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] 4 5 ... 38
61
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: PHEW THEOREM FOUND
« on: May 07, 2019, 11:52:04 AM »
So to summarize: "If the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is phew (3.17156), then that PROVES the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is phew (3.17156).

Cool.

Thank you Curiouser and Curiouser... This is a nice support. Sometimes I need the other's confirmation to convince myself.

Your understanding of propositional logic is as flawless as your mathematics.

62
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance
« on: May 07, 2019, 07:15:34 AM »
You heard about an ice wall.

You invented that it was thousands of km high based on nothing other than casual thought.
You stated "It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in." (Notwithstanding that keeping air "in" would require 200-ish km. Certainly not more than 600 km.)
Nope, you may well be able to orbit in the rarified gases at 200km, 600km, or more and a wall that height would keep 99% of the atmosphere in, but you let that last 1% leak over the top and the 99% that's left will expand and then the top 1% of that will leak away until you've got nothing less. Not 1% you think? Only 0.0001%? Fine, it'll just take longer, the Earth has been here long enough already.

Oh, is that now your invented process with invented values for how things work? (At 600 km, it's about 5 x 10^-12. That's 0.0001% of your 0.0001%). But by your unassailable logic, the same thing happens on a spherical Earth. Atmospheric molecules randomly collide and statistically a small percentage of them acquire sufficient kinetic energy to achieve escape velocity and are ejected into space (i.e., they "leak over the edge" of the gravity well). It's a small fraction, but the rest of the atmosphere will expand and the process continues until there's nothing left. It takes longer, but the Earth has been here long enough. By your reasoning, the Earth therefore has no atmosphere.

So, if you want to shoot this theory down, tell me, what's keeping the air in?

Off-topic. Pointing out your poor logic and rhetorical fallacies does not compel me to solve the problem for you.

Quote
You asked why we can't see this wall.
Yes, why can't we?

Quote
No one else believes in a wall thousands of km high.
Hardly anyone believes in the FE either, if belief is based on numbers you're on shaky ground too.

Quote
Positing a non-existent thing just to argue against it is a straw man.
Right, so now you're saying the whole of Flat Earth is a straw man?

Quote
The rest of your post about what I think and how I constructed my reply is rubbish -- another one of your inventions that is not true.
What, you think that what you think  isn't important? I think it is, tell me what you think keeps the air in. You do have an opinion don't you?

Quote
Your logical conclusion is that the only possible thing that keeps air in is your invented ice wall. You have shown no "logical conclusion" other than "Well, *I* can't think of anything, therefore it excludes all other explanations." That is why I think you don't understand what a logical conclusion is. Either that, or you do understand, and are intentionally trying to hoodwink readers.

We're never going to progress without a discussion. If you think logic leads in a different direction then tell me. Maybe you're a dome believer in which case you don't need a tall wall in your universe?

I already told you why you can't see the wall ... you invented it and it doesn't exist. Let's not play that game.

Belief isn't based on numbers (another of your inventions). But if no one has presented an explanation except you, and you use that to then argue why that explanation should not be used by your opponents, that's a fallacious argument. (E.g. Dragons at the edge keep the air in. The dragons need to fly around in the air to blow the air back. Why can't we see these dragons that you keep talking about?)

"The whole of Flat Earth is a straw man?" You really either don't understand or are being intentionally thick.

And then more off-topic nonsense.

Who says I have any interest in progressing? Your inability to understand simple logic and common rhetorical fallacies makes discussions like this wearisome and unproductive.

63
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: PHEW THEOREM FOUND
« on: May 06, 2019, 11:56:46 PM »
So to summarize: "If the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is phew (3.17156), then that PROVES the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is phew (3.17156).

Cool.

64
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance
« on: May 06, 2019, 11:18:04 PM »
Though also, why can't we see the top of the ice wall from across the whole flat earth? It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in.

Nice straw man. Where did you read this was a thing?

What's "straw man" about it? For a FE without a dome the ice walls need to be thousands of km tall to keep the air in, there's no mystery about that.

