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 - Sentinel

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18]
511
Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth is flat... now what?
« on: June 29, 2017, 11:28:25 AM »
The atmosphere is pressurized exactly because of gravity.  There is a rough equilibrium between the two forces which is why the atmosphere is not more or less thick than it is.

I'm more interested though in how our inability to time travel or move at light speed contradicts a round earth?  Has any round-earther ever claimed that these things are possible?

Einsteins theory of relativity relies on the points you mentioned but these points have never been verified so it is just Hypothesis.
(bollocks)

Relativity is one of your religions fundermental priciples so the fundermental priciples of your religion have never been verified making it false.

Wtf are you talking about? Air is denser closer to the ground due to gravity.

You don't believe in gravity? Jump out of an upstairs window and let us know if you float.

If I jump out of the window I will hit the ground as I'm heavier than air.

If I let a helium filled balloon out of the window it will float as it is lighter than the air at ground level.

Gravity doesn't exist it is impossible for this magical force to stop our pressurised atmosphere from escaping into the infinite vacuum of space.
As such space either doesn't exist or it is not an infinite vacuum.

Of course a balloon filled with helium would shoot up to the sky as helium is lighter than the mixture of gases that we call atmosphere on ground level.
Anyway: care to explain why that balloon isn't able to escape into space and float forever?

As the atmosphere becomes thinner with altitude so the balloon will reach a point where it isn't lighter than the air around it and stop rising and level out eventually the gas will escape from the balloon then the balloon will fall to earth.

Perfect.
Now for the trickier part: how does the atmosphere become thinner at higher altitudes?

512
Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth is flat... now what?
« on: June 29, 2017, 11:09:10 AM »
The atmosphere is pressurized exactly because of gravity.  There is a rough equilibrium between the two forces which is why the atmosphere is not more or less thick than it is.

I'm more interested though in how our inability to time travel or move at light speed contradicts a round earth?  Has any round-earther ever claimed that these things are possible?

Einsteins theory of relativity relies on the points you mentioned but these points have never been verified so it is just Hypothesis.
(bollocks)

Relativity is one of your religions fundermental priciples so the fundermental priciples of your religion have never been verified making it false.

Wtf are you talking about? Air is denser closer to the ground due to gravity.

You don't believe in gravity? Jump out of an upstairs window and let us know if you float.

If I jump out of the window I will hit the ground as I'm heavier than air.

If I let a helium filled balloon out of the window it will float as it is lighter than the air at ground level.

Gravity doesn't exist it is impossible for this magical force to stop our pressurised atmosphere from escaping into the infinite vacuum of space.
As such space either doesn't exist or it is not an infinite vacuum.

Of course a balloon filled with helium would shoot up to the sky as helium is lighter than the mixture of gases that we call atmosphere on ground level.
Anyway: care to explain why that balloon isn't able to escape into space and float forever?

513
Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth is flat... now what?
« on: June 28, 2017, 03:33:29 PM »
Instead of the same old shot of the earth from high altitude with the so called space station in front of it which looks like it's been filmed from a high altitude weather baloon with a fish eye lense.

Yep, they look like totally similar. Try again.



514
The Lounge / Re: New member here
« on: June 28, 2017, 06:59:38 AM »
We def need a thumb up feature, hilarius OP.  :)

515
Nah, I don't accept the "Queens of Science." (Cosmologists)

They make about as much sense as the contents of Stephen Hawkings diaper bag.

It would make sense if you're familiar with his diet, obviously.

516
Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth is flat... now what?
« on: June 28, 2017, 05:04:05 AM »
There are many things you don't see but it doesn't make them non existing. I hope it is obvious and you don't need examples.
No Hans, it looks like he need an example.

I have no time for your hypothesis , theorys and religion.

I laid out my criteria quite clearly above your so called evidence does not satisfy my criteria.

I have never seen any curvature.
Have you ever seen your liver? According to your way of thinking you believe you don't have a liver.

Or, you maybe know that human body cannot work without liver, hence you have it. But this is not a direct proof. Same thing with the shape of earth. There are so many evidences that proove that the shape is spherical, but you don't see the Earth yourself to confirm it.

So do you believe you have a liver?

Everyone has a liver.

Thousands of Doctors have seen a human liver.

I have seen a pigs liver.

I have seen a cows liver.

I have ate a cows liver.

I have not seen the "GLOBE".

You have not seen the" GLOBE"

Nobody has seen the" GLOBE"

Nobody ever will see the "GLOBE"

To try an associate these two things is a nonsense.

