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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 38
991
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Humanity Star
« on: January 31, 2018, 10:54:33 AM »
I also can't tell the difference from between them.
And the object in video one does not increase in brightness over the frame.

It gets brighter then darker due to the nature of the camera.

Nothing to do with shadows.
You asked if anyone can tell a difference and to explain what the difference is. I've done so.

Flimsy wibbly wobbly "nature of the camera" argument? Grasping at straws.

Sorry to see you leave.

992
Can you please prove to me mathematically that 1 + 1 = 2?
I cannot, master control computer! Do not try to fool me with your "mathematics."

As stated in the OP, that "proof" cannot be shown with absolute certainty to exist.

993
An absolutely irrefutable argument that the earth is flat.

Consider the following. The earth is flat. Also, I am per the classic philosophical supposition, a "brain in a vat." All my perceived external senses are electrical inputs from a master control computer whose purpose is to deceive me. All data regarding the spherical earth is false. All posters on this board do not exist (that's one aspect of this argument that is appealing) and are simulated by the master control computer. All arguments from logic that lead me to a conclusion that the earth is spherical are constructed by the master control computer to make me think a certain way. Even mathematics is in question. I may think that 2 plus 2 equals 4, but in reality 2 plus 2 may equal 53814, but at the moment I attempt to calculate the sum of 2 plus 2, the master control computer sends signals to my brain to make me think the sum is 4.

There is no argument that can be made to contradict the proposal that the earth is flat.

994
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Humanity Star
« on: January 31, 2018, 09:34:01 AM »
Irrelevant.

My question is: do these three videos appear to show the same phenomenon?

This one is of an alleged satellite:



It looks very much like the videos of NEOs to me.

Here are two:






Yep - can't tell any difference at all.

Can anyone else?

If so explain what the difference is please.

Why is this request so hard for you?
There are significant differences visible in the videos, including telescope field of view, camera exposure, object brightness.

The significant difference for the purposes of NEO versus satellite is that the object in Video 1 increases in brightness over the frame, explicitly stated by the video poster as satellite coming out of shadow. The objects in Videos 2 and 3 do not.

Whether or not one "can't tell any difference at all" depends on how much attention and care one takes in one's observation.

Another indication of attention and care is the selection of three videos to make a point when the data space is much larger. But care and attention to detail ... not really a thing here.

995
Flat Earth General / Re: Research Project on Flat Earth
« on: January 31, 2018, 08:47:55 AM »
This is unlikely to be as useful as you'd like.

There is only one common idea to FE. "The Earth is flat." All else is contended.

As you can read in the fora, keeping things civil is quite rare.

Good luck.

996
Flat Earth General / Re: The Model Doesn't Fit Reality
« on: January 31, 2018, 07:32:34 AM »
So I don't even know who you're all trying to talk to.

Do you really not appreciate how mental your chatbot ramblings come across as?
And you're talking to a bot?

Who are you trying to talk to?

You funny!

997
So, cut a 10 inch circle out of yellow paper to represent the sun ...
Oh, but you've completely missed the point. The OP requests a single light source, not a piece of yellow paper! Watch as you're berated for not following the demands of the OP, and how silly you are for even suggesting it, and gee, how simple would it have been to just follow directions, can't you even do something that simple?

Welcome to the show.

998
Are you saying that ambient light do not have an effect on a shadow?
Are you saying that ambient light will affect the shadow in a way to produce light as bright as the single source?

Also, the flashlight is a concentrated light beam and not an ambient light source like our sun in our solar system.
First the sun is a single source, now it's an ambient light source? Which is it?

Why don't you do this experiment with sunlight and everything will be settled once and for all.
The OP question only asked about a single light source. It did not specify sunlight.

And since rabinoz did use sunlight, I suppose the matter is now settled once and for all.

(Why do I think it won't end here?)

I think that this is reasonable request to ask, since the sun light is responsible of the moon's shadow
But in your example, sunlight isn't the only light source. You've neglected that starlight and planetlight will also be present and will have an effect on the moon's shadow. (I know ... I was in the path of totality and clearly saw Venus and Mars and stars, so they were illuminating the "shadow"!)

