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 - RealScientist

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14
61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If The Sun Is Black...
« on: May 21, 2013, 11:51:58 AM »
Does anyone have a link to a video showing objects floating inside a capsule that is in a vacuum environment, going 17,000mph?
I have seen at least 50 in these forums alone. I cannot even understand your question.

62
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If The Sun Is Black...
« on: May 21, 2013, 11:14:06 AM »
Lol,

Yes.  Maybe you can help me understand a few things.  Is it possible to have "air" (oxygen) and still be in a near vacuum that is strong enough to float in?  Also, I thought sound did not carry through a vacuum.  I have tried to find experiments on YT that show how these things are done but cannot find any.

There is nothing at all in vacuum that could make things float. Quite the contrary, in general what floats in water or air falls like a rock if placed in vacuum and the gravitational pull of Earth. If satellites were not moving at enormous speeds horizontally they would fall like rocks and crash into the Earth.

What makes people float inside the ISS, for example, is the fact that they are in orbit just like the station. They would float even if the ISS were a vacuum or even if it were filled with water (or any other liquid or fluid).

You are just barking at the wrong tree.

63
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Full moon
« on: May 21, 2013, 02:23:43 AM »
You will see countless examples where Electromagnetic Radiation is replaced by "light", just because it's shorter. That is precisely why the term "visible light" exists. If light already referred to only the visible portion of the EM spectrum, why would that term even exist?

I agree with almost all of what you say, and I believe you know a lot about the Electromagnetic Spectrum. But places like this one exist in part because people try to give more power to words than words really have. Because Einstein used the word aether once there are people here who declare that it exists and is the solution to all of FE'ers problems. Because real scientists talk about dark energy and dark matter, people here declare that dark energy can actually push us at more than 99.9999999999999999999 of c without destroying us.

Scientists do use the term "light" with less than obsessive precision, but this does not extend all the way from low frequency radio to gamma rays. Usually "light" can extend far into the infrared and far into the ultraviolet or not. But it always refers to what you can refract with lenses. "Visible light" is also less than a precise term, but it refers to what humans can see and has a very practical, not a scientific meaning. It refers to what we can observe, not exactly to a physical property.

You and I can jump from EM and antennas to EM and lenses to EM and quasars in a single sentence and still understand each other. But that is not the usual level of scientific understanding in this forum.

64
Flat Earth Debate / Re: why I think the Earth is flat
« on: May 21, 2013, 12:40:24 AM »

Of course, all this can seem confusing, but it takes a few years of study in mathematics and physics to start to understand it well.
When I was younger the idea of an escape velocity also seemed strange. I think that our direct experience, which occurs in the presence of air, makes us think more in terms of slow speeds to achieve the goal of counteracting gravity, not high speed.

Your explanation gets right to the point. Escape speed is what you need to eventually escape to where Earth's gravitational pull is insignificant without ever applying any additional force to your ship. It is not what you need to reach orbit, it is not necessary if your ship will have a rocket permanently on. You could eventually escape Earth at a constant speed of 1 kilometer per hour, moving straight up, but it would be incredibly inefficient and expensive, and not feasible with our current technology.

Escape speed is very relevant with our current technology, where you have a huge rocket that fires only for a few minutes. We are not accustomed to this kind of ballistic behavior because we do not see it in our everyday lives. We are more accustomed to our car needing a permanent push all the way to the end of the trip. But that does not mean we should think like these flat Earthers for which, if you do not see it in your cereal box, it does not exist.

65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Full moon
« on: May 19, 2013, 01:38:27 AM »
Any object above nonzero temperature radiates a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. light), dependent on its temperature.

I'm sorry to tell you,  but in Science you have to be a lot better with definitions than what you are being here. Light is visible light and maybe the near infrared and near ultraviolet. Other frequencies of electromagnetic radiation have significantly different physical properties and have different names.

You can make a lot of dramatic sounding claims by stretching the definitions of things to their breaking points, but that is not science, it is the same kind of word games that Flat Earthers use to make claims where there is nothing of any worth.

Just like the claim that you cannot have light without heat, you might have half a point hidden inside the details of poorly defined terms but you do not have any science of any worth behind them.

Now, you can say that any object that is not at perfect 0 degrees Kelvin radiates heat and that they even radiate light in significant quantities if they are heated above 2000 degrees Kelvin, and we all will happily agree.

