1

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do airplanes fly at the height they fly at?

« on: January 19, 2021, 01:54:01 PM »

Putting aside this obsession that some people have here of feeling the need to question (i.e. doubt) pretty much everything that you are 'told' let's just think about it in this way.  Firstly I presume you have never stood next to a Boeing 747 or Airbus A380 so you have no idea how big they actually are?

Now have you ever noticed a trend in life where objects tend to look smaller the further away you are from them?  Now apply this to a Boeing 747 or Airbus A380 passing overhead at cruising altitude.  The clue is choose the ones which are contrailing as they pass over.  Now have you noticed how small they look?  You can cover a 747 or an A380 with the tip of your little finger.  So there's a direct visual clue there about how high the aircraft is flying.

I often plane watch with a small telescope and a laptop running flightradar24.com.  That is a website which shows you real air traffic in real time.  I can see planes approaching my location from hundreds of miles away.  I can click on one and then watch the plane directly through my telescope. The information displayed for each plane includes (along with a lot more) altitude, speed, origin, destination etc.  This information is obtained directly from the planes transponders.

When I flew back from NY to Gatwick a couple of years back the screen on the seat in front of me told me we were flying at 40,000ft.  And trust me looking out of the window I could well believe that. 

Is that evidence enough for you that airliners really do fly at 30,000ft plus?

2

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 14, 2021, 01:12:50 AM »

 Just to let you know guys I have had it with all this now.  You can't discuss or debate anything with flat Earth or 'alternative' Earth believers.  They believe what they believe and that is all. 

I've tried to explain things as they really are but it falls on deaf ears. So that's it.  I've wasted enough time on all this and so I'm through with this and all other discussions.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 13, 2021, 01:44:18 AM »

You have a better explanation for all this then have you?

4

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 13, 2021, 01:18:23 AM »

Why people can't see how stupid this all is, baffles me.

Making ridiculous comments like that don't do anything to help your case.  It just shows how completely ignorant and dismissive you are towards anything other than what you believe.  I think the way your mind works is that if you can think it or imagine it then in your opinion it must be true. That's why you say everything in your model is just hypothetical and theoretical. That's why you don't bother to physically do any experiments.  Because what you believe is evidence enough for you.  You skip the actual testing bit and just jump from theory to conclusion.

Have you heard of the inverse square law for light intensity?   In other words if you double your distance from a given light source the amount of energy from light radiation per unit area drops of by a factor of 4.  3 times by a factor of 9 etc. 

Have you also noticed how the further away from an object you are the smaller it appears to be.

Now we are 'told' that the Sun is much nearer to us than any other star. Now consider how that fits in with the inverse square law. Light from the Sun is much brighter than any other star. We know that. If the other stars are much further away (as we are 'told') then according to the inverse square law they should also be much, much fainter. The Suns apparent magnitude is -26.  The apparent brightness of Sirius, the next brightest star is -1.42.  Thats a difference of 24.58 magnitudes.  The stellar magnitude scale is logarithmic and so the difference in brightness between the Sun and Sirius is a very large number - 2.512^24.58.  You could actually use that to work out how far away Sirius is.

Also think about this.  If you live on the equator Orions belt passes overhead.  If you live near the north pole then Orions belt skims the horizon.  If you live in New Zealand you can also see Orions belt low in the north.  In other words you can see Orions belt regardless of where you are on Earth so the light from the stars is 'engulfing' the whole of the Earth.  However because the stars of Orions belt are a long, long way away the intensity of the light from those stars is very, very weak compared to that of the Sun.  We don't see shadows cast by the stars of Orions belt but we can see them because our eyes are sensitive enough to detect the light. You will also note that no matter where in the world you observe the stars in Orions belt they always appear the same brightness.  So that must mean we are always observing the stars from the same distance.  If the stars were very near then their brightness would vary accordingly.

Going on the size relationship, the Sun covers an angle on the sky of 1/2 degree or 30'.  That's at a distance of 8.2 light minutes so if you increased that to 4.3 light years the Suns apparent size would decrease accordingly so it became effectively a point source which is what we see in Alpha Centuri.

We measure the distances of the nearest stars by parallax. The Suns nearest neighbour is Alpha Centuri but unfortunately I can never see that from where I am. I have the equipment to take hi resolution images of star positions so yes I could measure the parallax of some stars with my own equipment but it would take at least six months.  I'm happy to pick a star and do that as a project but I'm afraid you will have to be patient.

It is not just about accepting 'what I am told' it is also about combining that with a bit of logical reasoning based on my own observations.  If the two agree then there is no reason to doubt what I have been 'told' is there?

