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 - kopfverderber

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION
« on: October 07, 2019, 01:40:19 PM »
Where was the shadow object exactly


Exactly passing in front of the Moon.


In front of the moon looking from where? Lunar eclipses can be seen at the same time from a lot of places. Like California, Japan and Australia at the same time. How can it be in front of the moon for everyone at the same time?  If it's on one side if the moon, the eclipse wont be seen from the other side. Sorry, it doesn't work.

And what about the sun? The shadow object should be between the sun and the moon, unless you also believe that the moon emits its own light. It must be the moonshrimp then.

A magical shadow object that no one can ever see, that never obscures any star or planet, that sneaks in just in time to cause lunar eclipses only during full moon, exactly when RE predicts. And you think RE has problems because some pendulum anomalies during solar eclipses and something about the size of the shadow? LOL.

32
Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION
« on: October 07, 2019, 01:02:00 PM »
You haven't done your homework on several important subjects discussed here.


Whatever. You seemed to have some issues understanding what is "up" and "down" on a globe earth and with the way RE explains lunar eclipses, so I clarified that.

RE has no issues with lunar eclipses. In fact the path of the moon across earth's umbra and penumbra and the way it looks from any location is calculated before the eclipses take place and predictions have proven to be quite accurate. Those predictions are done based on round earth, moon and sun. The shadow object is not needed. Please FE keep the shadow object for yourselves, nobody else needs it, thank you very much.

Is this by any chance still your FE map?

Please note that the sun's zenith position close to Brazil and Moon's close to Japan near the start of the eclipse. Where was the shadow object exactly so that the eclipse could be seen from California among other places? Please enlighten us.


Shadow object, where are you??????????

33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION
« on: October 07, 2019, 12:32:29 PM »
You can no longer use atmospheric refraction to explain the selenelion.

Unless you can explain the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, your diagrams can be used as wrapping paper.

Selenelion. Atmospheric refraction makes the sun and the moon appear higher in the sky than their geometric positions. That means sometimes is possible to observe both at the same time even though they are at opposite points of the sky. If the moon is inside earth's penumbra, then you will see that on one side and the rising or setting sun on the other side. It's not too difficult to understand the concept.

Unless you can provide a way to calculate the exact positions and paths of moon, sun and shadow object for every eclipse and the size of each of them, so that we can check if it's consistent with observations from everywhere on earth, your flat earth advanced research can be safely ignored.

34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION
« on: October 07, 2019, 11:28:49 AM »
"So when the sun has just appeared to rise, and the moon is close to setting, they are both actually already below the horizon, but the light from them bends back down so we can still see them.  This means Earth could actually be above the sun-moon line, and thus cast its shadow on the top of the moon."


There is no top or down, that's relative to the viewer. The moon is entering earth's shadow from west to east on the south side of the ecliptic plane. But depending on where you are you would see the shadow "moving"on the surface of the moon in one direction or another.


Please stop thinking 2D (up and down) and try to picture the eclipse in 3D. I know it's hard.

35
Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION
« on: October 07, 2019, 04:39:35 AM »
You are assuming that the Moon does indeed rotate around the Earth, and that the Earth does indeed rotate around its own axis.

What if I were to ask for such proofs, how long do you think you'd last in a direct debate with me on such a subject? Not very long.

You are making huge assumptions, which are UNPROVEN to this very day.


Now, you still can't see what is going on, can you?

You have not PROVEN that the Moon received light from the bottom of the Earth.

If we are discussing whether the eclipse is consistent with RE, we have to make all RE assumptions, including RE orbits, otherwise what's the point? The pictures of the eclipse are fully consistent with what RE predicts, therefore you have no case.



I'm don't have to prove that " the Moon received light from the bottom of the Earth." as you say, because that's not what is happening. The earth has no "bottom" or "top".

Field rotation will make the the moon appear to enter the earth's shadows from different angles  depending of the observer's position on earth.  You can check that the moon actually appears rotated from different places during the eclipse by looking at the moon surface features.



RE explanation for field rotation is the earth's rotation. I have no clue how FE explains field rotation.

36
Flat Earth Debate / Re: SELENELION
« on: October 07, 2019, 03:00:43 AM »
"Above" or "below" are relative to the observer's position.

The moon entered the earth's shadow from west to east. The moon's orientation is not the same for all observers. The earth's rotation causes a "field rotation" effect, which makes the moon  appear rotated left or right depending on location and time.

Once again Sandokhan has no case.