66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Full moon
« on: May 17, 2013, 07:18:41 AM »
Light consists of photons, which carry energy. Any beam of light hitting an object will interact with it exchanging energy; one of the low-energy interactions is to change the vibrational state of molecules or cause dielectric heating, i.e. increase the temperature.

A photon either passes through a body unimpeded, or interacts with it, causing either ionization or just heating. Ionization is a much higher-energy interaction, and because of that, it will inevitably cause increase in temperature by itself, too. A beam of light, consisting of countless photons will always have at least some fraction of them interacting, so I don't think this cold light thing you're talking about is possible.

Basically, if any light from anywhere is falling on an object (light reflected from a piece of paper, whatever), it will give that object energy, most of it inevitably ending up as heat.
You are mixing a lot of things into a simple enough problem. First, every single object that is not at a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin  is radiating heat. Even an ice cube in the Saharan noon is radiating heat. So, if your definition of "cool" is no heat radiation at all, no object in the whole known universe fills your expectations. Second, if your nights are sleepless because a LED or the tail of a firefly get warmer than room temperature, you can always get an air conditioner and keep the area around the light source colder than room temperature.

And I don't know about LEDs, but lasers produce a very narrow frequency spectrum. A ruby laser, for example, produces an almost perfect single frequency of red light. This frequency is given by the quantum levels of energy possible within the ruby, so this is really cool light, in the sense that the spectrum of frequencies coming from the laser does not extend in any way into the infrared. I believe the same is true for LEDs.

And now, your confusion about white paper. The paper absorbs energy and re-emits it in a different frequency. Some of these frequencies are, in fact, what we call heat. This does not mean that the light itself is "hot" in any way. Light is not heat because it might in the future produce heat, just as I am not a corpse because I will eventually become one.

Of course light is not "hot" in any conventional way (a photon gas has temperature, but temperature works differently in gases). But I think you believe only infrared photons cause transfer of heat, but that's not true.

And of course, every object radiates light, depending on its temperature, as a gray body, and obviously an object doesn't necessarily increase in temperature if it's illuminated. But my point was that any illumination is always giving energy to that body in form of heat, even if the object is otherwise losing heat faster and is actually cooling.

I think the problem here is, I don't really understand this simple enough problem you guys are chatting about, what you mean by 'cold light' here. I haven't heard that expression anywhere before.

EDIT: Funny that you mention lasers: For a laser to work, the active medium must achieve population inversion, which results in the system having a negative absolute temperature by definition. Of course, this is of no practical use to anyone, I just thought that it fits the discussion.
What is a photon gas?

Every object radiates light?

"any illumination is always giving energy to that body in form of heat"?

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Full moon
« on: May 17, 2013, 06:37:51 AM »
Light consists of photons, which carry energy. Any beam of light hitting an object will interact with it exchanging energy; one of the low-energy interactions is to change the vibrational state of molecules or cause dielectric heating, i.e. increase the temperature.

A photon either passes through a body unimpeded, or interacts with it, causing either ionization or just heating. Ionization is a much higher-energy interaction, and because of that, it will inevitably cause increase in temperature by itself, too. A beam of light, consisting of countless photons will always have at least some fraction of them interacting, so I don't think this cold light thing you're talking about is possible.

Basically, if any light from anywhere is falling on an object (light reflected from a piece of paper, whatever), it will give that object energy, most of it inevitably ending up as heat.
You are mixing a lot of things into a simple enough problem. First, every single object that is not at a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin  is radiating heat. Even an ice cube in the Saharan noon is radiating heat. So, if your definition of "cool" is no heat radiation at all, no object in the whole known universe fills your expectations. Second, if your nights are sleepless because a LED or the tail of a firefly get warmer than room temperature, you can always get an air conditioner and keep the area around the light source colder than room temperature.

And I don't know about LEDs, but lasers produce a very narrow frequency spectrum. A ruby laser, for example, produces an almost perfect single frequency of red light. This frequency is given by the quantum levels of energy possible within the ruby, so this is really cool light, in the sense that the spectrum of frequencies coming from the laser does not extend in any way into the infrared. I believe the same is true for LEDs.

