1471

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA's 33 666s (Banned by IFERS)

« on: January 23, 2018, 02:36:56 PM »

It still has 3 sixes. It doesn't have to be spelled out "666," like in the Bible it says "600, 3 Score (60) and 6," not "666," and the heliocentric model is profuse with religious blasphemy and serpent symbolism, as well as many connections to the Jesuit order and the Vatican. The heliocentric model is make-believe anyway, and it is made up by the very people who worship the devil.

A post of that length and exactly three six-letter words?
6 ... 6 ... 6
Hie thee hence, you devil Aophos! get you gone, spunk of Satan!

1472

Flat Earth General / Re: Estonia has chosed the flat earth reality as a first country!

« on: January 23, 2018, 02:16:50 PM »

ISIS money is a flat disk with continents on it? ISIS money proves they think Earth is flat!

Ka-ching!

1473

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA's 33 666s (Banned by IFERS)

« on: January 23, 2018, 02:13:19 PM »

You are welcome to decide what is "valid" for yourself, but I don't particularly feel that it matters if it is a 666.2, or a 666.7 - or a 666.8103548. It's still a 666.

You funny!

1474

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA's 33 666s (Banned by IFERS)

« on: January 23, 2018, 02:11:14 PM »

Sure. I'll join in.

   33: The Earth’s Axis, it’s Orbital Inclination around the Sun is 66.6 Degrees

Sorry, 66.6 (rounded) is not 666

   32: The Earth Orbits the Sun at 66,600 Miles Per Hour

Sorry, 66,600 (rounded) is not 666

   31: The Earth’s Circumference is 600x6x6 Nautical Miles

Sorry, 600x6x6 (rounded) is not 666. 601x6x6 is much closer, but it's not 666 either

   30: The Speed of Sound is 666 Knots Per Second

Sorry, at STP, speed of sound is 667 kps. Go ahead and choose a different temperature, but there's a name for that.

   29: The Force of Gravity on Earth is 666 Newtons

Force of gravity is not measured in Newtons. Sure, a 67.9 kg weight will have a force of 666 Newtons on earth.

... and so on and so on and so on.

1475

Flat Earth General / Re: Should we see the Moon from Saturn?

« on: January 21, 2018, 11:55:30 PM »

On "Reply #1" is the Moon (the smaller dot ?)  just to the right and a little lower from the Earth (the larger brighter dot ?) in the illustration ? (Zooming in)

Yes. The image is from the narrow field camera and is the image PIA14949 referred to in the linked article. ("The two are clearly seen as separate objects in the accompanying narrow angle frame: PIA14949".)

1476

Flat Earth General / Re: Should we see the Moon from Saturn?

« on: January 21, 2018, 08:04:16 PM »

The arrow indicates Earth from Saturn, taken by the Cassini Satellite. I wonder if that is the Moon to the left? Should we see the Earth and the Moon from this perspective?

No, the Moon is not to the left. It is contained within the dot the arrow is pointing to.

Whether you see it depends on the FOV of the telescope taking the image.

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/5868/

1477

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What you are told VS Personal experience

« on: January 21, 2018, 06:07:04 PM »

I wanted to verify my understanding of the Earth with my own experiment and not use input from other people. This post is not intended to change anybody's mind. Someone else can do this same experiment and make their own conclusions. I need to make a definition of "viewing size". I am defining viewing size as the apparent size of an object as seen. An object that does not change its size will have a smaller viewing size as it moves away and becomes distant.
My question is: "Do star constellations change their viewing size as they come from the horizon and pass over head?
I selected a pair stars that rose from the north east at 6:45PM. I looked at the stars through a cardboard tube. I could not see both stars at once because the tube was too long and narrow. I kept shortening the tube to the point where I could see both stars at once. I even rotated the tube to verify that it was round and gave consistent results.  At 8:45 PM the stars were higher in the sky but still just fit in my tube sight. At midnight when they were straight up I still got the same results. My conclusion is that that pair of stars kept their same viewing size throughout the night.