I'm not religious therefore I'm not a "BELIEVER"

And still you have yet to see your own liver with your own naked eye. So how could you be absolutely sure that you actually have a liver?
The answer is quite a simple one: You wouldn't be alive without a liver (and that goes with all of the vital organs). And using such priniciple of detuction on our solar system absolutely all observable phenomena concerning the shape of the Earth within a coherent, reproducable and measurable model are requiring a spheriod tilted Earth orbiting the Sun.

517
Flat Earth General / Re: I Made a 1:1 Scale Model of flat earth
« on: June 27, 2017, 10:40:03 AM »
by the way, if you say "the earth is convex" that means you are saying, "the Earth has some curvature".
you are also saying "big watersurfaces also have curvature, so it is not always level".
this forces you to say "on the sides of the convex part, you don't fall 'down', but towards the centre of the Earth".
and of course this leads inevitably to "upward acceleration is bullcrap" and "denspressure is bullcrap".

So, be carefull with what you say.

Looks like he's on to something, then. Baby steps.

518
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse 21st August
« on: June 27, 2017, 08:43:21 AM »
Dunno, Jane, but I do think we all here figured that one out together pretty neatly by using basic maths, some visualization and the observable reality.
The concept of light bending to fit the amendments required for a coherent FET concept about solar eclipses is probably much more advanced, and I for myself are willing to step back happily on that subject and let the FET geniuses have a say on that.

519
Flat Earth General / Re: I Made a 1:1 Scale Model of flat earth
« on: June 27, 2017, 08:29:49 AM »
So no south celestial pole, no New Moon, no solar eclipses, no Sun/Moon sets and rises, both Sun and Moon shrink and grow in sizes contrary to what is observed...

It's been said before, you've gotta lot of work to do still. But keep it up, your effort is appreciated regardless.

520
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse 21st August
« on: June 26, 2017, 11:21:42 AM »
regardless of their respective altitude and relative distance
This is just wrong. I don't know what else you expect me to say.

You're actually right, I have to apologize for that. Total and annular eclipses would be possible on FET when the Moon is smaller than the Sun, and the annual one would never occur when both are the same sizes or the Moon is bigger.
When taken that into consideration it still leaves the fact that the Sun has to be much bigger than postulated in FET so far to effectively draw an umbra of the Moon of 70 miles (it's even been told that the umbra could reach sizes as big as 200 miles across and more) as it is expected in the upcoming eclipse, and for that reason the height above the ground has to be much bigger as well to maintain the observable size which doesn't seem to change that much at all. I do know it does by a tiny fraction because the Earths trajectory around Sun is elliptic.
Another problem here would be the relative distance of the Moon to the Sun during an eclipse as it has to change accordingly over quite some distance whether annual or total eclipse is observed, and considering how little the apparent size of the Moon changes by already recorded observations it leaves some big question marks as well.

521
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA launches new ISS Live Feed!
« on: June 26, 2017, 07:54:18 AM »
One might think NASA could do better. Heck, even the space videos from the 60s look like one million times better...  :P

522
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse 21st August
« on: June 26, 2017, 07:43:03 AM »
That's not what the FET states, and it would be impossible for the umbra to change size if the Sun and Moon are of the same size. The only thing that might theoratically change size is the penumbra when strictly following the postulations by FET.
FET states they're approximately the same size, not exactly. That's all I'm using. (And even that can vary between models). Given that the Sun's path varies in radius, altering its height doesn't seem too much of a stretch, that gets you annular eclipses too. The size of the Sun and moon is not the only factor in the size on an eclipse, you've got to deal with the distance between them too.
You've got a working answer, what is it you're complaining about?

That doesn't work like that either on FET and a given size for both Sun and Moon as every eclipse would have be annular when the Moon is smaller and every eclipse would have to be total when the Moon is larger than the Sun (and vice versa), regardless of their respective altitude and relative distance, and we already know both total and annular eclipses have occured in the past. It would only work if at least one of them changes their physical size.

523
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse 21st August
« on: June 26, 2017, 07:14:47 AM »
Rabs is right. How come the visible and measurable umbra of eclipses is anything but exactly 31.07 miles across as postulated in FET, yet the upcoming eclipse is going to have an umbra of roughly 70 miles across, calculated by the maths the SHM provides?
Again, if the moon is close to the Sun it could theoretically block off all light from it. Lower it, you'd get a smaller and smaller region of darkness until it's your 31.07 miles. Somewhere between the two, you get 70 miles.

That's not what the FET states, and it would be impossible for the umbra to change size if the Sun and Moon are of the same size. The only thing that might theoretically change size is the penumbra when strictly following the postulations by FET.

524
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse 21st August
« on: June 26, 2017, 07:00:55 AM »
Rabs is right. How come the visible and measurable umbra of eclipses is anything but exactly 31.07 miles across as postulated in FET, yet the upcoming eclipse is going to have an umbra of roughly 70 miles across, calculated by the maths the SHM provides?