And now, your confusion about white paper. The paper absorbs energy and re-emits it in a different frequency. Some of these frequencies are, in fact, what we call heat. This does not mean that the light itself is "hot" in any way. Light is not heat because it might in the future produce heat, just as I am not a corpse because I will eventually become one.

68
Real Homeopathic snake oil and venom has many neurological benefits in the right doses... It is a shame that the field of homeopathic medicine is forsaken by men so fast and fool-hardily.  Many homeopathic cures have the same potency as pharmaceuticals.  If you say it is snake oil, I say it did the trick for me man...
Now I am starting to understand how you are as far away from anything even close to scientific that talking with you has no real meaning.

Real Homeopathic snake oil is exactly what the homeopaths say it is: water. And I like my water with a single malt and some ice, but without the water.

So, please let everyone know that you are absolutely off the Science bandwagon and I will let you alone with your water.

69
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If The Sun Is Black...
« on: May 16, 2013, 04:02:56 PM »
LOL,

Helium balloons do not get high enough.  They are still in Earth's atmosphere.  Space begins at the Karman line, 62 miles up.
You know that number (100 km up) is just a convention, right? There is nothing special in that number, and there is certainly nothing you can check out to decide if you are above or below this specific height. Just ever-thinning gas content in the surroundings.

If you want to get into a stable orbit, you should go a lot above this "line", up to about 200 km, where the air is so thin as to make orbital decay negligible.

70
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

One makes a mathematical model, and compares it with experimental observation to see if it fits. If there's one particular type of observation that doesn't fit, the model is wrong, no matter how well the others fit.

I've yet to see a FET model that fits more than a couple types of observable evidence.

Meanwhile, the only thing that doesn't fit the real world model is your desire for it to be wrong.

We FE'ers have presented plenty of evidence.  Pictures, witnesses, experiments.... Do not call Samuel Birley Rowbotham a troll of any type...
Troll is probably the wrong description. Snake oil salesman is a lot closer to reality.

71
Flat Earth Debate / Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« on: May 16, 2013, 06:01:21 AM »

This particular canal validates completely the evidence that all things that disappear over the horizon are caused by mirages.  The canal causes slightly less humidity than a large body of water and so no sinking is evident..  No need to factor in bendable light in this equation as well...  Score one for the flat earth.

Sorry, but a canal does not validate a single thing. And a diagram that is not declared by the authors to be precise in any way is also no demonstration of anything. At least since Babilonian times most of the diagrams have been more illustrative than precise. In fact, take the latest user guide from the last appliance you have bought. Chances are, it is filled with diagrams that change the appearance, colors and sizes of whatever they are showing, in an attempt at making them more readable.

If you don't have the written statement of the author of the diagram declaring that the drawing was done to precise measures in every way, even including the curvature of the Earth if any, then you have nothing.

72
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If The Sun Is Black...
« on: May 15, 2013, 10:52:12 PM »
I think he was talking about eclipses, not phases. Not like it matters... This discussion was doomed as soon as he mentioned those idiots in the same sentence as "scientists".
It is a very simple step from lunar phases to both lunar and solar eclipses. Eclipses only happen when the Sun and the Moon are in almost exactly the same apparent direction for any given observer on Earth or when they are in almost exactly the opposite direction. When this happens every single time that is no longer a possible coincidence, it is a matter of cause and effect.

Anyhow, it is simple enough to infer that the Moon is lit by the Sun just by looking at its phases, just as the diagram above shows. If you add the second dimension you will get even more confirmation that only the side of the Moon that is facing the Sun is lit.

And please explain why you are already loosing your temper and berating people. Are you already fed up with losing the debate and changing to prohibited tactics?

73
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If The Sun Is Black...
« on: May 15, 2013, 06:08:22 PM »
There are two scientists, Eric Dollard and Tom Brown (which I'm sure most of you already know about), who believe the sun is black and possibly a hollow electromagnetic converter.  If it's true that the sun cannot be seen from space and is only visible through our atmosphere, I wonder if the Anti-moon looks black through our atmosphere but is visible in space.  All the lunar eclipse photos and videos I've seen are taken from Earth.  Does anyone have any taken from space? And to be clear, I don't mean taken from a NASA telescope.  I mean from a manned spacecraft.  Not that it would prove anything to me as I tend to not believe most of what I see from NASA. But it would be interesting to see how they would try to prove it's the Earth's shadow.
Why are you calling these two guys "scientists"? What I am seeing from them is the lack of scientific understanding typical of a five year old.