37
There's more than enough evidence of the moon landings for any sane person to believe they indeed happened. All arguments brought forward by moon hoaxers have been thoroughly refuted, but nothing is going to keep some people from believing  this sort of things. Deniers are gonna deny.

In the mean time space programs continue their course and nobody cares what a bunch conspiracy nutjobs, tin foil hat wearers and other crackpots say.

38
Flat Earth General / Re: Difficult to Grasp.
« on: October 06, 2019, 01:06:33 AM »
It's not just NASA... It''s also the Russians, all the Europeans, the Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese, the Israeli, the North Koreans and so on. All space agencies must be in the conspiracy.  Maybe 60 years ago it was only NASA and the Soviets, but now everyone and their mother are sending stuff to space, including private companies.

39
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society Memes
« on: October 05, 2019, 01:14:11 AM »

40
Flat Earth General / Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« on: October 04, 2019, 12:55:32 PM »
This is what we believe and see....



So, try again with a sunset at the horizon and at the vanishing point. Not 30° above the horizon as you would have others believe.


Why can we see the stars and the planets through the "miles of linear vapor atmosphere", but no the sun which is closer and brighter?

You can't. You see them above the vanishing point, above where the sun just set.

Stars and planets are visible close to the horizon and they don't get dimmer or smaller when they are closer to your vanishing point. Nor does the moon.

Sometimes Venus is closer than the sun and still visible after the sun has set. Sometimes it's farther than the sun and visible before sunrise. Sometimes it's seen on front of the sun.

When you have a model that works and can be checked let us know.

41
Flat Earth General / Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« on: October 04, 2019, 12:10:25 PM »
Sure it does, but not all the time because of refraction.  Just dont cherry pick your pics.

No it doesn't. Nor does the moon. Stop lying.


42
Flat Earth General / Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« on: October 04, 2019, 12:07:05 PM »
This is what we believe and see....



So, try again with a sunset at the horizon and at the vanishing point. Not 30° above the horizon as you would have others believe.


Why can we see the stars and the planets through the "miles of linear vapor atmosphere", but no the sun which is closer and brighter?

43
Flat Earth General / Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« on: October 04, 2019, 11:47:22 AM »



Globie really don’t accept perspective because it cannot fit a globe earth.

The sun doesn't  "appear to shrink" though.

44
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society Memes
« on: October 04, 2019, 05:14:04 AM »

45
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society Memes
« on: October 04, 2019, 01:41:16 AM »

46
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof/Theory behind the ice walls
« on: October 04, 2019, 12:02:50 AM »
I think that would be S. Rowbotham.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za22.htm

47
I'm not going to watch the videos. I hope nobody else is watching the videos. It makes people money.

Why don't YOU explain how you know the Sun is not 93 million miles away. Start by telling us how far you think the Sun really is and then we can explore any complications that might arise with the notion.

Skip the AD (paying) if there is one.

Lalalalala (fingers in ears)

Can you now tell us how flatearthers calculate the distance to the sun?

48
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Colors of Mars
« on: October 03, 2019, 09:18:24 AM »
Most satellites and other spacecraft don't carry conventional cameras. Many of the space images we get from NASA and others are actually not photographs.

Instead of photographic cameras they carry instruments which capture light in different wavelengths. The data is then sent to earth to be computer processed. The result is images in gray tones (like black and white). Three of these gray images are then assigned to the RGB colors to produce the color images we often find. A natural or “true-color” image combines actual measurements of red, green, and blue light. The result looks like the world as humans see it. A "false color"image uses infrared measurements, like for example the one in my avatar.

Each Viking lander carried two facsimile cameras like this one:

Each Viking Lander was equipped with two identical cameras that, unlike conventional cameras, did not use film. Instead, a moveable mirror scanned a vertical segment of the martian scene, and photodetectors recorded the amount of light reflected into the camera. A complete picture, or "image" of the surface was made by completing a vertical scan, and then rotating the camera slightly for the next scan. (https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/camera-imager-viking-mars-lander)

I'm not sure how the Viking color images were exactly made though, it might differ to what modern satellites do. Here are some useful links:

https://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/data/vl1_vl2-m-lcs-2-edr-v1.0/vl_0001/document/volinfo.htm
https://www.asprs.org/wp-content/uploads/pers/1982journal/may/1982_may_803-816.pdf
https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:zz000vd6201/zz000vd6201.pdf
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/FalseColor


49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: October 02, 2019, 04:09:50 PM »
Rise can mean different things in English, but what is relevant is the meaning in the original language, Hebrew.
And John's point is that it isn't simply "Hebrew". Languages are not static. They evolve as people use them.
Only once a language is dead will it remain static.
Modern Hebrew is different to the ancient Hebrew the Bible was written in.
The same happens to all languages.