999
NO, in the photos their are two light sources, the flashlight and the ambient light!
Ah, the argument from nitpickery.

That's easy enough to play.

Please show that there are two light sources in the photo. Show that what you are calling ambient light is not multiple diffuse reflection from screen, table, and surrounding screens set up for photo.

1000
This is for the SE out there, can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area from a single light source?

You might ask why?

Because the moon casted a shadow of only 70 miles in diameter last August in the eclipse. Since the moons diameter is supposedly 2000 miles, then, Huston we have a problem!!!!

But there will be a bunch of “scientist” out there, that will try to confuses everybody with mumbo jumbo, so let’s make it simple.

Instead of writing your garbage, how about you take a photo of the shadow of a solid with of a single light source and show that its shadow is smaller than its cross section area that is perpendicular?

Simple question, deserves a simple photo!
So the upshot to the smug OP author is that simple thought experiments, when examined, don't always give you the answer you've convinced yourself is correct.

1001
1) and 2) OP didn't ask about the Sun,  it asked about a single light source.

3) I can provide higher res images where the cent is more obvious.

But, yes, I imagine there will be all sorts of arguments about something or other.

1002
Here's what you asked for:



First two photos - light source close to screen, light source at distance from screen
Subsequent photos - US Lincoln Cent held by tweezers shown at varying distances from screen. Second cent attached to screen for size comparison.

Q: Can an object cast a shadow smaller than its cross section area?
A: Yes.

1003
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Humanity Star
« on: January 30, 2018, 01:17:44 PM »
Oh, quit it with all of your ad botinem attacks.

1004
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Underside
« on: January 30, 2018, 09:32:27 AM »
What is on the underside of the flat earth? And can it by reached?
FE theory has only speculation. As such, many suppositions or "We don't know" replies.

No one has tried.

1005
Instead of writing your garbage, how about you take a photo of the shadow of a solid with of a single light source and show that its shadow is smaller than its cross section area that is perpendicular?

Simple question, deserves a simple photo!
I agree. Disappointing that no responses so far have been the simple photo you asked for.

Cloudy here today ... I'll be happy to provide a photo taken in sunlight when it clears.


1006
Flat Earth General / Re: How Can the Earth Be Constantly Accelerating?
« on: January 28, 2018, 12:54:06 PM »
Actually this website's FAQ says that nothing can accelerate past the speed of light.
Not everything this website's FAQ states is necessarily true.

1007
Flat Earth General / Re: How Can the Earth Be Constantly Accelerating?
« on: January 28, 2018, 09:54:17 AM »
And, nothing can exceed this speed of light, according to FET. ... What makes the Universe a special exception to this overarching rule that nothing can exceed the speed of light? If an exception is made, doesn't that break down the fundamental concept that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. ... The only thing known today that can accelerate through nothing is light, due to it being an electromagnetic wave.
No part of FET says that nothing can exceed the speed of light.

There is no fundamental concept that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

Electromagnetic waves do not accelerate.

1008
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How can there be waves in the ocean
« on: January 28, 2018, 09:48:34 AM »
Waves are created by the movement of the plates of the Earth.
In the flat Earth theory, how can there be waves?
Most waves are caused by wind. Tsunami waves are caused by Earth movement. Nothing in FE denies Earth movement.

1009
Flat Earth General / Re: Fighter Jet and Curvature of the earth
« on: January 27, 2018, 08:40:14 PM »
How about if the said jet takes off the ground @ an angle of 27 degrees, gains height and then goes down (same angles) back to horizontal.
A jet that takes off at an angle of +27 degrees, gains altitude, and then changes angle by -27 degrees will not be flying horizontally.


1010
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is a "satellite"?
« on: January 26, 2018, 10:24:08 PM »
What are the characteristic properties of these aircraft?

Size: Large, small, unknown?
Altitude: Low, high, unknown?
What makes them illuminated?
Are these aircraft ever observed during the day?
Are these aircraft ever observed taking off or landing?

Thank you.

1011
Flat Earth General / Re: Fighter Jet and Curvature of the earth
« on: January 26, 2018, 03:22:46 PM »
400 mile runway??
It's a thought experiment. Just not a particularly well-thought-out one.