74
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58493.0.html#.UZPMX7WTiSo  I am talking about this particular site address here where odes refers to precise measurement sources.  How could you not refer to every question?
There are no measurements at all in the place you mention. Just a diatribe from an angry Flat Earther trying to make a case from a diagram.

The one thing you can see in this diagram is the length of the Canal if it were straight. There are no measurements from the engineers who made the diagram, or even a mention that the engineers in fact made the diagram. For all we know, it could have been made by the Public Relations department of the project. There are no indications as to how they did the measurements. Did they use an altimeter to keep the canal level? Did they use a theodolite that they carefully kept calibrated to a horizontal line in one of the ends of the canal? Did they even care about that kind of precision, even though the only thing they needed was to make the canal useful?

Now, if you have an unpublished report from the original engineers telling us that they started constructing the canal with the expected curvature of the Earth and that the project was going straight to hell until they started assuming a flat planet and succeeded, please show it to us.

75
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".

Sorry to say so, but this is not a valid argument. Geometry is not biased. That is like saying that the sky is biased towards the blue.

The argument is simple and it is not biased by the opinions of anyone. In a triangle on a flat plane the angles add up to 180 degrees, and that is a theorem derived from the axioms of Euclidean Geometry. If the angles don't add to 180 then by theorem and not by bias the surface is not flat.

The practical problem is another matter.It is very difficult to do this measurement in a useful way. But no amount of bias will change the mathematics.

76
Read the experiments FAQ, your calculations are off substantially.  The increase in curvature would be increasing parabolically where a 16 foot difference would be seen.  With the 100 mile Suez Canal, the drop off would be 1 mile not 800 inches.  Yet, it remains straight...
And where is your data? Where is the statement from the engineers that tells you that the Canal was made straight according to your idea of straight, and not level in the sense that every few miles the course was checked with an altimeter? Have you even been to the Suez Canal and seen if there are segments that are straight enough to see if the "sinking ship" illusion can be seen?

You are making very serious claims, and that is OK. What is not OK is that you do not have a single piece of evidence to demonstrate that your claims are valid.

77
The Suez Canal is not a trick..
The rest of the post does not even deserve an answer, so lets look at the Suez Canal.

Do you have any direct evidence for this claim? Or are you parroting what you heard someplace? If you really want to make the case that the Suez Canal is really flat you have to have measurements from somebody who needed to measure the height of the canal with the precision required for your claim. The engineers who made it did not have the equipment or the need to account for the small curvature of the Earth in such a large project. Every segment of the Canal must be inclined less than half a degree or so, and any error within that margin will just make the Canal a few inches shallower or deeper than expected. You don't even show data on how much error they had in their measurements after the Canal was filled.

And there is a very important piece of information that has to be taken into account in every one of your failed examples: if your canal (either the Suez Canal or the Bedford or any other) has any movement of water at all this affects your measurements. Unless you have gone to the Suez Canal and measured the very slow movement of the water, and modeled the effect of this movement in your measurements, you really don't know how much error you are having. You have to learn how to design experiments before you declare you know more than the rest of humanity.

78
What is the scientific method of determining that the Earth curves that much per mile?  I don't see how it is possible to see curvature in only one mile.
You are right, it is enormously difficult in practice to directly see the curvature of a lake or ocean in just one mile. Most experiments by Rowbotham were made in distances of just 6 miles, making them possible but extremely difficult and prone to error. But nobody that I have ever known has had any trouble seeing how a large ship seems to sink when seen from the beach at a distance of some 16 miles or so. Even Rowbotham had to concede this, and was forced to invent some awful "perspective" explanations for it.

79
An experiment was done with several lighthouses as well.  The earth cannot possibly be curved.  Both sides walked away in agreement.  The tallest lighthouse in America is seen 27 miles out at sea.  My gracious, there are so many false mariners in this website.

The Earth curves approximately 8 inches per mile.  At 27 miles, you would have a drop of 18 feet.  The tallest lighthouse in the US is 207 feet tall, so yes, you can see it at that distance.
Please be careful with the numbers. It might be true that Earth curves some 8 inches in a mile, but the accumulated effect of several miles is not linear. Anyway, 207 feet is a lot and I see no problem at all in seeing a 207 feet tall light house from a distance of more than 27 miles, if you are looking from the observation room of a large ship. It might start to be difficult to see if you are sitting inside a raft.

