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 ... 132
31
Flat Earth General / Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 06, 2020, 05:21:26 PM »
You can receive radio waves from many thousands of kilometres away on the planet. If the Earth were spherical, these waves would get lost to space. Clearly the Earth is flattish

Depends on the frequency of radio waves.

"Line of Sight (Space Wave)
With this method of travel, radio waves are sent as a simple beam of light from point A to point B. This method was commonly used in old-fashioned telephone networks that had to transmit calls over a long distance between two massive communication towers.

Ground Wave (Surface Wave)
You can also send radio waves along the curvature of the earth’s surface in the form of a ground wave. You’ll find AM radio waves traveling in this manner for short to medium distances, which is why you can still hear radio signals even when there isn’t a transmitter and receiver in your line of sight.

Ionosphere (Sky Wave)
Last, you can also send radio waves straight up into the sky, which ends up bouncing off of the earth’s ionosphere, which is an electrically charged part of the atmosphere. When you do this, the radio waves will hit the ionosphere, bounce back down to earth, and bounce back up again. This is the process of mirroring a wave, bouncing it back and forth to its final destination.
"
https://www.autodesk.com/products/eagle/blog/wireless-basics-radio-waves-work/


32
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: August 06, 2020, 12:29:27 PM »
No conspiracy theories. I just show that Nuclear Bombs don't exist.
Saying that nuclear bombs are fake propaganda and eye witnesses are paid actors is a conspiracy theory.
No, I just say nuclear bombs do not work. They were invented 1945.

Part of your "explanation" that they don't exist is that the fact they don't really exist is covered up by the many nations that claim to have them. As well as those many nations convincing the populace they do in fact exist. That whole part I just described is a 'conspiracy' to hide the fact that they don't exist from the world. The Conspiracy is part and parcel of your "explanation". Because you are claiming they don't exist you are also defacto claiming a conspiracy is afoot to hide the fact they don't exist. Hence, you are a conspiracy theorist. You need a conspiracy for you to be right. Do you not get that?

As an aside, your "explanation" still is just the culmination of some conversations you had with a couple of Japanese people and a girl you met in a bar. That's not much to go on to claim the atomic nations of the world are conspiring together to hide the fact that a-bombs don't exist. But that's what conspiracy theorists do, make unverifiable personal claims that have no real bearing or relevance on the wider array of facts available.

33
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: August 05, 2020, 10:43:02 AM »
No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."

Funny, you stole and posted the same exact thing back in 2017:

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."


There too you did not cite the author of these words. Why is that? Why do you continue to plagiarize people? That's probably not the funniest part though. The funny part is that back in 2017 when you copy and pasted someone elses words the above was prefaced with this:

If the earth is at rest, can she still be round? If yes then why, if no then why?

The earth is motionless, there isn't the slightest doubt about that, now since we know for the fact that the earth is at rest, round-earth hypothesis isn't sustainable any more for many reasons.

What happened? You were stealing other people's words back then in support of a flat earth. Then fast forward 3 years and you're still stealing the exact words to support a motionless globe earth. Which is it?

34
No, it was to encourage people to try to win my Challenge and learn about various governments lies.
And here I thought that it was about teaching you some physics. ::)
The Challenge is just to be won. The prize is truth and knowledge.

Operation fishbowl is real: I was eye witness to it. Your claim is wrong.
Topic is not your eyesight. If you are not blind, see post #1 about topic.
No, the topic is your affliction with Dunning-Kruger.
See post #1 about topic.

See all the posts that show you are retarded.

So many posts reveal the retardation. And worse still, they reveal that he is in no way a 'safety at sea' expert. If anything is a hoax or a conspiracy, it's that Heiwa is a bonafide, respected maritime engineer. It's kind of shameful really. He made up the money, the challenges and the expertise in the maritime industry. It's all a lie. Sad raelly.

35
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Qanon Conspiracy
« on: August 04, 2020, 04:30:51 PM »
I stumbled upon this today on Digg and am super into infographics so I thought it was worth checking out:

Interview with the Mapmaker
I spoke to the man who designed the QAnon and 5G infographics you’ve seen circulating online.
https://endoftheworld.substack.com/p/interview-with-the-mapmaker?utm_source=digg

Holy crap, these people are for realz. Here's one of his "maps"...Yikes...


