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 - Fletch

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]
241
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« on: August 14, 2008, 12:06:20 AM »
Wouldn't flying over Antarctica/Ice Wall at a high enough altitude to see it in it's entirity prove either case?

242
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do you explain Gyroscopic compasses?
« on: August 13, 2008, 11:56:07 PM »
Quote
i'm not sure where you see inconsistence there - when flying between timezones at night in the southern hemisphere, the southern constellations are consistently in view, always to the south, yet rotating by a degree that would be consistent with ones observation rotating about a globe.

Do you have any evidence for this absurd claim of conducting detailed astronomy out of a moving airplane's horizontal window?
I don't they were claiming they conducted detailed astrononmy, just that they could see the southern cross consistently as they flew between continents.

The problem with claiming the Southern Cross is now on the Northern Gear is that it would be spinning in the wrong direction as viewed by those in the southern hemisphere.

243
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do you explain Gyroscopic compasses?
« on: August 13, 2008, 09:40:33 PM »
Quote
the southern constellations are consistently visible from all points in the southern hemisphere,

How could the Southern Hemisphere constellations be visible at once from Australia, South America, and Africa at once when they don't all experience night simultaneously?
This is different to the other point you were trying to make. He said consistently not simultaneously. Am interested to hear your take on the point of observing the stars whilst travelling at night from continent to continent in the southern hemisphere.

244
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Maps and Continents
« on: August 13, 2008, 08:16:14 PM »
But they can't be the same size in the northern hemisphere, can they? If the length of the equator is the same in both models, than lines of latitude are smaller in the northern hemisphere of the FE model, so the distance traveled if you drive East-West across the US should be smaller in the FE model. And across Alaska/Canada should be more so as you get closer to the North Pole, and you starting running out of ocean to shrink down t make adjustments.

245
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Long period comets
« on: August 13, 2008, 03:13:40 PM »
And I want to know how everyone in the South can see it, if we cannot view the same stars because we are on the opposite side of the earth?

And while I'm thinking about it, is it vital to the FE model that the earth disc does not rotate? Wouldn't that help explain a lot with regards to the movements/observations of objects in space?

246
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do you explain Gyroscopic compasses?
« on: August 13, 2008, 02:39:12 AM »
It may be a NASA image, but it illustrates the point well enough:

I was wondering that picture was supposed to illustrate, as that's different to what I meant by spinning in opposite directions. But if Tom's illustration is actually what is happening, then the people in South America and South Africa do not see the same stars that I see in Australia. And yet, The Southern Cross can be viewed from all southern continents. Are we actually looking at different constellations that appear the same?

247
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Long period comets
« on: August 13, 2008, 12:58:57 AM »
Yeah I was mainly wondering about a comet like Halley's, which can be seen over more than 1 night by people all around the world. What is it's trajectory in the FE model?

248
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do you explain Gyroscopic compasses?
« on: August 13, 2008, 12:55:23 AM »
Could I see a pic or something, then?

Please?

249
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Long period comets
« on: August 13, 2008, 12:34:15 AM »
Bumping this because I was wondering about comets as well and did a search figuring someone else must have asked already.

250
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Circumference at different lattitudes
« on: August 13, 2008, 12:24:59 AM »
But you find it more likely then we are on a spherical earth rotating on a tilted access and circling the sun?

When we see evidence that we're on a giant tilted whirling basketball we'll let you know.
Well calling it a basketball has added some weight to your argument, I'll grant you, but I'm asking, you don't believe that the spherical model of the earth/solar system which answers all the questions I'm posing here is evidence of any merit?

And if not, then what would it take? What is the evidence that would convince you?

251
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do you explain Gyroscopic compasses?
« on: August 13, 2008, 12:15:08 AM »
One more question regarding stars ... they rotate in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres, yes? Because of the 2 rotating UA plates? And as shown in Tom's examples of gears rotating in opposite directions as the turn. At some point on the earth, presumbably at the equator, you should be able to see stars rotating in 2 different directions, wouldn't you?

Yes.
And has no one documented this?

252
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Circumference at different lattitudes
« on: August 12, 2008, 10:59:53 PM »
But you find it more likely then we are on a spherical earth rotating on a tilted access and circling the sun?

253
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do you explain Gyroscopic compasses?
« on: August 12, 2008, 10:55:21 PM »
One more question regarding stars ... they rotate in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres, yes? Because of the 2 rotating UA plates? And as shown in Tom's examples of gears rotating in opposite directions as the turn. At some point on the earth, presumbably at the equator, you should be able to see stars rotating in 2 different directions, wouldn't you?

