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 - Curiouser and Curiouser

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
Flat Earth General / Re: If all the launches are fake then
« on: April 20, 2019, 11:23:35 PM »
I'll also do it for less than $200B.

Flat Earth General / Re: If all the launches are fake then
« on: April 20, 2019, 11:22:27 PM »
it was 1969 it would have been impossible to set up the shadows in the videos if u want a quick explanation here :

its corny but it has FACTS in it

Facts, huh?

One man's opinion is not fact. Just because your "expert" claims that the lighting isn't possible does not mean that is a fact.

In fact, it's pretty obvious that he's a pretty poor expert on the subject and lacks imagination just because he can't think of any other way that the lighting could be achieved.

So, if I come up with a way that with 1969 technology I can produce the appropriate lighting, you'll concede your "proof" is flawed?

Flat Earth General / Re: If all the launches are fake then
« on: April 19, 2019, 06:20:51 PM »
You do know that to fake such a huge thing would cost a whole lot more then actually doing it?

It has been proven many times that faking the moon landing would have cost much much more then actually landing on the moon

so lying about something this big would leave our pockets empty

"It has been proven many times ..." Could you please provide references to three of these proofs? (I don't know what your definition of "many" is in this context, but surely it is in excess of three.)

I take it that leaving our pockets empty is hyperbole, so for argument's sake lets say closer to half-empty. Peak NASA budget of $20B in 1966 was 4% of federal budget; from your assertions I'll set the faking budget at 40% or $200B in 1966.


Flat Earth General / Re: Doppler shift
« on: April 12, 2019, 07:24:20 AM »
I am no longer on a mission to disprove FE or prove RE ...

You were on a mission?

We'll see how this new approach works out for ya.

Flat Earth General / Re: Doppler shift
« on: April 11, 2019, 07:19:01 AM »

Second of all, as far as I'm aware, no one has measured a single star and demonstrated that its light is shifting further into the red (and I'm not taking about the rotation of the sun here, RAB so don't even! ;D). It's a comparison made between the spectra of stars from various presumed distances, under the assumption that each should have the same spectral lines in the same position unless there is a Doppler shift. But that is different than a direct observation of the same star's spectral lines migrating into the red over time.

Ooh. Swing and a miss! Observing the spectra of each star of a binary pair, and comparing the magnitude and phase of the positive and negative deviations from a calibration spectrum as each star shifts further into the red (then shifts further into the blue) is regularly used to measure their period, ellipticity, and relative masses.

Flat Earth General / Re: Doppler shift
« on: April 11, 2019, 07:08:59 AM »

My FE tryout:

The FE explanation is that the star IS stationary on the dome, it just changes the frequency of its light as though it was moving.

My RE retort:

Because the frequencies emitted are determined by chemical makeup, you are essentially saying the star is changing its chemical makeup, which is absurd.

Yes, that is absurd. The frequencies emitted are determined by chemical makeup. The frequencies received by an observer are not necessarily the same as those emitted. You are making the assumption that Doppler shift is the only physical phenomenon that can shift the frequency of light.

Flat Earth General / Re: Doppler shift
« on: April 10, 2019, 03:00:58 PM »

If doppler is true, stars are moving towards or away. If stars are moving towards or away ...

If doppler is true, can stars be on a fixed dome?

By definition, Doppler frequency shifts are the result of moving sources or receivers.

The question as asked does not require a moving source (star), it can be satisfied by a moving receiver (observer).

And the implied rationale for the question is that the only explanation for a frequency shift is Doppler shift. Spectra frequency can be shifted by other means.

Flat Earth General / Re: Doppler shift
« on: April 10, 2019, 11:19:07 AM »

Blueshift is decrease in frequency, stretching out of wave, receding, getting further away. Redshift is compression of waves to higher frequency, meaning approaching, getting closer.

And this is why we trust jimster's posts to the extent we do.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Satellite Visibility
« on: April 10, 2019, 10:10:27 AM »
In the RE model, satellites are able to be seen long after sunset because they are at an altitude where the sun in still above the horizon at that location.  How does this work in the FE model?   If the sun were really a spotlight wouldn't the objects be in the dark and thus not visible?   Even if they are just balloons, etc. and are at a lower altitude how can they still reflect sunlight?   Please don't try to explain by saying they emit they're own light.

To say that they emit they're own light is, without question, incorrect.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Size of the Sun
« on: April 08, 2019, 03:55:18 PM »

Wise, get yourself a solar filter:

This will be of no use whatever to wise, as he will see nothing when he puts a solar filter in front of these YouTube videos.

Fair point. I meant he should strap a couple, one for each eyeball, on his face and go outside and watch a sunset or sunrise.