36
Flat Earth General / Re: Nexus Rings
« on: August 04, 2020, 01:41:19 PM »
"Inability to measure something doesn't prove that it doesn't exist."
(It also doesn't prove that it does, but that doesn't help us.)

"Missing" orbital Sagnac effect is simply inability of the current instruments to detect it.
Rotation of the Earth can be measured, it is 15 degrees per hour.
Around the Sun we have much slower angular speed.
To be able to detect the interference we simply need higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths), and different sensitivity band of the detecting components.
The "Missing orbital Sagnac effect" is just missing from the readings.

And I wouldn't even go so far as to use the word "missing". It's unnecessary if it's anything. Why measure something you don't need? This always comes up when we talk about GPS satellites. GPS satellites don't need to measure the orbital Sagnac effect to do their job. A job they do extremely well and very, very accurately without it. GPS satellites need only concern themselves with their relationship to Earth, they care not for their relationship to the Sun. So again, there's no need to read, measure, capture, compute something that is unnecessary for that device to function. Nothing is "missing".

37
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Did Vukovar Massacre really happen?
« on: August 04, 2020, 01:27:27 PM »
But, yes, I've published a few papers in peer-reviewed journals about my alternative interpretation of the names of places in Croatia.

It's amazing how many people here say "I am not a conspiracy theorist" when trying to spread their conspiracy theories.

Can you give a reference link to the paper you published in a peer-reviewed Journal?  All I see is a web page.
Conspiracy theory is only worth the name if it's explaining something which can be explained without a conspiracy with a conspiracy. Massacres can't be explained without conspiracies.

I don't know if any of my linguistic papers are available on-line. One of them is mentioned here: https://www.radionasice.hr/18-hrvatski-dani-u-sopronu/

You are a conspiracy theorist, and denying it doesn't make it so.

If it was published you will have references to the Journal name and date.  The full paper may not be available but there will be a listing of it.
If I am a conspiracy theorist, then so are you, because you claim there was a conspiracy to cover up a massacre which actually happened.

If you read the short article I linked to, you would have known the journal name and the year.

What even are you talking about?  You're the one claiming all these massacres didn't happen and are all made up conspiracies by various governments and whomever.

And I read the article after Google translated it.  I didn't find any mention of a peer reviewed journal article.  It's like pulling teeth... just give the name of your article, the journal it was published in and the month and year.  It can't be THAT hard to copy/paste the info from a journal you went through the trouble of getting reviewed, accepted and published.
Do you agree with me that, if there were massacres such as Vukovar Massacre, Varivode Massacre and Tiananmen Square Massacre, there were also massive conspiracies making people think they didn't happen? That then there must have been many people colluding to suppress the information about those massacres?

The journal is called Regionalne Studije, number 11 (it's published each year, number 11 was published in 2019). I believe it was September when it got published, but I am not so sure.

I can't quite figure out what your motive is here, your 'schtick', as it were. But are you trying to tease something out of the meta of conspiracy theories?

You posted this parody:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-50241.html

Posted for reasons I don't get.

And from your website: https://flatassembler.github.io/index.html

"I am interested in informatics and linguistics. I also like fighting pseudosciences, and Internet is full of them. I have many times been made to believe them by being bombarded with controversial statements I didn't know how to evaluate. So, I'd like to help others in the same position."

And you seem to be massively active on Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Teo-Samarzija

I guess, in short, what is the point you're trying to make by pretending that massacres don't exist?

38
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Beirut explosion
« on: August 04, 2020, 01:01:42 PM »
Here's the one I was talking about. I hope the filmer is ok:

https://9gag.com/gag/aeD43Dq

39
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Beirut explosion
« on: August 04, 2020, 12:51:41 PM »


There are lots of videos from many different vantage points, I just chose a short one.

The Guardian's live up date page https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/aug/04/beirut-explosion-huge-blast-port-lebanon-capital

Quote
Beirut explosion: more than 25 dead and 2,500 wounded, says Lebanon health minister

I read some speculation on Twitter that the explosion was in a fireworks warehouse.

I heard fireworks storage as well, but hard to tell.  I hope everyone nearby ran like hell when they saw the smoke, anyone living there must have known what it was.

There was a clip I saw that was from right across the street and fireworks like big bottle rockets were firing out of the building smashing through the windows before the whole thing blew. I'll try and find the clip.

