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 - Art

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oh dear...
« on: July 22, 2014, 07:01:04 AM »

Your proof is silly video evidence by unconditional belief. It's basically like saying, " oh, I saw a kid flying and levitating with no means of holding him up, it's on video so it's true."


That's a bit narrow minded, we can see a lot more than that. For just one simple and omitted example, the compelling reactions of his loved ones on Earth at various stages of the decent.

The helium balloon rises initially for the same reason a bubble of air rises to the top of a body of water.
It gets larger as the surrounding air pressure gradually becomes lower allowing the balloon to expand
(the same thing will happen to a bubble of air in water as it rises.
The balloons are designed to pop at a specific altitude, so the thickness of the latex is initially calculated
to withstand a certain amount of pressure from the inside before they pop, and the payload falls to earth
sometimes slowed with the aid of a pre-deployed parachute.


32
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oh dear...
« on: July 22, 2014, 06:38:42 AM »
Moving at the same velocity through the atmosphere as you would in a vacuum (or near vacuum)
could perhaps present a little problem for a Human, but as air pressure is increased terminal velocity for the same object changes.
I have not even looked at the numbers on the site, but hazard a guess that his greatest velocity was achieved closer to the beginning of the jump where there is less air resistance to slow the object down.


33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oh dear...
« on: July 22, 2014, 06:27:07 AM »

You can't have it both ways.

You can if air density changes with altitude, which you may not accept, but is what's being asserted.

Your own example demonstrates that terminal velocity of the same object changes with air pressure (your feather example).
Only you have just mentioned one extreme and the other... the atmosphere we experience, and a vacuum.

If the object (Human or not) is falling a distance from Earth great enough that the pressure changes so greatly from one
extreme to the other in the same fall, of course there is going to be variation in terminal velocity, and the ability for a Human
to utilise his own body to control decent is going to become more effective with the increase in air density.

I don't know the thoughts on changes in air pressure for someone who doesn't believe in "outer space",
but any citizen with the cash to spare can stick a GPS on a weather balloon full of helium and track it until it pops,
and go get it when it hits the ground. The increasing difference in pressure in & outside the balloon causes it to expand
gradually until it pops. The GPS thing... well no matter your thoughts on how that works it still works.

34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tropical Rotational Storms
« on: July 22, 2014, 06:13:16 AM »

Well, its not like it's the first time it had been discussed. There are many coriolis threads.

There's always another thread.
Did any of them offer an explanation why the centre 8 of 180 degrees is a no go zone for cyclones?
On a flat Earth disc I'd love to hear why the centre point of any radius line is so special.

35
You can buy the cheapest telescope money can buy, and still see the detail of the moon's surface, Jupiter's moons, and Saturn's rings (minimally).

36
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oh dear...
« on: July 21, 2014, 08:08:24 PM »
Quote
In a vacuum chamber, the penny and feather fall at roughtly the same rate. They do this because there is no air resistance to alter their state of fall, meaning the feather that is built for air resistance, is now nullified.

No they fall at precisely the same rate actually… in a perfect vacuum.

Now roll the same penny off the edge of a ramp in a vacuum and see what happens.
This isn't what happened in the case of RB Stratos though.

He didn't start spinning until there was significant air pressure to cause him to spin while his body was not symmetrical.
This would have continued had he not made the effort to stabilise himself.



37
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tropical Rotational Storms
« on: July 21, 2014, 07:54:00 PM »
I was reminded by the toilet flushing thread, which is a bit of a failure (got to do your fact checking first),
but why not introduce the Coriolis effect on a much grander scale ;)

I have noticed when the questions get too difficult because the evidence points to a particular conclusion,
the flat Earthers avoid the thread like the plague, and all you hear is crickets :D

This is not an example of that though... You could always introduce some wibbly wobbly bendy wind thing to explain it.