If you use more sophisticated equipment (sighting telescope with az/el mount with measuring circles, theodolite, spotting scope with reticle, etc.) you can repeatedly perform measurements of extremely high accuracy over many nights with the constellations in many different locations and orientations. Don't just rely on one set of measurements. Perform the measurements for many pair of stars over many nights and many months (even a full year).

Do it yourself without anyone else telling you what the results should be or what conclusion to draw.

After you  have made these measurements, you should have an answer to your question.

1478

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity

« on: January 21, 2018, 05:57:19 PM »

I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.

This is the logical fallacy of the Argument from Silence.

The conclusion you make based on lack of evidence does not follow from the premise.

I do not need to demonstrate other possibilities to point out your faulty logic.

1479

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shape

« on: January 21, 2018, 02:26:31 PM »

If the universe is infinite, How can it be expanding?

Why do you think an infinite universe cannot expand? Please go back and review the meaning of infinite.

Consider an infinite number of points, ℵ-null, each 1 inch apart.

Expand the distance between each to 2 inches apart.

Result: an infinite number of points, ℵ-null, each 2 inches apart.

1480

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity

« on: January 21, 2018, 02:20:18 PM »

I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.

Logical fallacy of Argumentum Ex Silentio (Argument from Silence)

Conclusion does not follow from premise.

Thanks for playing. Please try again!

1481

Flat Earth General / Re: Perpetual Energy Generator

« on: January 20, 2018, 09:30:22 PM »

Mr. CEO's argument is financially unsound.

Develop "battery" product using unending energy source.

Incorporate into product electronics that throttles back and reduces output power after X hours. (Apple did a similar thing with cutting performance of old iPhones.)

Calculate X taking into account all development and manufacturing cost and price point of this and competing products that makes total power generated by product 50% (or 75%, or 90%) less expensive to consumer than cheapest alternative over imposed lifetime of product and provides best profit margin to manufacturer.

Make money, continue to sell product indefinitely.

Mr. CEO is dumb.

1482

Flat Earth General / Re: Polaris Shouldn't be seen with the Naked Eye

« on: January 19, 2018, 07:19:57 AM »

Angular diameter of object is tangent function of distance and radius. It is not linear.

It bears no matter on the discussion in question, but just for clarification:

For the small angles involved here, the approximation x = TAN(x) is sufficient. For any conceivable practical purpose of observation, the relationship is linear.

1483

Flat Earth General / Re: Polaris Shouldn't be seen with the Naked Eye

« on: January 18, 2018, 08:06:10 PM »

My original post was hypothesizing, how much the Sun would change in apparent size, compared to how much Polaris would change in apparent size. This hypothesis, was formed based around several photos found in a link I will leave below.

The illustrations in the HuffPo article may have given you an inaccurate impression as well.

Per the article, the size of the Sun in the Uranus illustration should be 19 times smaller than the Earth illustration. Does it look 19 times smaller?

Per the article, the size of the Sun in the Pluto illustration should be 40 times smaller than the Earth illustration. Does it look 40 times smaller?

1484

Flat Earth General / Re: Quantitative model for duration of daylight

« on: January 18, 2018, 05:07:54 PM »

I see nothing in the OP trying to cudgel anything, ...

When the discussion sinks to frivolous and banal objections, I'm done. Go ahead, get your last word in, I'm out.

1485

Flat Earth General / Re: Quantitative model for duration of daylight

« on: January 18, 2018, 03:39:00 PM »

Not in the slightest, but how else are we to know what the society and its members believe.
It was John Davis, the society president, that pointed out that particular bit of the FAQ.

I don't care what the society president says. I don't care what my own President says.

Why? The OP was simply suggesting a test of the standard Globe model. Then asking the question,

"** Which flat Earth models, if any, are in quantitative agreement with the same data? **".

Why would zeteticism come into it.

Because models are antithetical to Zeteticism.

And I did answer his question.

So I see little point in being constrained by "zeteticism" because modern flat earthers do not seem to be.

I don't suggest that you should be constrained by Zeteticism. I point out that some people (presumably someone the OP author is trying to cudgel out of a particular belief) who *do* hold to Zeteticism will not be swayed by this line of thought.