40
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Did Vukovar Massacre really happen?
« on: August 04, 2020, 12:04:48 PM »
But, yes, I've published a few papers in peer-reviewed journals about my alternative interpretation of the names of places in Croatia.

It's amazing how many people here say "I am not a conspiracy theorist" when trying to spread their conspiracy theories.

Can you give a reference link to the paper you published in a peer-reviewed Journal?  All I see is a web page.
Conspiracy theory is only worth the name if it's explaining something which can be explained without a conspiracy with a conspiracy. Massacres can't be explained without conspiracies.

I don't know if any of my linguistic papers are available on-line. One of them is mentioned here: https://www.radionasice.hr/18-hrvatski-dani-u-sopronu/

So is this thread like your "Airplanes don't exist" one?

41
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Did Vukovar Massacre really happen?
« on: August 03, 2020, 02:49:58 PM »
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Never heard of those things.

Maybe this is precisely the reason why you're having such a hard time with accepting history, because you know nothing of it?
You are saying you have never heard of the conflict in Yemen and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you have any recognition of a couple of World Wars? Khmer Rouge and like atrocities?

42
The Lounge / Re: I am leaving the BOTD
« on: August 03, 2020, 12:43:50 PM »
The BOTD started out as a pure, democratic, anti-fascist and anti-racist group of friends. Unfortunately, over time the group became corrupted: Members wishing death upon other members that were in serious conditions and eventually passed away (wise), other members became brainless spamtrolls (shifter), some show racist/facist tendencies (disputeone) and so on.

It thus want to distance myself from the BOTD (brotherhood of the dumb) and am therefore leaving the group!

I wish the remaining members of the group all the best, may they come to peace with themselfes and do what is right!

It took you this long to figure all that out?

43
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: July 31, 2020, 04:14:08 PM »
I'd make that into a medallion and where it proudly around your neck.

44
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 03:35:30 PM »
I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?
I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

You have to take the audio with the video
Only by ignoring the audio can you make your claim so put a cork in it.

I just watched it again and reread the transcript. I didn't read or hear anything in the audio that would prove the earth is the thing in motion. It just says the satellite is parked at L1 one million miles from earth always between the earth and the sun. Just like in the image I made in my last post.

You are not thinking simply enough. Its a problem as I have said about photography, not planets. There is a subject that is lit by a single light source from an unmoving camera.

Right there you are assuming something: An unmoving camera. Let's not assume that. You can, however, assume a single light source, because we only have one, the Sun.

A sequence of shots is taken that are then joined together to form an animation. The resulting animation reveals the subject is rotating. Its as simple as that.

Again, right there you're assuming the animation reveals the subject is rotating. Without a reference point, you can't make that assumption just based upon what you see. The background is black.

Having spent many years in the studio with lights/strobes there is no other explanation that would yield such a video. If the camera moved there would be a massive variation in the shots with shadows creeping across and some underexposed/ or if properly exposed for the low light stars would be visible. Leaving the moon shadow and the movement of the ice caps aside, the only other way such a video could be made possible is if either the sun moved or a second light source was employed, but even then the video would not look the
same. If you don't believe me, give it a try. It would be an easy experiment to carry out.

I have spent many years in the photog,vid, editing & effects world. Have you ever heard of a dolly or crane shot? I can light a scene with a moving camera without exposure/shadow variation. Why would there be massive variation in the shots when the camera is locked to the light source? That's the point of the diagram.

Option 1: Camera is locked to the Sun at L1 1 million miles away from earth and the earth is rotating
Option 2: Camera is locked to the Sun at L1 1 million miles away from earth and the Sun/Camera are rotating around the earth

If you say you know about shooting stuff with one light then you should be able to work out why. If you cant then it's pretty pointless trying to explain once more. Though your mention of dolly or crane shots is not really applicable in this situation so am at a loss to why you mentioned either, it kinda tells me you haven't a clue what your talking about.
If you think lighting this scene with a revolving camera will result in evenly exposed shots as in the video then you know nothing about either photography or lighting. Just think when the camera has moved 90/270 degrees you will get a split lighting situation, and when the camera has gone a full 180 the earth will be a black blob with a halo, assuming the exposure remains constant and the sun does what the sun does and remains stationary.....and you say you know lighting....i dont think so!