38
Flat Earth Debate / Tropical Rotational Storms
« on: July 21, 2014, 04:56:45 PM »
Or Cyclones/Hurricanes/Typhoons as they are commonly called spin in one direction according
to which hemisphere they occur on.
On a flat earth disc this would be either the inside or outside half I presume.
A cyclone also cannot exist within 4 degrees of the equator, and therefore ever cross the equator.

Can any flat Earth hypothesis supporter provide a reason why this might be the case?

I presume the equator is an imaginary line circling the centre of a flat earth disc.

Cheers, Art.

39
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Travel times on a flat earth
« on: July 21, 2014, 03:54:22 AM »
Can it be explained without a flat Earth map why the greyline is shaped the way it is, and moves the way it does?


40
"The dark blue is simply the change of that wavelength as the sun moves away as the blackness starts to absorb the colour wave."
Can you point to any links describing how the blackness of space absorbs colour waves,
or how any radiation on the visible spectrum will change wavelength without passing from one medium to another?


41
And if that isn't enough, in recent times people all over the world have been able to talk and/or listen to the astronauts when the ISS is overhead.
All ISS freqs are VHF/UHF. It's simply not possible to travel around the Earth on the ground fast enough to make a radio repeater available and unavailable so quickly over time.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Of course, as has been mentioned in other threads, the ISS has frequencies available to any licensed radio operator to try for themselves.
The ISS can extend the range of $50 handheld radios far beyond what is possible with VHF/UHF frequencies at low power across the Earth by retransmitting your signal from space.

Example cheap Chinese radio that can communicate with ISS:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Frequencies above 30MHz are generally no good for worldwide communications because rather than being reflected by the ionosphere back down to Earth, they simply keep travelling out into space.

42
When private parties pay to launch a satellite into orbit such as OSCAR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR
do you think they get upset when they find the satellite doesn't exist,
or isn't present to provide comms on it's expected pass?



43
What does tech hype have to do with the ISS? Radio communications and the internet were both in the
hands of the masses before Governments really knew how to govern them. ISS is just a bonus "thing".

The interesting thing about the detail you provided is they could all be verified with phase shift in the
same way a single stationary device with multiple antennas can locate a transmitter without the need
for any triangulation or triliteration by rapidly switching all of it's antennas and comparing the signal.



The point is the equipment used for the communication isn't usually capable of the same kind of range
because of the bands they use. There are other natural conditions that allow long range communication with
the same equipment, and also man made repeaters, but the passing of the ISS would be a strange occurrence
for something made up, or made to happen with impossible Earth bound equipment, but it would be cheaper
for the Governments to just tell us we can't communicate with the ISS. Most of us already believe the Earth is round.


So hows that working for ya ? LOL

To be honest it's a recent discovery I have not yet tried, but aside from Starman,
I have friends doing it that I know personally, and do have the radio to listen.
and expect it to work like catching the Sun's rays.
You really dont know how the pyramid scheme works,stock market science & technology hype sells shares & stock. Whether what their peddling is piffle or not. If throwing the odd pantomime gets the investors in (Suckers) Then pantomimes it is. The next come in  suckers ride their printing shares for is Mars.       

44
The point is the equipment used for the communication isn't usually capable of the same kind of range
because of the bands they use. There are other natural conditions that allow long range communication with
the same equipment, and also man made repeaters, but the passing of the ISS would be a strange occurrence
for something made up, or made to happen with impossible Earth bound equipment, but it would be cheaper
for the Governments to just tell us we can't communicate with the ISS. Most of us already believe the Earth is round.


So hows that working for ya ? LOL

To be honest it's a recent discovery I have not yet tried, but aside from Starman,
I have friends doing it that I know personally, and do have the radio to listen.
and expect it to work like catching the Sun's rays.