This is a position that you have made up, not held by any significant supporters of FE. If you care to dispute, provide examples of references to the "thousands of km tall" ice wall that is required to "keep the air in", as opposed to the 150 foot high ice wall referenced in Wikipedia, the wikis of tfes.org, theflatearthsociety.org, and numerous conversations here.

This is one of the clearest examples of a straw man that I have seen here ... inventing a position not held by any of your opponents so you can argue against that invented position.

Well someone made up all the parts of FET (mostly Rowbotham I suppose) so why can't I make something up and have it become part of FE canon? What makes one person's theories better than someone else's?

Because making up something and touting it as your opponents' position, just so that you can argue against it is the definition of a straw man argument. If your invented position was something that you suggested and then your opponent used as an argument in support of a position, then arguing against it is acceptable. What makes one person's "theories" better in this case is that it is an argument they actually make. Your "theory" is an argument that you made up just so you could argue with yourself.

Where did I claim it was a position held by other people here? From the number of people arguing against it in other threads I'd say it certainly isn't a position held by FEers. I'm not even arguing against it myself, I'm saying if there is an edge wall it must be thousands of km tall.

Quote
But anyway, ice wall thousands of km high. I didn't exactly make it up, ...

Yes, that's exactly what you did!

Yup, so you formulated a reply before reading the whole sentence....

Quote
it was just the logical conclusion of the problem of what's keeping the air in? (assuming a none-domed FE). I'm perfectly happy to hear and discuss your theory of what's keeping the air in.

I don't think you understand what a logical conclusion is.

...and then you read the rest of the sentence and realised you had nowhere else to go. So, a quick platitude and you hoped you got away with it without having to think about what is actually keeping the air in.

You heard about an ice wall.

You invented that it was thousands of km high based on nothing other than casual thought. You stated "It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in." (Notwithstanding that keeping air "in" would require 200-ish km. Certainly not more than 600 km.)

You asked why we can't see this wall.

No one else believes in a wall thousands of km high.

Positing a non-existent thing just to argue against it is a straw man.

The rest of your post about what I think and how I constructed my reply is rubbish -- another one of your inventions that is not true.

Your logical conclusion is that the only possible thing that keeps air in is your invented ice wall. You have shown no "logical conclusion" other than "Well, *I* can't think of anything, therefore it excludes all other explanations." That is why I think you don't understand what a logical conclusion is. Either that, or you do understand, and are intentionally trying to hoodwink readers.


65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance
« on: May 06, 2019, 01:43:02 PM »
Though also, why can't we see the top of the ice wall from across the whole flat earth? It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in.

Nice straw man. Where did you read this was a thing?

What's "straw man" about it? For a FE without a dome the ice walls need to be thousands of km tall to keep the air in, there's no mystery about that.

This is a position that you have made up, not held by any significant supporters of FE. If you care to dispute, provide examples of references to the "thousands of km tall" ice wall that is required to "keep the air in", as opposed to the 150 foot high ice wall referenced in Wikipedia, the wikis of tfes.org, theflatearthsociety.org, and numerous conversations here.

This is one of the clearest examples of a straw man that I have seen here ... inventing a position not held by any of your opponents so you can argue against that invented position.

Well someone made up all the parts of FET (mostly Rowbotham I suppose) so why can't I make something up and have it become part of FE canon? What makes one person's theories better than someone else's?

Because making up something and touting it as your opponents' position, just so that you can argue against it is the definition of a straw man argument. If your invented position was something that you suggested and then your opponent used as an argument in support of a position, then arguing against it is acceptable. What makes one person's "theories" better in this case is that it is an argument they actually make. Your "theory" is an argument that you made up just so you could argue with yourself.

But anyway, ice wall thousands of km high. I didn't exactly make it up, ...

Yes, that's exactly what you did!

it was just the logical conclusion of the problem of what's keeping the air in? (assuming a none-domed FE). I'm perfectly happy to hear and discuss your theory of what's keeping the air in.