I have no idea what in the world you are talking about. Why do you keep assuming "the sun does what the sun does and remains stationary"?

Look at my diagram again. The sun and the camera are locked to each other. The sun is your sole light source. As you rotate the sun and the camera around the object, the object is always lit by the light source in line with the camera's view. Remember, the light and the camera are locked together both rotating around the object.

You're making it seem like the camera is rotating and the light source is not. Stop that. You're missing the entire point.

Do you get it?

45
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: July 31, 2020, 02:58:19 PM »
Yes, yes. But you can fly as many planes you like into tops of towers and nothing happens below.
The planes weren't flown into the tops of the WTC.

No structure of any kind collapses from top down.
Except when they do:

Topic is a-bombs and not controlled demolition of towers using explosives 911 style. Re topic I have updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm why no a-bombs have ever exploded anywhere.
People should be happy about it BUT plenty get upset that a-bombs are just manipulations.

You forget that you have a I witness to operation fishbowl in your audience.
a-bombs are real; there is nothing that you can say that will convince me otherwise.

In case you missed my earlier post. How Heiwa concocts his conspiracy theories 101:

23. Wow! You mean that I could write stuff like this, too?
Sure! It's embarrasingly easy to write what we wrote above. In fact, it's even superior to the usual anti-Semitic revisionist garbage, because it has a higher percentage of REAL FACTS! Most of the apparent "contradictions" above come from the facts that Nagasaki was bombed by a plutonium bomb, not uranium; and that hydrogen bombs are thermonuclear, not atomic bombs. Just juggle information about the different types of bombs and mix them up so they seem to be contradicting each other. It doesn't take ANY INTELLIGENCE WHATSOEVER, and you can get lots of free air time on "48 Hours"!
Oh, I forgot to mention: I have a Japanese girlfriend who agrees with EVERY WORD I've written above. Here she is:
"Yes, I am his Japanese girlfriend. I love him very much, and I've always been troubled by my Japanese friends claiming to know people who died in Hiroshima."
There you have it! Just throw some unverifiable opinions on top of ridiculous proofs to STRENGTHEN YOUR CASE!

24. Couldn't I be arrested for this?
No! This country is founded on FREE SPEECH! But, just make sure that you mention how much you are being persecuted for saying your version of history. (More than three email messages a day qualify for being called harrassment. Five may merit a lawsuit.)

25. Where can I get more information?
Go to a library. Take a book at random. Skim it. Then, decide how that book is either for you or against you. If it is for you, quote liberally and out of context. If against you, do the same.


It's almost like Heiwa read this whenever it was published and copied it verbatum. He has the girl he met in a bar just like the "I have a Japanese girlfriend..." mentioned above in #23.
He mentions all the time how he has been persecuted by the Swedish and American governments just like referenced in #24.
Cherry pick to high heaven as mentioned in #25.

He's a text book conspiracy theorist.

46
Flat Earth General / Re: Virgin Galactic
« on: July 31, 2020, 02:41:03 PM »
I'm all for the space travel decadent frippery for the 0.1% if, over time, like airline travel, it might ultimately become something commercial as opposed to purely a luxury.
Just because it becomes cheaper, doesn't make it less decadent...or pointless.  Only more damaging as more people do it. 

Decadent, sure, pointless? I'd say that's subjective. If you mean more damaging to the environment? Yeah, that's a huge problem that has to be dealt with throughout the airline industry. Maybe such innovations can help to foster greater efficiencies. I don't know.

Anyway, normal air travel is still a luxury to most - 80% of the planet has never set foot on a plane.

I don't doubt your number, but here's a US stat:

In 2003, the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimated, based on its Omnibus Household Survey, that one-third of U.S. adults had flown in the previous 12 months. And—the closest thing we’ve seen to the number we’re after—18 percent of Americans said they had never flown in their life, meaning that 82 percent had.
https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/how-much-worlds-population-has-flown-airplane-180957719/

If it becomes super fast air travel, then it might well just be making it's passengers even more effective disease vectors.

Ah jeez, did you have to bring that up?

47
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 02:29:51 PM »

Irony aside, what has been explained numerous times in myriad ways is that just being presented with one data point, in this case, the satellite composite video showing a seemingly rotating earth is not enough. I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. One really can't tell by ONLY looking at the YT video whether the earth is stationary or rotating. Supplementary data is required.