In the meantime, tell us about how you have have figured out how far away the stars actually are because I'm not doing any measurements unless you do as well.  Otherwise we cannot compare results can we.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 12, 2021, 02:37:54 PM »

Nearly a hundred page of level tube nonsense.

Indeed. I would challenge you to find on any other forum on the Internet a discussion that can go on so long about something as mundane and simple as what you can see through a tube!  I ask you?!?

I'm not actually that bothered about the tube discussion.  That's for the others to argue about. I'm more interested in what Scepti thinks stars are. He tells me that they are lights in the sky. Which let's face it is very true.  Beyond that visual description though he seems to find the rest challenging.  Why do the patterns of lines in star 'rainbows' have lines which vary in position and shape so much??  I have asked several times now but each time Scepti comes back with various permutation of words which basically mean the same thing.  Just because I happen to not feel it unnecessary to repeat information here which is already contained in countless other websites he seems to think that means I don't know. (I'll let you into a little secret here...  I do know!.. but that's just between you and me OK!).

6

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 12, 2021, 11:53:20 AM »

You need to make up your mind. You're all over the place.

There's no mind making to be made up on my side.  And there is positively loads of information out there about what the stars really are.  You choosing to ignore all that does not change reality.  Do you really think that just because you don't accept or believe something stops it being true?

What you need to do is to answer the question I put to you and stop avoiding it because you actually don't know.  Each time you use different words to dodge providing an answer and try to deflect it back to me.  Won't work.

I have already answered three questions you put to me against zero from you. 

Just to recap.  When you look into the night sky you see (to use your words) points of light.  Those point of light vary in terms of brightness and (less obviously) colour.  As long as you can see a light source you can obtain a spectrum (rainbow to use your words but same thing).  When we look at the Suns spectrum we see a particular pattern of dark lines.  When we look at the spectrum of other stars we also see dark lines but of different position and profile (thickness if you prefer). 

So explain why you think the spectral lines vary with different stars?  If they were just reflections of a single light source they would all be the same.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 12, 2021, 05:58:03 AM »

Then, spectate.

Another telling and typically dismissive response from you there.  You are obviously not willing to engage in a discussion where real evidence is involved so you simply brush it aside.

I expected better even from you than that.  I guess I will accept then that you simply have no clue as to what your stars might be.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 12, 2021, 02:22:05 AM »

Let's deal with your stars.
The sun engulfs half the Earth as we're told because nothing stops the radiation hitting us with it travelling in a vacuum as we're told.

Let's deal with this a little at a time.
Is this what is believed or am I wrong in saying this by your accounts?
If so, then briefly explain before I move on.

No I am not playing to your tune I'm afraid.  Dodge the questions and try and divert the subject as much as you like but it won't work with me.   I asked you for your opinion about the nature of the stars and what evidence you have to back you up over the models held by mainstream physics.

Either you do that here and clearly and without saying you have already explained it elsewhere already or this discussion stops here and now.  I have explained my side, I have answered a couple of questions from you. Now it's your turn.  Try to do some explaining instead of just claiming.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 11, 2021, 01:49:11 PM »

I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions

Can anyone else point me to this best guess of Sceptis about what he thinks the stars are?  Because I'm pretty sure that he won't.  He has given it on many occasions apparently so anyone help out?

Let's start with your stars and their rainbows.
Light years away and we are told we see that light as it was millions of years ago, through a vacuum of space.
We see those stars because they make our own sun look like a glowing ember, sort of thing.
This is the utter nonsense we get told.

You keep on about this 'we are told' business.  But we are not just told because we can actually measure it.  Thousands of both amateur and professional astronomers make these measurements themselves all the time.  How?  Because we have equipment that allows us to do it.  Including me.  So I am not just accepting 'what I am told' I am comparing what I am told with what I can actually measure.  I have a specialist CCD camera (what is a CCD camera I hear you ask yourself) and a filter (star analyser 100) that acts as a transmission grating (what is that I hear you ask yourself) and that allows me to disperse the light of any star into its spectra (rainbow to you).  I can then run the spectra through software (RSpec) which allows me to identify and measure the wavelengths of various absorption lines in the spectrum and thereby classify the star.  Thus confirming what 'I am told'. What experiments can you do?

Yes we do see stars as they were in the past because again we can measure their distance.  How?  Well up to a certain distance we can use parallax and beyond that we can use other, photometric techniques.  Your 'glowing ember' is not a bad analogy actually because a few stars do have much greater luminosity than the Sun does.  Some stars are bright because they are relatively close.  Others are bright because they are very distant and very luminous.  We have tried and tested and re-tested methods of verifying all this.