1486

Flat Earth General / Re: Why does round earth theory consistently mispredict the seasons?

« on: January 18, 2018, 03:23:52 PM »

Season creep exists. Season creep shows us the differences between the round earth model's prediction of the first day of spring, and the reality of when everything else alive knows its Spring. The first day of spring isn't when some star reaches a certain point in the sky, in spite of round earther's attempt to define it this way. Almost every living thing on this earth knows the first day of spring and reacts appropriately on their own accord.

Again, could you please address your understanding of season creep and your oft-repeated point of 3 days per decade?

You seem only to address the first day of spring and no other point in the year.

Do you contend that the 3 day per decade is a continual shifting of the start of a season whose length does not change?

1487

Flat Earth General / Re: Why does round earth theory consistently mispredict the seasons?

« on: January 18, 2018, 09:26:30 AM »

John Davis seems to imply a continual one-way creep, but the creep is making spring start a a little earlier and fall start a little later. This is simply the effect of global warming that John Davis claims is false.

John Davis, could you please address your understanding of season creep and your oft-repeated point of 3 days per decade?

Do you contend that the 3 day per decade is a continual shifting of the start of a season whose length does not change?

1488

Flat Earth General / Re: Quantitative model for duration of daylight

« on: January 18, 2018, 07:57:47 AM »

What is this, from the FAQ, if not a model?

It is. Whoever wrote the FAQ is not following Zeteticism.

Would it surprise you to know that not everything in the FAQ is literally true?

I am not presenting the OP author (who seems to have lost interest in his topic) with FAQism, but with Zeteticism.

Zetetic supposedly means proceeding by inquiry.

"Zetetic" is derived from  the Greek word "zeteo." "Zeteo" means "seek," "search," "inquire."
Zeteticism is the philosophy developed from this concept which encompasses more than seeking, searching, and inquiring.
A subtle difference, but a zeteticism rejects models and theories.

In other words, Samuel Birley Rowbotham simply did not proceed with suffient inquiry to get the full answer.
Yet, modern flat earthers still accept Rowbotham's clearly incorrect results.

Yes, that's rather a problem, isn't it?

Something seems severely amiss with the flat-earthers application of 'Zeteticism'.

Yes, I agree.

1489

Flat Earth General / Re: Quantitative model for duration of daylight

« on: January 17, 2018, 10:29:58 PM »

C&C, it is unfortunate that you hang your hat
On a man long dead, that had few, if any adherents to his beliefs.

But as I've said before, if we're talking beliefs
Facts will not sway you.

Carry on with your beliefs.

It is unfortunate that you have come to the conclusion that I think the works of Rowbotham have validity.

That is the incorrect conclusion that you have come to. Carry on with your beliefs.

1490

Flat Earth General / Re: If The Earth Is Round, How Does The Sun Stop Midsky?

« on: January 17, 2018, 02:53:08 PM »

Yes, they are two different terms.

way-yid-dōm versus ‘ā-māḏ

Leviticus 10:3 is the other use of the moon in the bible:
NAS: So Aaron, therefore, kept silent.
KJV: And Aaron held his peace.
INT: the people will be glorified kept to Aaron

Habakkuk 3:11 seems to support they both stood still in the same manner.

I guess just another instance where there are two contradictory accounts in the Bible. Therefore, not everything in the Bible is literally true.

1491

Flat Earth General / Re: If The Earth Is Round, How Does The Sun Stop Midsky?

« on: January 17, 2018, 02:34:02 PM »

Most translations go with 'stayed still' or 'stopped'. Why do you go with what I'm assuming is the King James Version here?

Because it's the best in my opinion.

Also, it's the majority Bible read my country.

The validity of your take on "most" translations notwithstanding, I don't find *any* version in which the phasing used for the motion of the Sun is the same as that of the motion of the Moon. The conclusion to reach, then, from the ones I've read is that the Sun is motionless, and the Moon stays in the sky, but is not motionless like the Sun.

1492

Flat Earth General / Re: If The Earth Is Round, How Does The Sun Stop Midsky?