525
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Video Proof
« on: June 26, 2017, 04:45:31 AM »
Wondering why water level is mentioned here as proof for a flat earth.

For a variety of reasons.
The simplest is that for small lengths you cannot notice the curve (or stand any chance of measuring it except with very high energy particles).
Thus, a curved water surface will appear flat.
This happens (ignoring the effects of surface tension) quite frequently, such as in swimming pools and glasses of water.

Because it appears flat there, they then assume it would be flat everywhere, so it must be flat over the entire surface of the ocean, and thus Earth must be flat.

Of course, if it curves following the curve of Earth, it would appear flat on small scales.

The other reason is based upon drop due to curvature, where they make the drop be like a hill, and state that water would flow to the bottom of the hill, and thus it should drain off Earth.

But we all know that doesn't happen on a spheroid earth because of gravity, it can't be that hard to understand for them.

526
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Video Proof
« on: June 26, 2017, 03:47:34 AM »
Wondering why water level is mentioned here as proof for a flat earth.

527
Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX BulgariaSat-1 Launch Webcast
« on: June 25, 2017, 01:37:30 PM »
Holy shit, did you guys just watched the landing as well? Fucking impressive...  :o

528
Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: June 25, 2017, 01:17:28 PM »
Good thing we have idiots like rabinoz to constantly insist that the wiki needs to be changed.  We would have never known. 

Seriously, if you think something needs to be changed, then type up a correction and submit it to, well, anyone.  If we think you have a better explanation than the current wiki, then we will change it.  If you are unwilling to even do this, then shut the f*ck up about it.  You are a broken record repeating the same crap over and over again.


I'm not Rab but I would like to submit a suggestion that we update the wiki to state that the earth is globular. Please consider this my submission.

Just thought maybe this suggestion got lost in all the talk of werewolves and moonlight frying brains like eggs on a hot sidewalk.

Well, what do we think?

Dunno, but I happen to have a feeling that the Wiki would make a lot more sense now when your submission about a globular earth is to be granted.

529
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse 21st August
« on: June 25, 2017, 09:42:59 AM »
I imagine most, if not all, of that can be done just with a few records and common sense. The Sun and moon are predictable and regular, on the whole, and very much so when it comes to their movements.
The issue with using predictions like this as evidence comes from the fact the mathematical model would have been designed with such observations in mind. They'll have to use known data to define speeds, times, apparent distances... All that together, you're building a model of a system based on predictable rules by observation. The Solar System does the same basic thing over and over, no matter which model you go into, prediction is not the hardest part.
Certainly, there are some instances where the predictions made by RET can't easily be explained by FET like this, this just isn't one of those cases.
The only reason RET is the only one with such a model is that no one's bothered to develop a mathematical model to FET given no model's reached the stage where that's necessary.

On that we could agree on, they actually are regular and predictable and obviously work perfectly for the SHM.
And yet you have the FET where they obviously can't find a consensus on a single map, even less so for the movement of the celestial bodies in various theories where sun and moon alone have to behave quite weird at both altitude/trajectory to fit such agenda even remotely and contrary to the observable reality.
Dunno about you, but as for my understanding of the principle of detuction used on just about any claims by FET I'm aware of so far it simply fails, therefor it can't be true.

530
100 percent believe in spheroid heliocentric model.
That is because you are 100% brainwashed. Your senses tell you on still calm night that your motionless, and that the stars are moving above you. Yet you believe that you are on a spaceball flying at 600,000 mph. Pitiful.

Where did you get that from? Last time i checked the median trajectory velocity of the earth around sun is supposed to be a roughly 66,000 miles per hour.

531
100 percent believe in spheroid heliocentric model.

532
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse 21st August
« on: June 25, 2017, 05:26:24 AM »
What matters is how they calculate eclipses. Yes, sure, you can solve a three body problem if you really want to, but only a masochist would, and chances are the solution originally came from using existing knowledge. You don't need to know anything about the shape of the Earth to predict an eclipse.

Well. If coming from the angle that eclipses have been visible for quite a period of time in earths history and might as well continue to do so in the forseeable future anybody can predict a eclipse is very likely to occur in the next year or so on anywhere on the earth, and it's true that doesn't necessarily implies the true shape of the earth.
But if you want to predict the precise path, daytime and duration of any eclipse in the past and future the shape becomes very significant, and so far only the spheriod heliocentric model of the solar system has come up with coherent calculations which also are matching the observable reality.