I don't think you understand what a logical conclusion is.

66

If you want to get a job in the real world in many fields, you have to play by Round Earth Rules.


Many. But not most. Not by a long shot.

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance
« on: May 06, 2019, 10:09:09 AM »
Though also, why can't we see the top of the ice wall from across the whole flat earth? It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in.

Nice straw man. Where did you read this was a thing?

What's "straw man" about it? For a FE without a dome the ice walls need to be thousands of km tall to keep the air in, there's no mystery about that.

This is a position that you have made up, not held by any significant supporters of FE. If you care to dispute, provide examples of references to the "thousands of km tall" ice wall that is required to "keep the air in", as opposed to the 150 foot high ice wall referenced in Wikipedia, the wikis of tfes.org, theflatearthsociety.org, and numerous conversations here.

This is one of the clearest examples of a straw man that I have seen here ... inventing a position not held by any of your opponents so you can argue against that invented position.

68

But you should really be able to see something that's travelling 10 times faster than  speeding bullet?


I agree. You should.
Do you think you should be able to see something the size of a bus from 254 miles?

I think you could easily answer your own question by going out and looking. Just like you can see the reflection from a small mirror on a distant hillside, one can see the reflection off the ISS if the conditions are right.

Actual real world observations are not hoppy's strong suit.
I am an expert on real world observations. In case you aren't aware, CGI videos are not real world observations. Duh.

In case you weren't aware, nothing I have written in this quote cascade has anything to do with videos, CGI or otherwise. Unless you think that actual real world observations of fibers or mirrors on hillsides constitutes a CGI video. Your lack of real world observation skills is comically apparent.

69
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance
« on: May 05, 2019, 07:15:53 PM »
Though also, why can't we see the top of the ice wall from across the whole flat earth? It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in.

Nice straw man. Where did you read this was a thing?

70

But you should really be able to see something that's travelling 10 times faster than  speeding bullet?


I agree. You should.
Do you think you should be able to see something the size of a bus from 254 miles?

I think you could easily answer your own question by going out and looking. Just like you can see the reflection from a small mirror on a distant hillside, one can see the reflection off the ISS if the conditions are right.

Actual real world observations are not hoppy's strong suit.

71

But you should really be able to see something that's travelling 10 times faster than  speeding bullet?


I agree. You should.
Do you think you should be able to see something the size of a bus from 254 miles?

Certainly.

"Seeing" in this case means "detecting photons from." The angular size of the source is irrelevant.

Call your bus 27 feet long. At 254 miles it subtends 20 microradians.

If I have a single mode optical fiber with a core diameter of 4 microns, that subtends the same 20 microradian angle at a distance of 8 inches. From personal experience I know that I can see the light from that 4 micron diameter source from 20-30-40 even 100 feet away, as long as the source is bright and the room is dark.

Could I tell the difference between one large bus or two small buses that were 10 bus-lengths apart? Of course not.

72
Apparently light bends. In a one gee gravitational field. Something special to do with the universal accelerator because.... well no one knows why, someone just thought it sounded good and made an evidenceless claim.

Are you saying that on a sphere with a radius of 6300 km, a radial 1-g gravitational field at its surface, and a layer of gas that has a surface pressure of 1 bar and a scale height of 8.5 km light will always travel in a staright line, especially horizontally close to the surface?

73
I cannot figure out how the sun can rise or set with the version of a flat earth as accepted by this website.

From what I have been able to gather, the earth is a flat circular disc with a diameter of approximately 20,000 km. I get to this number by assuming that the equator is 10,000 km from the North Pole, and the southern ice wall is the same distance from the equator. At least, that is how your published maps look.

On this website I have seen various figures for the altitude of the sun, ranging from 1,100 km to 6,400 km. For the rest of this question I will assume 1,100 km as that is the best case for FE; any higher figure makes sunset even more impossible.

