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 - Stash

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 102
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: All About maps
« on: March 13, 2020, 03:25:47 PM »
if you use chrome you can use google earth which proves the earth is round. you can even zoom in to see your own house!

We have proved its being not round by using google maps and a compass 1 dollar cost. You can search and find that issue.

Actually, you didn't. If you go back through the thread here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68217.0

You'll see that it comes down to you not believing in a magnetic north and a geographic north and subsequently discarding declination. You were even shown a map of Istanbul that calculated the 5 degrees of declination for you.

Google Earth and Google maps don't unto themselves prove anything about the shape of the earth. They do, however, use a spherical earth for their projections, calculations, distances, and presentation. And they seem to be extremely accurate.

32
Flat Earth General / Re: THAT'S WHY THE GAS BALLOON GOES TO UPWARDS.
« on: March 12, 2020, 08:01:11 PM »
Awesome! I like the complication, as it were. Air resistance should be the same, same size objects and both round so not a factor. But now we have height and seeming velocity increase...or not.

I'm gonna go with....

I want to see what Wise and the OP have to say. Lay it on us.
What matters is the ratio of downward force to the air resistance.
Let's see what the OP comes up with as that ratio.

33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this to me.........
« on: March 11, 2020, 04:45:59 PM »
Mr Totallackey has obviously got his mind made up about what he believes to be true and nothing will change that. That is fine since everyone is entitled to their opinion.
"Everyone is entitled to their opinion".
What makes totallackey a hypocritical, however, is his demand that we show a demonstration of something totally irrelevant to either the shape of the Earth or whether it rotates or not,
yet he refuses to show a similar demonstration of his Earth "model" so that we might evaluate it.
Alchemists huddling, wondering how they can deny what they see in front of their eyes everyday, ascribing something beyond 6 miles to fictional fantasy about a supposed curve.

Needing a model of flat when reality of flat is in front of them each and everyday.

"THE MATH IS RIGHT AND ADDS UP, AND YES, WE KNOW WHEN IT IS ENTERED TO RENDER AN OUTPUT, THE WHOLE THING BLOWS UP!", so...

it isn't necessary...

Toodle pip alchemists...

Listen, when, if, ever you actually have a point you can back up with evidence of any sort that would be a landmark moment. Because to date, you have never provided anything except for your personal brand of banal vitriol. Why is that?

What is the point you're trying to make? RE doesn't have a CGI model of the COSMOS and therefore all of its maths, science, explorations, calculations, etc, are bunk? Are you high? Can you not navigate your toaster oven because you don't have a CGI rendering as to how it fits into your city block? Give me a hit of whatever you're smoking, because it must me solid.

Figure out your own shit, your planar non-planet. How it works. Maybe throw in how a sunset works just for measure. In the mean time, we're tracking a gazillion things in space that could harm us while you're futzy around begging for math visualized that you will never understand.

'Toodle pip', I don't know what that means. It sounds a little gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. Just sayin'.

34
Flat Earth General / Re: THAT'S WHY THE GAS BALLOON GOES TO UPWARDS.
« on: March 11, 2020, 04:30:27 PM »
If you get the high as bottom of objects, then the center of weight of 1lb ball stays closer to the ground. In this point, air resistance affects should be calculated. We should calculate but I guess we can get small one hits first because of its center of weight is closer to the ground, hence it goes more than the bigger one. Ahaha. Not so easy, right?  ;D

Fair point, everything is always just a bit more complicated. How about this, a basket ball and a medicine ball. Both are the same size. The basketball weighs 1 lb and the medicine ball weighs 10 lbs.

Both dropped from the same height, we'll say 10', at the same time. Which one hit the ground first?
Near enough, but drop them from 1000', at the same time. Which one hit the ground first? Interesting . . . .  ?

Awesome! I like the complication, as it were. Air resistance should be the same, same size objects and both round so not a factor. But now we have height and seeming velocity increase...or not.

I'm gonna go with....

I want to see what Wise and the OP have to say. Lay it on us.