Actually it’s a year’s worth of data points.

I should have been more clear. I was meaning one data point as one piece of evidence, meaning just this one video in its entirety being one "data point."

Fair enough.  “Data points” are a bit of nebulous concept anyway.  I probably shouldn’t have made an issue out of that. 

No worries, poor use of the term on my part.

Quote
Quote
It's really that simple. Here, look, this would perhaps be the stationary set-up:



I can equally infer the above by ONLY looking at the video as I can infer a rotating earth.

Unfortunately this diagram doesn’t account for all the motion seen in the video.

What motion am I missing?

Over the course of the year, the “orbits” (for want of a better word) of both the light source (the sun) and the camera on DISCVR can be seen to shift between being above the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.  You can clearly see views of the Arctic and Antarctic at different times of the year.

That means neither the sun or satellite can be doing a simple loop around the earth.  They’d have to also be moving north, then for some inexplicable reason change direction at the summer solstice and head south, and perform the opposite maneuver 6 months later.

So between the two candidates of stationary earth and a rotating orbiting earth, it seems one is in accordance with the laws of motion, and the other is not.

Even with just this one video, I think there’s enough information to pick the most credible option. 

At least if basic physics works the way we think it does.  Which is why I’ve been asking Boydster if he counts having some understanding of physics as additional information.

I'm not super well versed in the geocentric model. But my understanding is that there's essentially a 23° ecliptic to the orbit of the sun. Whereby over the course of the year the sun moves between Cancer and Capricorn. Something like this:



Now which is the better candidate, I think you know where I stand. But my only point is given just this one piece of evidence, the video, you can't definitively determine which stuff is moving and which isn't.

48
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 01:55:27 PM »

....but you can, irrespective of anything else.

Replace the sun with a fixed unmovable light while the subject, the earth moves on a rail as does the camera.

Now think about the video.

How would the two objects, the subject and the camera have to move to obtain an animation that was lit in a constant and unchanging way, and produce a result similar to the previously posted video?

There is only one scenario that would fit that would produce such a video. The camera position fixed relative to the light with the subject spinning. There is no other way to obtain such a video without moving the light, or in the case of the real world moving the sun!


PS
.....Or invoking a second moving light source equal in brightness to the sun, but even then the videos would not be the same unless the second sun had a complex dimmer arrangement fitted!

Well, if the earth were stationary, then the sun wouldn’t be fixed, but moving round the earth.   One could argue that DSCOVR is orbiting the Earth with the same period as the sun.

However, that’s not all we can see in the video.

While I do hear what you are saying there is a point where some reality has to be injected into the discussion.

But irrespective of that it does all boil down to the subject, camera, and light, however, one would wish to reinvent the solar system.

Are we really talking about reinventing the solar system? No, we're talking about where FEr's get their info from. At least that was the OP. And here again, you present earth rotation "evidence" from YouTube even in spite of this:

Quote
The question is where exactly do flat earthers get their information from?

Youtube

Youtube!.....now that’s hardly a well of scientific knowledge is it. I suppose I should have said verifiable.

Irony aside, what has been explained numerous times in myriad ways is that just being presented with one data point, in this case, the satellite composite video showing a seemingly rotating earth is not enough. I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. One really can't tell by ONLY looking at the YT video whether the earth is stationary or rotating. Supplementary data is required. It's really that simple. Here, look, this would perhaps be the stationary set-up:



I can equally infer the above by ONLY looking at the video as I can infer a rotating earth.

Is moving the sun to illuminate the subject really an option? OR do we have to conclude, bringing in some reality, that the sun should be stationary?
What are the speed of the sun and satellite to accomplish such a orbits

Fast.

49
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 01:54:28 PM »

....but you can, irrespective of anything else.

Replace the sun with a fixed unmovable light while the subject, the earth moves on a rail as does the camera.

Now think about the video.

How would the two objects, the subject and the camera have to move to obtain an animation that was lit in a constant and unchanging way, and produce a result similar to the previously posted video?

There is only one scenario that would fit that would produce such a video. The camera position fixed relative to the light with the subject spinning. There is no other way to obtain such a video without moving the light, or in the case of the real world moving the sun!


PS
.....Or invoking a second moving light source equal in brightness to the sun, but even then the videos would not be the same unless the second sun had a complex dimmer arrangement fitted!