Note to anyone considering doing this: Only directly view the sun if the solar filter is rated for unaided viewing. Some popular solar filter material (Baader film, for example) do not provide adequate UV protection when used by themselves.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Size of the Sun
« on: April 08, 2019, 01:52:43 PM »

Wise, get yourself a solar filter:

This will be of no use whatever to wise, as he will see nothing when he puts a solar filter in front of these YouTube videos.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Size of the Sun
« on: April 08, 2019, 11:22:05 AM »
Flat earthers claim that the Sun is circling above the Earth, so if this was the case, we should see the angular size of the sun significantly increase. And, it should be very small when it's setting and rising, but if you use a solar filter, measure the size of it at noon and at the sets/rises, you would see that the Sun remains a constant size. There are many videos about this on YouTube. So how can this be?

We see  see the angular size of the sun significantly increase. If you don't see it so please look at it again.

Music is free of charge.

Its glare.

It is sun.

Turdkish "engineer" needs to learn how a camera works.

Flat Earth General / Re: the one question behind FE disproof
« on: April 05, 2019, 10:25:00 AM »

Example: Assume the earth is flat. We know that the north star is at angle equal to latitude.

What is the definition of latitude on your assumed flat earth? The value of the angle of the north star? OK.

At the equator, this puts it on the horizon, which is the surface of the earth.

That made some unwarranted assumptions.

We know the sun is not on the surtface at the north pole, so QED, earth is not flat.

Q.E.D. is usually reserved for mathematical of logical proofs, where by the nature of a complete logical system, there can be no other explanation.

The FE escape hatch is that there is always another possible explanation, in this case, obviously light is going to have to bend way beyind known refraction(without explanation or experimental validation).

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Light refraction? So you are altering your previous infallible "proof" by saying that light does bend and the north star is not on exactly on the horizon? Now you're calling on "crazy" bending of light that you so glibly claim while dismissing another that you haven't looked into.

So assume FE, and now we know light bends crazy unknown ways.

You make a lot of assumptions about what's known and unknown.

Flat Earth General / Re: 24 hours sun in Antarctica
« on: April 02, 2019, 01:47:18 PM »
Wise, quit using your obvious alt to ask stupid questions that you stupidly answer. I suppose that's what happens when you pretend to ignore all the members on the site ... you have to resort to yourself to argue with.

And you're a turd.
i've never seen "wise" till 2/3 hours ago and i can prove it.

No you can't.

Flat Earth General / Re: 24 hours sun in Antarctica
« on: April 02, 2019, 11:54:19 AM »
Wise, quit using your obvious alt to ask stupid questions that you stupidly answer. I suppose that's what happens when you pretend to ignore all the members on the site ... you have to resort to yourself to argue with.

And you're a turd.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« on: April 02, 2019, 08:14:02 AM »
What a bunch of effing whiny toddlers.

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the earth flat? Final Solution!
« on: March 30, 2019, 11:51:40 AM »
I have a solution that 100% will convince everyone. Send a ship out with a P900 camera and send a balloon with a rocket and a laser. Launch the rocket from the balloon and shoot the laser at the ship while the sun is setting and photograph it with the P900. If the light from the setting sun and the laser is below the clouds when the moon is eclipsed, then the curvature should be visible. Right?

Flat Earth General / Re: Quick Question
« on: March 24, 2019, 06:44:32 PM »
@Curiouser and Curiouser,
Have you noticed that when you drive, the wheels on your car go round and round. That my friend is a revolution. The wheels on your car revolve, and that's what gives the force to drive you forward. And a revolution of 100mph is the speed at which our Earth spins. Exactly like a wheel, it spins on its own axis but way faster than a wheel could ever spin.

Angular speed is measured in units of angle per time. Examples are degrees per hour, radians per second, revolutions per minute.

Linear speed is measured in units of length per time, such as feet per second or miles per hour.

Using units of linear speed to describe the rate of angular change is incorrect.

Also, there is a distiction between revolve and rotate. Revolve means "go around" and rotate means "turns or spins" contrary to your example above. The earth rotates daily, and revolves around the sun yearly.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: SMOKING GUN
« on: March 23, 2019, 06:13:36 PM »
There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
But as has been pointed out TO YOU numerous times your claim that the sidereal day is NOT always exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds." IS FALSE.

Wait, wut?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: SMOKING GUN
« on: March 22, 2019, 10:12:02 AM »
The average length of a Martian sidereal day is 24 h 37 m 22.663 s (88,642.663 seconds based on SI units).
The source of a citation above :

Question : Can anyone find (anywhere) such phrase ("the average") within the text that pertains Earth's sidereal time???

Since Earth's sidereal time is a constant, it would be nonsensical to use such phrase in the context of a text which deals with Earth's "rotational" period, wouldn't it?

Feel free to supply us with a phrase like this :

The average length of Earth's sidereal day is ....

So, we have to conclude that Martian sidereal time is not a constant (as it is the case with Earth's sidereal time)!!!

Earth's sidereal day is not constant.


It varies by milliseconds.

Additional data is available at

When it matters to the precision of the measurement, one would state the average and variance.