I'm sorry if you find all this so hard to believe (probably because the big numbers involved cause brain overload) but it really is true.  Deny it all you like but that won't change the truth of it.

However if you are so sure that the whole of stellar astrophysics has got it wrong, given all the evidence we have gathered over the last 150 years or so then you must have pretty compelling evidence which shows how and where we have got it wrong.  However you cannot seem to bring yourself to answer a simple question such as what the stars are actually like in your opinion. 

If you say you have already explained it elsewhere I'm damned if I can find those explanations anywhere.  Perhaps you could help me?  Because until someone can give me a better explanation then I will carry on accepting 'what I am told'.  But not just because I have been told.  Because I have made the effort to make the measurements myself and compare them with what 'I am told'.  That's what you tell us to do isn't it?  Go out and find out for ourselves.  Well I have done just that thanks very much.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 11, 2021, 09:50:24 AM »

No answer to your so called stars then.

Not from you so far no.  Why?

You asked some questions.  I answered them. Not to your satisfaction I'm sure but that's irrelevant.   So now it's your turn to answer my question.  What do you think the stars are and what makes them shine in your world/universe?

I know about the explanation given by mainstream astrophysics and my OWN observations support that entirely.  But what are your stars?   Stop avoiding answering questions you don't know the answers to.  I'll accept your guesses.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 11, 2021, 09:06:07 AM »

I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions

Which is?  Why do you have to rely on guesswork? 

12

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 11, 2021, 06:51:38 AM »

Simple question.  Let's try it again.  You maintain I have no clue.  I get that but that's not unusual for you is it. According to you none of us have a clue about anything..  SO you tell me what YOU think the stars are and what evidence you have to support your claim.

If you can't or won't then I will accept that you have no clue.

How are you seeing a spectrum of colour through a vacuum

Light travel through a vacuum since it is an electromagnetic wave and hence doesn't need a medium to travel through.

If someone shone a torch at your face from  50 feet away, you would see a small light but that light would engulf you and quite a wide area around you

The torch emits light.  We will assume it is white light so if I held a prism in the path of the light I would see a spectrum.  A continuous spectrum that is.  I would prefer them not to shine it in my face.  Into my spectroscope would be preferable.   

What I want to know from you is why I see lines in the spectra of stars, and why the line patterns are different between different colours of stars.

 

13

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 11, 2021, 06:32:48 AM »

I accept you have no answer to it.

And I accept that you obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about.  Just tell me what you think the stars actually are then and why.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 11, 2021, 06:13:37 AM »

What exactly do I need to get out of?

I know what I'm doing and what I'm seeing and how and why I'm seeing it.  I don't expect you to agree or accept any of that because your belief of what light is, what stars are and why I am seeing the spectrum I do is obviously different to mine.

What I am asking you to do is explain what you think the stars are and why I see a different pattern of lines in different stars. 

You are not getting out of that explanation either.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 10, 2021, 09:02:36 AM »

Scepti..

You talk about everyone except you being 'indoctrinated' for not 'knowing' the reality like you do.  But if you do some research into the actual meaning of indoctrination you will see that historically it has been applied mostly to political or religious dictatorships.  Nazi Germany being a classic case in point.

With indoctrination there is always one clear obvious source of the indoctrination. A supreme leader if you like.  One person who is so passionate and committed to a single belief of ideology that they set conditions such as we see in communist regimes and the like.  That is what indoctrination is really about.

Mainstream science could not be further from that.  It is about a consensus of information and data which has been built up over many centuries and by many people.  So many in fact that I lose track of who can be credited with which discovery.  Just look at how and thick big a single volume of 'How's who' of science is. What remains though is that all the results of all the experiments and all the observations agree with each other and support each other.  They can be freely and openly verified by anyone.  Everything is documented.  Basically the exact opposite of anything to do with your 'model'. 

The evidence for science is just too much for your little brain to cope with. Your way of dealing with it?  Dismiss it all as claptrap and deny all of all of it.  Your 'model' is simply your way of trying to re-invent everything in a way that makes sense to you but no one else.  How can all those billions and billions of water molecules possibly stick to a 'globe' you say?  Well quite easily actually if you understand about gravity and the electromagnetic force.   
 