35
If anything goes wrong, you never reach your target. Look at all NASA info about it. Nothing! It was all automatic!
huh?   What was all automatic?
The trip to the Moon! The astronuts were just passengers/Hollywood actors. Great show.
Topic is my Challenge. The fuel! The toilet. Food and boz! Hollywood!

Actually the topic is how someone WON your challenge and you refused to pay up.

36
Flat Earth General / Re: THAT'S WHY THE GAS BALLOON GOES TO UPWARDS.
« on: March 11, 2020, 01:25:03 PM »
The downward reaction force of an object is its weight.
You have a 10 lb lead ball and a 1 lb lead ball. Both dropped at the same time from 10' high. Which one hits the ground first?
They cannot fall at the same time, this is precise information. :)
Which one hits the ground first?
Ahahaha. It changes which high you get as 10'. If you get the center of the objects, then it means 10lb lead ball closer to the ground. Hence, it hits first. Generally we get distance of objects with their center of weight, hence, most of the events, the bigger one hits first mostly.

If you get the high as bottom of objects, then the center of weight of 1lb ball stays closer to the ground. In this point, air resistance affects should be calculated. We should calculate but I guess we can get small one hits first because of its center of weight is closer to the ground, hence it goes more than the bigger one. Ahaha. Not so easy, right?  ;D

Fair point, everything is always just a bit more complicated. How about this, a basket ball and a medicine ball. Both are the same size. The basketball weighs 1 lb and the medicine ball weighs 10 lbs.

Both dropped from the same height, we'll say 10', at the same time. Which one hit the ground first?

37
Flat Earth General / Re: THAT'S WHY THE GAS BALLOON GOES TO UPWARDS.
« on: March 11, 2020, 12:51:02 PM »
The downward reaction force of an object is its weight.
You have a 10 lb lead ball and a 1 lb lead ball. Both dropped at the same time from 10' high. Which one hits the ground first?
They cannot fall at the same time, this is precise information. :)

Which one hits the ground first?

38
Flat Earth General / Re: THAT'S WHY THE GAS BALLOON GOES TO UPWARDS.
« on: March 11, 2020, 12:39:27 PM »
The downward reaction force of an object is its weight.

You have a 10 lb lead ball and a 1 lb lead ball. Both dropped at the same time from 10' high. Which one hits the ground first?

39
Flat Earth General / Re: THAT'S WHY THE GAS BALLOON GOES TO UPWARDS.
« on: March 10, 2020, 07:13:52 PM »
When the upward air pressure is higher than the downward reaction force of a gas balloon, the balloon moves upwards.

What is this 'downward reaction force of a gas balloon' you mention? Please describe.

40
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this to me.........
« on: March 10, 2020, 11:40:57 AM »
I am not a hypocrite:

I will grant you I haven't done any of the math in order to render a CGI version of anything that FET claims...
Yet you demand that we to the math for a CGI version of what RET claims.

This is the Flat Earth Society.

Why should we do the math and create a CGI RE model if you aren't willing to do the math and create a CGI  FE model?

Could it be that FE models are impossible?
I doubt it, since the earth is flat.

And that is all we are concerned with, in the end.

I just like pointing out the fact there is no CGI moving image of what the heliocentrist alchemists claim to be reality, when all you need to do is use the math you hold so dear...

Think of the "billions and billions," to be made Opus!!!

Get on it! QUICK!!!

Done. Billions have been made.

Check out the American Museum of Natural History - Hayden Planetarium ‘Digital Universe'

Download:

https://www.openspaceproject.com/

You can render simulations like this :



Now, what do you have?

41
Topic is human travel in space (post #1) and associated fuel consumption!

Actually, the topic is how someone already won the €1,000,000 challenge way back in 2015 and you welshed.

42
I got my hazmat suit from Amazon, finally. It's cleverly disguised as a fun costume.



I'm in.

43
Flat Earth General / Re: Dinosaurs: Made In China
« on: March 06, 2020, 12:02:23 PM »
Probably censorship.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

44
Not super scientific, perhaps just an indication of interest as google claims. Here's the Google Trends view:

Google search term: flat earth
Duration: Over the past 12 months
Gray I think means no data. The lighter the shade of blue, the less the "Interest"


45
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dem Watch 2020
« on: March 05, 2020, 06:29:25 PM »
Hard to keep up with these maniacs. Go Tulsi!!!