When it doesn't, one wouldn't.

Also remember that reports of either Earth's or Mars' sidereal day may or may not include averages caused by unavoidable measurement errors.

Parsing a Wikipedia entry and drawing a conclusion based on whether or not the word "average" is used in an entry is not a credible argument.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: March Equinox
« on: March 21, 2019, 05:13:38 PM »

Lasers can be projected onto the atmoplane:

It's funny how Tom picks one sentence out of an entire document (a poorly worded sentence at that), declares it to be gospel, and misinterprets it to weave an entire fantasy; yet ignores everything else in the document that is contrary to his previously stated beliefs.

It's almost as if he went searching for "laser beam" "projected on the atmosphere" and pulled the first hit he got.

Nice cherry picking.

Flat Earth General / Re: Quick Question
« on: March 21, 2019, 04:20:20 PM »
... and it's own revolution of 100 mph is what gives us our beautifully different seasons.

What's a revolution of 100 mph?

Flat Earth General / Re: If FE was accepted
« on: March 21, 2019, 01:28:00 PM »

Let's go to, say, Warsaw. At Equinox the noon sun is not at 12.00 and day length is not 12 hours. Why is it??

Hmmm. Let's see.

First, the equinox in 2019 falls on March 20, not March 21. You've highlighted the wrong day.

Second, the page you link to has a link titled "Why is the day and night not exactly 12 hours on Equinox?"

I guess inattentiveness is your strong suit.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Technology and the...!
« on: March 20, 2019, 12:46:15 PM »
For a Muslim to go to heaven they must murder?

No, they must not to. But they must have brain.

Too bad for you, then.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Comparing Stellar and Lunar Spectra
« on: March 20, 2019, 08:10:23 AM »

I have only two questions:

Do you disagree that light is red-shifted by reflection?

Do you believe that the spectra of cold moonlight being emitted by a self-illuminated Moon should be very similar to the spectra of the hot Sun?

The concept regarding the transfer of momentum from a photon to an object upon reflection is correct.
However, your example relies on conservation of momentum between a photon and the moon.
The change in wavelength of the photon exists, but is so small that it can be treated as zero.

And, as has been replied previously, while this would theoretically move the wavelength towards the red end of the spectrum, this is not what is generally meant as common understanding of the term red-shift.

Since "cold moonlight being emitted by a self-illuminated Moon" does not exist, one would have to make some assumptions. If the Moon was a blackbody at 5800K, then the overall profile of the spectra would be very similar. If there were atomic absorbers of similar types, then the absorption dips would be similar. But the difference between so-called "cold" moonlight and "hot" sunlight is intensity, not spectra.

(To clarify: If the moon was a blackbody at 5800K, and it subtended the same angle in the sky as it does now - approximately equal to that of the sun - the light from it would be equal in spectra and intensity to that from the sun. You wouldn't call it "cold" moonlight.)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Comparing Stellar and Lunar Spectra
« on: March 20, 2019, 07:27:42 AM »

If moonlight is reflected sunlight ...

It's not. The moon is not a mirror.

"Moonlight is reflected sunlight" is a shorthand way to describe one aspect of the phenomenon. Is is not complete nor accurate enough to convey the level of detail you're interested in.

To question the difference in spectra between sunlight and moonlight is similar to asking "When I look out the window of a darkened room and see the red painted wall of the building next to me illuminated by sunlight, why is the spectra of the light coming into the room from that wall different than that of sunlight?"

Moonlight is a combination of reflection, absorbance, scattering,and re-emission (if you're going out as far as mid-IR) of sunlight, and then to a much lesser extent a small component of earthlight.


since 99.999% of the population believes (right or wrong) in a round earth

[Citation required]

Flat Earth General / Re: zetetic analysis of the faq
« on: March 19, 2019, 11:08:56 AM »

... zetetic dismisses all that is not direct evidence of your own eyes.

Welcome back from your vacation,  jimster.

Nice to see your new topic count is now less than half of your post count. Keep it up!

Your idea of zeteticism is not correct. Zeteticism does not forbid observations made by someone else. Maybe read up on the topic before you next post about what it is and isn't.

Again for idiots; there is nothing rules as "swear". You are forcing the rules as how you want. You are changing the words because you need an excuse for your crimes. It is clear; it has to be insult, as how you did it.

You are not doing your obvious job against insults, because you are insulters too. But you are forcing rules, "swearing to your topic" that has no sense, but you need it. Because your decision has no sense.

You might care to reread the initial sentence of the forum rules.

"The site administration has final say over the interpretation and enforcement of these rules."

Bored now.

Suggestions & Concerns / Acceptable / unacceptable avatar images
« on: March 18, 2019, 08:25:38 AM »
Is SkepticMike's avatar image, which is visible in upper fora posts, and which can be seen prominently in public by bystanders even if I am scrolling through posts at a reasonable speed on my phone, considered acceptable or unacceptable?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35