45
In the time between now and my last visit I have gained an amateur radio license.
When ISS is overhead, just about any private licensed radio operator in the world can
use the ISS as a repeater totally legally.
If someone transmits through it with voice for example (145.800 MHz FM I think it is for voice),
anyone with a capable scanner/receiver can also hear it extend the range of cheap handheld radios.
It also does packet radio (144.800 for receive data).

Frequencies over about 30MHz (HF) are not propagated by the ionosphere,
and simply fly out into space where it's smooth sailing for a radio wave.



46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« on: October 02, 2013, 02:06:06 AM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59911.0.html#.UkuJ2Z_n_qA

There is many threads about this but here is the most recent. I explained in detail why this happens and what to expect at different locations.

Apologies, I should have looked, you have certainly made the effort.
No need for this one, happy for it to go mods, it's relatively superficial in comparison ;)

47
Flat Earth Debate / Time Lapse (Stars)
« on: October 01, 2013, 07:47:55 PM »
Hi Guys,

A mountain I often climb... Was sent as a warning to stay away this weekend.

So if we do this at a few different locations either side of the equator, what then?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Mt Barney Burning SD

Or is it the Universe rotating around us because we are the centre of the Universe?

48
I didn't go do any research, but had this in mind when I saw a video.
It has been proven that the different speeds literally do not add up:
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Common Physics Misconceptions

Before we talk about bendy light, can we look at printed figures?

49
If you jump up and down in a bus doing 60, the bus is also carrying the atmosphere around you at 60,
and you don't encounter horizontal wind resistance.

If you jump out of the bus doing 60, you are inhibited by the atmosphere around you,
and no longer have the power of the bus.

50
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Jroa's Beliefs on Scientists
« on: September 03, 2013, 04:34:38 AM »
I don' think people posting here, taking the position that the Earth is flat, really believe that the Earth is flat.
It occurs to me that it consumes more mental resource to defend an hypothesis that you don't actually believe,
and is therefore more challenging, but at best you could only ever take the genuine position that you don't know whether
or not the Earth is flat, but have no strong opinion either way, while simultaneously rejecting any assertive round Earth claim.
It seems the easiest solution, when a thread becomes too difficult, is to simply abandon it.

It happens that I have one of these units that is obsolete for my purposes.
It would be possible to disassemble it down to it's antenna and feed horn,
and actually use it as a directional antenna for something else such as a UHF walkie talkie.
The feed horn would certainly pose a problem for any signal that was not directed into it.

Then with a dish demonstration, are we not down to a transmitter that has to be suspended in the sky
in a relatively stationery position, powered, with very low down time, and far enough away that we can't see it?




51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Jroa's Beliefs on Scientists
« on: September 03, 2013, 12:24:39 AM »
I have dismantled one, and the components are all still there ;)
The feed horn would actually prevent signals from anywhere other than the intended angle
even reaching the antenna (which is just a small piece of wire).


52
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Jroa's Beliefs on Scientists
« on: September 03, 2013, 12:21:38 AM »
With your typical direct to home pay TV setup, the three components are built into the same unit:






53
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Jroa's Beliefs on Scientists
« on: September 02, 2013, 10:54:07 PM »
Thanks very much, Art
However, I have a confession.: :(
I didn't know what "LNB" stood for . ???
I had to look it up. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-noise_block_downconverter
However, I doubt that an FE would bother to do so.
There is something to the second part of my signature line after all !  ;D

You can also cook straight away with a satellite dish by coating it in foil under the Sun.
Google yields heaps of results that demonstrate their focus.




54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Jroa's Beliefs on Scientists
« on: September 02, 2013, 08:28:09 PM »
The offset of a satellite dish is only "higher than it appears" because people like to pretend that the satellites they are viewing is high in the sky rather than along the horizon where the satellite dish points. It would be stupid to think that a satellite dish could capture more of a signal if the signal were hitting it from a high angle, rather than from straight on.

When microwave dishes are used to transmit signals across large areas of land, is the receiving dish pointed down into the ground? No. That's nonsense. The dish is pointed directly at the transmitter.