80

Lunar eclipses are caused by a celestial body intersecting the path of light between the sun and moon, as is physically observed.



Your very own photograph shows a story that is different from yours. The penumbra that your photograph shows is totally inconsistent with an object intersecting the path of light between the Sun and the Moon just 3000 miles above us.

If the Moon produces its own light then parts of the Moon will be covered by the dark object and others will not be. No penumbra. And if the Sun somehow illuminates the Moon then it will also illuminate the dark object, making it visible. You have been asked for a diagram for many years, as far as I have seen, but never have produced it. I think it is just impossible to do because it is impossible to make your scenario work.

By the way, it would be absolutely easy to see almost any night the effect of a dark object the size of the Moon. On a clear night far away from light pollution from the cities it is impossible to find any dark, star-less piece of sky the size of the Moon. It would have to be made of a magic substance that is perfectly transparent to star light but perfectly opaque to moonlight. And we know, because we have centuries of experience in the matter, this kind of substance is impossible.

81
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ENaG Chapter XIV: "Spherical Excess"
« on: May 15, 2013, 06:06:03 AM »

My thoughts are that you don't understand what scientific method is: If you find inconsistencies in one theory it does not contribute to the proof of another.
In general what you are saying is right. Inconsistencies in one theory do not add credibility to another. However, this specific inconsistency, where the sum of the angles of a supposedly flat triangle add to more than 180 degrees, is evidence towards a non-flat Earth.

The quality of the measurement is impossible to assess, since Rowbotham did not give any references. We don't even know that the experiment was made. We also don't have information on the quality of topographic measurement equipment of the time. But if you combine the result of local curvature with the even greater evidence that the Earth's surface is not concave, you get evidence that the place where the measurement was made is actually convex.

This is a really small piece of evidence, and, I repeat, the quality is unknowable, but it is a tiny evidence towards the roundness of whatever place the measurement was made.

82
Probably the FE'ers would claim that they were doped and hypnotized to remember images of the South Pole that were really photos or virtual reality or something. They would most probably claim that the plane never even took off. That is exactly what they would say if they ever go into orbit.

Conspiracy theorists never run out of excuses to avoid accepting that the real conspiracies in this real world have been few and they all finally are discovered.

83
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fascinating
« on: May 14, 2013, 09:06:49 AM »
I find it odd that you stress mathematics over evidence. I don't think that mathematics is the most important idea behind physics. I think evidence and observation has to be held up higher. You cannot have a physical theory without it. It is what takes a hypothesis in to the realm of theory. Take string "theory", as a mathematical construct it pretty much works from what I am told, but no one actually values it as a description of our natural world because there is no evidence or observation to support it. I might be splitting hairs here, but whenever I see physicists talk, they talk about evidence. Anyway, I take your meaning anyway, physics is beautifully and elegantly expressed in mathematics and it is very tough to consider math dogmatic any more than a hammer is, and it is difficult to misconstrue math, either it works or it doesn't.

Please do not get confused with the name "String Theory". String Theory is not a scientific theory in the same sense as Newton's Laws of Motion or Einstein's Relativity.  Scientific Theory is the ultimate achievement in the Scientific Method, where a model has shown to predict reliably and accurately the results of a wide range of experiments and observations.

On the other hand, String Theory is currently working the first step in the Scientific Method, which is the elaboration of a model from which hypothesis can get defined and tested. In a sense it is a mathematical theory, although mathematicians do not relish the term "theory". And with our current knowledge of Physics it is impossible to know if String Theory is good or bad. We do not know if our future understanding of Physics will eventually include the piece of evidence that demonstrates or kills String Theory.

You can call String Theory a scientific endeavor or a mathematical flight of fancy, but don't let the poor name choice lead you into thinking that scientists lack understanding on what a scientific theory is. Many names in Science are kept for historical reasons instead of being changed as our knowledge increases. For example, AIDS should now be called HIV virosis or HI virosis, but the slightly incorrect name "AIDS" caught on.