The meaning of words will change as people use them.
This is especially true when new words are invented.

As a hypothetical example related to rise.
Lets assume that before the only word connected to this issue was rise.
This word would then be used for all kinds, regardless of it meant to rise for a short period and then stop (e.g. stand), or if it meant to continually rise.
But then someone comes along and invents a new word/phrase "continuous ascent". Now, people will start to use this new word/phrase more for continually rising upwards, and start using the old word less.
After enough time, the old word in common usage would no longer refer to a continuous ascent, but just to a short period.

While modern Hebrew may get you in the range of meanings, it is very far from definitive.

I understand that, but the fact that it's ancient Hebrew doesn't mean that the meaning is not known today.

The dictionary entry I posted is not modern Hebrew, it's biblical Hebrew an it explains the uses of the word in the bible, it's made by bible scholars. The person answering in the Jewish Forums specified the uses of the word in the bible in ancient Hebrew, not the modern uses if there is any.

It's also possible to check the other 600 bible entries where the word is used and confirm that it's consistent with the biblical dictionary. I checked many of them. The word just doesn't have the meaning of something going up.

In English the same word rise might be used for stand up and go up, but in other languages that doesn't necessarily happen. If Tom had read the bible in Spanish he would have never have this confusion, because in Spanish we have different word for rising from the ground (levantarse) and for something going up (subir). Or in German the word in the verse is translated as "stehenbleiben", which also can't be confused with something going up.

In ancient Hebrew they also had a different word for getting up and for going up, so this confusion is not possible.  The only way to have this confusion is if you read the verse in English or other language where the same word is used for these two things.

I'm trying to access a more specialized hebrew biblical forum, but I couldn't register yet. This is the biblical Hebrew dictionary entry. I think it explains it quite well:

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon:

ּ

qûm

1) to rise, arise, stand, rise up, stand up

1a) (Qal)

1a1) to arise

1a2) to arise (hostile sense)

1a3) to arise, become powerful

1a4) to arise, come on the scene

1a5) to stand

1a5a) to maintain oneself

1a5b) to be established, be confirmed

1a5c) to stand, endure

1a5d) to be fixed

1a5e) to be valid

1a5f) to be proven

1a5g) to be fulfilled

1a5h) to persist

1a5i) to be set, be fixed

1b) (Piel)

1b1) to fulfil

1b2) to confirm, ratify, establish, impose

1c) (Polel) to raise up

1d) (Hithpael) to raise oneself, rise up

1e) (Hiphil)

1e1) to cause to arise, raise

1e2) to raise, set up, erect, build

1e3) to raise up, bring on the scene

1e4) to raise up, rouse, stir up, investigate

1e5) to raise up, constitute

1e6) to cause to stand, set, station, establish

1e7) to make binding

1e8) to carry out, give effect to

1f) (Hophal) to be raised up

Part of Speech: verb

Relation: a primitive root

50
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society Memes
« on: October 02, 2019, 02:44:26 PM »
I bet you don't know what you are talking about and have to do damage control in a meme thread.

Please cut the crap and show us the video,

This is photoshop. Did you do this yourself?

51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: October 02, 2019, 01:56:19 PM »
I think it's pretty humorous you wish to claim knowledge of what the word meant in ancient hebrew by consulting a web forum of modern hebrew language. This has all so far shown very little either way, and the matter actually requires a lot more research than has been done here.
I looked at the other cases where the word is used, I looked at a dictionary, I asked a Hebrew speaking person. What else do you need? Are you arguing against the dictionary? Do you know more Hebrew than the person who answered the question at the Jewish Forums? At this point it's be very clear what the word means in Hebrew.

Rise can mean different things in English, but what is relevant is the meaning in the original language, Hebrew. I showed a lot of evidence that the word doesn't mean what Tom wants it to mean.

Do you speak other languages apart from English? When the same verse is translated to German or Spanish the word "stand up" is used. Why? because that's what it means. Tom's whole interpretation is based on the alternative meanings of the word rise in English. But even in English the interpretation makes no sense, because falling to never rise again doesn't imply a previous state of constantly rising.