You talk about stars, planets just being 'lights in the sky'.  That's true.  They are just lights in the sky to yours and my naked eye.  But did you know that every source of light, whether it's just a dot of light in the sky or something bigger (like the Sun and Moon for instance) produces a spectrum? What is a spectrum?  Well you probably know it better as a rainbow. Now there is a LOT of information we can glean from studying that spectrum.  I mean a LOT of information.  I wouldn't expect you to understand or be interested in any of that and you will simply take on the stance of denial as you always do.  I would be fascinated to know what your explanation for the stars is.  Some sort of holographic projection or reflection no doubt. If all the stars in the sky were just some sort of reflection from a single light source off your hypothetical dome then they would all produce the same spectral line pattern when observed through a spectroscope.  Well guess what... they don't.  Far from it in fact. That's how the spectral sequence was determined.  Not by a single person but from contributions by many people.  Feel free to deny it and dismiss it all.  I'm sure you will.   But its true.  I have the equipment myself to analyse stellar spectra and I have done my own experiments and observations to prove it to myself.

You feel special because you think you know differently to everyone else.  And since your model exists only in your hypothetical and theoretical mind then you are the only one who knows about your model.  But I know a lot more about the real model that actually exists and that makes me feel even more special than you could ever imagine.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Strange correlation between Betelgeuse brightness dynamics and solar activity.

« on: January 06, 2021, 12:23:46 PM »

As you say, Betelgeuse is just over 640 light years way.  The Sun meanwhile is a little over 8 light minutes away.  That means the total difference in light travelling time between the Earth and Betelgeuse is a little over 16 minutes. Compared to just over 640 years that is nothing so can be effectively ignored.  That miniscule difference in distance has absolutely no relevance to the apparent brightness of Betelgeuse from Earth. 

What does make a difference is that because of its immense size, Betelgeuse is an unstable star which regularly pulses. A bit like a very large bubble.  So its radius is not constant and since the luminosity of a star is a function of its radius (as well as temperature) the variations in size have an effect on the luminosity of Betelgeuse and therefore its apparent brightness.  The recent dimming of Betelgeuse is a consequence of a 'wobble' that occurred just over 640 years ago.  Ain't astronomy wonderful!

The Sun and Betelgeuse are at completely different stages in their evolution (G type main sequence compared to M type supergiant) the dynamics of the two stars is also completely different.

So what is your point? And why is any of this relevant to a forum about whether the Earth is flat or not?

17

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 06, 2021, 02:50:47 AM »

The vortex and pressures created from the energy of the central sun that is taking the feed.

OK and what is the energy source of the central Sun?

I would also like to ask what you believe the age of your Earth is and what supporting evidence you have.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 05, 2021, 12:14:27 PM »

Just out of interest Scepti... since in your world the Sun and Moon are just holographic reflections with therefore no mass of their own,  what drives the weather and controls the tides?

19

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 04, 2021, 02:08:20 PM »

I'm just showing you how simplistic it is to see how water cannot stay on a ball.
You go along with invented magic of this gravity to tell me it does, without telling me how and why.

If you pour water onto a globe that has a mass of 25kg it will fall off.  If you pour water onto a globe that has a mass of 6 million, million, million, million kg then it won't.

You seem to be overlooking that small point which JB (who has the patience of a saint!) has tried to explain to you.  So your next question will inevitably be something along the lines of 'Show me how you know the mass of 'your globe''.  Well figure that out for yourself.  That's what you are so passionate about isn't it?  Finding things out for yourself.  Except you of course. You are quite content to just sit on that throne of yours and dictate to everyone else what they should do.   

There's plenty of information about that so it won't take you long.  I won't waste time myself though as nothing I say will make a difference to what you want to believe.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 04, 2021, 03:15:17 AM »

The level of stupid is amazing.

Where is the water falling to?
Is it falling towards the extremely massive ball that everyone is standing on?

You simply cannot reason with anyone who is so staunchly set on and locked onto to a single and their own belief that they refuse to accept or even consider any other.

The more you try to reason with or argue against those sort of people the more they tighten their grip on their insistence that they are right and no one else has a clue what they are talking about.   Even when the evidence is right there staring them in the face.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 04, 2021, 01:31:53 AM »

Re your reply #2570... yes and?   So through your eyes everyone who has ever bought a decorative water feature for their garden like this has unwittingly proved that the Earth is not a globe have they?

Why is the water pouring off the ball and onto the ground then?  Why is all the water moving in the same direction? What could possibly be causing that I wonder??? Any offers anyone?  That will be a difficult one for Scepti to answer because he refuses to accept gravity exists.  For the everyone else it should be a bit more straight forward.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 03, 2021, 11:24:41 AM »

I've repeatedly told you there is no horizon line. It's theoretical.

Yes, and???  What does you telling us anything prove?  You could equally tell me there is intelligent life on Mars.. Just because YOU tell us anything it doesn't magically make it true. 