254
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Circumference at different lattitudes
« on: August 12, 2008, 10:41:23 PM »
This also means that when it's Summer in the southern hemisphere the sun is travelling faster so that it still takes only 24 hours to do an orbit, yes?

Yes.
And what causes that?

255
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do you explain Gyroscopic compasses?
« on: August 12, 2008, 09:39:33 PM »
Quote
And that would prove to you the earth is a sphere?

No. If such an experiment were ever performed it would prove to me that the earth is flat because those three observers would not be able to simultaneously observe the same star from those three points.
But if they could all see the same star at the same time, proving the earth is flat, wouldn't they all be able to see the moon or sun at the same time? And so if 3 simultaneously is out, how about 2 of them. South American and South Africa?

And do you have evidence of 3 people at different points in the Northern hemisphere seeing the same star at the same time. Something that would only be possible if the earth was flat?

And my mind is a long way from being open. I still think you're all running this forum as some kind of joke, and I'm just bored at work today.

256
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do you explain Gyroscopic compasses?
« on: August 12, 2008, 09:15:29 PM »
Quote
Is there an answer to this that you would believe? Would you accept live web cams pointing up at the stars on these continents at the same time? I'm in Australia and happy to do my part?

If three independent researchers collaborate on observing a star simultaneously from those three points, I see no reason why we would not accept your observations.
And that would prove to you the earth is a sphere?

257
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Circumference at different lattitudes
« on: August 12, 2008, 09:04:31 PM »
This also means that when it's Summer in the southern hemisphere the sun is travelling faster so that it still takes only 24 hours to do an orbit, yes?

258
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do you explain Gyroscopic compasses?
« on: August 12, 2008, 08:38:59 PM »
Quote
and how are the same stars seen to the south of australia as to the south of africa and south america at the same time.

Who reported seeing the same stars from Australia, Africa, and South America at the same time?
Is there an answer to this that you would believe? Would you accept live web cams pointing up at the stars on these continents at the same time? I'm in Australia and happy to do my part?

259
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Occams Razor
« on: August 12, 2008, 08:10:02 PM »
So you rather us trust the word of NASA than our own eyes?

Quote
And how fast is the earth currently moving upwards if we are kept on terra firma by the earth accelerating upwards constantly at 9.8m/s/s?

Relative to what?

That seems to be the answer that everyone uses here. I was just bringing up speed because you mentioned that you don't believe the earth is spinning at a 1000 miles an hour.

Quote
You don't believe in never before seen technologies? Your fingers are typing on pieces of plastic communicating with people all around the world. You are absolutely surrounded by technology that didn't exist when you were born.

I've seen and tinkered with computer technologies from the inside out. That's first hand experience.

I've never seen the inside of a Saturn V space ship, or have been to the moon, or have seen the earth as a globe.
So you only believe in things you have experienced yourself? Have you seen the wall that keeps the oceans in?

Quote
So you believe everything you see is the way things are? You ever see a magic show? You ever see an optical illusion? And it's not accelerating, it's spinning at a relatively constant speed.

Oh right, it's all an optical illusion. Great argument there.  ::)
Just pointing out that our eyes lie to us all the time. And therefore to use what you see as the ultimate proof of anything is flawed.

260
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Occams Razor
« on: August 12, 2008, 07:44:01 PM »
Can I play too?

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
Your eyes are constantly deceiving you. Light is refracted/reflected and the wave length of it shifts as in the doppler effect. The earth is most certainly not as it appears to you. And how fast is the earth currently moving upwards if we are kept on terra firma by the earth accelerating upwards constantly at 9.8m/s/s?

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon, sending robots to mars, and space ships to explore the solar system; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
You don't believe in never before seen technologies? Your fingers are typing on pieces of plastic communicating with people all around the world. You are absolutely surrounded by technology that didn't exist when you were born. And it is a simpler explanation to believe they are doing that (along with the other countries in the world) then they are part of some world wide conspiracy.

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?
So you believe everything you see is the way things are? You ever see a magic show? You ever see an optical illusion? And it's not accelerating, it's spinning at a relatively constant speed. That's why you don't feel acceleration.

What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, quarks and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be?
So your problem with the universe is that it's too big? The world is pretty huge in case you hadn't noticed. You've only seen a small fraction of a percent of it, so how do you know the rest of the world actually exists?

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]