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 ... 50 51 [52]
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth believer fired
« on: January 03, 2018, 10:07:58 PM »
Does this answer your questions?
Yes. While I still hope to hear from someone who can provide more information, you've at least done the courtesy of addressing the questions. Thank you.

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth believer fired
« on: January 03, 2018, 12:44:31 PM »
Thank you, but neither of the two previous posts answer the two original questions.

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth believer fired
« on: December 31, 2017, 11:12:52 AM »
Flat earthers don't work at jobs where it matters whether or not they were flat earthers. But they do have to put on plastic gloves before making the sandwiches.
Well, that was part of the reasoning behind asking the question. Since you seem to have a comprehensive knowledge of the subject, please provide information on your method of data searching that allows you to state that no FE believer has a job that conflicts with that belief.

Additionally, the question not only implies being fired for cause (you can't do your job because you won't accept as fact something critical to the performance of the job) but also being fired for prejudice against a belief (you think the Earth is flat, therefore I don't like you, therefore you're fired).

Flat Earth General / Flat Earth believer fired
« on: December 30, 2017, 08:21:54 PM »
Does anyone know of and have references to an instance of someone being fired from a job because of their belief in Flat Earth theory?

If so, does anyone know of and have references to any lawsuits filed because of it?

Flat Earth General / Re: New York area FEs
« on: December 29, 2017, 11:08:27 PM »
Plumb not level.
Pedantic not relevant

Flat Earth General / Re: New York area FEs
« on: December 29, 2017, 10:42:19 PM »
I've got a job for you, on the Verrazano-Narrows bridge
Check to see if the 2 towers are vertical.

Use the longest bubble level you can find, steal, or borrow.
Place it on each of the towers to confirm they are in fact vertical.

Now comes the hard part.
You need to become a surveyor or hire one.

According to the global thingy,
The tops of the two towers are just over 41mm apart compared to their bases.
Just over 1.6 inches.

To prove flat earth and become the FE god,
Do the measurements.

I await your denials.
Seriously? A bubble level to determine the verticality of the towers?

Measure a difference of 1.6 inches between two towers 693 feet tall.

Since it's between two towers, the contribution for each tower would be 0.8 inches. 0.8 inches over 693 feet is an angle of 0f 0.0055 degrees. Good measuring practice dictates that a measuring tool be at least 5X (more often 10X) the precision of the quantity you're trying to measure. That means your "bubble level" requires a precision of 1/1000th of a degree.

Please give the manufacturer and model number for a bubble level capable of this precision, and tell me where you'll place it to assure the verticality of the towers.

"Use the longest bubble level you can find, steal, or borrow."
"Place it on each of the towers to confirm they are in fact vertical."

You're pretty good at a thought experiment ... not quite so good when it comes to practicality.

Flat Earth General / Universal Acceleration questions
« on: December 29, 2017, 08:44:19 AM »
 Topic was hijacked and moved.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 28, 2017, 07:54:30 PM »
If mankind had studied sand as long and as hard as man has studied the Sun and literally centuries of observation by tens of thousands of scientists had produced statistical findings as checked and rechecked as the movements of the Sun, then if the NOAA or whatever equivalent bureau of weights and measures told me there were one million and seven grains on a particular beach, I would either take their word for it or go about conducting my own repeatable, falsifiable and peer-reviewable experiment of my own.

Because that is science.

As far as latitude and longitude, how could that possible mean anything else?

Now, are you going to attempt the puzzle or not?
Still failing to understand the basic premise.

If you don't understand how it could possibly mean anything else, then you don't have the ability to understand the basic premise.

Rabinoz does.

No, I told you in my second post on this topic that my interest in this was the source of your data, not in doing a calculation. I know that's your interest in this, but it's not mine.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« on: December 28, 2017, 01:55:22 PM »
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.

"A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers." - Plato

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.” - Lord Kelvin

Pick one.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 28, 2017, 01:25:34 PM »
What issues? It's a trigonometric question. Either the data I gave is right, or wrong. Pick one. Then if you think it's wrong, provide right data so I can correct the problem. If it's right, choose whether you want to try the problem or not.

This is math, not philosophy.

"How many grains of sand are on this beach?"
"One million and seven!"
"No, I think your data is suspect. I think there are a lot more than that."
"Then give me the right number!"
"I can't."
"Then you are wrong and I am right!"
"I don't have to have the exact number to think your data is suspect. In fact, I said that very clearly a few minutes ago."
"If you think you are right and I am wrong, then give me the right number!"
"I don't think you're quite getting the point ..."

Also, if you think this question is solely mathematical, you're also missing the point regarding the whole framework of common belief. Specifying a point by longitude and lattitude, for example. Not everyone agrees on what that means.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 28, 2017, 01:08:56 PM »

So, you are saying the data is wrong?

No, I simply asked you how you got this "data".

You've answered the question, and that is all I need to know about the thoroughness of your understanding of the issues.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 28, 2017, 12:53:38 PM »

My data was sourced from based on latitude and longitude data provide by Wikipedia.

If you believe that data is faulty, I welcome you to use your zetetic skills to provide more accurate data as long as you submit it for peer review.

Calculations done by a government web site which already accepts round earth theory, based on data provided by a web-site where anyone can update data.

'Nuff said.

If I believe the data sources to be suspect, I can do so without providing more accurate data, as I am not attempting to do a calculation. I was simply asking about your sources before you continued any farther in this train of thought.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 28, 2017, 11:33:41 AM »
Here is a trigonometric problem to work out: On December 21st 2017(the solstice) in Ushuaia, Argentina (Lat 54° 48' S, Long 68° 18' W) at 09:00 UTC, the sun is at an azimuth of 121.59(to the southeast of one of the southernmost cities in the world) and an elevation of 7.0 degrees. At that same time, in Perth, Australia(31°57′8″S 115°51′32″E) the same sun is at an azimuth of 258.17(almost due west) an an elevation of 27.39 degrees.

