceleration that has been observed.
I guessed that the dark energy (or dark matter?) was located in space hehe. But I wondered where in space. It surely has to be right below us, because thats the way we are being pushed right?
So, what keeps the disc from not being pulled unevenly? And eventually being completly tilted sideways? Is the disc perfectly balanced? Maybe have I missed something. I guess you will bring up the speed->warp of space?

This simple information is as per Wikipedia.
How can you trust Wikipedia? Wikipedia says the earth is round. ;)

FE Dark Energy is no different than RE Dark Energy. It accelerates everything in the universe, just as it accelerates the expansion of the universe in RE.
I want to clarify. You do believe in dark energy and dark matter. And you believe that this have inverted gravity. That it pushes instead of pull?

225
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 06, 2008, 12:53:11 AM »
Thanks divito.
So its dark energy hu?
That leads to: where is this dark energy located? And, is that energy in it self moving or constantly increasing? (to account for the constantly added and even force?

226
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth flaws
« on: August 05, 2008, 02:45:38 PM »
There are plenty of flaws with the Round Earth model. Just read Earth Not a Globe, 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe, and Zetetic Cosmogony. Online versions can be found in my signature link.

Ok thanks.

227
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 05, 2008, 02:43:34 PM »
Anyone cares to answer my questions please?
(Reply #329)

228
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I challenge RE
« on: August 05, 2008, 04:26:17 AM »
Explain spacetime.
What is it? How is it measured?

Really?

229
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 05, 2008, 04:18:24 AM »
I would like to know why FE'ers prefer the constant acceleration instead of pull-by-mass..
Questions:
1. What force causes the constant acceleration of the disc and its surrounding planets?
2. What is pushed, and whats not? The disc, the solarsystem, galaxy or the whole universe?
3. Is there a counter-mass for that force to "push away" from?
4. Where does that force take its energy from?
5. What would be the current actual speed of the disc? (not that important, just fun to know)

230
Flat Earth Debate / Round Earth flaws
« on: August 05, 2008, 03:37:48 AM »
To reject a common believed model, one must find flaws in it. As I guess from reading this very interresting forum, the one thing that FE'ers have problem with is gravity. According to FE'ers gravity as a force does not exist.

I also understand that the force that pulls us all down to earth is caused by constant acceleration.

My question is: Is gravity the only issue that makes the RE model less likely than the FE model, or are there more flaws or errors in the RE model?

231
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Simple Proof
« on: August 05, 2008, 02:05:17 AM »
I would like to add to the original post in this thread, that its fairly easy to make your own experiment:
1. Get a RE globe, a measuring tape or better yet a measuring roller, get a watch if you dont have it already.
2. Do some traveling. Dont forget to get the speed.
3. Se if it all ads up with the RE globe.

232
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Triangulation
« on: August 05, 2008, 01:58:50 AM »
Using trigonometry for navigation will allow straight line travel.

Thank you.

233
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Simple Proof
« on: August 05, 2008, 01:57:48 AM »
I made the God-example because there is imo a good deal of faith involved in the FE/RE discussion..

Your example is good though, i like it.

234
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Triangulation
« on: August 05, 2008, 01:37:17 AM »
1. I dont understand.. Are we talking disc as in a disc shaped bent universe where its impossible to reach the edge. Or a disc-shaped body?

You are on the top of a Round Earth. You are ten feet from the point of Magnetic North. You pull out your compass and wish to travel Eastwards continuously. Where does your path take you?

I see what you are trying to say. But did you read my initial post? Im not talking about magnetism or magnetic compass at all..

235
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Simple Proof
« on: August 04, 2008, 03:10:38 PM »
Its really hard to win an argument when everything is based on different core beliefs.
Its like discussing the existance of God.
No one can "win".  ;)

236
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Simple Proof
« on: August 04, 2008, 03:03:07 PM »
Quote
Just a guess, but i think hes referring to the size of the different places in the world being different in RE and FE. When we move the assumed RE distance at a certain velocity, we get there in the estimated time, not the time it should take on a FE. But im just guessing, he didnt really give any clue.

It's unfortunate that he forgot to provide any actual data showing that the RE model is correct. Then he'd have something somewhat approaching evidence instead of looking like another RE idiot.

This is really funny!  :D

237
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Triangulation
« on: August 04, 2008, 02:50:25 PM »
1. I dont understand.. Are we talking disc as in a disc shaped bent universe where its impossible to reach the edge. Or a disc-shaped body?
2. So there is distances that makes a difference?

To elaborate nr2; Why does "people" find it useful to use spherical geometry and trigometry in these areas? Does it have something to do with the acceleration of the universe vs light maybe?

Are all matters of visual navigation in that case affected by that "bent(?) light theory"?

238
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Triangulation
« on: August 04, 2008, 02:27:16 PM »
Thank you for your reply.
To clarify:
1. I have read here that traveling in a supposedly straight line actually is curved, because of the centered magnetic pole. But there are other ways of navigation. I took the example of triangulation.
2. We know that because it is needed to make the formula work on a sphere. There is also spherical triangulation, which is used in for example flight navigation.

239
Flat Earth Debate / Triangulation
« on: August 04, 2008, 02:01:20 PM »
Hi FE:s! I stumbled upon your forum and got very curious and interested in your theory.

One thing that crossed my mind is the matter of triangulation on a sphere vs a flat surface. I have searched the forum but no hit.

I would love an explanation for this. It might be a two part question actually, and they are stated from FE viewpoint:
1. How can one travel from one point to another in a straight line, using triangulation as means of navigation instead of magnetic compass, and measure the distances between points on the disc to be other then expected?
2. Why does triangulation need to be compensated (for curvature) when measuring large areas?

Please excuse any bad spelling, im from Sweden..

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]