1012
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is a "satellite"?
« on: January 26, 2018, 02:31:10 PM »
Such trivial effort that you avoid needing to give it. You just expect everyone to take your word for it, even if you have nothing. And of course they do because why would anyone doubt RET?
I don't expect you to take my word for anything. I am asking a question about possibilities and thoughts on FE. I have discounted some possibilities and am asking for more.

Please address the question asked and don't turn this into a debate. I already had one question thread derailed and moved out of Q&A by off-topic responses.

Please follow forum rules.

To keep it on-topic:

"Other than airships, helicopters, balloons, planes, and natural phenomenon like meteors, what are the possible non-traditional explanations that FEers cite to explain the tiny dots of light that move across the night sky that some call satellites?"

Thank you.

1013
Flat Earth General / Re: Fighter Jet and Curvature of the earth
« on: January 26, 2018, 12:23:42 PM »
The average curvature of the earth is 7.98 inches per mile. So it would be1596 inches (133’) in 200 miles.

Let we have 400 miles perfectly or ideal leveled runway. A fighter jet starts its journey from one end of the runway and increases Its speed till it reaches to a maximum speed of 2500 km/h (or increases its speed beyond the limit which requires for its flying in the air) in the first stretch of 1 or 2 miles from the starting end. So will this jet lift off the ground automatically in air due to a curvature of the earth?
No
The said jet takes off in a normal way. After few minutes it turns its nose upward and shoots straight vertically up into the sky. This jet is now making 90 degrees vertical angle with the tangent of curvature of the earth just below it. After some time, the pilot decides to fly on the imaginary line in an airspace, which is parallel to the above tangent. So he abruptly turns its nose down (90 degrees) and starts flying on his desired line in the airspace. So will this jet gain elevation if fly for 100 miles on the same said line?
Yes

1014
Flat Earth General / Re: Research Flat Earth #ShootTheMoon
« on: January 26, 2018, 11:05:33 AM »
Sound like a devious plot to clandestinely catalog the home locations of FE Society members.

Besides, if you're going to do the calculations based on GPS (i.e., "satellite") coordinates ... which are all based on a coordinate system mapped onto a globe ... of course, the result will be consistent with showing a globe. Sheesh ... somebody's not thinking about the big picture.

If you choose to participate in this clear attempt at data-mining, make sure you at least go down the street and stand in front of the old guy's house with the anti-government bumper stickers. That way he'll get taken out, not you.

1015
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth is not flat, stop believing that it is.
« on: January 26, 2018, 10:15:49 AM »
Want some proof? Here's the International Space Station Live Feed. I'm pretty sure that the government, with already an overwhelming debt, would not keep a live 24 hour feed of the ISS orbiting the earth if it was just a sham.

ISS 24 Live Feed: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream
I'm pretty sure you haven't watched your "proof." At no time has this 24 hour live feed shown a single orbit of the ISS without significant blue screen "Loss Of Signal." While it may be entertaining, it certainly isn't proof.

1017
Flat Earth General / Re: Super Blue Blood Moon
« on: January 26, 2018, 01:26:50 AM »
If you feel it is dangerous, why?
What symptoms or illness could befall a person?
I personally feel a touch of the vapors coming on ...

1018
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« on: January 25, 2018, 02:21:10 PM »
You guys are all so adorable!

1019
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Humanity Star
« on: January 25, 2018, 01:20:11 PM »
... Flat Earthers! ... you could simultaneously measure it's azimuth and elevation from two locations
No, I seriously doubt it.

1020
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is a "satellite"?
« on: January 25, 2018, 12:48:17 PM »
Airships, helicopters, balloons, planes, projections, natural phenomenon like meteors...
Are there any that can't be excluded with 5 seconds of thought? Airships, helicopters, balloons, planes, natural phenomenon like meteors can all be eliminated with trivial effort.

You'll have to explain projections in more detail. While airships, helicopters, balloons, planes, natural phenomenon like meteors have been shown independently to exist in the sky, "projections" is a new one.

Other respondents?

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 38