Now let us consider how the sun looks for someone at the North Pole. The furthest that the sun can possibly be away from the North Pole is 20,000 km, assuming it ever got near the southern ice wall. No FE maps show the sun that far south, but again, this is the best scenario for FE. Now, if the sun is 1,100 km high at a distance of 20,000 km, the angle between the horizon and the sun is given by simple trigonometry, as follows:

A = atan(1100/20000) = 3 degrees

If we assume the sun sits at an altitude of 6,400 km then we get

A = atan(6400/20000) = 18 degrees

In other words, even in the best (for FE) case, we can NEVER see the sun less than 3 degrees above the horizon. If the observer is farther south, or if we look at the sun at sunset instead of midnight, the observer will be closer to the sun, and hence the sun will appear even higher above the horizon.

Hence my question: please explain how we can ever see the sun sink below the horizon.

For people who live in the US (most FEers?) and do not understand my new-fangled metrics, here are (approximate) conversions:
20,000 km = 12,430 miles
6,400 km = 4,000 miles
1,100 km= 700 miles

Do your calculations assume that light always travels in straight lines?

(Yes, that is a rhetorical question.)

74
I agree. You should read the whole thread before claiming that he thinks the satellites arenít moving.

I claim no such thing.

Those satellites are haulin' ass!   ;D

Yes they are. While they appear stationary, they are moving at ~2 miles/sec.

Really? The streaks in your copy-'n-paste image are stars that sure are "haulin' ass" but the satellites are the minute almost stationary white dots.

No. The stars appear to move very slowly over the course of the night, speeded up in this video. The satellites are not stationary, but are moving at ~2 miles/second. They appear stationary. Hence my comment "difference between 'appears' and 'is'."

I never claimed that rabinoz thinks the satellites aren't moving. I asked why he said they were "almost stationary." Questions aren't claims.

My comment about a kneejerk answer is in response to rabinoz regurgitating values with an overly-impressive number of significant digits rather than address what I wrote.

Maybe you need some remedial education as well.

75
Those satellites are haulin' ass!   ;D


Really? The streaks in your copy-'n-paste image are stars that sure are "haulin' ass" but the satellites are the minute almost stationary white dots.
Some are hard to see but BADR-4/5/6, EUTELSAT 21B and some others are quite visible.

Why do you say the white dots are "stationary"? According to RE physics, they're the satellites and are "haulin' ass" at close to 2 miles/second against the background of fixed stars while the camera rotates to keep them in the same place in frame. Bullwinkle was reiterating the RE position that the satellites are haulin' ass and not talking about the video's moving streaks. Just as you wouldn't say "the ground really hauls ass away from the camera in this video."


A satellite above the equator at an altitude of 35,768 km orbits at 3074.66 m/s with a period of 23.93446 hours.
Since the earth rotates with a period of 23.93446 hours those satellites appear stationary relative to an observer on earth.

That's why they are called geostationary satellites and why they are so useful for communications and direct TV broadcasting.

Difference between "appears" and "is". Plus it helps to read the entire post and not just kneejeek an answer.

76
Those satellites are haulin' ass!   ;D


Really? The streaks in your copy-'n-paste image are stars that sure are "haulin' ass" but the satellites are the minute almost stationary white dots.
Some are hard to see but BADR-4/5/6, EUTELSAT 21B and some others are quite visible.

Why do you say the white dots are "stationary"? According to RE physics, they're the satellites and are "haulin' ass" at close to 2 miles/second against the background of fixed stars while the camera rotates to keep them in the same place in frame. Bullwinkle was reiterating the RE position that the satellites are haulin' ass and not talking about the video's moving streaks. Just as you wouldn't say "the ground really hauls ass away from the camera in this video."



77
Forgot that I'm never supposed to post in this forum.

78
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What's Pi's Answer?
« on: May 01, 2019, 11:10:33 PM »
By the way is there anything you wanna say/critisize about Phew?

Phew shares its day with St. Patrick's Day. (Lame.)
Pi shares its day with Steak and a BJ Day. (Hooray.)

Pi wins.