533
Meteorologists haven't got a clue as to the cause of weather patterns.

Here is the barometer pressure paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707294#msg1707294

Most of them do quite a good job though, and I truly believe that most of them are hard working people with a passion for their profession.

As for the weather patterns: there are quite a few regarding Europe, for example the system of the high pressure area over the Azores and the Island depression which both do have a significant impact on the large scale weather patterns in Europe. Afaik both systems are well researched and understood, providing sufficient mid and long term forecast capabilities, so the meteorlogists might not be that clueless after all.

534
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse 21st August
« on: June 24, 2017, 11:54:19 AM »
You probably mean saros, one of the probably best known and accurate eclipse cycles as it states that any given solar eclipse will reoccur almost identically a roughly 18 years later with a notable shift in longitude of about 120 degrees and a little in latitude. Though i don't know exactly for how long this was known it might as well serve as an explanation for those early predictions, regardless of that the very moment the paths of the orbiting earth and moon where measured within a certain treshold of jitter the calculation of eclipses back and forth in time had been available ever since.
Thing is FET still has no working model or the basic maths to precisely calculate eclipses, at least not that I'm aware of. And I wonder why that would be...
It really isn't all that impressive to develop a system that gives the result you want. I expect known data like eclipses were used to confirm several values used in the modelling of the solar system's behaviour, they're not going to make it hard for themselves.
FET has no detailed model because random people on the internet are not Kepler or Einstein level intellects. Judge it for what it is. I know the RE maths, I'm good with numbers, I'd still balk if asked to derive it from scratch, which is really what you're asking FEers to do.

So why all of those intellects always seemed and seem to favour the spheroid and heliocentric approach rather than flat earth and geocentricity, and by the way did so with some notable success? One might think since Rowbotham in the mid 1850s some better intellects should have shown up already and backed up the FET with notable break-throughs, models and consistent calculations to describe the world we all live in but that obviously didn't happen for over 160 years now.
and as for kepler: granted one would describe him as a genius, but he basically discovered the mechanics of the solar system from scratch at around 1600 with nothing more but a calculus and a basic telescope. and now you'd say only the intellect is missing these days for a proper theory on FET, considering the tools we have now for astronomy and calculation purposes in comparison to a time roughly 400 years ago?
Even you might have to admit that sounds quite weird at least, if not unbelievable.

535
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse 21st August
« on: June 24, 2017, 10:35:49 AM »
I wonder if and when FET comes up with precise dates of the next eclipses to come? It obviously isn't a problem at all when using the heliocentric sphere model where all planets and their moons are orbiting the sun, and last time I checked (on wikipedia) the eclipses are calculated as far ahead and back as the 30th century and 20th century BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_solar_eclipses
People were predicting eclipses for centuries before RET was really developed. The Sun, Earth and moon are predictable, not random, you don't need RET, just observation.

You probably mean saros, one of the probably best known and accurate eclipse cycles as it states that any given solar eclipse will reoccur almost identically a roughly 18 years later with a notable shift in longitude of about 120 degrees and a little in latitude. Though i don't know exactly for how long this was known it might as well serve as an explanation for those early predictions, regardless of that the very moment the paths of the orbiting earth and moon where measured within a certain treshold of jitter the calculation of eclipses back and forth in time had been available ever since.
Thing is FET still has no working model or the basic maths to precisely calculate eclipses, at least not that I'm aware of. And I wonder why that would be...

536
Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX BulgariaSat-1 Launch Webcast
« on: June 24, 2017, 05:36:24 AM »
Kind of a drag when they lose signal at the really good parts.

I was thinking the same thing, at least the could have had aerial cameras far out of that drone ship to show the landing. The start was quite impressive though when watching the live coverage, you'd always think of what could go wrong and the whole thing blows up right in front of the spectators eye.
You have to give SpaceX full credit for their engineering of the rocket anyway, that thing works like a swiss chronometer. Considering presentation and the reliabilty of the footage of their product they do have a long way to come it seems...

537
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse 21st August
« on: June 24, 2017, 05:15:43 AM »
I wonder if and when FET comes up with precise dates of the next eclipses to come? It obviously isn't a problem at all when using the heliocentric sphere model where all planets and their moons are orbiting the sun, and last time I checked (on wikipedia) the eclipses are calculated as far ahead and back as the 30th century and 20th century BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_solar_eclipses

538
Flat Earth General / SpaceX BulgariaSat-1 Launch Webcast
« on: June 23, 2017, 11:56:53 AM »
if anyone is interested: enjoy.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

539
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse 21st August
« on: June 22, 2017, 03:23:25 PM »
i remember the eclipse back then 1999 in europe, it was quite impressive. too bad the next total eclipse would be as early as 2081 in my region...

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18]