Well, if the earth were stationary, then the sun wouldn’t be fixed, but moving round the earth.   One could argue that DSCOVR is orbiting the Earth with the same period as the sun.

However, that’s not all we can see in the video.

While I do hear what you are saying there is a point where some reality has to be injected into the discussion.

But irrespective of that it does all boil down to the subject, camera, and light, however, one would wish to reinvent the solar system.

Are we really talking about reinventing the solar system? No, we're talking about where FEr's get their info from. At least that was the OP. And here again, you present earth rotation "evidence" from YouTube even in spite of this:

Quote
The question is where exactly do flat earthers get their information from?

Youtube

Youtube!.....now that’s hardly a well of scientific knowledge is it. I suppose I should have said verifiable.

Irony aside, what has been explained numerous times in myriad ways is that just being presented with one data point, in this case, the satellite composite video showing a seemingly rotating earth is not enough. I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. One really can't tell by ONLY looking at the YT video whether the earth is stationary or rotating. Supplementary data is required. It's really that simple. Here, look, this would perhaps be the stationary set-up:



I can equally infer the above by ONLY looking at the video as I can infer a rotating earth.

Is moving the sun to illuminate the subject really an option? OR do we have to conclude, bringing in some reality, that the sun should be stationary?

From the video alone, one can't tell. That's the whole point.

50
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 01:52:58 PM »
I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?
I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

You have to take the audio with the video
Only by ignoring the audio can you make your claim so put a cork in it.

I just watched it again and reread the transcript. I didn't read or hear anything in the audio that would prove the earth is the thing in motion. It just says the satellite is parked at L1 one million miles from earth always between the earth and the sun. Just like in the image I made in my last post.

You are not thinking simply enough. Its a problem as I have said about photography, not planets. There is a subject that is lit by a single light source from an unmoving camera.

Right there you are assuming something: An unmoving camera. Let's not assume that. You can, however, assume a single light source, because we only have one, the Sun.

A sequence of shots is taken that are then joined together to form an animation. The resulting animation reveals the subject is rotating. Its as simple as that.

Again, right there you're assuming the animation reveals the subject is rotating. Without a reference point, you can't make that assumption just based upon what you see. The background is black.

Having spent many years in the studio with lights/strobes there is no other explanation that would yield such a video. If the camera moved there would be a massive variation in the shots with shadows creeping across and some underexposed/ or if properly exposed for the low light stars would be visible. Leaving the moon shadow and the movement of the ice caps aside, the only other way such a video could be made possible is if either the sun moved or a second light source was employed, but even then the video would not look the
same. If you don't believe me, give it a try. It would be an easy experiment to carry out.

I have spent many years in the photog,vid, editing & effects world. Have you ever heard of a dolly or crane shot? I can light a scene with a moving camera without exposure/shadow variation. Why would there be massive variation in the shots when the camera is locked to the light source? That's the point of the diagram.

Option 1: Camera is locked to the Sun at L1 1 million miles away from earth and the earth is rotating
Option 2: Camera is locked to the Sun at L1 1 million miles away from earth and the Sun/Camera are rotating around the earth

51
Flat Earth General / Re: Virgin Galactic
« on: July 31, 2020, 01:30:06 PM »
I'm happy that rich people are spending money on space travel rather than going on a hunting Safari and shooting the last Rhino or something.
These aren't mutually exclusive activities.

At the end the of the day it's just another bit of decadent frippery for the 0.1%.

I'm all for the space travel decadent frippery for the 0.1% if, over time, like airline travel, it might ultimately become something commercial as opposed to purely a luxury. The safari thing, I just don't see that as ever benefiting mankind.

I have an old HS buddy whose Dad is quite wealthy. He has done the big 5 hunts in I think it's Namibia. He has got all 5. Can you imagine shooting an African Elephant and seeing the rest of the herd mourning as one of theirs, a hulking majestic mass, lies dead on the ground with a 50 caliber bullet in it's head? I wish his Dad bought a Galactic ticket instead.

Except he'd probably do both. Killing beautiful and exotic animals seems to be his hobby. It's also orders of magnitude cheaper than skirting the edge of space. If he had the money for that I bet he'd still kill those beautiful animals in his spare time. A space flight only takes a day

The going rate for just an Elephant hunt is $80,000. That's just for 1 of the big 5. He has them all. And knowing his dad, he's definitely more of a killing beautiful and exotic animals type of guy from the safety of a jeep with armed guides than one who would ever climb into a space faring vehicle.
But I'm sure on that list of Galactic ticket holders there are some who would do both.