46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 04, 2020, 09:22:34 PM »
Nope. The string experiment stretches a string across our spherical field of vision. It does not prove that the illuminated part of the Moon is pointing at the Sun.

Yeah, strangely, it does. The string is taut, straight line, angle to angle. Try it and you will see. Until you do the experiment I don't see how you in good conscious and zetetically can refute it. Let us know what you find after you do the experiment.

47
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 04, 2020, 07:00:28 PM »
It's explained in the Wiki link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Flat_Earth_Moon_Tilt

Literally, a piece of string and an actual observation is all that is needed to nullify your entire wiki entry.

Not even addressing the argument given to you. Your tactic is to post and to pretend that it does not exist. I see that you concede the issue.

Hardly, the argument is that a piece of string, strung taut between the moon and sun can't demonstrate that the angle of shadow on the moon lines up. When done, it does and clearly shows that the sun and moon are in alignment. All I need is a piece of string to demonstrate that unequivocally.

You, on the other hand, created a massive wiki page attempting to dispel this very simple notion and somehow weave in EA by just posting that old bendy light EA pic. I see nothing on the wiki page that achieves either especially considering that all you need is a piece of string to show your error.

Your argument has been addressed and dispensed with. Come back with doing the string experiment and show how it does not depict reality. Seriously, you obviously have not done it. It's really cool and shows you exactly what's going on.

Again, you fail to even address the argument. The argument was posted in this thread several times, and you run from it. "The string experiment proooooves it" is an uncompelling response when there is information which shows that your "string experiment" proves no such thing.

Not addressing the arguments given to you = concession of the discussion.

But that's just the thing, there is nothing that shows that the string experiment isn't astoundingly accurate. Nothing. You just keep positing your wiki link, but the wiki link doesn't explain it away. What specific information shows that the the string experiment doesn't elucidate reality? None.

The uncompelling response is that you choose not to zetetically test it for yourself. Why?

And again, back to the double standard. You've got all kinds of 'perspective' 'optical' anomalies, 'atmospheric magnification', sprinkle in some EA when required, etc., corralled around something as simple as a Sunset. Yet when confronted with the moon terminator illusion, using a simple piece of string is all you need to show it is just that. An illusion. You're all up in arms as to how what we see can't be an illusion because that would be anathema? Just how many ways do you want to have things?

Get the string, do the experiment and report back.

48
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 04, 2020, 06:30:03 PM »
It's explained in the Wiki link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Flat_Earth_Moon_Tilt

Literally, a piece of string and an actual observation is all that is needed to nullify your entire wiki entry.

Not even addressing the argument given to you. Your tactic is to post and to pretend that it does not exist. I see that you concede the issue.

Hardly, the argument is that a piece of string, strung taut between the moon and sun can't demonstrate that the angle of shadow on the moon lines up. When done, it does and clearly shows that the sun and moon are in alignment. All I need is a piece of string to demonstrate that unequivocally.

You, on the other hand, created a massive wiki page attempting to dispel this very simple notion and somehow weave in EA by just posting that old bendy light EA pic. I see nothing on the wiki page that achieves either especially considering that all you need is a piece of string to show your error.

Your argument has been addressed and dispensed with. Come back with doing the string experiment and show how it does not depict reality. Seriously, you obviously have not done it. It's really cool and shows you exactly what's going on.

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 04, 2020, 06:14:51 PM »
It's explained in the Wiki link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Flat_Earth_Moon_Tilt

Literally, a piece of string and an actual observation is all that is needed to nullify your entire wiki entry.

50
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dem Watch 2020
« on: March 04, 2020, 05:34:36 PM »
Not sure but I think they usually pick one after they win the nomination.

The times this has happened during the primary it sort of comes off like a stunt.

It's also one of those things that you'd think really shouldn't matter.  They don't do much of anything.  They're just a spare president.