79
Flat Earth General / Re: Donut-Shaped Earth
« on: May 01, 2019, 11:03:54 PM »
Not all donuts are toroidal. Where I grew up there was a cafe/diner/coffee shop that made spherical donuts about the size of a baseball (my child's memory pictures them about the size of a softball). They were the cake-style donuts, with a thick sugar glaze. Yum!

80
Flat Earth General / Re: Spacex launched the ham satellite
« on: April 29, 2019, 11:13:20 PM »
As far as your beliefs, I do not put time into remembering who is atmolayer and who is stratalite or even that you are not FE.

If you don't pay attention to who says what, then what right do you have to criticize someone's position (that you can't remember)? You appear to simply lash out wholesale at anyone who does not 100% agree with you. And I don't just mean agree with your basic position, but agree with the arguments you use defending that position.

Everyone who does not clearly and simply say the earth is round and FE is ridiculous is attacking science and experts, ...

That's certainly an opinion.

and that is a greater danger than attacking RE. Conspiracy junkies are causing great harm. I do not know that you believe in several conspiracies, but I am guessing you do.

And like so many times before you don't look at what someone has said, but you assume that any criticism of your argument is a criticism of your position, and then project your own biases. You guessed ... poorly.

Pete and Peter say that water is not composed of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atom. Should all of us attempt to confirm that? If 99 people confirmed it, would the hundredth still have to do that experimentation themselves? Couldn't we appoint a couple of people to study up on it and figure it out and then tell the rest of us? We could get a lot more done, but that would require trust.

Who's we? Who gets to appoint? Who do you trust? A lot of people trust Fox News and Donald J. Trump on the topic of climate change.

You are encouraging distrust and solipsism, the idea that all you can know is what you have directly experienced.

Again, you're projecting. I encourage appropriate distrust. I encourage pursuing knowledge through experience because the opposite has gained favor with the public -- knowledge through experts and reference, where the experts and references are found on the internet with a lack of discrimination and source credibility, and an excess of confirmation bias.

Prosperity and advancement requires trust and expertise, and thus experts. Experts are not perfect, but they are good and necessary. You distrust and dismiss science teachers, would you have Wise, Danang, and Sandokhan teach them instead of the current teachers, or no science class at all because you can't trust anyone's expertise?

"You distrust and dismiss science teachers" I originally crafted a two word response to this, but that does not fully capture the rationale behind my disgust at this statement. Please find any statement I have made anywhere at any time that I either distrust or dismiss science teachers. I will await your apology. I *do* dismiss *you* because of your incessant need to litter the forums with typically ill-thought-out "gotcha" topics that are each intended to be definitive proofs.

Next time you use gps, you will be traveling according to the advice of experts you don't know, and you won't think for a minute they could be wrong. Your whole life is designed and built and operated by experts you haven't checked. Why start with checking whether the experts are right about the shape of the earth, ...

I don't.

why not start with checking whether they are wrong about atoms and molecules and lenses and temperature and momentum and chemistry and physics and biology. Quite a task you have before you can know much.

I actually do quite a lot of that.

I am guessing you will continue to use expertise without acknowledgement while opposing it, at least on FES.

Guess again.

81
Flat Earth General / Re: Spacex launched the ham satellite
« on: April 28, 2019, 12:41:36 AM »
Curioser and curioser - There are endless videos of hams talking through satellites. If I claim I did that, how is it stronger to you than those videos? Would you believe it if I spent the time and money to duplicate this myself? How would my video be more believable to you?  Would it be enough to attend a local ham club meeting and find people who have done this?

If I buy a radio and get a ham license (big project, actually, time and $$$) and build my own antenna and do the same as the ham videos, ...

Aren't you the one who said that "You personally can buy a radio and point a directional antenna at the point they tell you the satellite is, and hear the signal."? If it is such a big project actually of time and money, why are you suggesting that it is something I should do to convince myself of your argument when you won't?

you could just as easily say I faked it.

I could. But I suspected and am apparently correct that, like so many other times, you have no personal experience with a subject and are only taking someone else's words or videos as the source of your information. You previously suggest going to a local ham club meeting. Have you ever attended one? Or is this just another time you're touting something you have no personal experience with?