52
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 01:15:28 PM »

Irony aside, what has been explained numerous times in myriad ways is that just being presented with one data point, in this case, the satellite composite video showing a seemingly rotating earth is not enough. I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. One really can't tell by ONLY looking at the YT video whether the earth is stationary or rotating. Supplementary data is required.

Actually it’s a year’s worth of data points.

I should have been more clear. I was meaning one data point as one piece of evidence, meaning just this one video in its entirety being one "data point."

Quote
It's really that simple. Here, look, this would perhaps be the stationary set-up:



I can equally infer the above by ONLY looking at the video as I can infer a rotating earth.

Unfortunately this diagram doesn’t account for all the motion seen in the video.

What motion am I missing?

53
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 12:34:11 PM »
I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?
I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

You have to take the audio with the video
Only by ignoring the audio can you make your claim so put a cork in it.

I just watched it again and reread the transcript. I didn't read or hear anything in the audio that would prove the earth is the thing in motion. It just says the satellite is parked at L1 one million miles from earth always between the earth and the sun. Just like in the image I made in my last post.

54
Flat Earth General / Re: Virgin Galactic
« on: July 31, 2020, 12:16:38 PM »
I'm happy that rich people are spending money on space travel rather than going on a hunting Safari and shooting the last Rhino or something.
These aren't mutually exclusive activities.

At the end the of the day it's just another bit of decadent frippery for the 0.1%.

I'm all for the space travel decadent frippery for the 0.1% if, over time, like airline travel, it might ultimately become something commercial as opposed to purely a luxury. The safari thing, I just don't see that as ever benefiting mankind.

I have an old HS buddy whose Dad is quite wealthy. He has done the big 5 hunts in I think it's Namibia. He has got all 5. Can you imagine shooting an African Elephant and seeing the rest of the herd mourning as one of theirs, a hulking majestic mass, lies dead on the ground with a 50 caliber bullet in it's head? I wish his Dad bought a Galactic ticket instead.

55
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 12:00:12 PM »

....but you can, irrespective of anything else.

Replace the sun with a fixed unmovable light while the subject, the earth moves on a rail as does the camera.

Now think about the video.

How would the two objects, the subject and the camera have to move to obtain an animation that was lit in a constant and unchanging way, and produce a result similar to the previously posted video?

There is only one scenario that would fit that would produce such a video. The camera position fixed relative to the light with the subject spinning. There is no other way to obtain such a video without moving the light, or in the case of the real world moving the sun!


PS
.....Or invoking a second moving light source equal in brightness to the sun, but even then the videos would not be the same unless the second sun had a complex dimmer arrangement fitted!

Well, if the earth were stationary, then the sun wouldn’t be fixed, but moving round the earth.   One could argue that DSCOVR is orbiting the Earth with the same period as the sun.

However, that’s not all we can see in the video.

While I do hear what you are saying there is a point where some reality has to be injected into the discussion.

But irrespective of that it does all boil down to the subject, camera, and light, however, one would wish to reinvent the solar system.

Are we really talking about reinventing the solar system? No, we're talking about where FEr's get their info from. At least that was the OP. And here again, you present earth rotation "evidence" from YouTube even in spite of this:

Quote
The question is where exactly do flat earthers get their information from?

Youtube

Youtube!.....now that’s hardly a well of scientific knowledge is it. I suppose I should have said verifiable.

Irony aside, what has been explained numerous times in myriad ways is that just being presented with one data point, in this case, the satellite composite video showing a seemingly rotating earth is not enough. I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. One really can't tell by ONLY looking at the YT video whether the earth is stationary or rotating. Supplementary data is required. It's really that simple. Here, look, this would perhaps be the stationary set-up:



I can equally infer the above by ONLY looking at the video as I can infer a rotating earth.

56
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: July 31, 2020, 12:15:25 AM »

You can see what these tests are like online, they're super easy. My grandma did one of those as her dementia had started to set in, and she still passed it.

It's not pass or fail.   ::)
It's a screening tool.