« on: January 17, 2018, 01:34:11 PM »

The Earth being still and a globe would not stop the moon from apparently moving.

I was being brief. You're right, the Moon was not motionless.

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed" - Joshua 10:13

So the Sun stood still, and the Moon stayed in the sky, moving only ~12 degrees as it remained in the sky (as opposed to a normal day when it sets and rises.

This is even greater evidence. If the Sun is motionless ("stood still") the Moon reamined in the sky but was not motionless ("stayed", otherwise why change the phrasing?), that clearly points to the explanation that it was the Earth that stopped moving providing the appearance of as described in the Bible.

1493

Flat Earth General / Re: If The Earth Is Round, How Does The Sun Stop Midsky?

« on: January 17, 2018, 12:26:14 PM »

He did not - he stopped the sun and moon.

Why was God so foolish as to stop the Moon as well? To help the Israelites only required stopping the sun to provide light.

If the Sun *and* the Moon were both motionless, that clearly points to the explanation that it was the Earth that stopped moving providing the appearance of both the Sun and Moon stopped in the sky.

1494

Flat Earth General / Re: If The Earth Is Round, How Does The Sun Stop Midsky?

« on: January 17, 2018, 12:14:07 PM »

So what made the sun stop in the sky?

The horses that pull the chariot get tired every 3000 years and stop for a day.

My explanation is as valid as any other that explains the circular motion of the Sun over the flat Earth.

1495

Flat Earth General / Re: Polaris Shouldn't be seen with the Naked Eye

« on: January 17, 2018, 11:40:06 AM »

Why would Polaris look any different from Pluto than from Earth?

The OP question deals with
- What the Sun looks like as viewed from Pluto (per the article referenced in the OP)
  versus
- What Polaris looks like from Earth (which we see in the sky, and the OP muses that we shouldn't be able to)

1496

Flat Earth General / Re: If The Earth Is Round, How Does The Sun Stop Midsky?

« on: January 17, 2018, 11:36:34 AM »

I have brought this up before and there have been no responses that can discount Joshua's long day in Joshua X. I ask again, if the earth is indeed round, then how can it suddenly stop its rotation to allow the sun to sit in the sky for an entire day?

Additionally, if you believe that God is omnipotent, then God can make the Earth suddenly cease rotation for an entire day and then God can resume its rotation.

If you believe that it was Joshua who actually did it (as opposed to Joshua calling on God, and God did it) then Joshua either made the Sun stand still, or Joshua ceased rotation of the earth. I see no reason to allow one as being impossible while allowing the other to be possible.

1497

Flat Earth General / Re: If The Earth Is Round, How Does The Sun Stop Midsky?

« on: January 17, 2018, 11:18:14 AM »

Where is this evidence that not everything in the Bible is literally true?

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. -- II Kings 8:26

Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. -- II Chronicles 22:2

22 and 42 are not the same. One is not true, unless someone takes the perverse stand that the passages are not talking about the same person, or some other evasion related to the definition of "years old" or "began to reign".

Since one of these statements is not true, then not everything in the Bible is literally true.

1498

Flat Earth General / Re: If The Earth Is Round, How Does The Sun Stop Midsky?

« on: January 17, 2018, 10:48:31 AM »

There is some evidence that not everything in the Bible is literally true.

If the earth is indeed flat, then how can the sun suddenly stop its circular course to allow it to sit in the sky for an entire day?

There you go. You won't be able to say you didn't receive a response to this anymore.

1499

Flat Earth General / Re: Polaris Shouldn't be seen with the Naked Eye

« on: January 17, 2018, 08:30:19 AM »

I'm not very good at math

It's not a question of math, it's a question of what you consider a fact, and what you consider an unknown to be determined.

The brightness of Polaris is determined by what is observed.

You question that it should not be observed.

How can you then rely on a value of relative brightness from an observation whose existence you question?

1500

Flat Earth General / Re: Polaris Shouldn't be seen with the Naked Eye

« on: January 17, 2018, 08:20:00 AM »

Apologies for not understanding your original post.

The same argument applies. It is not the apparent size that matters, but the radiance.