You could say that if you saw me do it in person. What would it take to prove satellites are up there? DirecTV does the same proof for millions every day. None of that means anything to you.

You seem to think that my concern is about the existence of satellites. It's not. My concern is about your attempt to prove it using a poor argument.

I think if I came to your house, roped you down, put toothpicks in your eyes to hold them open, ...

Ewwww! Gross, much? You think about these things?

and forced you to watch multiple hams doing this, also testimony from executives at Amsat, SpaceX, former astronauts, etc, then showed you an equatorial mount, shot the north star with a sextant and get latitude, or any other sequence of actions, you would have a way to invalidate everything. Those invalidations would not be organized believable scientific proofs. They would fall into two categories, proof of fakery and accusation of conspiracy. And the proof of both starts with "The earth is flat, so the explanation must be ...".

You seem to have a keen knowledge of what I think. How ... incorrect.

You are determined to believe the earth is flat and no evidence will sway you.

It's interesting that you come to these conclusions and go off on such a tangential and frankly disturbing tirade in response to me asking a polite question about your personal experiences with the topic that you started:


You personally can buy a radio and point a directional antenna at the point they tell you the satellite is, and hear the signal. Point away, no signals, definitely know the direction, and that direction changes as the satellite passes, as predicted by RE software.


I can, can I?

I would be interested to hear what happened when you bought yours.

And I'm a bit nauseated by your little abduction fantasy, so please don't post anything like that again.

82
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What's Pi's Answer?
« on: April 27, 2019, 10:19:00 AM »

The black boy got excessive volume  :o


That's an unfounded racist stereotype.

I'm not rasist at all. I meant the boy's cone was overloaded with corns.

Will you stop talking about black boys' cones? You're just making it worse.

83
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What's Pi's Answer?
« on: April 25, 2019, 11:20:41 PM »

The black boy got excessive volume  :o


That's an unfounded racist stereotype.

84
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Modern Language "Dilish"
« on: April 25, 2019, 12:52:25 PM »

Why do you want to discuss about oper instead of the issue? And you and some* other globulards like you crouton, are constantly doing this.


I don't want to discuss oper.

And there's no issue to discuss. Other than that you're a fool.

So, insulting is still the main argument of you globuretards.

The main argument is the entire book I referenced in my previous post.

I am, however, amused by your irony.

85
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Modern Language "Dilish"
« on: April 24, 2019, 11:53:05 PM »

Why do you want to discuss about oper instead of the issue? And you and some* other globulards like you crouton, are constantly doing this.


I don't want to discuss oper.

And there's no issue to discuss. Other than that you're a fool.

86
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Modern Language "Dilish"
« on: April 24, 2019, 11:21:33 PM »
The failures of invented languages such as Vela, Babm, Blissymbolics, and the invented languages of Wilkins, Somerset, Urquhart, Beck, Lodwick, and Dalgarno; as well as the underlying reasons why such languages fail are well chronicled in Akira Okrent's book, "In the Land of Invented Languages."

Wise has put about 10 minutes thought into his; some of the previous linguists put decades into theirs.

87
OP: You don't understand the meaning of the word "proves".

88
Flat Earth General / Re: Spacex launched the ham satellite
« on: April 22, 2019, 11:12:23 PM »

You personally can buy a radio and point a directional antenna at the point they tell you the satellite is, and hear the signal. Point away, no signals, definitely know the direction, and that direction changes as the satellite passes, as predicted by RE software.


I can, can I?

I would be interested to hear what happened when you bought yours.

89
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What's Pi's Answer?
« on: April 22, 2019, 11:03:30 PM »

If the umbrella & the corner areas are pools, and the umbrella pool water is to be moved into the corner pool, Phew's corner pool will accept the water in its exact capacity.
While the Pi's corner pool will be overloaded. :')


Or, "Area A = Area B, Area C < Area D."

You really need to learn simple mathematical language.

90
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.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 38