An actual full test is several tests with many dozens of questions each,
with no obvious relevance to the patient.
Also, what would be the point of testing someone
already diagnosed with dementia?

If you already have dementia they give you that test or similar to try and gauge where you are on the spectrum so to speak. And periodically, going forward, tracking where you are as opposed to previous results.

A few years back I was in the hospital and had a not necessarily uncommon reaction to the anesthesia (It was a ketamine cocktail of some sort). In short, I was a hallucinating quite a bit. I could be having a normal conversation with you sitting beside me and also carry on a conversation with the person sitting next you who wasn't there. As well thinking we were all at a ski resort in Switzerland, could see the white tipped Alps outside the windows, etc. (I was in the States, palm trees out my window). Anyway, I was repeatedly given those tests. The effects of my temporary dementia lessened and lessened over the course of about 5 days - The tests on each of those days went from confusing to normal. Thankfully, not the other way around.

57
So I am guessing that nobody (as  in - people usually just take this next level of unknown to be what ever suits their fancy) does the math to demontstrate that this so called curvature matches what should be seen on the globe model with refraction. And that globers took this distorted image previously mentioned to be the ship sinking without further examination.

What exactly are you asking? Are you talking about the one you and JB went over? If so, or even if not, if you want know if what you observe matches mathematically to earth curve you need to know three things to get started:

1) Height of the Object in the distance being observed
2) Distance from the Observer to the Object in the distance being observed
3) Height of the Observer

Make sense? Now what are you looking for?

58
Flat Earth General / Re: CAD
« on: July 30, 2020, 11:46:34 PM »

I think we’ve learned that CAD is a parody site much like “birds aren’t real” or “flying spaghetti monster”. No harm, no foul.

Are you challenging the FSM?


Seriously, the arrogance of plebs like you who would challenge his noodleyness
and then calmly dismiss their very own position on the same matter is something
I have never experienced.   


I expect a response one way or the other!

After further in-depth research, I'm heavily leaning toward FSM as our true savior and only hope for salvation. Not to mention, just today, I saw a pigeon on the sidewalk and as I walked past it, I'd swear it gave me sort of a side-eye, like it had assessed and logged my presence.

Glory to FSM and just to be safe, check yourself and be very weary of any winged and feathered creature in your midst.

59
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Perseverence
« on: July 30, 2020, 04:38:26 PM »

Is that a gopher?

My understanding, an Arctic Lemming.

60
Flat Earth General / Re: Virgin Galactic
« on: July 30, 2020, 04:34:56 PM »


Even Round Earthers cant get their facts together.
In fact, 'zero G' is impossible
You mean shifter can't get its fact's straight?

zero g - noun:
the state or condition in which there is no apparent force of gravity acting on a body, either because the force is locally weak, or because both the body and its surroundings are freely and equally accelerating under the force.

Alternatively:
Weightlessness is the complete or near-complete absence of the sensation of weight. This is also termed zero-G

free fall is zero g.
It is where you do not feel weight.

Do you also object when people say things like a 3 g turn?
You still experience the same ~1 g of gravity during the 3 g turn, but the overall force you feel is not 1 g.

Why call it something that it isn't?
Who says they are?
The question is what does the "g" mean?
You assume it means gravity.
But it is also quite well known as a g-force, a unit of measure of a force per unit mass applied to or experienced by a body (rather than exerted all over the body such as from gravity) where 1 g is a force which will result in an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 on that body.

There is always a g force acting on a body where ever it is in the universe. I don't care how infinitesimal, the number is not zero.

That alien babe in the Andromeda galaxy billions of years ago? Every one of her pelvic thrusts as she makes sweet love to her man produces gravitational waves that pull you in. Sure that hulking TON-608 Black Hole has a tad more influence but the number is not zero.

"Aside from water, no truly calorie-free food or drinks exist. Why do so many things say they have zero calories, then? The FDA legally allows manufacturers to label anything with less than five calories as having zero calories."

Marketing. Ever heard of it?

Marketing, yes. Another name for BS

Sadly some people think the claims are legit

So you really think anyone cares when they are up there floating around for minutes on end, experiencing that, what it was marketed as?  They exuberantly exclaim, "Zero G is AMAZING!" Then you float by and say, "Erm, actually, technically, this is not zero g, it's a sense of weightlessness, a very low G, but not zero. Let me explain further..."

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 132