84
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Full moon
« on: May 12, 2013, 04:26:25 PM »
But this has no explanation whatsoever in FE.
Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham.
I have not seen any explanation of the whole changing appearance of the Moon throughout the lunar cycle. Rowbotham may have explained (and done a pretty awful job at that) a few of the known features of the Moon's cycle. But not even him, with his wild imagination and lack of evidence, has done a close to complete job.

On the other hand, I have seen several times how the waxing Moon has a shadow on its Eastern or Western side (as seen by me, who lives near the Equator) and the shadow gets thinner and thinner and then moves towards the Southern or Northern side of the Moon, after which the Moon starts to wane. All of this is clearly repeatable with the famous "tennis ball and lantern" analogies and the current model of our Solar System.

Saying something about the phases of the Moon is not the same as explaining them.

85
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Full moon
« on: May 12, 2013, 03:36:40 AM »
In fact the appearance of the Moon is one of the easiest verifications you can have of the true nature of the Moon's orbit around the Earth.

Among many other details that anyone can see, one is especially relevant to this discussion: most of the time the fullest Moon is not quite full but a thin rim is missing either around the Northern or Southern part of the Moon. This is totally different from the usual appearance, where the missing part is from the Eastern or Western sides of the Moon.

The Moon cycles about 2 times a year from about a 5 degree misalignment to an almost perfect alignment and back again. When the misalignment is at its maximum you can see that the Moon never quite reaches a perfect full appearance and you never have lunar eclipses (or solar eclipses, for that matter). When the misalignment reaches its minimum you can see that the Moon gets as full as you can discern with the naked eye and sometimes you get lunar eclipses.

This is totally in sync with the model of Earth orbiting the Sun and the Moon orbiting the Earth on a plane that is about 5 degrees inclined with respect to the plane of the Earth's orbit (the Ecliptic). But this has no explanation whatsoever in FE.

86
Flat Earth Debate / Re: why I think the Earth is flat
« on: May 11, 2013, 06:11:26 AM »

I'll risk a trigonometry-free argument, re the rope view of a lateral ship transit. What I like about that experiment is that it removes the normal refraction argument. The ship is mostly at pretty much an equal distance from the viewer the whole time (with some potential confusion, it seems to me, regarding what constitutes a truly straight and parallel line with the rope). Here is the segment, from ENAG.

...

For the most part, spherical-earth believers are just that: believers. They believe that the gravitation-based system, with its mathematical enormity, has been worked out successfully and sufficiently, so that it is a safe belief. I would wager that it's a rare spherical-earth believer who understands even the gravitational math that keeps the sun, earth, and moon in their supposed relationship.

Sorry to tell you this, but you are just the latest of a lot of people who try to make an argument without mathematics where mathematics are absolutely necessary. All those subtle words like "mostly" and "pretty much" and "truly straight" are in essence a way to talk numbers without the precision of Mathematics and Physics.

The horizon looks straight if seen from an altitude of less than some 30000 feet and nobody here is denying it. It is a simple fact that comes from mathematics and is the same whether the Earth is flat or round. Rowbotham is just trying to disguise this fact with talk about ropes and ships.

And it is also a simple fact that any knowledge can be presented as a belief. I cannot know that the Sun will not disappear in the next 24 hours, so I can describe myself as a "Next Day Believer" but it is all just a word game. There are beliefs that come  backed by science and beliefs that come backed up by nothing.

87
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: May 09, 2013, 04:51:19 AM »
While I agree with you, I do not think this is a valid argument against the FET model. Supposing hypothetically that the towers were used to obtain location readings for GPS, it stands to reason that whoever designed them would have done so with the intention of fooling the masses about how they work. Since everyone is lead to believe that they operate by receiving pines from satellites, it would seem logical that the designers would rig them in such a way that they would function as if they were obtaining their signal from said satellites. The designers would have to lie about their accuracy and deliberately reduce latitude and longitude reading accuracy to give the perception that the reading was from satellites.
My whole point is that lying is not enough. you have to make an astounding technological breakthrough to make the system accurate to about 5 cm, and then lie about it saying that it can only work to so some 5 meters of accuracy. You have to lie to the manufacturers of the chips inside the GPS so they get them to work with measurements of time accurate to about a nanosecond, when they are tough at work trying to get the measurements accurate to less than a tenth of a microsecond.