A name I've heard a lot is Stacey Abrahms.  No ideal why but the establishment democrats seem to really like her.

Perhaps it's more a non-contested convention thing to pick your running mate before the convention.

- Mitt announced Ryan 2 weeks before
- McCain announced Palin days before
- Obama announced Biden 2 days before

51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 04, 2020, 05:17:52 PM »
Again, a reading comprehension issue. I did not claim that the string experiment would not work. You are claiming that it proves that the illuminated part of the Moon points at the Sun. As described in the Wiki, it does no such thing

Regardless as to how you describe it in the wiki, it is not wrong. It, in fact works: The straight, taut string draws a line between the moon and sun AND demonstrates that the sun is pointing at the moon at the right angle. So it doesn't just "work" it is direct empirical evidence that the angles line up. Right before your very binocular eyes.

Just because you write something in your wiki doesn't make it right. If you actually did the string experiment you would see that it tells the whole story.

And the big part you're missing is that EA tells none of the story, predictively, mathematically, or otherwise. And all I need is a string. This seems to relate to the double standard.

52
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 04, 2020, 04:59:06 PM »
The "string experiment" is addressed. It does not prove that the illuminated portion of the Moon is pointing at the sun. You have not addressed the Wiki.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#String_Experiment

Quote
String Experiment

Along the same lines as the above, we are given reference to "string experiments" in which the direction of the Moon's illuminated portion is able to be connected to the sun with a string.


Credit: Bobby Shafto

Do the string experiment yourself. C'mon, get out there and do it. From the Myer paper:

"Fix this direction by stretching a piece of string taut in front of your eye; however unlikely it may have seemed to you at first you will now perceive that the condition of perpendicularity is satisfied."

I've done it, it's a mind blowing illusion. Hence the name. The string is in your hands and it's a straight line. What's more Zetetic than that? Live a little.

As well, the paper goes on to create predicative formulas for the effect. What's EA got?

53
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 04, 2020, 04:27:42 PM »
There's a lot more in-depth discussion around this point in the paper. Did you read it or just pluck out graphics you liked?

The arguments in the paper are discussed. Blindly pointing to a paper which you do not understand is insufficient. You can't even understand the argument to present it yourself.  You are posting random quotes about lines becoming arcs in the sky and insisting it as truth.

Tom, we spent like 19 pages once just begging you to go outside and do the string experiment. You know, all zetetic like. You refused. That's all you have to do is stretch a string. It's taut. It's a straight line between the sun and moon, the light cast is straight and spot on. That's referred to as reality.

In the Meyers paper they even come up with formulae to predict this phenomenon. Where's the predictive element to EA in all this?


Quote from: Stash
From the wiki: "When you lay on your back you can see 190 degrees of space1" There is no reference for this in the wiki. Binocular vision (2 eyes at once) is around 120. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision

Follow the 1 superscript in the text that you quoted. It's right there.

It also says 190 degrees right in that link you provided:

Quote
humans have a maximum horizontal field of view of approximately 190 degrees with two eyes, approximately 120 degrees of which makes up the binocular field of view (seen by both eyes)

See? It says 190 degrees, in the very source that you claim to have read. You apparently did not read it at all.

Binocular.

Try the string experiment. It works. It is revelatory.

54
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dem Watch 2020
« on: March 04, 2020, 04:11:17 PM »
Awesome way to waste half a billion dollars.

Your ignorance of politics and how it works is stunning. 

500 million to get whatever job you want in the Biden cabinet...  that's loose change for Bloomberg.   

Oh,  don't forget to watch Klobuchar....  this could be interesting.

To that end, the next big parlor game will be about running mates. Considering that perhaps this is going to be a contested convention, I think, at least historically, they walk in with their VP nominee. Odds on favorite, Biden snags Klobuchar. Bernie?

(Maybe Bernie picks Michelle Obama - Now that would be a convention to watch...)

55
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 04, 2020, 03:47:14 PM »
I think you misread the paper. Meyers does does state "light curving" like it's actually physically curving. It's stated: "The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere."