Situation is then.. On the one hand you accuse us of being 'indoctrinated because we apparently simply accept what we are told re Earth being a globe.  But obviously if you 'repeatedly tell' us something, such as your theoretical horizon line' then that is different and we are just expected (by you) to accept it without a grain of real evidence..  You can't provide any evidence because as you have also repeatedly told us...  your model is purely hypothetical and theoretical. 

Your mind is so full of... well let's just say stuff that you would like to be true, and so in your mind is true.  You can't prove any of it by your own admission because it is all theoretical and hypothetical.  For the rest of us there is 'indoctrination'.  On balance I think I'll stick with the indoctrination in that case.  At least with indoctrination comes some real and proper measurable evidence which is more than can be said for anything you come up with.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 03, 2021, 08:58:59 AM »

Now go and pour water on an iron ball and tell me why that runs around the ball and off at the bottom of that ball

I'm not sure whether you are asking that out of pure ignorance of the answer or pure naivety. If you really don't know then that says a lot about your process of thinking.  Why does it have to be an iron ball since gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetism.
I never mentioned magnetism, so who's being ignorant.

I was just curious to know why you mentioned an iron ball specifically.  Water will run around a ball of any material and fall off the bottom.  But why does it fall of just the bottom?  Why doesn't it fall sideways or upwards if there is no other force around to stop it? Iron is a ferrous material and therefore magnetic but water isn't magnetic. So the water couldn't care less what the ball was made of. On the other hand if you were to pour a load of small iron ball bearings over a larger iron ball you would see them stick to the top of it.  This showing that magnetism is stronger than gravity.

Because you have self-declared gravity to be non-existent, nonsense (which you are of course fully entitled to do) you naturally have to find an alternative explanation for what you observe.  Unsuccessfully up to now I might add.

If you could somehow make an iron ball that had a mass greater than that of Earth but small enough to fit in your hand then you would find that water most definitely would stick to it. Along with everything else in your vicinity which wasn't tied down I might add. That's my prediction anyway. 

24

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 02, 2021, 12:03:21 PM »

@ TMK...  I'm so disappointed in Scepti.  He was just starting to convince me that he really is some sort of unique super genius. And then he goes and spoils it by telling us he can't figure out why water doesn't stick to a ball when you pour some over it*.

Bummer.  or to coin his own words:

Nice one, I'm still chuckling.

*You might have a different outcome if your ball was actually a neutron star.  But then it wouldn't just be the water that stuck to it!

25

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 02, 2021, 11:29:51 AM »

Now go and pour water on an iron ball and tell me why that runs around the ball and off at the bottom of that ball

I'm not sure whether you are asking that out of pure ignorance of the answer or pure naivety. If you really don't know then that says a lot about your process of thinking.  Why does it have to be an iron ball since gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetism.

Are you suggesting that the simple observation of watching water pouring off a ball bearing is evidence enough show the Earth is not a ball.  And a very big one compared to the ball bearing.  If yes then that is worrying... if not then what are you suggesting?

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure

« on: January 02, 2021, 09:58:31 AM »

Does mass have density?
If so then use your brain.

Silly me.  My back has started aching from all the times I have had to bow to your superior knowledge.  I wish you had been my physics teacher when I went to college.  So too no doubt do all the other RE believers who have clearly been duped and lied to all these years.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: The nature of light and the size of the Universe.

« on: January 01, 2021, 03:43:06 PM »

Some fancy words there. You could give Sandokhan a run for his money.

But you haven't answered my questions.

28

Flat Earth General / Re: The nature of light and the size of the Universe.

« on: January 01, 2021, 02:03:21 PM »

so it can be assumed that light waves from the Sun can exist for several seconds, but not more (not minutes, and even less years)

Solar astrophysics is a bit of a speciality of mine so could you elaborate a bit on what you are assuming here?  Do you mean before the photons are emitted from the photosphere or before?  Given that you are talking about timescales of seconds rather than minutes you must mean light waves (photons) inside the Sun.  Because from the photosphere to Earth is 150 million km and that is a journey time of 8.2 minutes.  We know the 'light waves' survive for that long on account of we can see the Sun!

How does the MFP of a photon within the radiative zone and the convection zone compare for example?

29

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: January 01, 2021, 12:08:28 PM »

Because you're a book reader and an acceptor of what is on offer.

Do you not read books then?  Beyond fiction/science fiction books I mean.

The answers are not to your liking...obviously.

Correct. Because your 'answers' are not actually answers. See TMKs  post above.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure

« on: January 01, 2021, 11:33:25 AM »

They are pushed down by their own dense mass

What do you mean by 'dense' mass.  Mass is mass, density is density.  Two separate and distinct physical properties.