It is like telling you that you have to make a computer with a 40 GHz clock even though the best you have ever seen is 4 GHz, and do it for no reason you can speak of. And you know that people have been trying to break the 4 GHz barrier for years, with out much luck.

If I could improve the accuracy of electronic time measuring by two orders of magnitude and also blow a world wide conspiracy, and become a billionaire in the process, I would do so and the hell with the global conspiracy.

Well it depends on how you define the scope of the supposed conspiracy. Since everyone who believes FET is an idiot, I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to scope the conspiracy however I choose when playing devil's advocate. So here it is:

Our own understanding of the computational capacity of floating point operations on a microchip is wrong. Handheld devices are actually capable of processing trilateration operations at a higher capacity than we are lead to be believe, and the true capacity of portable GPS is that which gives the altitude readings from a series of GPS towers. The latitude/longitude readings are simply throttled in order to give the perception of a satellite system.
Good idea, but that movie has already been done. It is called "Matrix", and I believe none of the authors and producers has been killed by NASA goons.

Your half baked (or should we say, still completely raw) version of the movie is, by far, too little too late.

88
Flat Earth Debate / Re: why I think the Earth is flat
« on: May 09, 2013, 04:42:22 AM »
I think he was actually quite close to the rope (a few paces perhaps?), and using it as a reference line to determine whether the ship, which was several miles away, was traveling a curved path. Of course, this is just another ambiguous "experiment" that tells us nothing about the true shape of the earth.
Well, it might make a little more sense, but it is still a total, mind bogging piece of crap. If you look at two objects with a telescope, and one is a few paces away and the other several miles away, one of the two objects will be a total blur. If you focus the boat, the rope will be so out of focus that you will see it as a smudge of color. If you focus the rope you will not even distinguish clearly the sea from the sky.

So, I still stand on my claim that Rowbotham did not even try to do this experiment, and made it in his head instead. That is called intellectual dishonesty.

89
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What's Wrong With Gravity?
« on: May 09, 2013, 04:29:32 AM »

You should read up on Einstein's Equivalence Principle.  It basically says that gravitational acceleration is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving body.

In other words, if you are accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s/s, you would pulled downwards with the same force that people call gravity.
No, in reality it is you who should read a little bit more about that principle. It holds a single word that you, the FE'ers forget each and every time: "locally".

It is true that if all the information you can get is limited to your immediate surroundings (hence the word "locally") you cannot distinguish between gravity and acceleration. But as soon as you look at non-local objects the whole equivalence you try to make crumbles like a condemned building. Watch the stars and FE does not make sense. Watch a ship at about 20 or more kilometers, and FE does not make sense. Check the "local g" in several locations on Earth, and the whole FE... you know. And the list can go forever.

So, if you are going to lecture someone on the Equivalence Principle, please do not reinvent it to fit your needs.

90
Flat Earth Debate / Re: why I think the Earth is flat
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:16:58 AM »
One scientific proof that you'll immediately scorn, I presume, is the sideways look at a moving ship. It's in Rowbotham. He stretched a rope across two poles near a shore, and watched a ship out at sea numerous miles away, moving parallel to shore. He says the ship didn't change in altitude, despite the fact that over the curvature that should have been represented by the length of the rope, projected out to where the ship was, would have meant that the ship should rise and fall again.

This is one more case where Rowbotham lets his fraudulent tendencies come out to the light.

You cannot see a rope from much farther than a kilometer with any kind of telescope with a lens diameter of 5 inches or so. Rowbotham was lying if he said he saw a rope from numerous miles away. This phenomenon is called diffraction and there is no possible technological breakthrough that will solve it, ever, if you are watching the rope with visible light. You can research Airy Disk if you want more information.

A one centimeter wide rope will be totally invisible for any 5 inch (0.12 meter) telescope at these distances. Using Airy's formula with a blue-green light wavelength of 600 nanometers, sin(theta)= 60010⁻⁹0.121.22 = 0.0000061 and theta = 0.0000061. This means that you would have, at the theoretical limit, the possibility of seeing a 6 millimeter wide rope of the correct color at one kilometer. The real limit, with a real telescope and less than perfect colors, is about four times that, or a 2.4 cm wide rope at one kilometer. And Rowbotham is saying he saw a rope at several miles away!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14