Now, where is the sun on a Flat Earth map?

Please provide info on how you measured these values, especially at the same time.

Since all of Flat Earth theory relies on massive global conspiracies throughout every portion of government, industry, and academia, and since Zetetic Astronomy is based on observation (which most FE take to mean personal observation), then sourcing this information becomes a crucial question.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Rocket falls off truck.
« on: December 26, 2017, 11:55:17 AM »
That's one way to continue to avoid doing something stupid (a la Ken Carter). Way to go, Mike!

Observations of the Sun and Moon show that the angular size of each is not related to the daily elevation angle thoughout a day. Rather than just point out the comparison at noon/sunset (something that is frequently done and which then can lead the conversation off into some unnecessary directions) it is prudent to observe that the angular size remains constant for all elevation angles from sunrise to sunset.

If the Flat Earth model to which you refer is that the Sun and Moon move away from the observer without any intervening optical effect altering the angular size, and that the edges of both are physically the same size, then you are correct. The Sun would change angular size during the day.

There is therefore an inconsistency with either the assumptions or the model. The observation is not in dispute.

Flat Earth General / Re: Is a Flat Earth Rocket Scientist an oxymoron?
« on: December 11, 2017, 12:40:16 AM »
As I understand it, Mike Hughes is not necessarily a Flat Earther at the moment, but he will very likely become a true flat Earther after his next launch.

Does the Flat Earth Society hold to this position? (I.e., that the argument of a straight line visible horizon at altitude contradicts the spotlight sun, and therefore should not be used to argue for a Flat Earth?)

Experiments demonstrating the existance of Poisson's Spot (the diffractive "focus" point of an aragoscope) have been made and well understood for 200 years.

While the point is brighter than the surrounding shadow, the maximum power intensity on axis is no greater than the undisturbed wavefront (what would be present without the obscuration).

Even if everything else was correct (point source or collimated light, correct distances and sizes for whatever geometry you choose), the intensity at any point on the Earth would not be any greater than usual.

Yes that would be a more correct way of stating it

Thank you. I believe we now have a common understanding.

Let me rephrase my question from a few posts ago, though, which remains unanswered. I think we got off on a tangent of terminology.

I see many YouTube videos, images, etc. where people have taken images of the Earth from balloons, rockets, etc. They have laid a straight line over the lit vs unlit portion of the image. Captions read "Straight as an arrow," "Real balloon. No curve at 121,000 feet," "Over 20 miles high, Horizon still 100% Flat," "22.9 miles (121,000 ft) NO curvature visible!!."

To me this suggests that the logic being presented is "If the edge of the light/dark area is a straight line, that is evidence that the Earth is flat." This is a different interpretation than you and I just discussed. I suspected and you confirmed that the edge between light and dark should have a bent shape, not a straight shape.

Does this mean that photographic evidence showing a straight line between light and dark (or any attempt to do an experiment whose purpose is to show a straight line between light and dark) is not a valid argument for FE theory (because FE theory says that it should be a bent shape)?

Or maybe to put it in simpler terms: "People who put a straight line over an image of the visible edge of the Earth ... what are they trying to show?"

Round is how a flat, circular, horizon WOULD appear. It contradicts nothing.

Does that mean the interpretation of "The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high," is more precisely the following? (Let me add words to see if I get your meaning.):

"The horizon always appears perfectly flat which I see as the edge of an illuminated circle viewed from above the surface so I see its curved edge which extends 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon surface and I also see the edge of the illuminated circle which has a bent shape rather than a straight shape which is misinterpreted by many to be the curvature of a globe, from over 20+ miles high."

Sit on a flat surface and draw a circle around you. The edge being the limit of lighting.

The horizon will only appear flat when the observer is near the plane the circle resides on. Any distance upwards shrinks the circle's apparent diameter from infinite to 0.

So the author of  "The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high," is mistaken? And anyone who is trying to show that there is no apparent curvature at height therefore misunderstands the theory and is trying to prove a flawed premise? Is that right?


The expected result is a curved horizon. This isn't questioned by anybody in either theory.

Then I don't understand the goal of someone taking a photo at altitude to show an uncurved horizon. (Various independent balloon launches with cameras, rocket launches, or even views from airplanes.) Does this mean that they have a misunderstanding of the theory and are trying to show something that doesn't match previous observations?

Or there are many sites offering lists of things that prove FE. For example "The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high." (Google for citation, I'm not sure of the rules for posting links.)

It seems like somebody is wrong; the two positions appear to be at direct odds. (Either the horizon is always flat and spotlight sun is wrong; or spotlight sun is right, there is a visible curved edge and experiments to show no curvature have a logical flaw.) Is this just one of the points at which there are different camps on the theory that disagree? I'm having a hard time understanding the whole theory without choosing one or the other. Or am I missing something?

In the "Flat Earth FAQ - Please Read!" forum, second post ("The Flat Earth Wiki", December 12, 2008), the very end of the post states:

"It's also worth noting that if a person were to look down at the earth from high above, they would expect to see a circular shape where the sun's spotlight was shining. This explains why high altitude photographs are generally curved to produce the illusion of a round horizon."

I agree. This would logically follow from a spotlight sun.

Yet many examples, experiments, and proposed experiments of FE concentrate on showing that there is no visible curvature at altitude.

The two ideas seem mutually exclusive. Which should be expected? To see the curved edge of the illumination from the sun spotlight? Or to see an uncurved horizon?

Pages: 1 ... 50 51 [52]