It's super simple stuff.
You can put an object in the way and block where the signal is coming from.
The offset dish isn't elongated vertically for no reason.
Also, an offset dish can be pointed directly at a brick wall, so long as it can see over it.
This happens all the time when houses are close together.

The shape of prime focus dish that points directly at the source is different.

It stands to reason that someone with your belief would have a limited understanding of the most easily commercially available
technology that is so easily demonstrated. It really only takes about five minutes, and a good hard look.

Quote
It would be stupid to think that a satellite dish could capture more of a signal if the signal were hitting it from a high angle, rather than from straight on.
Why? Because a prime focus dish locates the LNB, it's bracket, and cable in the way of the signal, where an offset dish does not.
This allows an offset dish to be made smaller overall.

55
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!
« on: August 30, 2013, 06:41:14 AM »
Maybe someone got converted!!
or more likely, might have realised it's not worth the debate.

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Jroa's Beliefs on Scientists
« on: August 29, 2013, 07:47:48 PM »
Fair enough. Defeated!
And it could be relaunched daily from the launch site if it's path is a geo-spacial circuit.

It's distance can be proven with time delay from Earth.
The satellite doesn't need to know the user's location, so it can't contain
software to introduce it's own time delay just in order to fool people on Earth.

I followed up on something I said I would do in another thread. These are the words of a VK:
" The paths of these satellites is very elipictal also they are not comercial ones given up they are amateur ones built and paid for by people just like you and I.
Now due to their orbits there is also dopler shift. "

Now there's a problem.
These words (and many more) can be verified VKs there are actually two more that chimed in
 but I would be concerned over directing traffic from here,
to a technology forum where this debate is not relevant.
It would be possible to have the thread closed, and then do it.




57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Jroa's Beliefs on Scientists
« on: August 29, 2013, 06:58:43 PM »
Great,
So anyone can prove the distance and angle of a satellite from Earth,
and in a few different people around the globe doing so,
consequently proves the Earth is not a disc, because the satellite
would have to teleport from one edge of the disc to the other like
Pacman when he crosses the maze.

The Earth could still be Cube or any other 3D shape, but not a disc.

Such a proof requires no belief of anything a Scientist has told you because
the experiments can be conducted by hobbyists.

This satellite is pinged daily by hobbyists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMSAT-OSCAR_7

Am I still off topic?


58
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Jroa's Beliefs on Scientists
« on: August 29, 2013, 06:14:31 PM »
I'm now with the world.  In a thread that went from the OP topic to satellites and satellite dishes, John posted somewhat on topic with a reasonable response.  I suppose you deserve appreciation for it, so thank you, John.

Now to wait for Jroa's further justification of his statements, or concession to one or the other.

How are satellites off topic in a thread about sustained orbit,
when they are an easy way to demonstrate sustained orbit?


59
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Jroa's Beliefs on Scientists
« on: August 29, 2013, 05:53:07 PM »
We have two threads on the same thing now?
Offset dishes are looking higher than they appear.
Prime focus dishes are looking exactly where they appear to look.

Pictured are all offset dishes.

If you thought they point along the ground, did you not wonder why the LNB is pointing AT the ground?

The above is easily verified by blocking them with objects at the angle they are looking.
If you hold the same object directly in front of them, it won't interfere with the broadcast.

60
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problem with supported FE map
« on: August 29, 2013, 04:55:08 PM »
I like what you've done with my country there (Australia).
Made it so a trip from the northern end to the southern end of the continent is twice the
distance if you do it on the eastern side, as it would be if you did the trip on the Western side.

Would somebody mind swapping that around?
It is more likely that I'm going to travel on the Eastern side, and this is going to blow out my fuel budget.

Driving a motor vehicle from Brisbane to Melbourne actually only takes a day.

Perhaps you could produce one for free that isn't like a child playing with fingerpaints,
just to save embarrassment.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5