52


"1969 Apollo 11 lands on the Moon" looks correct to me , I can agree with that.

53
Claiming that you formula can be derived from his paper is not the same,  that's not what I'm asking.


I get what you are saying, but it's not what I asked.  So I get  you haven't spoken with any of the authors you of these papers. Understood.

You claim you have a very important formula or derivation. The most important in modern physics. "It can answer each and every major question ever posed by science".  Yet all you do is post in the FES forums and discuss your formula with Rabinoz and Jackblack, who btw are the only people who care about looking at your important formula. You should probably thank them for doing that instead of trying to get rid of them.

It sounds pretty ridiculous to be honest. If you are in possession of such an important scientific breakthrough, why hide it here at the FES forums where barely anyone can see it?

54
Proof:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams


BTW, the author of this paper SANKAR HAJRA?  who is SANKAR HAJRA?

55
Has any known physicist ever agreed that your derivation is correct? Or someone with a PhD in Physics?

Yes.

Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
"Engineer of the Year," at Rockwell Science Center
Leonardo da Vinci Award in 1985
Fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Please don't answer the paper agrees with you, I mean a real person telling you the derivation is correct.

Have you contacted Dr. Yeh about this? Has Dr. Yeh agreed with you personally in word spoken or written?

Claiming that you formula can be derived from his paper is not the same,  that's not what I'm asking.


56
I have just this one user.

You do?

And yet appear here acting as jackblack's appointed lawyer?

If you don't like it, then by all means go ahead and post your formula a few more times.

Again, you are committing an act of what could be interpreted as rudeness: have I ever told you how you should write your messages?

Just take a look at the trolling perpetrated by your friends, whom you are defending.

Imagine if YOU had a formula, beautifully derived, which coincides exactly with the formula published in the Journal of Optics Letters by one of the top physicists in the world.

And someone else would make trolling requests and avoid to acknowledge that the formula is actually correct.

No other forum would alllow jackblack's despicable trolling as it is allowed right here.

I understand you are very proud of your formula and that's great. Sometimes it's difficult to convince other people even if you are 100% right, in those cases approaching the problem from a different angle might help. Sometimes you are 100% sure you are right, but in the end it turns out you were wrong, happens to everyone.

Let me ask you this: Has any known physicist ever agreed that your derivation is correct? Or someone with a PhD in Physics?

And please don't answer the paper agrees with you, I mean a real person telling you the derivation is correct.

57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: October 02, 2019, 07:32:12 AM »
@Tom

I raised the question in a Hebrew language forum, so that people who actually speak Hebrew can shed some light on the issue.

https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/

Quote
No, that's not the meaning of לָקוּם lāqûm. Rather, לָקוּם means "to get up" as in the sense of getting up in the morning or standing up when you've been sitting.

The idea of rising up in the sense of going higher is לִגְבֹּהַּ liḡbōah [H1361], לָרוּם lārûm [H7311], לַעֲלוֹת laʿălôṯ [H5927], among others that become more popular in the post-biblical language.

This is simply not how the verb לָקוּם is used.

In this case, the land (that is, הָאָ֫רֶץ hāʾā́reṣ, probably referring to the Land of Israel and not to the planet Earth) "rising" meaning that it cannot be established as good ever again. It has fallen - in sin or in defeat. This has nothing to do with the earth wandering around like a drunkard.

Are you convinced now?

58
By now we all know what your formula

Whose alt are you?


Please don't start with the alt paranoia. I have just this one user.

Anyone reading this thread has seen your formula several times, it gets old.

It was a suggestion. If you don't like it, then by all means go ahead and post your formula a few more times.

59
MY FORMULA!

By now we all know what your formula is, there's no need to post 100 times a day.

In order to bring this discussion forward, it would be good if you could answer Jack's questions in a simple manner. As it stands the discussion is stuck in a loop of you posting the same formulas over and over.

60
Flat Earth General / Re: How can Earth hold Atmosphere?
« on: October 02, 2019, 03:52:00 AM »
If you have a cup or glass and you pour water in it, the container can hold only some water and when the water level increases over edge of cup or glass, water will pour away.

Now imagine air instead of water and Earth instead of cup. All the armosphere should pour away from Earth, leaving Earth whisout atmosphere. So how can we breathe? Are there any invisible boarders around Earth preventing atmosphere from escaping?

The armosphere may be limited to the outskirts of the infinite plane.

But, since this is the first use of the term armosphere , feel free to provide a definition.

Can an infinite plane have outskirts?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15