Much like this:

https://i.imgur.com/qKda5lc.gif

Arguing that the Moon Tilt Illusion occurs because straight lines appear as curves in the sky is an invalid argument, as no mechanism for this is given. Literally nonsense.

You just claimed that "Myers says that light curving on the the "celestial sphere" is causing it." When Myers did not state that. Lot's of 'mechanism' is given for great circles appearing as arcs.
"While the slope of any straight line in 3-D space with respect to any plane is constant, the observed slope of the line changes according to the position of the observer and his line of sight. Similarly, when taking a photograph of the line, its slope recorded on the 2-D photographic image will depend upon the specific direction in which the camera is pointed."

There's a lot more in-depth discussion around this point in the paper. Did you read it or just pluck out graphics you liked?

Arguing that the Moon Tilt Illusion occurs because EA indiscriminately and absent of predictive qualities bends light in the sky is an invalid argument, as no mechanism for this is given. Literally nonsense.

Quote from: Stack
Yes, you addressed it, but not very well nor comprehensively because the string does demonstrate where the moon is pointing. Your wiki entry mentions something about laying on your back you can see 190 degrees of space. How does that work when I as a human can only see about 120 degrees.

That's an easy one. You are wrong. We can see 190 degrees, not 120 degrees. There is a source for that statement in the Wiki. This can be solved by a quick google search before posting.

From the wiki: "When you lay on your back you can see 190 degrees of space1" There is no reference for this in the wiki. Binocular vision (2 eyes at once) is around 120. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_vision

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 04, 2020, 03:12:08 PM »
Quote from: Stash
In the Myers paper you cite several times in the wiki they explain, "The cause of the moon tilt illusion is simply that the observer is not taking into account that the observed slope of the light ray will change when he turns his head to observe the moon and sun." As well there is a whole section on how to express/predict the degree of the illusion. I didn't see any EA predictive qualities in the wiki.

Literally, the string experiment is all you need. You tried to counter that with the lying on the ground thing with a tree top and a cabin roof with something about 190 degrees of view (humans binocular stand around 120 degrees) but that example didn't make any sense.

The string is all you need.

Actually, Myers says that light curving on the the "celestial sphere" is causing it.

I think you misread the paper. Meyers does does state "light curving" like it's actually physically curving. It's stated: "The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere."

Much like this:



The string experiment is addressed at https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#String_Experiment and does not explain or demonstrate anything about where the Moon is pointing.

Yes, you addressed it, but not very well nor comprehensively because the string does demonstrate where the moon is pointing. Your wiki entry mentions something about laying on your back you can see 190 degrees of space. How does that work when I as a human can only see about 120 degrees. Try the string for yourself then you will see.

57
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dem Watch 2020
« on: March 04, 2020, 12:25:28 PM »
Looking forward to an MMA Octagon bout between Bernie & Biden at the convention...



And Gabbard.  Don't forget Gabbard.

OMG, totally. She's a badass and would beat those two silly.

58
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 04, 2020, 12:22:55 PM »
RE conceded without further rebuttal, unable to justify the obviously wrong perspective explanation.

Where did this occur?

Every time we discussed the content of the link on the websites, and again just now, when you responded with a question rather than a rebuttal and answer.

Huh, ok. A rather strange way yo back up your claim, but whatever works for you.

In the Myers paper you cite several times in the wiki they explain, "The cause of the moon tilt illusion is simply that the observer is not taking into account that the observed slope of the light ray will change when he turns his head to observe the moon and sun." As well there is a whole section on how to express/predict the degree of the illusion. I didn't see any EA predictive qualities in the wiki.

Literally, the string experiment is all you need. You tried to counter that with the lying on the ground thing with a tree top and a cabin roof with something about 190 degrees of view (humans binocular stand around 120 degrees) but that example didn't make any sense.

The string is all you need.

59
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dem Watch 2020
« on: March 04, 2020, 11:39:48 AM »
Looking forward to an MMA Octagon bout between Bernie & Biden at the convention...


60
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: March 04, 2020, 11:30:12 AM »
RE conceded without further rebuttal, unable to justify the obviously wrong perspective explanation.

Where did this occur?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 102